A non-profit news blog, focused on providing independent journalism.

Sunday 26 October 2014

The truth behind America's most famous gay-hate murder

flowers_Matthew shepard

© Steve Liss/The LIFE Images Collection/Getty

A basket of flowers hangs from the fence where Matthew Shepard was left tied and beaten



Matthew Shepard's horrific death at the hands of redneck homophobes shocked America and changed its laws. Now a different truth is emerging, but does it matter?

The horrific killing of Matthew Shepard in 1998 is widely seen as one of the worst anti-gay hate crimes in American history. Matthew was beaten by two assailants, Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson. They pistol whipped him with a gun then tied him to a fence in freezing conditions and set fire to him before leaving him to die.


The attack became a cause célèbre: it precipitated a national backlash against hyper-macho culture and tacit tolerance of homophobia. As a result of Matthew's death, many good things have happened for the gay community. The play The Laramie Project has toured the US and many other countries, telling Matthew's story and encouraging campaigns against bigotry. Politicians and celebrities pledged support and funding to combat anti-gay hate crime. The Shepard family have become campaigners for gay rights. Judy and Dennis Shepard run the Matthew Shepard Foundation, which funds educational programmes and an online community for teens to discuss sexual orientation and gender issues. There have been numerous documentaries, dramas, books and events based on the story.


The men responsible for his death were convicted of first-degree murder and given two life sentences. They were not charged with a hate crime, as that wasn't possible under Wyoming's criminal law. But after lengthy wrangling in congress, President Obama finally signed the Matthew Shepard Act in 2009, a law which defined certain attacks motivated by victim identity as hate crimes.


But the Matthew Shepard story is not yet finished. A new twist came last year with the publication of another book, this one by investigative journalist Stephen Jimenez, who has spent 13 years interviewing more than 100 people with a connection to the case. His conclusion, outlined in The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths about the Murder of Matthew Shepard , is that the grotesque murder was not a hate crime, but could instead be blamed on crystal meth, a drug that was flooding Denver and the surrounding area at the time of Matthew's death. This new theory has, understandably, caused a lot of anger.


Jimenez has faced a barrage of criticism since the publication of his book and has had readings to promote the book boycotted. Jimenez claims, however, that many of his critics have not actually read it. The Advocate , America's leading LGBT magazine, published a piece last year entitled: "Why I'm Not Reading the 'Trutherism' About Matt Shepard". Jimenez has been accused of being a revisionist, a criticism usually reserved for extreme rightwing ideologues that deny the Holocaust, and labelled a homophobe.


"People object to the idea of the book, rather than what is in the book," says Jimenez. "The anger directed at me has been pretty extreme."


 Matthew Shepard

© AP

Grade-A student: Matthew Shepard was just 5ft 2in and his slight frame gave him an air of vulnerability.



Jimenez had no intention of causing such controversy. He's an award-winning writer and TV producer, and visited Laramie shortly after the murder to gather material for a screenplay about the case. When he started he was convinced that Matthew died at the hands of homophobes, but he soon discovered that Matthew's tragedy began long before the night he was killed.

Jimenez found that Matthew was addicted to and dealing crystal meth and had dabbled in heroin. He also took significant sexual risks and was being pimped alongside Aaron McKinney, one of his killers, with whom he'd had occasional sexual encounters. He was HIV positive at the time of his death.


"This does not make the perfect poster boy for the gay-rights movement," says Jimenez. "Which is a big part of the reason my book has been so trashed."


Matthew's drug abuse, and the fact that he knew one of his killers prior to the attack, was never explored in court. Neither was the rumour that the killers knew that he had access to a shipment of crystal meth with a street value of $10,000 which they wanted to steal.


Matthew was born into an affluent family and had attended state school in Casper, Wyoming. The 21-year-old political science major at Laramie University stood only 5ft 2in, and his blond hair, braces and slight frame gave him an air of vulnerability and innocence. In his junior year of high school, Matthew moved with his family to Saudi Arabia. There were no American high schools in Saudi at the time, so he was sent to the American School in Switzerland. By the time he enrolled at Laramie he spoke three languages and had aspirations to be a human-rights advocate. Somewhere along the line, however, Matthew fell from being a grade-A student to a drug-addicted prostitute who diced with danger. He suffered periods of depression, possibly as a result of being gang raped a few years earlier while on holiday in Morocco. But this is not the Matthew Shepard who became a celebrated figure for the gay-rights movement in America.


Laramie is considered the most liberal town in Wyoming. It sits in a flat, treeless sweep of high plains. With the ranching industry in decline, employment here is dominated by the University of Wyoming. It has a quaint western charm: tree-lined streets, beautiful parks, and a renovated historic downtown at the edge of the railway yard with small shops and restaurants. It is surrounded by rolling prairie, ranches, the Snowy Mountain range and vast, wide-open spaces. But the town also has a number of mobile home parks at the edges, some more rundown than others.


On the evening of 6 October 1998, Matthew went to the Fireside bar, a local hangout that was purportedly gay-friendly. It was karaoke night, and locals rubbed shoulders with workers calling in for a swift drink on their way home. Shortly afterwards Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney arrived. The three men chatted briefly before leaving the bar and getting in a truck belonging to McKinney's father.


In the truck Matthew was robbed of his keys, wallet and shoes and beaten repeatedly by one or both of the men. He was then taken from the truck, pistol whipped up to 18 times on the head, and kicked between the legs. Matthew was tied to a fence, set on fire, and left unconscious.


Fifteen hours after the attack, student Aaron Kreifels was out riding his bike when he discovered Matthew tied to the fence, barely alive. He initially mistook him for a scarecrow. Matthew's face was covered in blood, aside from tear tracks on each side of his cheeks.


Henderson -McKinney

© Ed Andrieski/AP

Judgment day: Russell Henderson, 21, and Aaron McKinney, 22.



The first officer at the scene was Reggie Fluty. "The only thing I could see was partially somebody's feet and I got out of my vehicle and raced over," said Fluty, her short blonde hair, fringe, and wire-rimmed glasses making her appear more social worker than police officer. "I seen what appeared to be to a young man, 13, 14 years old, because he was so tiny, laying on his back, and he was tied to the bottom end of a pole. I did the best I could..."

After leaving Matthew tied to the fence, McKinney and Henderson headed for Matthew's home, but on the way encountered two young Hispanic men, Emiliano Morales and Jeremy Herrera, slashing tyres for fun. The men got into a fight, resulting in McKinney cracking open Morales's head with the same gun he had used on Matthew. Police officer Flint Waters arrived, grabbed Henderson (he and McKinney had run in different directions), and found the truck, the gun, Matthew's shoes and credit card.


I spoke to Waters, who has since retired from the police, having seen him praise The Book of Matt on social media. "I believe to this day that McKinney and Henderson were trying to find Matthew's house so they could steal his drugs. It was fairly well known in the Laramie community that McKinney wouldn't be one that was striking out of a sense of homophobia. Some of the officers I worked with had caught him in a sexual act with another man, so it didn't fit - none of that made any sense."


But when Matthew's friends Walt Boulden and Alex Trout heard of the attack they rushed to the hospital. They contacted the Associated Press and a number of local gay organisations that same day. Boulden, a 46-year-old college instructor who says he was the last person to talk to Matthew before he met McKinney and Henderson, linked the attack to Wyoming legislature's failure to pass a hate-crimes bill. Boulden later said the assault was identified as a hate crime by a policeman.


Stephen Jimenez is an award-winning journalist and gay man. So why has he put such time and effort into attempting to prove that Matthew's murder was not a hate crime, especially as it has seen him accused of being an ally to the rightwing Christian fundamentalists who deny the reality of homophobia?


"The view was that homophobic rednecks walked into a bar and saw an obviously gay man with money and targeted him and beat him to death for that reason," says Jimenez. "But that isn't what happened. Nothing in this book takes away from the iniquity and brutality of the crime or the culpability of his murderers, but we owe Matthew and other young men like him the truth.


"Aaron and Matthew had a friendship. They'd been involved sexually, they bought and sold drugs from each other. That complicates the original story of two strangers walking into a bar and targeting Matthew - someone they did not know - because he was gay."


Although McKinney has never acknowledged that he knew Matthew, Jimenez found a dozen sources that had seen them together. One is Kathleen Johnson, the former owner of Laramie antiques store Granny's Attic, who knew Henderson, McKinney and Matthew.


The young, unemployed men had not had easy lives. Henderson's mother was a chronic alcoholic who had been repeatedly beaten by his father. McKinney had spent much of his childhood alone, left by his mother with his grandparents, who locked him in the basement to keep him out of trouble. "Russell Henderson used to hang around with gay people," Johnson told me. "Laramie had a big gay population. I knew what people's sexual orientation was because my best friend's son was gay. I saw them hanging around with Russell."


The police did not investigate the killers' relationship to the gay community.


Five days after the attack, on 12 October, Matthew died. On 14 October a celebrity vigil was held on the steps of the US Capitol, attended by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Ellen DeGeneres. Elton John sent flowers to Matt's funeral, Barbra Streisand telephoned the Albany county sheriff's office to demand quick action on the case, and Madonna called an assistant to university president Philip Dubois to complain about what had happened. The day Matthew died, President Clinton told journalists at the White House: "In our shock and grief one thing must remain clear: hate and prejudice are not American values."


The funeral was attended by more than 1,000 mourners - and picketed by the Westboro Baptist Church, led by Fred Phelps, a defrocked minister and founder of GodHatesFags.com. To counter the protest, Matthew's friends dressed as angels.


JoAnn Wypijewski, an author and former senior editor at the Nation, was one of the many journalists who came to Laramie after the news of Matthew's attack. She was there for Harper's Magazine and was the only journalist to suggest early on that methamphetamine may have played a role in Matthew's death. "The case was used to highlight the fact of violence against gay people," Wypijewski told me. "Hate-crime legislation under Clinton included provisions for race and enhanced penalties for crimes against women - these were used as sweeteners [to those on the Left]. They were like the identity politics of criminal law. This is what gave some other groups the idea that hate-crime legislation was a good thing."


Wypijewski thinks the reason some sections of the gay community are so angry about the Jimenez book is obvious: "Jimenez has taken away their angel, and there is the reflexive sense that as a community its suffering was being at last recognised. The people shaping the news require a very simple story - they have to be angels and villains."


John Stoltenberg is a gay-rights activist who lived with the feminist writer Andrea Dworkin until her death in 2005. He's a long-time supporter of The Laramie Project, but has also blogged positively about The Book of Matt. "Keeping Matthew as the poster boy of gay-hate crime and ignoring the full tragedy of his story has been the agenda of many gay-movement leaders," he says. "Ignoring the tragedies of Matthew's life prior to his murder will do nothing to help other young men in our community who are sold for sex, ravaged by drugs, and generally exploited. They will remain invisible and lost."


Ted Henson is a former lover and long-term friend of Matthew's. The pair originally met when Matt was growing up in Saudi Arabia. Henson told me he believes that The Book of Matt is "nothing more than the truth" and that he was "never certain" that the murder was an anti-gay hate crime. "I don't know why there is so much hostility towards Steve," he told me. "Matt would not have wanted to be seen as a martyr, but would have wanted the truth to come out."


Other Laramie residents believe there is another form of prejudice at work in the way Matthew's story has been told. One that concerns the oft-repeated notion that Wyoming is full of gay-hating bigots. Ray Hageman reported on the case for Wyoming radio in 1998 and was always sceptical of the media construction of the story. "National media couldn't resist a narrative that fits with its preconceived notions about people in rural western states," Hageman told me. "Y'know, us simple folks with the piece of straw hanging from our mouths, spitting tobacco and shooting pop cans from the front porch. The folks in Laramie just had to take it, because a fellow who happened to be gay was murdered in their town."


The Matthew Shepard Foundation stands firm about the murder being fuelled by homophobic hatred. I asked for a reaction regarding the book, but was sent a pre-prepared statement by executive director Jason Marsden, who was a friend of Matthew's. "We do not respond to innuendo, rumour or conspiracy theories," reads the statement first issued when The Book of Matt was published. "Instead we remain committed to honouring Matthew's memory and refuse to be intimidated by those who seek to tarnish it. We owe that to the tens of thousands of donors, activists, volunteers and allies to the cause of equality who have made our work possible."


On 16 September the Casper Star Tribune, the local paper in Matthew's home town, published an editorial claiming that an award Jimenez had recently received for his book "deserves rejection", saying: "From the beginning there have been those who want to ignore the sadistic homophobic motives of Shepard's attackers and instead insist the matter was a drug deal gone bad."


The debate will no doubt rage on. Matthew Shepard's murder will always be, for some, a symbol of the hatred many lesbians and gay men face in the US and beyond. The town of Laramie can take some comfort from reacting with such dignity and humanity in the aftermath and lending its name to The Laramie Project, which has changed hearts and minds. But the mystery remains - not so much why Matthew died, but why the gay community, after almost five decades of campaigning for equal rights, relies so fundamentally on the image of the perfect martyr to represent the cause.


This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://ift.tt/jcXqJW.


Painkillers do more harm than good, especially for headaches and back pain


In the 1940s, opioid-based narcotics like opium and heroin were popular drugs of abuse, which lead to strict controls being put into place to curb their use. Regulations existed to control who could prescribe opioids and at what doses; breaches to the regulations could lead to a loss of your medical license or criminal prosecution.

Many physicians feared the repercussions, and thus may have under-prescribed such medications, even in cases where they're called for, such as in late-stage cancer pain.1


Decades later, in the 1990s, successful lobbying by pharmaceutical makers led to changes in the opioid regulations, such that doctors couldn't be penalized for prescribing them.


The loosened regulations paved the way for the aggressive treatment of pain, not only in cancer patients and those with terminal diseases, but in virtually anyone with chronic pain. We're now at the opposite end of the spectrum, where opioids are vastly overprescribed and doing far more harm than good.


American Academy of Neurology: Opioids Not for Non-Cancer Chronic Pain


The American Academy of Neurology has released a new position statement on opioids, highlighting the problems of overuse. Since policies changed in the late 1990s, over 100,000 people have died, directly or indirectly, from prescribed opioids in the US.


In the highest-risk group (those between the ages of 35 and 54), deaths from opioids exceed deaths from both firearms and motor vehicle accidents.


The report notes that while such drugs may offer short-term relief for non-cancer chronic pain such as back pain, headaches, migraines, and fibromyalgia, they cause more harm than good over time:2



"Whereas there is evidence for significant short-term pain relief, there is no substantial evidence for maintenance of pain relief or improved function over long periods of time without incurring serious risk of overdose, dependence, or addiction."



Research has shown, for instance, that more than half of people who use opioids for three months will still be using them five years later.3 Meanwhile, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that long-term use of opioids actually does little to relieve chronic pain.4 In some cases, they may even make chronic pain worse.

As TIME reported:5



"...the opioids can backfire in excessive doses; in the same way that neurons become over-sensitized to pain and hyper-reactive, high doses of opioids could prime some nerves to respond more intensely to pain signals, rather than helping them to modulate their reaction."



Powerful Opioids Should Be the LAST Resort for Pain... But They're Currently the First

Pain is one of the most common health complaints in the US, but record numbers of Americans are, sadly, becoming drug addicts in an attempt to live pain-free. According to 2010 data, there were enough narcotic painkillers being prescribed in the US to medicate every single adult, around the clock, for a month.6


By 2012, a whopping 259 million prescriptions for opioids and other narcotic painkillers were written in the US, which equates to 82.5 prescriptions for every 100 Americans.7 And those narcotics are responsible for 46 deaths each and every day...


Americans use the most opioids of any nation - twice the amount used by Canadians, who come in second place in terms of prescriptions.8 The problem has become noticeable enough that even US officials now warn that narcotic painkillers are a driving force in the rise of substance abuse and lethal overdoses.


Preliminary research presented at the 2014 meeting of the American Academy of Pain Medicine in Phoenix, Arizona also found that 12.6 percent of all primary care visits made by Americans between 2002 and 2009 involved prescriptions for sedatives and/or narcotic painkillers (opioids).9 The study also found:



  • The number of prescriptions for sedative drugs rose by 12.5 percent a year

  • Patients receiving a narcotic painkiller were 4.2 times more likely to receive a second prescription for a sedative

  • The number of joint prescriptions of opioids and sedatives also increased by 12 percent a year in that time frame

  • Prescription sedatives and narcotic painkillers are responsible for at least 30 percent of narcotic painkiller-related deaths

  • Besides deaths caused by overdose, other risks associated with sedative use include falls in the elderly, emergency room visits, and drug dependence


Would You Take Heroin? Opioids Are Indistinguishable to Your Brain

You're probably aware that heroin is very addictive... but did you know that prescription opioids are virtually identical as far as your brain is concerned?


As explained by Dr. Wilson Compton, deputy director of the US National Institute on Drug Abuse, heroin, morphine, hydrocodone, and oxycodone "are all classified as opioids because they exert their effect by attaching to the opioid receptor found in our brain and spinal cord."10 For instance, hydrocodone, a prescription opiate, is synthetic heroin.


It's no wonder that over the past five years alone, heroin deaths have also increased by 45 percent -- an increase that officials blame on the rise of addictive prescription drugs such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet, codeine, and Fentora, again all of which are opioids (derivatives of opium, like heroin).11


Clear Limits Called Upon for Opioid Use


Most studies on opioid use followed patients for only about one month, which is a fraction of the time most patients actually use them. In addition to not being effective and posing a very real risk of death by accidental overdose and addiction, opioids have also been linked to infertility, abnormal immune function, and heart problems.12


The American Academy of Neurology is now calling for clear limits to be set on opioid use, especially for non-cancer pain. Certain states already have warnings in place that require physicians to seek other opinions if a person takes daily opioid doses of 80-120 mg without getting relief.


Still, the pills shouldn't be viewed as a go-to treatment for chronic pain in the first place, as lifestyle changes, cognitive behavioral therapy, and other strategies are often more effective and far safer.


Are You in Severe Pain?


I strongly recommend exhausting all your options before resorting to a narcotic pain reliever, and I'll list a number of alternatives at the end of this article. That being said, if you're in severe pain, I agree that these drugs do have a place, and can be a great benefit when used cautiously and correctly. Chronic unremitting pain that is not relieved can impair your sleep and radically decrease your health.


However, the evidence is very clear that these drugs are being overprescribed, and can easily lead you into addiction and other, more illicit, drug use. I strongly suspect that the over-reliance on them as a first line of defense for pain is a major part of this problem. So if you are struggling with severe or chronic pain, my first suggestion would be to see a pain specialist who is familiar with alternative treatments and the underlying causes of pain.


You need a knowledgeable practitioner who can help you attack the pain from multiple angles, giving you both relief and healing. One option that is receiving increasing attention in the US is cannabis. It's the cannabidiol (CBD) in cannabis that has medicinal properties. CBD is an excellent painkiller and has been used successfully to treat a variety of pain disorders.


In states where medicinal marijuana is legal, such as California, you can join a collective, which is a legal entity consisting of a group of patients that can grow and share cannabis medicines with each other. By signing up as a member, you gain the right to grow and share your medicine. I do, however, still recommend working with a health care practitioner who can guide you on the most effective dosage and form of use (cannabis may be inhaled, smoked, vaporized, taken orally, or even applied topically (in oil form).


19 Non-Drug Solutions for Pain Relief


I strongly recommend exhausting other options before you resort to an opioid pain reliever. The health risks associated with these drugs are great, and addiction is a very real concern. Below I list 19 non-drug alternatives for the treatment of pain. These options provide excellent pain relief without any of the health hazards that prescription (and even over-the-counter) painkillers carry. This list is in no way meant to represent the only approaches you can use.


They are, rather, some of the best strategies that I know of. I do understand there are times when pain is so severe that a prescription drug may be necessary. Even in those instances, the options that follow may be used in addition to such drugs, and may allow you to at least reduce your dosage. If you are in pain that is bearable, please try these first, before resorting to prescription painkillers of any kind.



  1. Medical cannabis has a long history as a natural analgesic, as mentioned.13 At present, 20 US states have legalized cannabis for medical purposes. Its medicinal qualities are due to high amounts (about 10-20 percent) of cannabidiol (CBD), medicinal terpenes, and flavonoids. As discussed in this previous post, varieties of cannabis exist that are very low in tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) - the psychoactive component of marijuana that makes you feel "stoned" - and high in medicinal CBD. The Journal of Pain,14 a publication by the American Pain Society, has a long list of studies on the pain-relieving effects of cannabis.

  2. Eliminate or radically reduce most grains and sugars from your diet. Avoiding grains and sugars will lower your insulin and leptin levels and decrease insulin and leptin resistance, which is one of the most important reasons why inflammatory prostaglandins are produced. That is why stopping sugar and sweets is so important to controlling your pain and other types of chronic illnesses.

  3. Take a high-quality, animal-based omega-3 fat. My personal favorite is krill oil. Omega-3 fats are precursors to mediators of inflammation called prostaglandins. (In fact, that is how anti-inflammatory painkillers work, they manipulate prostaglandins.)

  4. Optimize your production of vitamin D by getting regular, appropriate sun exposure, which will work through a variety of different mechanisms to reduce your pain.

  5. Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) is a drug-free approach for pain management of all kinds. EFT borrows from the principles of acupuncture, in that it helps you balance out your subtle energy system. It helps resolve underlying, often subconscious, negative emotions that may be exacerbating your physical pain. By stimulating (tapping) well-established acupuncture points with your fingertips, you rebalance your energy system, which tends to dissipate pain.

  6. K-Laser Class 4 Laser Therapy. If you suffer pain from an injury, arthritis, or other inflammation-based pain, I'd strongly encourage you to try out K-Laser therapy. It can be an excellent choice for many painful conditions, including acute injuries. By addressing the underlying cause of the pain, you will no longer need to rely on painkillers. K-Laser is a class 4 infrared laser therapy treatment that helps reduce pain, reduce inflammation, and enhance tissue healing - both in hard and soft tissues, including muscles, ligaments, or even bones.The infrared wavelengths used in the K-Laser allow for targeting specific areas of your body, and can penetrate deeply into the body to reach areas such as your spine and hip. For more information about this groundbreaking technology, and how it can help heal chronic pain, please listen to my previous interview with Dr. Harrington.

  7. Chiropractic. Many studies have confirmed that chiropractic management is much safer and less expensive than allopathic medical treatments, especially when used for pain, such as low-back pain. Qualified chiropractic, osteopathic, and naturopathic physicians are reliable, as they have received extensive training in the management of musculoskeletal disorders during their course of graduate healthcare training, which lasts between four to six years. These health experts have comprehensive training in musculoskeletal management.

  8. Acupuncture can also effectively treat many kinds of pain. Research has discovered a "clear and robust" effect ofacupuncture in the treatment of: back, neck, and shoulder pain, osteoarthritis, and headaches.

  9. Physical and massage therapy has been shown to be as good as surgery for painful conditions such as torn cartilage and arthritis.

  10. Astaxanthin is one of the most effective fat-soluble antioxidants known. It has very potent anti-inflammatory properties and in many cases works far more effectively than anti-inflammatory drugs. Higher doses are typically required and you may need 8 mg or more per day to achieve this benefit.

  11. Ginger: This herb has potent anti-inflammatory activity and offers pain relief and stomach-settling properties. Fresh ginger works well steeped in boiling water as a tea or grated into vegetable juice.

  12. Curcumin : In a study of osteoarthritis patients, those who added 200 mg of curcumin a day to their treatment plan had reduced pain and increased mobility. A past study also found that a turmeric extract composed of curcuminoids blocked inflammatory pathways, effectively preventing the overproduction of a protein that triggers swelling and pain.15

  13. Boswellia: Also known as boswellin or "Indian frankincense," this herb contains specific active anti-inflammatory ingredients. This is one of my personal favorites as I have seen it work well with many rheumatoid arthritis patients.

  14. Bromelain: This enzyme, found in pineapples, is a natural anti-inflammatory. It can be taken in supplement form but eating fresh pineapple, including some of the bromelain-rich stem, may also be helpful.

  15. Cetyl myristoleate (CMO): This oil, found in fish and dairy butter, acts as a "joint lubricant" and an anti-inflammatory. I have used this for myself to relieve ganglion cysts and a mild annoying carpal tunnel syndrome that pops up when I type too much on non-ergonomic keyboards. I used a topical preparation for this.

  16. Evening primrose, black currant, and borage oils: These contain the essential fatty acid gamma linolenic acid (GLA), which is useful for treating arthritic pain.

  17. Cayenne cream: Also called capsaicin cream, this spice comes from dried hot peppers. It alleviates pain by depleting the body's supply of substance P, a chemical component of nerve cells that transmits pain signals to your brain.

  18. Methods such as yoga, Foundation Training, acupuncture, meditation, hot and cold packs, and other mind-body techniquescan also result in astonishing pain relief without any drugs.

  19. Grounding, or walking barefoot on the earth, may also provide a certain measure of pain relief by combating inflammation.


Sources and References

1TIME September 29, 2014

2Neurology September 30, 2014

3Fox News September 30, 2014

4N Engl J Med 2003; 349:1943-1953

5TIME September 29, 2014

6Medpage Today February 19, 2012

7Scientific American July 1, 2014

8BMJ 2014;349:g4424

9Medicinenet.com March 7, 2014

10WebMD February 11, 2014

11Reuters Videos Online February 5, 2014

12TIME September 29, 2014

13Journal of Pain April 2004: 5(3); S52

14Journal of Pain, Cannabis studies

15Arthritis & Rheumatism, Volume 54, Issue 11, pages 3452 - 3464, November 2006

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://ift.tt/jcXqJW.


Elon Musk says 'With artificial intelligence we are summoning the demon'


© Reuters

FILE 2014: Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla Motors, says artificial intelligence probably the biggest threat to human existence.



Elon Musk, the chief executive of Tesla and founder of SpaceX, said Friday that artificial intelligence is probably the biggest threat to humans.

Musk, who addressed MIT Aeronautics and Astronautics department's Centennial Symposium for about an hour, mulled international oversight to "make sure we don't do something very foolish," reported.


He was not specific about any particular threat, but appeared to theorize out loud.



"With artificial intelligence we are summoning the demon," he said. "In all those stories where there's the guy with the pentagram and the holy water, it's like yeah he's sure he can control the demon. Didn't work out."

Artificial intelligence uses computers for tasks normally requiring human intelligence, like speech recognition or language translation.


Large tech companies appear to be excited about the prospects of the technologies if harnessed correctly. Google, like other tech giants such as Facebook, are anxious to develop systems that work like the human brain.


In January, Google said it purchased the British startup DeepMind, an artificial intelligence company founded by a 37-year old former chess prodigy and computer game designer.


The American tech giant's London office confirmed a deal had been made but refused to offer a purchase price, which is reportedly $500 million. The company was founded by researcher Demis Hassabis together with Shane Legg and Mustafa Suleyman.


Hassabis, who is on leave from University College London, has investigated the mechanisms that underlie human memory.


The reported that Musk appeared to be so taken with the artificial intelligence question that he asked the next audience member to repeat their question.


"Sorry can you repeat the question, I was just thinking about the AI thing for a second," he said.


US: Returning Ebola healthcare workers made to feel like criminals, prisoners


© Via MySpace

Kaci Hickox (center)



An American nurse published a scathing account of her treatment after being put in isolation in the United States following a stint caring for Ebola patients in West Africa, saying she was made to feel like "a criminal."

Kaci Hickox was the first person to enter mandatory 21-day quarantine for medical staff returning to parts of the United States who may have had contact with Ebola patients in West Africa, the epicenter of the outbreak that has killed nearly 5,000 people.


The new rules took effect in New York and New Jersey on Friday, the same day Hickox returned.


"This is not a situation I would wish on anyone, and I am scared for those who will follow me," Hickox wrote in The , saying she was showing no symptoms when she arrived back in the United States.


"I am scared about how health care workers will be treated at airports when they declare that they have been fighting Ebola in West Africa. I am scared that, like me, they will arrive and see a frenzy of disorganization, fear and, most frightening, quarantine."


Hickox, who landed at New Jersey's Newark Liberty International Airport after working with Doctors Without Borders (MSF) in Sierra Leone, will be monitored at a hospital for 21 days, the known incubation period of Ebola.


Her account recalled the ordeal that began with her "grueling" two-day journey from Sierra Leone back to the United States.


Then, at the airport's quarantine office in immigration, "one man who must have been an immigration officer because he was wearing a weapon belt that I could see protruding from his white coveralls barked questions at me as if I was a criminal," Hickox said.


- 'No one in charge' -


Despite feeling "tired, hungry and confused," Hickox said she tried to remain calm during the three hours that passed in the office.


"No one seemed to be in charge. No one would tell me what was going on or what would happen to me," she said. "I wondered what I had done wrong."


Hickox's temperature was initially a normal 98 degrees Fahrenheit (37 Celsius). But four hours after she landed, a forehead scanner found it to be 101 degrees, suggesting fever.


"The forehead scanner was recording an elevated temperature because I was flushed and upset," Hickox said, adding that she was left to languish alone in the room for another three hours.


No less than eight police cars then escorted her to the hospital, she said.


"Sirens blared, lights flashed. Again, I wondered what I had done wrong," Hickox wrote.


"I had spent a month watching children die, alone. I had witnessed human tragedy unfold before my eyes. I had tried to help when much of the world has looked on and done nothing."


At the hospital, her temperature was again normal, and an initial blood test came back negative for Ebola.


"I sat alone in the isolation tent and thought of many colleagues who will return home to America and face the same ordeal. Will they be made to feel like criminals and prisoners?" Hickox wrote.


"We need more health care workers to help fight the epidemic in West Africa. The US must treat returning health care workers with dignity and humanity," she wrote.


- 'Lack of clarity' -


Doctors Without Borders said it was "very concerned about the conditions and uncertainty she is facing."


Sophie Delaunay, executive director of MSF, added: "There is a notable lack of clarity about the new guidelines announced yesterday by state authorities in New York and New Jersey."


The two US states ordered mandatory quarantine for returning medics after a doctor, Craig Spencer, 33, on Thursday became the first confirmed case of Ebola in New York.


He was immediately placed in isolation and on Saturday his condition had deteriorated slightly, but health officials stressed that was the "next phase" of the illness and was expected.


"The patient is awake and communicating," a hospital statement said.


Incumbent Dilma Rousseff reelected as president of Brazil

Dilma Rousseff

© Reuters/Edison Vara

Brazil's President and Workers' Party (PT) presidential candidate Dilma Rousseff.



Brazil's leftist president Dilma Rousseff has been re-elected for another term with over 51 percent of the vote in a tight presidential run-off on Sunday.

Rousseff, who has been in power since 2011, has been re-elected for a second term, winning 51.6 percent of the vote according to the official tally. With over 99 percent of the ballots counted, her opponent, the centrist opposition leader Aecio Neves got 48.4 percent.




Rousseff secured her victory with wide support from the country's poor: some 40 million people have been lifted from the brink of poverty due to social reforms and the economic boom since 2003, when her Worker's Party came to power. Thank you very much," Rousseff tweeted after the results were announced.

The victory speech of President Rousseff emphasizes reconciliation and consensus to move Brazil to reform, changes and dialogue.

"Among all reforms, the most important should be the political reform," said Rousseff.


Aecio Neves, on the other hand, was supported by the upper-middle class and the rich, promising to recover the economic growth, that decreased during Rousseff's first term, and to deal with high inflation.The 54-year-old economist and a career politician also promised to encourage more investment in the country: "The sure path for Brazil to really change." Neves conceded defeat to in a speech to supporters following the election.


Dilma Supporters

© Reuters/Paulo Whitaker

Supporters of Brazil's President and Workers' Party (PT) presidential candidate Dilma Rousseff react to first results of the Brazil general elections in Porto Alegre, October 26, 2014.



Meanwhile the Supreme Electoral Court announced that 66 people were arrested for violations in the presidential and gubernatorial elections, while 293 minor election-related incidents were also reported.

Violations include publishing exit poll data before polls closed, distributing political propaganda, and busing voters to polling stations.


Brazil's Dilma Rousseff wins re-election campaign

Dilma Rousseff



Brazil's President and Workers' Party (PT) presidential candidate Dilma Rousseff gestures to photographers after voting in the runoff election in Porto Alegre October 26, 2014.



Brazil's leftist President Dilma Rousseff narrowly won re-election on Sunday after convincing voters that her party's strong record of reducing poverty over the last 12 years was more important than a recent economic slump.

After one of the closest, most divisive campaigns in Brazil in decades, Rousseff won 51.6 percent of votes in a runoff against centrist opposition leader Aecio Neves, who won 48.4 percent support.


The vote split Latin America's biggest country almost evenly in two along lines of both social class and geography. Neves prevailed in Brazil's richer south, southeast and center-west, while Rousseff took the Amazon north and impoverished northeast.


Voting was peaceful and Brazil's robust democracy is free of the political violence that mars some other countries in the region. Yet, mindful of the deep economic challenges facing the country, both Neves and Rousseff sounded a cautious, conciliatory tone in speeches on Sunday night.


"I call on all Brazilians, without exceptions, to unite in favor of Brazil's future," Rousseff, her voice hoarse after weeks of campaigning, told a raucous crowd of party supporters gathered at a hotel in Brasilia. "I want to be a much better president than I have been until now."


However, she gave no clear indication of any impending changes in the heavy-handed economic policies that have alienated many investors since she took office in 2011.


The result means another four years in power for the Workers' Party, which since 2003 has virtually transformed Brazil - lifting 40 million from poverty, reducing unemployment to record lows and making big inroads against hunger in what remains one of the world's most unequal countries.


The party's star has faded recently. The economy has averaged less than 2 percent annual growth under Rousseff's often unpredictable policies, making Brazil's glory days of robust growth last decade an ever-more distant memory.


Numerous corruption scandals, high inflation and frustration over poor public services like health care tempted many to consider a switch to Neves' more pro-business agenda.


Yet Rousseff and her supporters spent the campaign warning voters, especially the poor, that a vote for the PSDB would mean a return to the less compassionate, more unequal Brazil of the 1990s - an argument that Neves rigorously denied, but ultimately prevailed anyway.


"We need Dilma to continue the programs that improve the lives of those in need," said Livia Roma, 19, a university student in Sao Paulo, as she voted on Sunday. "I didn't vote for myself, but for the minorities and less fortunate classes."


Brazil's financial markets plummeted last week when polls showed Rousseff was likely to win a second term. They could see another selloff on Monday.


Short Honeymoon


With 200 million people and a gross domestic product of some $2 trillion, Brazil is Latin America's largest economy and its most populous country.


By re-electing Rousseff, Brazil will remain on a middle ground between more socialist governments in Venezuela and Argentina, and the freer-trading, faster-growing countries on the Pacific coast that include Colombia and Chile.


Rousseff owed her victory to overwhelming support from the roughly 40 percent of Brazilians who live in households earning less than $700 a month.


They have benefited from the Workers' Party's rollout of a program that pays a small monthly stipend to one in four Brazilian families, as well as federal housing programs, government-sponsored vocational schools and an expansion of credit to the working class.


Rousseff, 66, is unlikely to enjoy much, if any, of a honeymoon when her second term starts on New Year's Day.


Recent allegations of systemic corruption at state-run oil giant Petrobras (PETR4.SA) roiled the final days of the campaign and are likely to be a major political headache in coming months and years as prosecutors pursue those responsible.


The economy slipped into a recession earlier this year, and ratings agencies have warned that a credit downgrade is possible unless Rousseff makes hefty spending cuts to correct deficits that have mushroomed in recent months.


Her aides have said she will try to win back the confidence of financial markets by announcing a more pragmatic finance minister for her second term, although many investors worry that Rousseff will continue to call most of the shots herself.


Marco Aurelio Garcia, a top Rousseff adviser on foreign affairs, sounded a defiant note shortly after the results were published. Asked what the government's message to financial markets was, he replied: "Take tranquilizers."


The election was one of the most dramatic since full democracy returned to Brazil in 1989. One candidate was killed in a plane crash in August, and his replacement then soared into the lead in opinion polls, only to fade in the final days before the first round of voting on Oct. 5.


During the runoff, senior leaders from both parties compared their rivals to Nazis - a break from the relatively genteel tone that has prevailed in Brazilian politics in recent years, and one that analysts say heralds a more divisive era ahead.


That, in turn, may make consensus on a much-needed overhaul of the tax code and other economic reforms more difficult for Rousseff to push through.


From Technocrat To President


Rousseff, who was jailed and tortured in the early 1970s for opposing that era's military dictatorship, is the country's first woman president. The daughter of a Bulgarian aristocrat who emigrated to Brazil during World War Two, she was a relatively obscure government technocrat until her predecessor Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva hand-picked her as his successor.


Many in the Workers' Party are already thinking ahead to the next election in 2018, when Lula, who governed from 2003 to 2010, has said he may run again. Brazil's constitution doesn't allow presidents to seek a third consecutive term.


Rousseff repeatedly thanked Lula for his support on Sunday night, and gave him a big hug onstage.


Neves' PSDB, meanwhile, faces an uncertain future after falling short in three straight presidential contests due in part to its image as the party of Brazil's wealthy minority.


The PSDB is under added pressure because of a long drought in Sao Paulo state, which it governs, that has raised the prospect of severe water rationing in coming months.


"Our biggest priority should be to unite Brazil," Neves said in his concession speech, noting that he had called Rousseff and wished her success.


French ambassador says 'Poker Player' Putin bluffed and won


© Desconocido

Vladimir Putin



Vladimir Putin has outmaneuvered his opponents and humiliated Ukraine by continuing to back pro-Russian separatists and flouting a cease-fire, making it crucial that sanctions on Russia remain firm, France's ambassador to the U.S. said.
Gérard Araud

© UN Photo/Paulo Filgueiras

Ambassador Gérard Araud



The Russian president "has won because we were not ready to die for Ukraine, while apparently he was," Ambassador Gerard Araud said yesterday at a Bloomberg Government breakfast in Washington, in remarks he said represented his personal opinion. Echoing the view of other European envoys in Washington, Araud expressed concern that the Ukraine conflict has hit an impasse, leaving Putin the winner by default.

While many observers have called Putin a geopolitical chess player, he said, the Russian leader is more a "poker player really, putting all the money on the table, saying, 'Do the same,' and of course we blink. We don't do the same."


The economic sanctions against Russia must stay in place to prevent Putin from going further, said Araud, who moved to Washington in September after serving as the French ambassador to the United Nations.


"The question is there on the table: When is Putin going to stop?" Araud said. "That's the reason that we need to keep the sanctions" because, "let's be frank, it's more or less the only weapon that we have. We are not going to send our soldiers in Ukraine. It does not make sense to send weapons to the Ukrainians, because the Ukrainians would be defeated real easily, so it will only prolong the war" and lead to a "still bigger Russian victory."




Not Budging

Araud said that while it was natural to expect Putin to be "more open and reasonable" after the cease-fire agreement was reached Sept. 5, the opposite proved true. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko was reduced to thanking Putin at joint remarks in Milan. Poroshenko is "kneeling in front of Putin with the cord around his neck and saying, 'You know, you have won,'" and Putin is still not backing down, Araud said.




"We know that Russian weapons are still flowing to Ukraine and, as you know, the separatists are still fighting and incidents - there are multiple incidents on the border," he said.

Asked about the delivery of two French Mistral-class helicopter-carrying assault ships sold to Moscow, a 1.2 billion euro ($1.6 billion) deal signed in 2011, Araud conceded there are no good options for his government. The first ship was to be delivered this month, but the French government put the deal on hold Sept. 3 over Russia's armed incursions in Ukraine.




No Good Choices

"Whatever we decide is a disaster for us," Araud said, again expressing his personal view. On one side, he said, lies France's credibility as an arms supplier who delivers on contracts, and on the other, the difficulty of delivering a weapons system to Putin, who might use it against Ukraine or a European ally.


The Mistral contract requires a refund of money paid by Russia, plus penalties estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars for non-delivery. Cancellation of the contract would be a blow to the French shipyard, where many jobs would be lost, Araud said.


"We need ideas" to resolve the conundrum, "but for the moment, nobody has stepped in saying, 'We are ready to help you to face this situation,'" he said. Araud said delivery of the first ship can be delayed for three months without penalties or for six months "with penalties which are bearable."


The contract leaves the French government with the unenviable task of deciding what to do by the end of this month. "It will be a decision taken at the highest level by the president, considering the stakes," he said.


Russia signed the contract for the ships with France's state-owned military contractor DCNS, and the shipbuilder STX France is completing the vessels in St. Nazaire on France's Atlantic coast.


The Scariest Number Revealed Today: $1.114 Trillion In Eurozone Bad Debt



As we previously reported, the ECB's latest stress test was once again patently flawed from the start. Why? Because as we noted earlier, in its most draconian, "adverse" scenario, the ECB simply refused to contemplate the possibility of deflation. And here's why. Buried deep in the report, on page 75 of 178, is the following revelation which contains in it the scariest number presented to the public today.



Due to the fact that on average banks' internal definitions were less conservative than the simplified EBA approach, the application of the simplified approach led to an increase in NPE stock of €54.6 billion from €743.1 billion to €797.7 billion. The CFR and the projection of findings led to an additional increase in NPE of €81.3 billion, resulting in a total increase €135.9 billion to €879.1 billion of post-CFR NPEs across the participating banks as a result of the AQR. The impact of the application of the EBA simplified approach and the credit file review on the stock of NPEs varied amongst debtor geographies, with overall increases among SSM debtor geographies ranging from 7% to 116%.




Translated: due to a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you's, and the now traditional "fluidity" when it comes to European term definitions (recall that as of this year, in Europe hookers and blow contribute to (estimated) GDP otherwise the Eurozone would be in deep triple-dip recession, if not outright depression by now) the stress test, while concluding that Europe's banks are "safe", also uncovered some €136 billion in previously undisclosed NPE or "Non-Performing Exposure", aka Bad Loans - loans which will never be repaid.


Which in turn leads to the new bad loan total amount (that will also in the coming quarters be revised sharply higher) among Eurozone banks: a whopping €879 billion, or some $1.114 trillion at today's exchange rate. This amount to a stunning 9% of the the Eurozone's GDP and is precisely the reason why the ECB can't possibly even conceive of deflation, as without the much needed rising prices to inflate away this NPL debt tumor, Europe's banks are all insolvent, regardless of what today's stress test may have revealed about just a paltry 25 of them.


And then there is the question of what is the real NPLs number. If the ECB, which clearly is happy to goalseek data to fit the optimistic, "confidence-building" narrative was willing to admit that there was a massive 18% delta in European bank NPLs based just on what definition one uses to define these, as it concluded that banks are largely safe, one wonders: is the real bad debt number €2 trillion, €3 trillion, or even more, and is the ECB's sudden attention shift to the total outstanding NPLs what should be the take home message from toda, and also explains why Mario Draghi is suddenly rushing to inflate bank reserves by another €1 trillion: a number which would almost perfectly offset the negative impact of some €880 billion in bad debt.


Finally, the €64 trillion question: how long until the ECB begins monetizing secured debt on European bank balance sheets. After all, for everyone in Germany the ECB is already Europe's "bad bank." Why not end the pretense, and do away with the facade of prudent monetary policy, and admit what everyone knows: before all is said and done, and Europe implodes in a bad debt singularity, the ECB will, with 100% certainty, monetize the Eurozone's bad loans?




Surprise! Valerie Jarrett helped cover up Fast and Furious




Sometimes those who follow politics closely erroneously assume that everyone else follows it closely as well. But for those of you who don’t, here’s a brief explanation of Fast and Furious:


It’s not just a movie series, it’s the name of an operation where the Obama administration illegally gave thousands of weapons, including military grade guns, to Mexican criminals, supposedly in an attempt to track criminal activity in Mexico. However, not only was the operation a complete failure, hundreds of Mexicans (and at least one American) were killed with these weapons. When Congressional investigators, who, by all accounts, were not aware of the operation (and did not authorize it) began investigating it, Obama claimed executive privilege in order to keep damning information about his involvement in the operation kept secret.


For more, go here.


Keep that in mind when you read this:


From Judicial Watch:



President Obama’s trusted senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett, was a key player in the effort to cover up that Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress about the Fast and Furious scandal, according to public records obtained by Judicial Watch.


The information is part of a Department of Justice (DOJ) “Vaughn index” detailing records about the gun-running operation known as Fast and Furious. JW had to sue the agency for the records after the Obama administration failed to provide them under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A federal court ordered the DOJ to provide the records over the agency’s objections. Yesterday JW reported on the broad information in the records, including that Obama asserted executive privilege for Holder’s wife as part of the administration’s efforts to cover up the scandal.


Practically lost in the 1,000-plus pages of records is an index that shows Jarrett was brought in to manage the fact that Holder lied to Congress after the story about the disastrous gun-running operation broke in the media. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ran the once-secret program that allowed guns from the U.S. to be smuggled into Mexico so they could eventually be traced to drug cartels. Instead, federal law enforcement officers lost track of hundreds of weapons which have been used in an unknown number of crimes, including the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Arizona.



Read the Rest


Why does it seem that Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s most trusted confidant, is at the center of every one of his…shall we say…indiscretions?




Medical experts: The medical establishment was wrong about fat

Butter

© Unknown



For more than half a century, the conventional wisdom among nutritionists and public health officials was that fat is dietary enemy number one - the leading cause of obesity and heart disease.

It appears the wisdom was off.


And not just off. Almost entirely backward.


According to a new study from the National Institutes of Health, a diet that reduces carbohydrates in favor of fat - including the saturated fat in meat and butter - improves nearly every health measurement, from reducing our waistlines to keeping our arteries clear, more than the low-fat diets that have been recommended for generations.


"The medical establishment got it wrong," says cardiologist Dennis Goodman, director of Integrative Medicine at New York Medical Associates. "The belief system didn't pan out."


It's not the conclusion you would expect given the NIH study's parameters. Lead researcher Lydia Bazanno, of the Tulane University School of Public Health, pitted this high-fat, low-carb diet against a fat-restricted regimen prescribed by the National Cholesterol Education Program.


"We told both groups to get carbs from green, leafy vegetables, because those are high in nutrients and fiber to keep you sated," says Bazanno. "We also told everyone to stay away from trans fats." The fat-restricted group continued to eat carbs, including bread and cereals, while keeping saturated fat - common in animal products - below 7 percent of total calories.


By contrast, the high-fat group cut carbs in half and did not avoid butter, meat, and cheese. Most important, both groups ate as much as they wanted - no calorie counting, no going hungry.


One year later, the high-fat, low-carb group had lost three times as much weight - 12 pounds compared with four - and that weight loss came from body fat, while the low-fat group lost muscle. Even more persuasive were the results of blood tests meant to measure the risk of heart disease and diabetes. The high-fat group, despite eating nearly twice as much saturated fat, still saw greater improvements in LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides.


kale

© Flickr/laurelfan

Eating kale doesn't guarantee weight loss. In one study, people on a high-fat diet lost three times as much weight as people on a low-fat diet.



This was enough to improve their scores on the Framingham Risk Calculator, a tool for predicting 10-year risk of heart attack. The low-fat group, by contrast, saw no improvement on their Framingham scores. "I think the explanation lies in how the low-fat dieters filled the hole left by fat - they just ate more carbs," says Bazanno.

How a fatty pork chop can trump pasta begins with the fact that our bodies don't process calories from fat, protein, and carbohydrates in the same way. "When we eat carbs, they break down into sugar in the blood; that's true of whole grains, too, though to a lesser extent," says Jeff Volek, a leading low-carb researcher at Ohio State University. The body responds with the hormone insulin, which converts the extra blood sugar into fatty acids stored in the body fat around our middles.


Our blood sugar then falls, and that body fat releases the fatty acids to burn as fuel. But carb-heavy diets keep insulin so high that those fatty acids aren't released, Volek says. The body continues to shuttle sugar into our fat cells - packing on the pounds - but we never burn it. Dietary fat, meanwhile, is the only macronutrient that has no effect on insulin or blood sugar. "This means it's likely excessive carbs, not fat, that plump us up," he adds. Low-carb diets stop that vicious cycle, keeping insulin levels low enough to force the body to burn fat again.




But isn't too much saturated fat bad for your heart? "The evidence for that has really disintegrated," says Dr. Eric Westman, a bariatric physician and director of the Duke Lifestyle Medicine Clinic. It is true that saturated fat can raise cholesterol.

But as we know, there is good cholesterol and bad cholesterol. And it turns out that a diet rich in saturated fat increases the former while decreasing the latter. Carbs, on the other hand, do exactly the opposite. In fact, a new review of 72 studies and hundreds of thousands of subjects found no strong evidence that saturated fat causes heart disease.


The NIH report actually adds to research that's been accumulating for years. "It's something like the 25th clinical trial in the last 15 years to come out saying this, with almost none going the other way," says Westman.


High-fat diets have been slow to catch on mostly because of two long-held theories. The first is the calorie-counting theory of weight gain, which came about in the 1950s.


"It looks at the human body as a mathematical counting machine," says Gary Taubes, author of Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It. "Fat has more calories per gram than carbs or protein, so eating fat must make you fatter. It's a naive view of human physiology."


yogurt

© Flickr/matthewblasi

"We no longer think low-fat diets are the answer," says Dr. Linda Van Horn of the AHA Nutrition Committee.



The second idea, the lipid hypothesis, blamed saturated fat for clogging arteries. This notion emerged from vast population studies in the 1970s that found loose correlations between fat consumption, total cholesterol, and heart disease. Just because two things occur together, however, does not mean that one causes the other. But the lipid hypothesis became so popular at the USDA and the American Heart Association that, says Westman, "there was no money to fund research into anything other than low-fat, low-calorie diets for 20 years."

The AHA now acknowledges that refined carbs like flour and sugar threaten your waistline and your cardiovascular health.

"We no longer think low-fat diets are the answer," says Dr. Linda Van Horn of the AHA Nutrition Committee. But, she says, the AHA still recommends keeping saturated fat below 6 percent of total daily calories, or half what the low-carb dieters consumed in the NIH study. "There just haven't been any controlled clinical trials yet showing us how much saturated fat is safe," says Van Horn.


There also haven't been low-carb clinical trials running long enough to reach "hard end points" - heart attack, stroke, or death. That means no one can say with certainty that a high-fat diet will make you live longer. That might be why so few doctors recommend them.


Goodman cites another possible reason: "The idea that fat kills got so ingrained, it became folklore. Your mother told you, your grandmother told you. It's going to take years to get people to believe that was wrong," he says. "We're in a transition, and on the cutting edge. It may take a while, but you'll see new guidelines."


House-sized Asteroid to Give Earth a Very Close Shave Monday

2104 UF56

© Unknown



Get ready for a very close encounter as a house-sized asteroid 2014 UF56 will pass between the Earth and the Moon on Monday. The 15 meter wide space rock will miss our planet at a distance of about 160,000 km (0.4 lunar distances) at 9:12 p.m. UTC. The asteroid was discovered Saturday and despite passing so close to Earth, few if any of us will see the flyby with our eyes in a telescope. At brightest, 2014 UF56 will only reach magnitude +16, as it zips from Scutum constellation through Capricornus.

The asteroid, back in 2012 visited Mars at a distance of about 8 mln km. It will again approach the Earth on Feb. 12, 2018. This will be a very distant fly-by, at about 64 lunar distances.


160,000 km is still a safe distance, but still a very spectacular circumstance, that's why the Virtual Telescope Project will offer a live, online event sharing real-time images of 2014 UF56 with live commentary by their scientific staff. The stream, starting at 7:00 p.m. UTC, will be available at: virtualtelescope.eu.


None of the known potentially hazardous asteroids is on a collision course with our planet, although astronomers are finding new ones all the time.


"With 90% of near-Earth asteroids larger than 0.6 miles (1 km) discovered, surveys are now focusing on finding 90% of objects larger than 460 feet (140-m)," amateur astronomer Bob King writes on his blog. "We have to take it a step at a time because the total number of near-Earth asteroids is in the millions. That's why objects like 2014 UF56 pop up regularly in surveys each month."


Sex, chocolate... new language? Same pleasure for human brain, scientists say

In the Park

© Reuters/Christian Hartmann



Learning new words stimulates the same brain center as such long-proven means of deriving pleasure, as having sex, gambling or eating chocolate, a new study says.

A team of Spanish and German researchers at Barcelona's Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute and Otto von Guericke University has found that successful learning of the meanings of new words activates a core reward center in the adult brain. They have recently published their findings in the journal.


The ventral striatum is a part of the brain activated by actions that trigger positive emotions, should it be sugary food, sex or drugs.


Traditionally, the process of learning of a new language was associated with a boost in the number of connections between neurons, but it wasn't proven that emotions are also involved.


study author Antoni Rodríguez Fornells told , Catalan daily newspaper.


Additionally, the scientists managed to find the correspondence between the level of myelin index, which measures brain's structure integrity, and the number of words learnt. The experiment participants with higher level of myelin were able to learn more new words.


Brain

© Current Biology

Learning new words stimulates the same part of the brain as gambling.



the lead author said.

To get these results, the scientists gathered 36 adults and conducted two magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. They showed that both language-based and gambling-like tests activated the same parts of the brain.


The researchers claim the findings could help explain the drive for the development of human languages, as well as individual motivation in studying of foreign languages.


the authors wrote.


What's more, the study could also promote new treatments for people with disorders connected with language learning.


So much for experts: Europe's food experts fooled by pranksters into confusing McDonald's with organic food

McDonald's Fools Experts

© Still from YouTube video/lifehunterstv



Dutch pranksters have fooled food experts and consumers and proved that even foodies can't tell McDonald's from real, organic food when offered some on a plate. The comments from misled 'experts' are hysterical.

Lifehunters, as the guys call themselves, posted a video of them visiting one of the most popular annual food expos in Europe, in the city of Houten, to serve their from their that serves


one of the pranksters, Sacha, says on the video.


So they paid a visit to their McDonald's.


Armed with a serving tray of cut up McDonald's sandwiches made into canapé treats they started their hunt for gullible fans of organic food to ask what experts think about their


Serving their "top notch" recipes from a non-existent restaurant, they managed to fool dozens of


They asked questions as to every aspect of the sandwiches and other snacks - from ease of chewing to taste, to how they feel in the mouth - to discover a simple truth: that if you don't know what you're eating, it's incredibly easy to be fooled into thinking you're eating the best Earth has to offer.


[embedded content]




said one expert about a McMuffin. Then it was onto the 'real classics'.

The 'Chicken McNuggets' were neatly cut up and served by a charming young waiter, complete with tidy uniform. an older and presumably more experienced food critic commented.


To make this even more fun and amusing, the pranksters asked people what they saw as the key difference between these 'organic' treats and something one might see at McDonald's. The experts did not disappoint: said a young woman.


came another comment from a young lady operating an organic stall.


They went on like this - persons of every gender and age. So, there must be some truth in the claim that it's really at least that's what Erik Hensel, the founder of Lifehunters.tv, told RT.


Silicon Valley company EFI paid Indian employees $1.21/hr, posted $200 million revenue for 3rd quarter

silicon_valley

© Michael Kovac / Getty Images for Vanity Fair / AFP



While many Americans fight for the government to increase the minimum wage across the country, one Silicon Valley company has now been penalized for paying some foreign employees dramatically lower wages.

The fine was handed down by the US Department of Labor after it discovered that Electronics for Imaging (EFI) flew eight employees in from its office in Bangalore, India, and paid them the equivalent of $1.21 an hour, the reported this week. The foreign employees were called in to help install computers for the Fremont, California-based company, which paid them in Indian rupees.


Additionally, these employees worked extensive hours - up to 122 hours a week in some cases. They were employed inside of the United States last year from September 8 until December 21.


"We are not going to tolerate this kind of behavior from employers," said Susana Blanco, district director of the US Labor Department, according to the Mercury News.


Blanco added that the Labor Department decided to investigate the situation after receiving an anonymous tip, adding that more will be needed to uncover further abuses by other companies.


As a result of these violations, EFI was ordered to pay back more than $40,000 in back wages based on California's own minimum wage of $8 per hour. The company was also fined an additional $3,500.




Although not well-known around the US, EFI is an international corporation that focuses on digital and inkjet printing technology. Just one day before these abuses were reported, the company posted third quarter revenues of almost $200 million.

In a statement to the newspaper, EFI's Beverly Rubin called the violations an "administrative error" and said it would not happen again.


"During this assignment, they continued to be paid their regular pay in India, as well as a special bonus for their efforts on this project," Rubin said. "During this process we unintentionally overlooked laws that require even foreign employees to be paid based on local US standards."


Nevertheless, the $1.21-per-hour wage is the lowest Blanco has ever seen in Northern California since 2012, when Bloom Energy was fined for paying Mexican employees just $2.66 an hour for repairing generators.


"It is certainly outrageous and unacceptable for employers here in Silicon Valley to bring workers and pay less than the minimum wage," said Alberto Raymond, a Labor Department assistant district director, to NBC News.


BEST OF THE WEB: Key quotes from Putin's Valdai speech in Sochi - His strongest yet against the Western Empire

E-mails sent to Sott.net become the property of Quantum Future Group, Inc and may be published without notice.



Paul Craig Roberts: Vladimir Putin is the leader of the moral world

putin italy

© Presidential Press and Information Office



Dear Friends,

Vladimir Putin's remarks at the 11th meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club are worth more than a link in my latest column. These are the remarks of a humanitarian political leader, the like of which the world has not seen in my lifetime. Compare Putin to the corrupt war criminal in the White House or to his puppets in office in Germany, UK, France, Japan, Canada, Australia, and you will see the difference between a criminal clique and a leader striving for a humane and livable world in which the interests of all peoples are respected.


In a sane Western society, Putin's statements would have been reproduced in full and discussions organized with remarks from experts such as Stephen F. Cohen. Choruses of approval would have been heard on television and read in the print media. But, of course, nothing like this is possible in a country whose rulers claim that it is the "exceptional" and "indispensable" country with an extra-legal right to hegemony over the world. As far as Washington and its prostitute media, named "presstitutes" by the trends specialist Gerald Celente, are concerned, no country counts except Washington. "You are with us or against us," which means "you are our vassals or our enemies." This means that Washington has declared Russia, China, India, Brazil and other parts of South America, Iran, and South Africa to be enemies.


This is a big chunk of the world for a bankrupt country, hated by its vassal populations and many of its own subjects, that has not won a war since it defeated tiny Japan in 1945 by using nuclear weapons, the only use of such terrible weapons in world history.


As an American, try to image any known American politician, or for that matter any professor at Harvard, Princeton, Yale, or Stanford capable of giving an address to an educated discussion group of the quality of Putin's remarks. Try to find any American politician capable of responding precisely and directly to questions instead of employing evasion.


No one can read Putin's remarks without concluding that Putin is the leader of the world.


In my opinion, Putin is such a towering figure that Washington has him marked for assassination. The CIA will use one of the Muslim terrorists that the CIA supports inside Russia. Unlike an American president, who dares not move among the people openly, Putin is not kept remote from the people. Putin is at ease with the Russian people and mingles among them. This makes him an easy target for the CIA to use a Chechnya terrorist, a Jihadist suicide bomber, or the traditional "lone nut" to assassinate Putin.


The immoral, wicked, and declining West is incapable of producing leadership of Putin's quality. Having defamed Putin, assassinating him will cause little comment in the Western media.


Here are Putin's remarkable remarks:


Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club

24 October 2014, Sochi


Vladimir Putin took part in the final plenary meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club's XI session. The meeting's theme is The World Order: New Rules or a Game without Rules.

This year, 108 experts, historians and political analysts from 25 countries, including 62 foreign participants, took part in the club's work.


The plenary meeting summed up the club's work over the previous three days, which concentrated on analysing the factors eroding the current system of institutions and norms of international law.


PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, friends, it is a pleasure to welcome you to the XI meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.


It was mentioned already that the club has new co-organisers this year. They include Russian non-governmental organisations, 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.


n organisation 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 realise 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 analyse 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 organisations 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 organisations. 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 defence, 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 mobilise. That is what a real mobilisation 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 globalisation 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 globalisation. 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 globalisation 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 normalising 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 defence 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 favour 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 'colour 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 programme, 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 harmonising 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 harmonising positions.


This is particularly relevant given the strengthening and growth of certain regions on the planet, which process objectively requires institutionalisation of such new poles, creating powerful regional organisations and developing rules for their interaction. Cooperation between these centres 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 centres 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 civilised 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 - civilised 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 civilised way of solving problems? Apparently, those who constantly throw together new 'colour 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 Organisation 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 Organisation, 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 neighbours, are groundless. Russia does not need any kind of special, exclusive place in the world - I want to emphasise 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.


VLADIMIR PUTIN (commenting on statements by former Prime Minister of France Dominique de Villepin and former Federal Chancellor of Austria Wolfgang Schuessel): I would like to begin by saying that overall I agree with what both Wolfgang and Dominique have said. I fully support everything they said. However, there are a few things I would like to clarify.


I believe Dominique referred to the Ukrainian crisis as the reason for the deterioration in international relations. Naturally, this crisis is a cause, but this is not the principal cause. The crisis in Ukraine is itself a result of a misbalance in international relations.


I have already said in my address why this is happening, and my colleagues have already mentioned it. I can add to this, if necessary. However, primarily this is the outcome of the misbalance in international relations.


As for the issues mentioned by Wolfgang, we will get back to them: we will talk about the elections, if necessary, and about the supply of energy resources to Ukraine and Europe.


However, I would like to respond to the phrase "Wolfgang is an optimist, while life is harder for pessimists." I already mentioned the old joke we have about a pessimist and an optimist, but I cannot help telling it again. We have this very old joke about a pessimist and an optimist: a pessimist drinks his cognac and says, "It smells of bedbugs," while an optimist catches a bedbug, crushes it, then sniffs it and says, "A slight whiff of cognac."


I would rather be the pessimist who drinks cognac than the optimist who sniffs bedbugs. (Laughter)

Though it does seem that optimists have a better time, our common goal is to live a decent life (without overindulging in alcohol). For this purpose, we need to avoid crises, together handle all challenges and threats and build such relations on the global arena that would help us reach these goals.


Later I will be ready to respond to some of the other things mentioned here. Thank you.


BRITISH JOURNALIST SEUMAS MILNE (retranslated from Russian): I would like to ask a two-in-one question.


First, Mr President, do you believe that the actions of Russia in Ukraine and Crimea over the past months were a reaction to rules being broken and are an example of state management without rules? And the other question is: does Russia see these global violations of rules as a signal for changing its position? It has been said here lately that Russia cannot lead in the existing global situation; however, it is demonstrating the qualities of a leader. How would you respond to this?


VLADIMIR PUTIN: I would like to ask you to reword the second part of your question, please. What exactly is your second question?


SEUMAS MILNE (retranslated from Russian): It has been said here that Russia cannot strive for leading positions in the world considering the outcomes of the Soviet Union's collapse, however it can influence who the leader will be. Is it possible that Russia would alter its position, change its focus, as you mentioned, regarding the Middle East and the issues connected with Iran's nuclear program me?


VLADIMIR PUTIN: Russia has never altered its position. We are a country with a traditional focus on cooperation and search for joint solutions. This is first.


Second. We do not have any claims to world leadership. The idea that Russia is seeking some sort of exclusivity is false; I said so in my address. We are not demanding a place under the sun; we are simply proceeding from the premise that all participants in international relations should respect each other's interests. We are ready to respect the interests of our partners, but we expect the same respect for our interests.


We did not change our attitude to the situation in the Middle East, to the Iranian nuclear programme, to the North Korean conflict, to fighting terrorism and crime in general, as well as drug trafficking. We never changed any of our priorities even under the pressure of unfriendly actions on the part of our western partners, who are lead, very obviously in this case, by the United States. We did not even change the terms of the sanctions.


However, here too everything has its limits. I proceed from the idea that it might be possible that external circumstances can force us to alter some of our positions, but so far there have not been any extreme situations of this kind and we have no intention of changing anything. That is the first point.


The second point has to do with our actions in Crimea. I have spoken about this on numerous occasions, but if necessary, I can repeat it. This is Part 2 of Article 1 of the United Nations' Charter - the right of nations to self-determination. It has all been written down, and not simply as the right to self-determination, but as the goal of the united nations. Read the article carefully.


I do not understand why people living in Crimea do not have this right, just like the people living in, say, Kosovo. This was also mentioned here. Why is it that in one case white is white, while in another the same is called black? We will never agree with this nonsense. That is one thing.


The other very important thing is something nobody mentions, so I would like to draw attention to it. What happened in Crimea? First, there was this anti-state overthrow in Kiev. Whatever anyone may say, I find this obvious - there was an armed seizure of power.


In many parts of the world, people welcomed this, not realising what this could lead to, while in some regions people were frightened that power was seized by extremists, by nationalists and right-wingers including neo-Nazis. People feared for their future and for their families and reacted accordingly. In Crimea, people held a referendum.


I would like to draw your attention to this. It was not by chance that we in Russia stated that there was a referendum. The decision to hold the referendum was made by the legitimate authority of Crimea - its Parliament, elected a few years ago under Ukrainian law prior to all these grave events. This legitimate body of authority declared a referendum, and then based on its results, they adopted a declaration of independence, just as Kosovo did, and turned to the Russian Federation with a request to accept Crimea into the Russian state.


You know, whatever anyone may say and no matter how hard they try to dig something up, this would be very difficult, considering the language of the United Nations court ruling, which clearly states (as applied to the Kosovo precedent) that the decision on self-determination does not require the approval of the supreme authority of a country.


In this connection I always recall what the sages of the past said. You may remember the wonderful saying: Whatever Jupiter is allowed, the Ox is not.


We cannot agree with such an approach. The ox may not be allowed something, but the bear will not even bother to ask permission. Here we consider it the master of the taiga, and I know for sure that it does not intend to move to any other climatic zones - it will not be comfortable there. However, it will not let anyone have its taiga either. I believe this is clear.


What are the problems of the present-day world order? Let us be frank about it, we are all experts here. We talk and talk, we are like diplomats. What happened in the world? There used to be a bipolar system. The Soviet Union collapsed, the power called the Soviet Union ceased to exist.


All the rules governing international relations after World War II were designed for a bipolar world. True, the Soviet Union was referred to as 'the Upper Volta with missiles'. Maybe so, and there were loads of missiles. Besides, we had such brilliant politicians like Nikita Khrushchev, who hammered the desk with his shoe at the UN. And the whole world, primarily the United States, and NATO thought: this Nikita is best left alone, he might just go and fire a missile, they have lots of them, we should better show some respect for them.


Now that the Soviet Union is gone, what is the situation and what are the temptations? There is no need to take into account Russia's views, it is very dependent, it has gone through transformation during the collapse of the Soviet Union, and we can do whatever we like, disregarding all rules and regulations.


This is exactly what is happening. Dominique here mentioned Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia before that. Was this really all handled within the framework of international law? Do not tell us those fairy-tales.


This means that some can ignore everything, while we cannot protect the interests of the Russian-speaking and Russian population of Crimea. This will not happen.


I would like everyone to understand this. We need to get rid of this temptation and attempts to arrange the world to one's liking, and to create a balanced system of interests and relations that has long been prescribed in the world, we only have to show some respect.


As I have already said, we understand that the world has changed, and we are ready to take heed of it and adjust this system accordingly, but we will never allow anyone to completely ignore our interests.


Does Russia aim for any leading role? We don't need to be a superpower; this would only be an extra load for us. I have already mentioned the taiga: it is immense, illimitable, and just to develop our territories we need plenty of time, energy and resources.


We have no need of getting involved in things, of ordering others around, but we want others to stay out of our affairs as well and to stop pretending they rule the world. That is all. If there is an area where Russia could be a leader - it is in asserting the norms of international law.


QUESTION: The peaceful process between the Palestinians and Israelis has completely collapsed. The United States never let the quartet work properly. At the same time, the growth of illegal Israeli settlements on the occupied territories renders impossible the creation of a Palestinian state. We have recently witnessed a very severe attack on the Gaza Strip. What is Russia's attitude to this tense situation in the Middle East? And what do you think of the developments in Syria?


One remark for Mr Villepin as well. You spoke of humiliation. What can be more humiliating than the occupation that Palestine has been experiencing all these years?


VLADIMIR PUTIN: Regarding Palestine and the Israeli conflict. It is easy for me to speak about this because, first, I have to say and I believe everyone can see that our relations with Israel have transformed seriously in the past decade. I am referring to the fact that a large number of people from the former Soviet Union live in Israel and we cannot remain indifferent to their fate. At the same time, we have traditional relations with the Arab world, specifically with Palestine. Moreover, the Soviet Union, and Russia is its legal successor, has recognised Palestinian statehood. We are not changing anything here.


Finally, regarding the settlements. We share the views of the main participants in international relations. We consider this a mistake. I have already said this to our Israeli partners. I believe this is an obstacle to normal relations and I strongly expect that the practice itself will be stopped and the entire process of a peaceful settlement will return to its legal course based on agreement.


We proceed from the fact that that Middle East conflict is one of the primary causes of destabilisation not only in the region, but also in the world at large. Humiliation of any people living in the area, or anywhere else in the world is clearly a source of destabilisation and should be done away with. Naturally, this should be done using such means and measures that would be acceptable for all the participants in the process and for all those living in the area.

This is a very complicated process, but Russia is ready to use every means it has for this settlement, including its good relations with the parties to this conflict.


DIRECTOR, KIEV CENTER FOR POLITICAL AND CONFLICT STUDIES MIKHAIL POGREBINSKY: Mr President, I have come from Ukraine. For the first time in 70 years, it is going through very hard times. My question has to do with the possibility of a settlement. In this connection, I would like to go back in history. You mentioned that there was a moment when a trilateral format was under consideration: Russia-Ukraine-Europe. Back then, Europe did not agree to it, after which a series of tragic events took place, including the loss of Crimea, the death of thousands of people and so forth.


Recently, Europe together with Ukraine and Russia agreed that this format is possible after all; moreover, a corresponding resolution was passed. At that moment, there was hope that Russia together with Europe and Ukraine would manage to reach agreement and could become the restorer of peace in Ukraine. What happened next? What happened between Moscow and Brussels, Moscow and Berlin - because now the situation seems completely insane? It is unclear what this might lead to. What do you think happened to Europe?


VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, what happened can be described as nothing happened. Agreements were reached, but neither side complied with them in full. However, full compliance by both sides might be impossible.


For instance, Ukrainian army units were supposed to leave certain locations where they were stationed prior to the Minsk agreements, while the militia army was supposed to leave certain settlements they were holding prior to these agreements. However, neither is the Ukrainian army withdrawing from the locations they should leave, nor is the militia army withdrawing from the settlements they have to move out of, referring, and I will be frank now - to the fact that their families remain there (I mean the militia) and they fear for their safety. Their families, their wives and children live there. This is a serious humanitarian factor.


We are ready to make every effort to ensure the implementation of the Minsk agreements. I would like to take advantage of your question to stress Russia's position: we are in favour of complete compliance with the Minsk agreements by both sides.


What is the problem? In my view, the key problem is that we do not see the desire on the part of our partners in Kiev, primarily the authorities, to resolve the issue of relations with the country's southeast peacefully, through negotiations. We keep seeing the same thing in various forms: suppression by force. It all began with Maidan, when they decided to suppress Yanukovych by force. They succeeded and raised this wave of nationalism and then it all transformed into some nationalistic battalions.


When people in southeast Ukraine did not like it, they tried to elect their own bodies of government and management and they were arrested and taken to prison in Kiev at night. Then, when people saw this happening and took to arms, instead of stopping and finally resorting to peaceful dialogue, they sent troops there, with tanks and aircraft.


Incidentally, the global community keeps silent, as if it does not see any of this, as if there is no such thing as 'disproportionate use of force'. They suddenly forgot all about it. I remember all the frenzy around when we had a complicated situation in the Caucasus. I would hear one and the same thing every day. No more such words today, no more 'disproportionate use of force'. And that's while cluster bombs and even tactical weapons are being used.


You see, under the circumstances, it is very difficult for us in Russia to arrange work with people in southeast Ukraine in a way that would induce them to fully comply with all the agreements. They keep saying that the authorities in Kiev do not fully comply with the agreements either.


However, there is no other way. I would like to stress that we are for the full implementation of the agreements by both parties, and the most important thing I want to say - and I want everyone to hear that - if, God forbid, anyone is again tempted to use force for the final settlement of the situation in southeast Ukraine, this will bring the situation to a complete deadlock.


In my view, there is still a chance to reach agreement. Yes, Wolfgang spoke about this, I understood him. He spoke of the upcoming elections in Ukraine and in the southeast of the country. We know it and we are constantly discussing it. Just this morning I had another discussion with the Chancellor of Germany about it. The Minsk agreements do stipulate that elections in the southeast should be held in coordination with Ukrainian legislation, not under Ukrainian law, but in coordination with it.


This was done on purpose, because nobody in the southeast wants to hold elections in line with Ukrainian law. Why? How can this be done, when there is shooting every day, people get killed on both sides and they have to hold elections under Ukrainian law? The war should finally stop and the troops should be withdrawn. You see? Once this is achieved, we can start considering any kind of rapprochement or cooperation. Until this happens, it is hard to talk about anything else.


They spoke of the date of the elections in the southeast, but few know that there has been an agreement that elections in southeast Ukraine should be held by November 3. Later, the date was amended in the corresponding law, without consulting anyone, without consulting with the southeast. The elections were set for December 7, but nobody talked to them. Therefore, the people in the southeast say, "See, they cheated us again, and it will always be this way."


You can argue over this any way you like. The most important thing is to immediately stop the war and move the troops away. If Ukraine wants to keep its territorial integrity, and this is something we want as well, they need to understand that there is no sense in holding on to some village or other - this is pointless. The idea is to stop the bloodshed and to start normal dialogue, to build relations based on this dialogue and restore at least some communication, primarily in the economy, and gradually other things will follow. I believe this is what should be achieved first and then we can move on.


PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC POLICY AT CARLETON UNIVERSITY (OTTAWA) PIOTR DUTKIEWICZ: Mr President, if I may I would like to go back to the issue of Crimea, because it is of key importance for both the East and the West. I would like to ask you to give us your picture of the events that lead to it, specifically why you made this decision. Was it possible to do things differently? How did you do it? There are important details - how Russia did it inside Crimea. Finally, how do you see the consequences of this decision for Russia, for Ukraine, for Europe and for the normative world order? I am asking this because I believe millions of people would like to hear your personal reconstruction of those events and of the way you made the decision.


VLADIMIR PUTIN: I do not know how many times I spoke about this, but I will do it again.

On February 21, Viktor Yanukovych signed the well-known documents with the opposition. Foreign ministers of three European countries signed their names under this agreement as guarantors of its implementation.


In the evening of February 21, President Obama called me and we discussed these issues and how we would assist in the implementation of these agreements. Russia undertook certain obligations. I heard that my American colleague was also ready to undertake some obligations. This was the evening of the 21st. On the same day, President Yanukovych called me to say he signed the agreement, the situation had stabilized and he was going to a conference in Kharkov. I will not conceal the fact that I expressed my concern: how was it possible to leave the capital in this situation. He replied that he found it possible because there was the document signed with the opposition and guaranteed by foreign ministers of European countries.


I will tell you more, I told him I was not sure everything would be fine, but it was for him to decide. He was the president, he knew the situation, and he knew better what to do. "In any case, I do not think you should withdraw the law enforcement forces from Kiev," I told him. He said he understood. Then he left and gave orders to withdraw all the law enforcement troops from Kiev. Nice move, of course.


We all know what happened in Kiev. On the following day, despite all our telephone conversations, despite the signatures of the foreign ministers, as soon as Yanukovych left Kiev his administration was taken over by force along with the government building. On the same day, they shot at the cortege of Ukraine's Prosecutor General, wounding one of his security guards.


Yanukovych called me and said he would like us to meet to talk it over. I agreed. Eventually we agreed to meet in Rostov because it was closer and he did not want to go too far. I was ready to fly to Rostov. However, it turned out he could not go even there. They were beginning to use force against him already, holding him at gunpoint. They were not quite sure where to go.


I will not conceal it; we helped him move to Crimea, where he stayed for a few days. That was when Crimea was still part of Ukraine. However, the situation in Kiev was developing very rapidly and violently, we know what happened, though the broad public may not know - people were killed, they were burned alive there. They came into the office of the Party of Regions, seized the technical workers and killed them, burned them alive in the basement. Under those circumstances, there was no way he could return to Kiev. Everybody forgot about the agreements with the opposition signed by foreign ministers and about our telephone conversations. Yes, I will tell you frankly that he asked us to help him get to Russia, which we did. That was all.


Seeing these developments, people in Crimea almost immediately took to arms and asked us for help in arranging the events they intended to hold. I will be frank; we used our Armed Forces to block Ukrainian units stationed in Crimea, but not to force anyone to take part in the elections. This is impossible, you are all grown people, and you understand it. How could we do it? Lead people to polling stations at gunpoint?


People went to vote as if it were a celebration, everybody knows this, and they all voted, even the Crimean Tatars. There were fewer Crimean Tatars, but the overall vote was high. While the turnout in Crimea in general was about 96 or 94 percent, a smaller number of Crimean Tatars showed up. However 97 percent of them voted 'yes'. Why? Because those who did not want it did not come to the polling stations, and those who did voted 'yes'.


I already spoke of the legal side of the matter. The Crimean Parliament met and voted in favour of the referendum. Here again, how could anyone say that several dozen people were dragged to parliament to vote? This never happened and it was impossible: if anyone did not want to vote they would get on a train or plane, or their car and be gone.


They all came and voted for the referendum, and then the people came and voted in favour of joining Russia, that is all. How will this influence international relations? We can see what is happening; however if we refrain from using so-called double standards and accept that all people have equal rights, it would have no influence at all. We have to admit the right of those people to self-determination.


This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://ift.tt/jcXqJW.