Author: Alicia

International support for Russia’s effective anti-terrorist campaign is growing, with expressions of support now including Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry, Kyrgyzstan President Almazbek Atambayev, and top officials of the Kurdish Peoples Protection Units (YPG) fighters who have been the most effective fighters against ISIS.

“We will fight alongside whoever fights Daesh [isis],” said Salih Muslim, co-president of the Democratic Union Party, to Al Monitor. His party’s militia, the YPG, has coordinated its fight against ISIS with the U.S., but has also been attacked by Obama’s “ally” Turkey. “We want Russia to provide us air support as well as weapons in our fight,” YPG commander Sipan Hemo said, reported McClatchy News.

Panic and desertion have hit the ISIS ranks and 600 ISIS fighters fled the group’s headquarters in Raqqah, reported Lt. Gen. Andrei Kartapolov, head of the Main Operations Directorate of the Russian General Staff, on Saturday. On Sunday, the Russian Defense Ministry emphasized that the bombing campaign will intensify after the successful destruction of ISIS positions.

Syrian Al Watan, a pro-government newspaper reported that Russian forces have run 60 sorties against 50 ISIS locations since Wednesday, and said that, “the Russian strikes have achieved what 3,000 U.S. strikes failed to achieve in Syria.”

Yesterday, Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov announced additional successful strikes. Statements from the Ministry emphasized the careful targeting the Russians are conducting before the strikes and the accuracy of the munitions. The guided air to surface bomb, the KAB-500, used against an ISIS air base near Maarat Al-Nuuman in Idlib, has a “possible circular deviation … that does not exceed 5 meters.” Aerospace Forces spokesman Igor Klimov described the Kh-29L air-to-surface missile being used in Syria that strikes targets with “a precision less than two meters,” approximately.

In Idlib province, Su-25 attackers hit the ISIS training camp there, also destroying a workshop for explosive belt production. Near the town of Jisr al-Shugur, they hit 8 ISIS facilities, including 4 command posts and ammunition and armament depots. The Defense Ministry updates about the targets—which have been provided daily since Friday—indicate they have precise intelligence about the locations and nature of ISIS facilities.

Plans for attacks on ISIS command posts will expand the areas covered, and the Defense Ministry tweeted, “Twenty-four hours a day UAV’s are monitoring the situation in the ISIS activity areas. All the detected targets are effectively engaged day and night in any weather conditions.”

The response of the jihadis is panic. They are again proving that there is no “moderate” opposition. Al Nusra announced the creation of a “joint military operations center” in the region around Talbiseh and “dozens” of Free Syrian Army officers signed a statement that they are joining this command “to confront the Russian and Iranian occupation.” 

European Foreign Minister Federica Mogherini was interviewed by Lally Weymouth for Sunday’s Washington Post, while she was in New York City for the UN General Aseembly.  She called for an inclusive political solution to the Syria conflict, “a process where all Syrian parties, regime representatives and opposition, come together and elaborate a common transition plan for the country.  Obviously that excludes terrorist organizations like al-Nusra and ISIL.”

She included Iran in the process, noting that “Iran, for example, has a lot of influence on the regime. I think they understand that this is going to be their first test to see if they can play a constructive role after the deal.”

She defended Russian motives in Syria, telling Weymouth, “From what I understand, Russia’s main worry is that there could be a complete collapse of the state structure in Syria, something similar to what happened in Libya, and that would endanger even the idea of having a transition.  I think everybody realizes it would be impossible to have a future role for Assad in Syria. But a transition means you have the regime present at the table. Imagine what happens if Damascus falls, in terms of refugees…. Russia is taking its seat at the table and saying, `I am here and will be part of the process.’  There is a military component, but we Europeans are convinced that there is no purely military solution to the war.”

She also opposed a no-fly zone, arguing that Syrians will not trust a no-fly zone and will not return to the country until ISIS is defeated.  She also distinguished between Europe and the United States in the context of questions about the refugee crisis, noting that the U.S. is a melting pot and Europe is homogeneous, and must change and grow. 

Russian President Putin’s flanking operations in Syria have not only already delivered a deadly blow to the jihadists of ISIS and Nusra.  They have demonstrated decisively that US President Obama is an ego-maniac incapable of strategic thinking or planning.

Obama’s insanity is one big contributing factor to the total disintegration of the US Government.  The new members of Congress, both in the House and Senate, are also mostly of such low quality that the management of the nation is in a state of disintegration.

The greatest immediate danger, as the result of this Washington disintegration, is that the hopelessly bankrupt Wall Street system will implode—before the proper measures are put in place, starting with the reinstating of Glass Steagall.  This is a profound danger.  Wall Street is already dead.  The crucial issue is that the American people must be mobilized to force through a radical change in policy before the system evaporates, leading to chaos, mass panic and a total disintegration of what is left of the United States economy.

That means now—not next week, not next month!  Now.

If you don’t reinstate Glass Steagall and get rid of Obama before the system blows, there will be total disaster.  That is the most immediate and most grave challenge facing us all.  Wall Street is dead as an institution and it must be shut down altogether.  It is super-bankrupt.  An FDR approach is what is immediately required.  It starts with restoring Glass Steagall, which will immediately put Wall Street out of its misery.  The American people have been collectively demoralized by the past 15 years of mis-leadership and the lack of any strategy for a genuine recovery.

The immediate danger is that the ordinary people of the United States are hanging on the very edge, and they can be broken.  Obama is responsible for this disaster.  The American people are in immediate jeopardy.  The entire US economy is in a state of advanced vulnerability.

Only a rapid mobilization, under a genuine plan for victory, can alter the situation.  Glass Steagall must be immediately reinstated.  A popular mobilization on behalf of the only available solutions, at this late moment, is the urgent priority. Build the courage of the American people by giving them an orientation for victory.  Waiting for the crisis to hit is a recipe for total death and destruction.

Look at what Putin did in his Syria deployment.  This has created the conditions for a dramatic shift in Europe, led by Germany, which can alter the global situation rapidly.

Obama is a product of his brutal Indonesian step-father, who was a real killer, and turned Obama into an ego-driven maniac killer.  Just look at Obama’s lying behavior, trying to deny that the US bombed a Doctors Without Borders hospital in northern Afghanistan, killing a dozen medical personnel.  The bombing continued for half an hour after frantic calls to US and NATO commanders to stop.  The hospital was turned into a rubble pile, and Obama just dodged responsibility “until the investigation into the incident is completed.”

Rub this latest atrocity in Obama’s face.  Bring him down now and move immediately into an FDR-modeled recovery.  There is no other option, if the American people are to be saved from doom.

Let’s go! I’m ready to help!

At the special UN Security Council session on terrorism Sept. 30, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi called for the convening of a Geneva-3 conference on Syria with no preconditions and with participation from all interested parties. The convening of a third Geneva peace conference, at an appropriate time, “should be considered, and conditions conducive to the opening of such a conference should be actively created,” Wang Yi added, according to Xinhua Wednesday.

According to a Foreign Ministry statement, Wang Yi told the Security Council meeting that “the Syrian crisis has been going on for five years now.  The international community cannot look on without lifting a finger, but also ought not to interfere arbitrarily.  A political resolution for the Syrian crisis is the fundamental way out.”  Xinhua also reports that the Chinese Foreign Minister met with his Syrian counterpart, Walid al-Moallem, and told him that the world should respect Syrian sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity.

UN special envoy to Syria, Steffan de Mistura, announced prior to the UNSC meeting that working groups for Geneva-3 were going to start work in October, focusing on security and the fight against terrorism, political and constitutional reforms, the humanitarian crisis, and economic restoration.

Also on Sept. 30, Swiss Foreign Minister Didier Burkhalter told the UNGA that the Syrian government must be included in a broad dialogue to achieve a settlement to the Syria conflict.  He called for the rapid creation of an international contact group to lead the effort.  Today, European Parliament President Martin Schulz called for a coalition including Russia and Iran to resolve the Syria conflict.  “We will have to talk to Russia and to build some kind of common strategy.  We need an international coalition which must be formed on the international level.  That coalition will definitely need Iran and Russia.” 

Polite and subtle though she always is when talking about “those people” (as in her “Greeks have to learn to pay their taxes”), IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde can be a regular Donald Trump when it comes to pinning Wall Street’s financial crash on “others.”  She prefers to call them “emerging market economies.”

Interviewed on CNBC on the latest IMF world economic survey, Madame said that world growth was going to keep falling and that the Federal Reserve could trigger an emerging-markets crisis by raising interest rates.  “Could” is the proper finance-speak verb for referring to what is already happening.

But the debt crisis is happening primarily in the “trilateral” economies, the trans-Atlantic London-Wall Street financial system and Japan.

Leveraged debt held by the U.S.-based banks, defined as junk bonds plus loans to already over-indebted companies, has zoomed up to over $3 trillion, and to roughly $2.5 trillion in Europe. A great deal of that debt is linked to collapsing commodities, as it was to collapsing real estate prices in 2007-08.

During 2015 the “spread” of the interest rates on that debt (how much higher they are than the interest rate on AAA-grade debt) has jumped from about 4.5% to just under 7%; and when this high-yield debt is connected to “energy commodities” (e.g., oil and gas firms), the spread has risen from 7% to over 11%.  Both spreads are rising.

The constant complaints about “no liquidity in bond markets” focus on this debt.  When defaults reach a point that suddenly most of the holders of this debt (U.S. mutual funds hold $1 trillion, for example) want to try to sell it, to investment banks, other broker-dealers, and hedge funds, those sharpies will apparently be able to “cover” only 5-10% of it, total.  This has already led to short-term interbank credit being cut back in the United States and Europe, as during 2008.

The cycle is exactly as described at length in the IMF report Lagarde is talking about.  But the bond-debt problems of a Petrobras, which that report makes the rule, are the exception: This crisis is centered in Wall Street and London.  And as far as Lagarde saying it “could happen if the Fed raises interest rates,” that is her well-cultivated manner of not discussing the actual rope in the house of the hanged.

Documents obtained by WikiLeaks reveal that Great Britain and Saudi Arabia made a secret deal in 2013 to vote in support of each other in both countries’ bids to join the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), according to leaked diplomatic cables. There might have been a bribe, small by Saudi standards, of £100,000 to Her Majesty’s Foreign Office.

This is revealed as Saudi Arabia becomes chairman of that council in the midst of an international outcry over the Saudis’ death sentence for Shi’a activist Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, who at the age of 17 was convicted of joining an anti-government demonstration; he is sentenced to die by crucifixion. (Jeremy Corbyn made an issue of the al-Nimr case in his speech at the Labour Party conference Tuesday.) The leaked document reads:

“The [saudi] ministry might find it an opportunity to exchange support with the United Kingdom, where the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would support the candidacy of the United Kingdom to the membership of the council for the period 2014-2015 in exchange for the support of the United Kingdom to the candidacy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.”

And another document states that Saudi Arabia transferred £100,000 for “expenditures resulting from the campaign to nominate the Kingdom for membership of the human rights council for the period 2014-2016.” The Guardian comments that is was unclear where or how this money was spent.

The story was revealed in Murdoch’s The Australian daily.

Speaking at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute in Boston Sept. 28, Sen. Elizabeth Warren responded to a question about reinstating Glass-Steagall:

Warren named the 1930s to 1980s as the period that the Glass-Steagall wall was solid, and the 1980s-1990s as the period when holes were put in it until it was knocked down.

While claiming that Dodd-Frank has since “done a lot,” Warren said that restoring Glass-Steagall will make regulating big banks

With Pope Francis using his address to the United Nations to support the British empire’s Malthusian green movement – including the fraudulent claims of a coming catastrophic climate change – it is time to get into the real science of the matter: the future of mankind depends upon rejecting the green movement, and recognizing mankind’s true nature as the only willfully creative species on the planet, as distinct from the animal world. Tune in at 5PM eastern for a live discussion with the LPAC Basement Science Team.

At a press conference Tuesday in Beijing, sponsored by EIR and the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, initiator of the Schiller Institutes, and William Jones, the Washington Bureau Chief of Executive Intelligence Review, keynoted the presentation of the Chinese translation of EIR‘s ground-breaking report, “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge,” to the public.

There were around 70 people in attendance, including 15 representatives from the Chinese media, a few officials from government entities, and numerous think-tanks. In addition, nine leading Chinese scholars commented on the report and its significance for the Chinese “One Belt, One Road” project. The Chongyang Institute has also agreed to be a cosponsor of the report.

EIR’s New Silk Road report.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche outlined the work of the Schiller Institute in developing the Silk Road/World Land-Bridge project for over 20 years, outlining the efforts that went on for decades to realize the report. Its circulation represents a unique opportunity for changing the course of history, she said. “We must get away from geopolitics and move to a new paradigm for mankind,” Zepp-LaRouche said.

The comments on the report from the scholars were absolutely effusive. One scholar said that he had known the Schiller Institute for a long time and had learned much from its ideas.

Another scholar noted that the Schiller Institute had a different view of the economy from most economists in emphasizing the underlying importance of infrastructure. “Mrs. LaRouche has made great progress with her ideas,” he said. One scholar noted that China’s “One Belt, One Road” policy represents the beginning of a new world order, and that we must find out how it differs from the world order led by the United States. One scholar from the Chinese planning agency underlined the uniqueness of the report, praising the work behind it and urging Chinese experts to take heed of the methods of analysis used in the EIR report.

Again, another scholar who had just finished reading the Chinese report the evening before, said that it had obviously been written with a global perspective, noting that it is about forecasting the future, rather than simply explaining the past.

There was a lively question and answer period, and many people came up to get their copies signed by the authors. The Chongyang Institute has already purchased 1,000 copies of the report for distribution to its networks and to scholars in China.

Visit worldlandbridge.com

Phenomenal rally on either side of the intersection of 42nd and 3rd Monday morning as the UNGA got under way. The dynamic in the streets around the UN has shifted entirely. The material of the organizing environment has become the resonance between what’s being said inside the UN by Putin, Xi, and others, and what we’re doing outside. It’s as though the delegates have a chance to say out loud in public for the first time what they have been discussing or thinking behind closed doors up until now. This is because we were publicly discussing the great effort of transforming history now.
 

LPAC table as seen from Obama’s motorcade.

The rally started early in the day—so early that everyone walking on 42nd was walking east, towards the UNGA. The result was that Obama’s motorcade drove past our rally with a big sign featuring Obama’s face in a mushroom cloud (“STOP WW3, IMPEACH OBAMA!”) facing directly at his window. His profile could be seen through the window of the presidential SUV. One wonders whether his silhouette was shaking from the effect of the potholes dotting 42nd street, or out of pure psychotic rage. As the day went on, those who had passed us in the morning came back through. 2000 leaflets were distributed, including 1000 of the LPAC leaflet, “Obama Seeks War,” with LaRouche’s assessment of Obama’s killer tendencies.

 
This deployment played the role of a chorus—everyone in the area was aware of the motorcades going by—beginning with Obama. And our “Obama, Help World Peace: RESIGN!” banner, which, with 12 foot poles, was visible from nearly a block away. We are not just presenting a message, we are acting on a process which was shifting in the present moment, radically. So when we said, Putin is right, Obama’s an asshole, many of the diplomats and others were emotionally responsive and open; they smiled, laughed, nodded, and the bravest came up to speak with us honestly. Similar responses came to the question posed to many: “Do you think today will be the day Obama resigns?” 
 

This was typified by a pair of African diplomats who decried the fact that the US had pressured their nation to arrest the visiting Sudanese head of state while he was in their nation. “He’s a sitting head of government!” they exclaimed. Others responded to the new BRICS renaissance in the same way, like the mayor of a major African capital city, who became inspired by the idea that the US could actually join the BRICS, through LaRouche’s intervention. The press secretary for the president of a small but significant African nation was ecstatic to meet us and deliver the Global Warming report to his boss. Perhaps these people were moved most by our banner, “Welcome Presidents Putin and Xi [‘Welcome’ in English, Russian, and Chinese]; Real Americans Want a Win-Win Paradigm!”
 
Even more fun than the encounter with Obama’s silhouette was the moment that David Cameron walked by our table. He was recognized by a leading young organizer, who immediately asked him to his face, “Hey Cameron, where’s your pig?” He laughed a hollow British laugh while our other organizer held the Obama mustache up to Cameron’s eye level.
 
New avenues of action have opened up suddenly. With a little experimentation we found that any African diplomat could be approached with the words, “Obama’s a killer. He must be stopped. And global warming is a racist British fraud to kill Africans. Every African has to understand this!” In the recent days we have distributed a package including the new EIR global warming report to many if not most of the African UN missions. Some of us told every person we saw with a blue ID card, “If you’re with a delegation, or work at the UN, this is for you” and passed them Helga’s UN appeal, with other literature.
 
If we extend our tendrils out into the entire territory, we find that the effect of our deployments over time can be materialized through the relationship between what’s happening in the UNGA and what we’re doing. People who work in the local shops were signing up, having seen us repeatedly. At least 10 different former LaRouche supporters came by the table, some of whom signed up and helped. Our activists are recruiting many people of note—from a high level Russian financial figure to a leading translator for the Chinese delegation.
 
In a later event at NYU, Bill Roberts and Asuka Saito attended the speech given by President of Ireland Michael Higgins, who spoke about the need a for a new way of thinking, a new paradigm, outside of the old Chicago School of Economics paradigm which has dominated. Bill went to the President after the speech: “I totally agree, we need a new paradigm. It’s what Putin spoke about today.” Bill pointed to the World Land-bridge Report. Higgins read the title of the report. He said, “Oh yes, I’ve been talking about this with Xi Jinping. Please give the report to my assistant and we will read it.” Bill followed, “And this one is more controversial” and passed them the Global Warming Fraud report. Higgins responded favorably to reading it.
 
A Russian reporter from Russian state media interviewed Diane about the rally. She dug into the question of Obama’s killer mentality, emphasizing Obama’s relationship to his stepfather. The reporter’s response: “Creepy.” Several interviews took place during the day by freelance journalists and otherwise, and footage was taken by local WPIX 11, which they assured would be used later in the day, and by RTR Vesti, a Russian TV station.

This is awesome! I’ll donate $25.

President Vladimir Putin lived up to the expectations about his UN General Assembly speech, drawing out in meticulous detail (without naming names) the international criminal nature of Obama, and Bush and Cheney before him, in smashing the entire structure of peace through international law constructed by FDR in the original scheme for the United Nations. He then proposed an international coalition of forces, under the UN Charter, to crush ISIS.

The following is the predelivery translation of Putin’s speech; both the text and video are available here.

Two quotes worth singling out: After describing the Hell created in North Africa, Putin says: “I cannot help asking those who have caused this situation: Do you realize now what you have done?” And, after warning that the terrorists from around the world fighting with ISIS will then return to their homes, including Europe and Russia, he says: “No one wants this to happen, does he?”

H.E. Mr. Vladimir V. PUTIN, President of the Russian Federation, at the 70th session of the UN General Assembly, September 28, 2015:

Your Excellency Mr. President,
Your Excellency Mr. Secretary-General,
Distinguished Heads of State and Government,
Ladies and Gentlemen.

The seventieth anniversary of the United Nations is a good occasion to both take stock of history and talk about our common future. In 1945, the countries that defeated Nazism joined their efforts to lay solid foundations for the post-war world order. Let me remind you that the key decisions on the principles guiding the cooperation among States as well as on the establishment of the United Nations were made in our country — in Crimea, in Yalta — at the meeting of the anti-Hitler coalition leaders.

The Yalta system was actually born in travail. It was born at the cost of tens of millions of lives and two world wars that swept the planet in the 20th century. Let us be fair—it helped the humanity through turbulent, at times dramatic, events of the last seven decades. It saved the world from large-scale upheavals.

The United Nations is unique in its legitimacy, representation and universality. It is true that lately the UN has been widely criticized for supposedly not being efficient enough and for the fact that the decision-making on fundamental issues stalls due to insurmountable differences—first of all among the members of the Security Council.

However, I would like to point out that there have always been differences in the UN throughout all these 70 years. The veto right has always been exercised by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, the Soviet Union and Russia alike. It is absolutely natural for such a diverse and representative Organization. When the UN was established, its founders did not in the least think that there would always be unanimity. As a matter of fact, the mission of the Organization it to seek and reach compromises. Its strength comes from taking different views and opinions into consideration.

Decisions debated within the UN can either be taken as resolutions or not. As diplomats say they either “pass or don’t pass.” Whatever actions a State takes bypassing this procedure are illegitimate, run counter to the UN Charter and defy international law.

We all know that after the end of the Cold War, a single center of domination emerged in the world. And then those who found themselves at the top of that pyramid were tempted to think that if we are so strong and exceptional then we know better than anyone what to do and why at all should we reckon with the UN, which instead of automatically authorizing and legitimizing necessary decisions often creates obstacles or, in other words, “stands in the way.”

It has now become commonplace to say that in its original form the Organization has become obsolete and completed its historical mission. Of course, the world is changing and the UN must be consistent with this natural transformation. Russia is ready to work together with all partners on the basis of broad consensus, but we consider the attempts to undermine the authority and legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They can lead to a collapse of the entire architecture of international relations. Then, indeed, we would be left with no other rules than the rule of force.

We would get a world dominated by selfishness rather than collective work. A world increasingly characterized by dictate rather than equality, genuine democracy and freedom. A world where truly independent states would be replaced by an ever growing number of de facto protectorates and externally controlled territories.

What is the state sovereignty after all? It is basically about freedom and the right to choose freely one’s own future for every person, nation or state.

In the same vein goes the question on the so called legitimacy of state authority. One should not play with or manipulate words. Every term in international law and international affairs should be clear, transparent, and have uniformly understood criteria. We are all different. And we should respect that. No one has to conform to a single development model that someone has once and for all recognized as the only right one.

We should all remember what our past has taught us. We also remember certain episodes from the history of the Soviet Union. “Social experiments” for export, attempts to push for changes within other countries based on ideological preferences, often led to tragic consequences and to degradation rather than progress.

It seems, however, that far from learning from others’ mistakes, everyone just keeps repeating them. And so the export of revolutions, this time of so-called “democratic” ones, continues. Suffice it to look at the situation in the Middle East and North Africa. Certainly, political and social problems in this region have been piling up for a long time. And people there wished for changes.

But how did it actually turn out? Rather than bringing about reforms, an aggressive foreign interference has resulted in a flagrant destruction of national institutions and the lifestyle itself. Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress we got violence, poverty and a social disaster. And nobody cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life.

I cannot help asking those who have caused this situation: do you realize now what you have done? But I am afraid no one is going to answer that. Indeed, policies based on self-conceit, and belief in one’s exceptionality and impunity have never been abandoned.

It is now obvious that the power vacuum created in some countries of the Middle East and North Africa led to emergence of anarchy areas. Those immediately started to be filled with extremists and terrorists.

Tens of thousands of militants are fighting under the banners of the so-called “Islamic State.” Its ranks include former Iraqi servicemen who were thrown out into the street after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Many recruits also come from Libya, a country whose statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of the UN Security Council Resolution 1973 . And now the ranks of radicals are being joined by the members of the so called “moderate” Syrian opposition supported by the Western countries who, first, are armed and trained, and then they defect to the Islamic State.

Besides, the Islamic State itself did not just come from nowhere. It was also initially forged as a tool against undesirable secular regimes. Having established a foothold in Iraq and Syria, the Islamic State has begun to actively expand to other regions. It is seeking dominance in the Islamic world. And its plans go further than that.

The situation is more than dangerous. In these circumstances it is hypocritical and irresponsible to make loud declarations about the threat of international terrorism while turning a blind eye to the channels of financing and supporting of terrorists, including the proceeds of drug trafficking and illicit trade in oil and arms. It would be equally irresponsible to try to manipulate extremist groups and place them at one’s service in order to achieve one’s own political goals in the hope of “dealing with them” or, in other words, liquidating them later.

To those who do so I would like to say: dear Sirs, no doubt, you are dealing with rough and cruel people, but they are in no way primitive. They are just as clever as you are and you never know who is manipulating whom. The recent data on arms transfer to this most “moderate” opposition is the best proof of it. We believe that any attempts to play games with terrorists, let alone to arm them, are not just short-sighted, but “fire hazardous.” This may result in the global terrorist threat increasing dramatically and engulfing new regions. Especially given that Islamic State camps train militants from many countries, including the European countries.

Unfortunately, Russia is not an exception. We cannot allow these criminals who have already felt the smell of blood, to return back home and continue their evil doings. No one wants this to happen, does he?

Russia has always been firm and consistent in opposing terrorism in all its forms. Today, we provide military and technical assistance both to Iraq and Syria that are fighting terrorist groups. We think it is an enormous mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian government and its Armed Forces, who are valiantly fighting terrorism face-to-face. We should finally acknowledge that no one but President Assad’s Armed Forces and Kurd militia are truly fighting the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Syria.

Dear Colleagues, I must note that such an honest and direct approach of Russia has been recently used as a pretext to accuse it of growing ambitions (as if those who say it have no ambitions at all). However, it is not the matter of Russia’s ambitions but the recognition of the fact that we can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world.

In essence, we suggest that we should be guided by common values and common interests rather than ambitions. We must join efforts to address the problems that all of us are facing on the basis of international law, and create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism. Similar to the anti-Hitler coalition, it could unite a broad range of forces that are willing to resolutely resist those who just like the Nazis sow evil and hatred of humankind.

And, naturally, the Muslim countries are to play a key role in the coalition, even more so because the Islamic State does not only pose a direct threat to them but also desecrates one of the greatest world religions by its bloody crimes. The ideologists of militants make a mockery of Islam and pervert its true humanistic values.

I would like to address Muslim spiritual leaders- your authority and your guidance are of great importance right now. It is essential to prevent people recruited by militants from making hasty decisions. And those who have already been deceived and who, due to various circumstances, found themselves among terrorists need help in finding a path to normal life, laying down arms and putting an end to fratricide.

As the current President of the Security Council, Russia will shortly convene a ministerial meeting to carry out a comprehensive analysis of threats in the Middle East. First of all, we propose discussing whether it is possible to agree on a resolution aimed at coordinating the actions of all the forces that confront the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations. Once again, this coordination should be based on the principles of the UN Charter.

We hope that the international community will be able to develop a comprehensive strategy of political stabilization as well as social and economic recovery of the Middle East. Then there would be no need for new refugee camps. Today, the flow of people who were forced to leave their homeland has literally engulfed Europe. There are hundreds of thousands of them now and there might be millions before long. In fact, it is a new great and tragic migration of peoples. And it is a harsh lesson for the Europeans.

I would like to stress: refugees, undoubtedly, need our compassion and support. However, the only way to solve this problem at a fundamental level is to restore the statehood where it has been destroyed, to strengthen the government institutions where they still exist or are being reestablished, to provide comprehensive assistance—military, economic and material—to countries in a difficult situation, and certainly to those people who will not abandon their homes despite all the ordeals.

Naturally, any assistance to sovereign states can and must be offered rather than imposed, but exclusively and solely in accordance with the UN Charter. In other words, everything in this field that is being done or will be done pursuant to the norms of international law must be supported by our universal Organization. Everything that contravenes the UN Charter must be rejected.

Above all, I believe it is of the utmost importance to help restore government institutions in Libya, support the new government of Iraq, and provide comprehensive assistance to the legitimate government in Syria.

Colleagues, ensuring peace and regional and global stability remains the key objective of the international community, with the UN at its helm. We believe this means creating a space of equal and indivisible security which is not for the select few, but for everyone. Yes, it is a challenging, difficult, time-consuming task, but there is simply no other alternative.

However, the bloc thinking of the days of the Cold War and the desire to explore new geopolitical areas is still present among some of our colleagues.

First, they continue their policy of expanding NATO and its military infrastructure. Then, they offered the post-Soviet countries a false choice—either be with the West, or with the East.

Sooner or later this logic of confrontation was bound to spark off a grave geopolitical crisis. This is exactly what happened in Ukraine where the discontent of the population with the current authorities was used, and a military coup was orchestrated from outside that triggered a civil war as a result.

We are confident that only through full and faithful implementation of the Minsk agreements of Feb. 12, 2015 can we put an end to the bloodshed and find a way out of the deadlock.

Ukraine’s territorial integrity can not be assured by threats and force of arms. What is needed is a genuine consideration for the interests and rights of the people in the Donbass region, and respect for their choice. There is a need to coordinate with them, as provided for in the Minsk agreements.

These steps will guarantee that Ukraine will develop as a civilized state, as an essential link in building a common space of security and economic cooperation both in Europe and in Eurasia.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I have mentioned a common space of economic cooperation on purpose. Not long ago it seemed that in the economic sphere, with its objective market laws, we would learn to live without dividing lines. We would build on transparent and jointly formulated rules, including the WTO principles stipulating the freedom of trade and investment and open competition.

Nevertheless, today unilateral sanctions circumventing the UN Charter have become almost commonplace. In addition to pursuing political objectives, these sanctions serve as a means of eliminating competitors.

I would like to point out another sign of a growing “economic selfishness.” Some countries have chosen to create closed and “exclusive” economic associations, with their establishment being negotiated behind the scenes, in secret from those countries’ own citizens, the general public and business community. Other states, whose interests may be affected, are not informed of anything either.

It seems that we are about to be faced with an accomplished fact that the rules of the game have been changed in favor of a narrow group of the privileged, with the WTO having no say. This could unbalance the trade system completely and disintegrate the global economic space.

These issues affect the interests of all states and influence the future of the world economy as a whole. That is why we propose discussing them within the UN, WTO and G20.

Contrary to the policy of “exclusiveness,” Russia proposes harmonizing regional economic projects. I refer to the so called “integration of integrations” based on universal and transparent rules of international trade. As an example, I would like to cite our plans to interconnect the Eurasian Economic Union and China’s initiative of the Silk Road Economic Belt. We still believe that harmonizing the integration processes within the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union is highly promising.

Ladies and Gentlemen, The issues that affect the future of all people include the challenge of global climate change. It is in our interests to make the UN Climate Change Conference to be held in December in Paris a success. As part of our national contribution, we plan to reduce by 2030 the greenhouse gas emissions to 70-75 per cent of the 1990 level.

I suggest, however, we should take a wider view on this issue. Yes, we might defuse the problem for a while by setting quotas on harmful emissions or by taking other measures that are nothing but tactical. But we will not solve it that way. We need a completely different approach. We have to focus on introducing fundamentally new technologies inspired by nature which would not damage the environment but would be in harmony with it. Also, they would restore the balance between the biosphere and technosphere upset by human activities.

It is indeed a challenge of planetary scope. But I am confident that humankind has an intellectual potential to address it. We need to join our efforts. I refer, first of all, to the States that have a solid research basis and that have made significant advances in fundamental science. We propose convening a special forum under the UN auspices for a comprehensive consideration of the issues related to the depletion of natural resources, destruction of habitat and climate change. Russia would be ready to co-sponsor such a forum.

Ladies and Gentlemen, It was in London on January 10, 1946 that the UN General Assembly gathered for its first session. Zuleta Angel, a Colombian diplomat and the Chairman of the Preparatory Commission, opened the session by giving, I believe, a concise definition of the basic principles that the UN should follow in its activities, which are free will, defiance of scheming and trickery, and spirit of cooperation.

Today, his words sound as a guidance for all of us. Russia believes in the huge potential of the United Nations which should help us avoid a new global confrontation and engage in strategic cooperation. Together with other countries, we will consistently work towards strengthening the central coordinating role of the UN. I am confident that by working together we will make the world a peaceful and safe place, as well as provide conditions for the development of all States and nations. Thank you.