Russian President Vladimir Putin says the United States promotes terrorism by financing terrorists and creating division instead of strengthening unity among world nations. ● The Russian leader made the comments on Friday during a speech at the plenary session of the 11th meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club in Russia’s Black Sea resort of Sochi. “In Syria, just like in old times, the US and its allies began to provide militants with direct funding and weapons to incite filling of their ranks by mercenaries from different countries,” Putin said, adding that this is how the ISIL Takfiri terrorist group has turned into a “de facto army.” “They [ISIL terrorists] are active in a highly effective manner, from the military perspective, they are real professionals,” he stated. Putin also said another reason why the ISIL has gained so much power is because the so-called anti-ISIL coalition, led by the US, is creating division among regional powers. The Russian president went on to say that such “unilateral dictatorship” does not help anti-terror efforts; instead it causes “growing chaos” in stable states. Those who support terrorism should reflect on their actions, said Putin, stressing that the same terrorists they are backing will “someday come and sow death to their countries.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin has stressed that the nuclear negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 should lead to the recognition of the Islamic Republic’s right to the enrichment of uranium for peaceful purposes on Iranian soil. ● President Putin made the remark in a telephone conversation with Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani on Monday. During the conversation, both leaders discussed the developments regarding the recent nuclear talks between Iran and the P5+1 states – Russia, China, Britain, France, the US and Germany. In their last round of talks before a November 24 deadline, Iran and the six countries wrapped up a week of closed-door nuclear negotiations in Vienna, Austria, on Monday.

A Missouri grand jury has decided not to indict Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown, a prosecutor announced late Monday. “The physical and scientific evidence examined by the grand jury, combined with the witness statements, supported and substantiated by that physical evidence, tells the accurate and tragic story of what happened,” St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch told reporters. After an “exhaustive review,” the jurors deliberated for two days, he said. The grand jurors are “the only ones who have heard all the evidence,” McCulloch said. Wilson, a white police officer, shot and killed Brown, a black teenager, on August 9. Hundreds of people gathered outside the Ferguson police station reacted with anger and dismay as word spread that there would be no indictment.

Grand Jury Evidence: State of Missouri vs. Darren Wilson
PressTV: Missouri grand jury's decision ‘a slap in the face to Americans’
Tampa Bay Times: Reaction to no indictment for Ferguson cop in Michael Brown shooting
Reading Eagle: Anger erupts in Ferguson after grand jury votes not to indict police officer
Reuters: Violence flares after grand jury decides against charges in Ferguson shooting
The Guardian: What next for Darren Wilson, the police officer who killed Michael Brown?
La Jornada: Estallan disturbios por fallo en Ferguson; protestas en Nueva York

Andre Damon ■ No indictment for Ferguson cop who killed Michael Brown || St. Louis County prosecuting attorney Robert P. McCulloch’s statement Monday night that no charges will be filed against Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson for the killing of Michael Brown is a travesty of justice. The entire process through which the grand jury arrived at its decision is a legal fraud. The outcome is not the result of fair judicial proceedings, but political calculations. The grand jury returned the outcome the state was seeking: no charges for the police murder of an unarmed African American youth. Despite the fact that the decision was not announced until after 9:00pm eastern time, there were protests Monday night throughout the United States.

Eric Zuesse ■ In a U.N. vote, on November 21st, only three countries — the United States, Ukraine, and Canada — voted against a resolution to condemn racist facsism, or “nazism,” and to condemn denial of Germany’s World War II Holocaust against primarily Jews. ● This measure passed the General Assembly, on a vote of 115 in favor, 3 against, and 55 abstentions (the abstentions were in order not to offend U.S. President Obama, who was opposed to the resolution). The measure had been presented to their General Assembly after a period of more than a decade of rising “neo-Nazi” (i.e., racist-fascist) movements in Europe, including especially in Ukraine, where two Ukrainian nazi parties were installed by the U.S. into high posts in Ukraine’s new government, immediately after the democratically elected Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych was overthrown in a violent coup in Kiev during February of this year. [...] Ukraine voted no on this resolution because this new Ukrainian Government is the only nazi regime in the world.[...] Germany abstained from voting on this resolution because their leader, Chancellor Angela Merkel, does not want to offend the U.S. President by voting for a resolution that the U.S. Government strongly opposes; and also because, as today’s leader of the land where nazism started — in the first nazi political party, the Nazi Party of Germany — she does not want Germany to vote against a resolution that condemns Nazism.

You can read the full interview here. But the following quote is, I believe, crucial:

"Today there is fighting in eastern Ukraine. The Ukrainian central authorities have sent the armed forces there and they even use ballistic missiles. Does anybody speak about it? Not a single word. And what does it mean? What does it tell us? This points to the fact, that you want the Ukrainian central authorities to annihilate everyone there, all of their political foes and opponents. Is that what you want? We certainly don't. And we won't let it happen."

The Russian original sentence is: "Вы этого хотите? Мы не хотим. И не позволим." I personally would translate this sentence "You want that? We don't. And we will not allow this." You could also translate the last part as "we will not permit this". This is not an expression of a preference or a much more vague "we won't condone" or "we oppose". This is a very categorical statement which warns that Russia will proactively prevent such an outcome. As I said it many times here already: Russia will not let the Nazis overrun Novorussia.

I have been aware of the numerous reports by Graham Phillips from Novorussia and I knew that he had been kidnapped by Ukrainian goons not once, but twice. What always touched me in his reports was the visible fondness of the Novorussians for Graham, and in this video below you will see them calling him "Gremchik". Not even Graham (terrible!) British accent could be an obstacle for the respect and affection the Novorussians showed him (and in this video, they are clearly upset and distressed at the fact that he got hurt). I know that Graham did not truly "take a bullet for Russia", but that he probably took it for the cause of honest journalism and I would say for the Truth. But I am also quite sure that for the Novorussians it was "our Gremchik" who took a bullet for "us". In my opinion President Putin should bestow the medal "for bravery" to Graham just as he did to that other fantastic reporter, Anastasia Popopva, for her truly heroic reporting from Syria. Check out the video (left) of how Phillips was wounded. He took a shrapnel wound to his lower back and his life is not in danger. I wish him a prompt recovery and I hope that his work will finally get the recognition it deserves. And even if his courage and integrity are never recognized in the West, his example proves one more time that there is this "other West" which is not hostile to Russia at all and which is principled and honorable. - The Saker