The FT has published an article by someone I have never heard of before, Anatol Lieven, an academic at the Department of War Studies, King’s College London, whose specialism is in Islamic terror and the Caspian region.
He was also an employee of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace between 2000 and 2005, and also a journalist for the FT.
Lieven writes in his article
Yet while it is true that he defeated separatist rebellion in Chechnya, it is more and more obvious that he [Putin] will not be able to stop major terrorism. This may diminish his prestige vis a vis his colleague and potential rival Mr Medvedev. In this, however, can take some small solace, given Mr Medvedev doesn’t have any answers either.
[source : Russia has no good terror options, FT, 25/01/2011]
So Lieven writes that he believes Putin cannot stop this terror and that Putin's prestige may diminish because of this.
Why has the FT published this article? There is no law that states thou shalt publish articles written by Anatol Lieven, is there? No. But Bilderberger Martin Wolf is an editor of the FT.
By publishing this article the FT, ie the Rothschild City of London, is telling Putin that he cannot beat them. That he Putin will not be able to stop major terrorism, because the Rothschilds are the current masters of terrorism, through their Red Terror and Jewish Terror in Palestine and links to the NATO/MI5/MI6/CIA/Mossad brotherhood of terror.
But Lieven's suggestion is what I believe could be occuring. The number of terror attacks in Russia is big in comparison to most countries, except for Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan etc, ie nations where the USA/NATO axis of evil is obviously hard at work.
And you should focus on the word "obviously".
There are at least two ways of looking at this.
The first is that Putin is one of "them" and is trying to introduce the global police state in Russia through state sponsored terror, ie he allows terror attacks in Russia and then uses them to introduce police state laws. With this latest attack at an airport, if TSA-style procedures, with deathray zapper machines and groping, are subsequently implemented then I will hold my hands up and agree that Putin is one of "them". For it has been reported that some warnings were received beforehand (though whether Putin received a copy and if so could have done something is up for debate), and I recognise that Putin's rise to power is suspicious.
The second is that Russia, ie Putin, is resisting the expansion and encroachment of the drug dealers' muscleman NATO into its sphere of influence. Russia appears to be independent in some ways, but not others. For example, it was prepared to risk nuclear war over South Ossetia in 2008, but appears to accept advice in some areas from British agents. But if Putin is resisting, then what should we do?
Kissinger went to see Putin in 2007, shortly after the photogenic radioactive death of Litvineko. Why? What was really said between Putin and the undead Kissinger? And what has occured subsequently?
I am all for independent sovereign nation states to declare and exercise that independence and sovereignty from a world government. 100%.
If Russia (and Iran) opposes a massive increase in opium smuggling from Afghanistan following the NATO invasion after 9/11 then it should be supported.
If Russia wants to jail a Rothschild agent/spy then it should be supported.
But if Russia now implements TSA-style deathray zapper machines and employs perverts to grope passengers, then...