by proplog2 43 Replies latest jw friends
Today Putin accused the United States of making the world a more dangerous place by pursuing policies aimed at making it "one single master".
Attacking the concept of a "unipolar" world in which the United States was the sole superpower, he said: "What is a unipolar world? No matter how we beautify this term it means one single centre of power, one single centre of force and one single master."
The USA has a kingdom (hegemony) over the kings of the earth. Revelation 17:18
Few have read this post. But, here is Putin's complete speech yesterday.
Kremlin.ru
February 10, 2007
Speech at the Munich Conference on Security Policy
Munich
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Thank you very much dear Madam
Federal Chancellor, Mr Teltschik, ladies and gentlemen!
I am truly grateful to be invited to such a
representative conference that has assembled
politicians, military officials, entrepreneurs
and experts from more than 40 nations.
This conference’s structure allows me to avoid
excessive politeness and the need to speak in
roundabout, pleasant but empty diplomatic terms.
This conference’s format will allow me to say
what I really think about international security
problems. And if my comments seem unduly
polemical, pointed or inexact to our colleagues,
then I would ask you not to get angry with me.
After all, this is only a conference. And I hope
that after the first two or three minutes of my
speech Mr Teltschik will not turn on the red light over there.
Therefore. It is well known that international
security comprises much more than issues relating
to military and political stability. It involves
the stability of the global economy, overcoming
poverty, economic security and developing a dialogue between civilisations.
This universal, indivisible character of security
is expressed as the basic principle that
“security for one is security for all”. As
Franklin D. Roosevelt said during the first few
days that the Second World War was breaking out:
“When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace
of all countries everywhere is in danger.”
These words remain topical today. Incidentally,
the theme of our conference global crises,
global responsibility exemplifies this.
Only two decades ago the world was ideologically
and economically divided and it was the huge
strategic potential of two superpowers that ensured global security.
This global stand-off pushed the sharpest
economic and social problems to the margins of
the international community’s and the world’s
agenda. And, just like any war, the Cold War left
us with live ammunition, figuratively speaking. I
am referring to ideological stereotypes, double
standards and other typical aspects of Cold War bloc thinking.
The unipolar world that had been proposed after
the Cold War did not take place either.
The history of humanity certainly has gone
through unipolar periods and seen aspirations to
world supremacy. And what hasn’t happened in world history?
However, what is a unipolar world? However one
might embellish this term, at the end of the day
it refers to one type of situation, namely one
centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.
It is world in which there is one master, one
sovereign. And at the end of the day this is
pernicious not only for all those within this
system, but also for the sovereign itself because
it destroys itself from within.And this certainly has nothing in common with
democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the
power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.
Incidentally, Russia we are constantly being
taught about democracy. But for some reason those
who teach us do not want to learn themselves.
I consider that the unipolar model is not only
unacceptable but also impossible in today’s
world. And this is not only because if there was
individual leadership in today’s and precisely
in today’s world, then the military, political
and economic resources would not suffice. What is
even more important is that the model itself is
flawed because at its basis there is and can be
no moral foundations for modern civilisation.
Along with this, what is happening in today’s
world and we just started to discuss this is
a tentative to introduce precisely this concept
into international affairs, the concept of a unipolar world.
And with which results?
Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions
have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they
have caused new human tragedies and created new
centres of tension. Judge for yourselves: wars as
well as local and regional conflicts have not
diminished. Mr Teltschik mentioned this very
gently. And no less people perish in these
conflicts even more are dying than before.
Significantly more, significantly more!
Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained
hyper use of force military force in
international relations, force that is plunging
the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.
As a result we do not have sufficient strength to
find a comprehensive solution to any one of these
conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible.
We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for
the basic principles of international law. And
independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact,
coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal
system. One state and, of course, first and
foremost the United States, has overstepped its
national borders in every way. This is visible in
the economic, political, cultural and educational
policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who
likes this? Who is happy about this?
In international relations we increasingly see
the desire to resolve a given question according
to so-called issues of political expediency,
based on the current political climate.
And of course this is extremely dangerous. It
results in the fact that no one feels safe. I
want to emphasise this no one feels safe!
Because no one can feel that international law is
like a stone wall that will protect them. Of
course such a policy stimulates an arms race.
The force’s dominance inevitably encourages a
number of countries to acquire weapons of mass
destruction. Moreover, significantly new threats
though they were also well-known before have
appeared, and today threats such as terrorism
have taken on a global character.
I am convinced that we have reached that decisive
moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security.
And we must proceed by searching for a reasonable
balance between the interests of all participants
in the international dialogue. Especially since
the international landscape is so varied and
changes so quickly changes in light of the
dynamic development in a whole number of countries and regions.
Madam Federal Chancellor already mentioned this.
The combined GDP measured in purchasing power
parity of countries such as India and China is
already greater than that of the United States.
And a similar calculation with the GDP of the
BRIC countries Brazil, Russia, India and China
surpasses the cumulative GDP of the EU. And
according to experts this gap will only increase in the future.
There is no reason to doubt that the economic
potential of the new centres of global economic
growth will inevitably be converted into
political influence and will strengthen multipolarity.
In connection with this the role of multilateral
diplomacy is significantly increasing. The need
for principles such as openness, transparency and
predictability in politics is uncontested and the
use of force should be a really exceptional
measure, comparable to using the death penalty in
the judicial systems of certain states.However, today we are witnessing the opposite
tendency, namely a situation in which countries
that forbid the death penalty even for murderers
and other, dangerous criminals are airily
participating in military operations that are
difficult to consider legitimate. And as a matter
of fact, these conflicts are killing people
hundreds and thousands of civilians!But at the same time the question arises of
whether we should be indifferent and aloof to
various internal conflicts inside countries, to
authoritarian regimes, to tyrants, and to the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? As
a matter of fact, this was also at the centre of
the question that our dear colleague Mr Lieberman
asked the Federal Chancellor. If I correctly
understood your question (addressing Mr
Lieberman), then of course it is a serious one!
Can we be indifferent observers in view of what
is happening? I will try to answer your question as well: of course not.
But do we have the means to counter these
threats? Certainly we do. It is sufficient to
look at recent history. Did not our country have
a peaceful transition to democracy? Indeed, we
witnessed a peaceful transformation of the Soviet
regime a peaceful transformation! And what a
regime! With what a number of weapons, including
nuclear weapons! Why should we start bombing and
shooting now at every available opportunity? Is
it the case when without the threat of mutual
destruction we do not have enough political
culture, respect for democratic values and for the law?
I am convinced that the only mechanism that can
make decisions about using military force as a
last resort is the Charter of the United Nations.
And in connection with this, either I did not
understand what our colleague, the Italian
Defence Minister, just said or what he said was
inexact. In any case, I understood that the use
of force can only be legitimate when the decision
is taken by NATO, the EU, or the UN. If he really
does think so, then we have different points of
view. Or I didn’t hear correctly. The use of
force can only be considered legitimate if the
decision is sanctioned by the UN. And we do not
need to substitute NATO or the EU for the UN.
When the UN will truly unite the forces of the
international community and can really react to
events in various countries, when we will leave
behind this disdain for international law, then
the situation will be able to change. Otherwise
the situation will simply result in a dead end,
and the number of serious mistakes will be
multiplied. Along with this, it is necessary to
make sure that international law have a universal
character both in the conception and application of its norms.
And one must not forget that democratic political
actions necessarily go along with discussion and
a laborious decision-making process.
Dear ladies and gentlemen!
The potential danger of the destabilisation of
international relations is connected with obvious
stagnation in the disarmament issue.
Russia supports the renewal of dialogue on this important question.
It is important to conserve the international
legal framework relating to weapons destruction
and therefore ensure continuity in the process of reducing nuclear weapons.
Together with the United States of America we
agreed to reduce our nuclear strategic missile
capabilities to up to 1700-2000 nuclear warheads
by 31 December 2012. Russia intends to strictly
fulfil the obligations it has taken on. We hope
that our partners will also act in a transparent
way and will refrain from laying aside a couple
of hundred superfluous nuclear warheads for a
rainy day. And if today the new American Defence
Minister declares that the United States will not
hide these superfluous weapons in warehouse or,
as one might say, under a pillow or under the
blanket, then I suggest that we all rise and
greet this declaration standing. It would be a very important declaration.
Russia strictly adheres to and intends to further
adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons as well as the multilateral
supervision regime for missile technologies. The
principles incorporated in these documents are universal ones.
In connection with this I would like to recall
that in the 1980s the USSR and the United States
signed an agreement on destroying a whole range
of small- and medium-range missiles but these
documents do not have a universal character.
Today many other countries have these missiles,
including the Democratic People’s Republic of
Korea, the Republic of Korea, India, Iran,
Pakistan and Israel. Many countries are working
on these systems and plan to incorporate them as
part of their weapons arsenals. And only the
United States and Russia bear the responsibility
to not create such weapons systems.
It is obvious that in these conditions we must
think about ensuring our own security.
At the same time, it is impossible to sanction
the appearance of new, destabilising high-tech
weapons. Needless to say it refers to measures to
prevent a new area of confrontation, especially
in outer space. Star wars is no longer a fantasy
it is a reality. In the middle of the 1980s our
American partners were already able to intercept their own satellite.
In Russia’s opinion, the militarisation of outer
space could have unpredictable consequences for
the international community, and provoke nothing
less than the beginning of a nuclear era. And we
have come forward more than once with initiatives
designed to prevent the use of weapons in outer space.
Today I would like to tell you that we have
prepared a project for an agreement on the
prevention of deploying weapons in outer space.
And in the near future it will be sent to our
partners as an official proposal. Let’s work on this together.
Plans to expand certain elements of the
anti-missile defence system to Europe cannot help
but disturb us. Who needs the next step of what
would be, in this case, an inevitable arms race?
I deeply doubt that Europeans themselves do.
Missile weapons with a range of about five to
eight thousand kilometres that really pose a
threat to Europe do not exist in any of the
so-called problem countries. And in the near
future and prospects, this will not happen and is
not even foreseeable. And any hypothetical launch
of, for example, a North Korean rocket to
American territory through western Europe
obviously contradicts the laws of ballistics. As
we say in Russia, it would be like using the right hand to reach the left ear.
And here in Germany I cannot help but mention the
pitiable condition of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.
The Adapted Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces
in Europe was signed in 1999. It took into
account a new geopolitical reality, namely the
elimination of the Warsaw bloc. Seven years have
passed and only four states have ratified this
document, including the Russian Federation.
NATO countries openly declared that they will not
ratify this treaty, including the provisions on
flank restrictions (on deploying a certain number
of armed forces in the flank zones), until Russia
removed its military bases from Georgia and
Moldova. Our army is leaving Georgia, even
according to an accelerated schedule. We resolved
the problems we had with our Georgian colleagues,
as everybody knows. There are still 1,500
servicemen in Moldova that are carrying out
peacekeeping operations and protecting warehouses
with ammunition left over from Soviet times. We
constantly discuss this issue with Mr Solana and
he knows our position. We are ready to further work in this direction.
But what is happening at the same time?
Simultaneously the so-called flexible frontline
American bases with up to five thousand men in
each. It turns out that NATO has put its
frontline forces on our borders, and we continue
to strictly fulfil the treaty obligations and do
not react to these actions at all.
I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does
not have any relation with the modernisation of
the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in
Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious
provocation that reduces the level of mutual
trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom
is this expansion intended? And what happened to
the assurances our western partners made after
the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are
those declarations today? No one even remembers
them. But I will allow myself to remind this
audience what was said. I would like to quote the
speech of NATO General Secretary Mr Woerner in
Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time
that: “the fact that we are ready not to place a
NATO army outside of German territory gives the
Soviet Union a firm security guarantee”. Where are these guarantees?
The stones and concrete blocks of the Berlin Wall
have long been distributed as souvenirs. But we
should not forget that the fall of the Berlin
Wall was possible thanks to a historic choice
one that was also made by our people, the people
of Russia a choice in favour of democracy,
freedom, openness and a sincere partnership with
all the members of the big European family.
And now they are trying to impose new dividing
lines and walls on us these walls may be
virtual but they are nevertheless dividing, ones
that cut through our continent. And is it
possible that we will once again require many
years and decades, as well as several generations
of politicians, to dissemble and dismantle these new walls?Dear ladies and gentlemen!
We are unequivocally in favour of strengthening
the regime of non-proliferation. The present
international legal principles allow us to
develop technologies to manufacture nuclear fuel
for peaceful purposes. And many countries with
all good reasons want to create their own nuclear
energy as a basis for their energy independence.
But we also understand that these technologies
can be quickly transformed into nuclear weapons.
This creates serious international tensions. The
situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear
programme acts as a clear example. And if the
international community does not find a
reasonable solution for resolving this conflict
of interests, the world will continue to suffer
similar, destabilising crises because there are
more threshold countries than simply Iran. We
both know this. We are going to constantly fight
against the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Last year Russia put forward the initiative to
establish international centres for the
enrichment of uranium. We are open to the
possibility that such centres not only be created
in Russia, but also in other countries where
there is a legitimate basis for using civil
nuclear energy. Countries that want to develop
their nuclear energy could guarantee that they
will receive fuel through direct participation in
these centres. And the centres would, of course,
operate under strict IAEA supervision.
The latest initiatives put forward by American
President George W. Bush are in conformity with
the Russian proposals. I consider that Russia and
the USA are objectively and equally interested in
strengthening the regime of the non-proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction and their
deployment. It is precisely our countries, with
leading nuclear and missile capabilities, that
must act as leaders in developing new, stricter
non-proliferation measures. Russia is ready for
such work. We are engaged in consultations with our American friends.
In general, we should talk about establishing a
whole system of political incentives and economic
stimuli whereby it would not be in states’
interests to establish their own capabilities in
the nuclear fuel cycle but they would still have
the opportunity to develop nuclear energy and
strengthen their energy capabilities.
In connection with this I shall talk about
international energy cooperation in more detail.
Madam Federal Chancellor also spoke about this
briefly she mentioned, touched on this theme.
In the energy sector Russia intends to create
uniform market principles and transparent
conditions for all. It is obvious that energy
prices must be determined by the market instead
of being the subject of political speculation, economic pressure or blackmail.
We are open to cooperation. Foreign companies
participate in all our major energy projects.
According to different estimates, up to 26
percent of the oil extraction in Russia and
please think about this figure up to 26 percent
of the oil extraction in Russia is done by
foreign capital. Try, try to find me a similar
example where Russian business participates
extensively in key economic sectors in western
countries. Such examples do not exist! There are no such examples.
I would also recall the parity of foreign
investments in Russia and those Russia makes
abroad. The parity is about fifteen to one. And
here you have an obvious example of the openness
and stability of the Russian economy.
Economic security is the sector in which all must
adhere to uniform principles. We are ready to compete fairly.
For that reason more and more opportunities are
appearing in the Russian economy. Experts and our
western partners are objectively evaluating these
changes. As such, Russia’s OECD sovereign credit
rating improved and Russia passed from the fourth
to the third group. And today in Munich I would
like to use this occasion to thank our German
colleagues for their help in the above decision.
Furthermore. As you know, the process of Russia
joining the WTO has reached its final stages. I
would point out that during long, difficult talks
we heard words about freedom of speech, free
trade, and equal possibilities more than once
but, for some reason, exclusively in reference to the Russian market.
And there is still one more important theme that
directly affects global security. Today many talk
about the struggle against poverty. What is
actually happening in this sphere? On the one
hand, financial resources are allocated for
programmes to help the world’s poorest countries
and at times substantial financial resources.
But to be honest -- and many here also know this
linked with the development of that same donor
country’s companies. And on the other hand,
developed countries simultaneously keep their
agricultural subsidies and limit some countries’ access to high-tech products.
And let’s say things as they are one hand
distributes charitable help and the other hand
not only preserves economic backwardness but also
reaps the profits thereof. The increasing social
tension in depressed regions inevitably results
in the growth of radicalism, extremism, feeds
terrorism and local conflicts. And if all this
happens in, shall we say, a region such as the
Middle East where there is increasingly the sense
that the world at large is unfair, then there is
the risk of global destabilisation.It is obvious that the world’s leading countries
should see this threat. And that they should
therefore build a more democratic, fairer system
of global economic relations, a system that would
give everyone the chance and the possibility to develop.
Dear ladies and gentlemen, speaking at the
Conference on Security Policy, it is impossible
not to mention the activities of the Organisation
for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). As
is well-known, this organisation was created to
examine all I shall emphasise this all
aspects of security: military, political,
economic, humanitarian and, especially, the relations between these spheres.
What do we see happening today? We see that this
balance is clearly destroyed. People are trying
to transform the OSCE into a vulgar instrument
designed to promote the foreign policy interests
of one or a group of countries. And this task is
also being accomplished by the OSCE’s
bureaucratic apparatus which is absolutely not
connected with the state founders in any way.
Decision-making procedures and the
involvement of so-called non-governmental
organisations are tailored for this task. These
organisations are formally independent but they
are purposefully financed and therefore under control.
According to the founding documents, in the
humanitarian sphere the OSCE is designed to
assist country members in observing international
human rights norms at their request. This is an
important task. We support this. But this does
not mean interfering in the internal affairs of
other countries, and especially not imposing a
regime that determines how these states should live and develop.
It is obvious that such interference does not
promote the development of democratic states at
all. On the contrary, it makes them dependent
and, as a consequence, politically and economically unstable.
We expect that the OSCE be guided by its primary
tasks and build relations with sovereign states
based on respect, trust and transparency.
Dear ladies and gentlemen!
In conclusion I would like to note the following.
We very often and personally, I very often
hear appeals by our partners, including our
European partners, to the effect that Russia
should play an increasingly active role in world affairs.
In connection with this I would allow myself to
make one small remark. It is hardly necessary to
incite us to do so. Russia is a country with a
history that spans more than a thousand years and
has practically always used the privilege to
carry out an independent foreign policy.
We are not going to change this tradition today.
At the same time, we are well aware of how the
world has changed and we have a realistic sense
of our own opportunities and potential. And of
course we would like to interact with responsible
and independent partners with whom we could work
together in constructing a fair and democratic
world order that would ensure security and
prosperity not only for a select few, but for all.
Thank you for your attention.
Yeah, I noticed this on the news. Putin is the last person to talk. I wouldn't trust that bloke to tell me the time.
It's the old trick coming out once more; convince the people that they all have different views put behind the scenes, they are all patting each other on the back. It's just a game to these people.
"And in the time of the end the King of the south will engage with him (King of the North) in a pushing" Daniel 11:40
Putin: US has incited an arms race Detroit Free Press, MI -
Putin says domineering US destabilizes global security San Francisco Chronicle, CA -
Putin Accuses US of Sparking Arms Race Hartford Courant, CT -
Putin accuses US of bid to force will on world Jamaica Gleaner, Jamaica -
Russia's Putin blames US policy for nuclear race Houston Chronicle, TX - 10 hours ago
Putin accuses US of inciting arms race China Daily, China
Putin: US Force 'Almost Uncontained' ABC News
Russia's president accuses US of inciting other countries to seek ... International Herald Tribune, France
US "disappointed" by Putin criticism TVNZ, New Zealand -
Us Expresses Surprise At Putin Remarks Guardian Unlimited, UK
Putin says US trying to impose will on world Stuff.co.nz, New Zealand -
Putin thunders against US foreign policy Melbourne Herald Sun, Australia
Putin accuses US of arrogance Independent Online, South Africa -
Putin Slams US for Making World More Dangerous Deutsche Welle, Germany -
Putin Says West Forcing Will On World RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty, Czech Republic
Putin Blasts US for Its Use of Force Newsday, NY - Feb 10, 2007
Arab experts: Putin is restoring Russia's Mideast role Jurnalo, Germany -
Putin blasts US foreign policy amNewYork, New York -
Putin drops subtlety, bashes United States Los Angeles Daily News, CA
Putin slams US, NATO for threatening global security Center for Research on Globalization, Canada -
Putin says US wants to dominate world Thanh Nien Daily, Vietnam -
US expresses surprise, disappointment over Putin's rhetoric DetNews.com, MI -
Putin says US creating nuclear arms race WWAY NewsChannel 3, NC -
US is 'creating a new arms race' - Putin Unison.ie (subscription), Ireland -
Putin hits US use of force Washington Times, DC -
US `disappointed` by Putin`s accusations Zee News, India -
Verbal fightings between US, Russia continue People's Daily Online, China
NATO seeks global expansion, calling for partnership with Russia People's Daily Online, China
White House disappointed by Putin lashing WIS, SC - 12 hours ago
Russian president condemns US for "almost uncontained" force People's Daily Online, China -
Putin says US militarism driving other countries to seek nuclear arms Brooks Bulletin, Canada -
Putin's anti-US stance spurs fears of Cold War-style rift Mangalorean.com, India -
Putin blasts US missile defense plans ImediNews, Georgia -
Putin: US incites others to seek nukes KOMO, WA -
Putin Says West Forcing Will On World HULIQ, NC
Putin's anti-US stance spurs fears of Cold War-style rift Malaysia Sun, Malaysia
Russia's President Putin: US Is Undermining Global Stability Free Internet Press, NY -
Putin's anti-US stance spurs fears of Cold War-style rift DailyIndia.com, FL
Putin attacks 'dangerous' US Channel 4 News, UK -
Putin slams US, NATO for threatening global security Malaysia Sun, Malaysia -
Russia's Putin Blasts US Foreign Policy Post Chronicle -
Putin Says US Creating Nuclear Arms Race WVVA TV, IL - Feb 10, 2007
Russia's Putin blasts US foreign policy ImediNews, Georgia - Feb 10, 2007
Putin Slams US For Making World More Dangerous DefenseNews.com (subscription) -
Putin Blasts US for Its Use of Force Dateline Alabama, AL - Feb 10, 2007
But could you not exchange the names of both countries and still have north vs south? Say for instance, India vs Pakistan? Israel vs Iran? What makes you think America or Russia are so unique?
Needproof:
Your argument that you can put ANY old rivalry in these roles misses the point of SIGNIFICANCE.
The fact that there are nuclear weapons makes our time SIGNIFICANT. Our time is unique. Nuclear weapons are not going away. Humans have the power to destroy themselves.
The last half of the twentieth century was dominated by two great nuclear powers. The USSR and the USA.
Even with the end of the cold war Russia and the USA keep each other in their crosshairs.
Is it just coincidental that Russia is the largest country in the world (2 times the size of the USA). And what about the significance of Russia's location. Is there any question that geographically speaking it is really the King of the North. It's capital, Moscow is about even with the southern part of Hudson bay. It's most southern point is about even with Chicago.
Is it just conincidental that at this point in time the USA is pushing NATO right to the borders of Russia? This after Bush # 1 promised NATO wouldn't expand into the Warsaw Pact vacuum after the USSR allowed East and West Germany to unite?
There are MANY more obvious coincidences in Daniel and Revelation.
This is not a popular topic on this DB. The Watchtower is wrong for the right reasons. The amazing thing about Bible prophecy is that its message is hidden in plain sight.
Yes, I agree, there are hidden messages in the Bible. Do you think that God planned this to happen or was it men who planned it~?
If you read Dan.11:36-45, the main topic of those scriptures is the Anitchrist (the son of perdition, the man of sin, the beast),...and not the king of the north or the king of the south.
36 "The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods. He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been determined must take place.
-Notice the "king","he will exalt himself above every god" which is synonymous with all other scripture about the Antichrist.
37 He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all.
-Ok this is important where it says "he will show no regard for the gods of his fathers" which means that he will be Jewish. Once again at the end of that verse it reiterates that he "will exalt himself above them all". Whose them? The Jewish gods and any god for that matter, including Jesus.
38 Instead of them, he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown to his fathers he will honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts. 39 He will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god and will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price.
Ok verse 38 and 39 explain that he will be a king of war and money.
Keeping all of these verses in mind and in context,...now lets read verse 40 and further:
40 "At the time of the end the king of the South will engage him(the Antichrist) in battle, and the king of the North will storm out against him(the Antichrist) with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships. He(the Antichrist) will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood.
-Regarding these verses it's important to understand who "he" and "him" is. "He" that is mentioned in verse 40 is still talking about the Antichrist of the previous verses. "The king of the South will engage" the Antichrist in battle,...and "the king of the north will storm out against him" (the Antichrist) too. "He (the Antichrist) will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood."
-So in other words,...a king with army will be attacking the Antichrist in Israel from the south and a king with an army will be attacking the Antichrist in Israel from the north.
The next verses until the end of the chapter go on to explain more about what the Antichrist will do.
41 He will also invade the Beautiful Land. Many countries will fall, but Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from his hand. 42 He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape. 43 He will gain control of the treasures of gold and silver and all the riches of Egypt, with the Libyans and Nubians in submission. 44 But reports from the east and the north will alarm him, and he will set out in a great rage to destroy and annihilate many. 45 He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at [ f ] the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him.
-Once again,..."he" (the Antichrist) will invade many lands,...but for some reason Edom, Moab, and Ammon will be delivered. Edom, Moab, and Ammon is modern day Jordan,...specifically the Petra area in Jordan. Many think this will be the place God prepares for Israel when they escape the Antichrist and Jerusalem. (That's beside the point though.)
-Next,...Egypt will not escape the armies of the Antichrist. So this is only speculation but Egypt could be a part of the "king of the south" forces.
So who is the king of the south and who is the king of the north? It doesn't matter! It's a moot point. It's all speculation. Yes,...proplog, "the king of the north" may be Russian forces and the "king of the south" may be US forces,...but does it really matter? Plus I don't think it's right to say that the "king of the south" is absolutely this for sure and the "king of the north" is absolutely this for sure,...without a doubt. I think if we do that then we are playing the WT's game.
What really matters is to understand these scriptures in their context and that the context is all about what the Antichrist will be doing. The king of the north and the king of the south will be coming against the Antichrist,...and not necessarily against each other. Also, they will be invading Israel where the Antichrist will set him self up.
Jeremiah:
The final struggle on earth before intervention from the "sky" is the ascendency of the King of the North over the King of the South. It is the King of the North that is destroyed by Michael the Great Prince. The final King of the North stands against the Prince of princes (Michael the Great Prince) and is broken without hand (Dan 8:25) . The feet of clay & iron also represent the final kingdom which is destroyed by a stone that was cut "without hands" (Dan 2:45)
The final struggle in Revelation has the wild beast destroying Babylon the Great. The Wild Beast in its final form appears slaughtered but revives (Soviet Union) Babylon the Great is the richest empire the earth has ever seen. It has hegemony over the whole earth. The USA fills that role perfectly.
The Wild Beast destroys Babylon the Great just like the King of the North Destroys the King of the South. Boths scenarios end in intervention from the sky.
By the way look at Daniel 8:23
"In the final part of their kingdom as the transgressors act to a completion, there will stand up a king fierce in countenance and understanding ambiguous sayings. And his power must become mighty but not by his own power. And in a wonderful way he will cause ruin, and he will certaingly prove successful and do effectively. And he will actually bring mighty ones to ruin, also the people made up of the holy ones. And according to his insight he will also certainly cause deception to succeed in his hand. And in his heart he will put on great airs, and during a freedom from care he will bring many to ruin."
Fierce in countenance (NIV stern-faced) = Putin
Understanding ambiguous sayings (NIV master of deception) = Former head of FSB (KGB)
Becomes powerful - but not by his own power = Putin was appointed by Yeltsin. Look up these search terms on Google "meteoric rise" "Putin"
Need Proof:
Because I am basically an atheist I may seem to have no right to be interested in prophecy.
The source? Daniel gives a sketchy description of the kingdom of the heavens. Danile 7:10 "The Court took its seat,"
Could this be some kind of cosmic federation? This court seems to be able to remove rulers on the earth and fix things for good.
Anyhow the big thing is Putin needs to stay in power if he is going to take over the world. The Russian constitution says he's finished in March 2008.
It will be interesting.
If nothing happens. Then nothing happens.
I feel I have the most coherent explanation of Daniel & Revelation.
