Declarations of peace occur at regular intervals. Wars end and
treaties are signed. Big deal. So what's new? Watchtower prophets
have fallen into quite a few of these traps.
When the Nixon/Kissinger detente was the popular foreign policy of
the early 70's a special Awake was devoted to the "peace" that was
taking shape. Various UN declarations have been seized as the
hoped for cry of "peace & security". (1Thes 5:3)
It is easy to get discouraged. After all, who can give serious
consideration to an ambiguous sign like a pronouncement of "peace
& security". How do you know which cry of "peace & security" is
THE special one which is to be followed by sudden destruction? We
can be sure that all of the previous declarations of "peace &
security" were NOT special for the simple reason that they weren't
followed by the prophesied "destruction".
There is another important scripture where destruction occurs
during a period of peace. That scripture gives us some clues about
the context of this special event. Daniel 8:25 shows us that
"peace" is used by a world ruler as a deceptive tactic so that he
can use the element of surprise to bring destruction on his
enemies. "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. And against the Prince of princes he will stand up,
but it will be without hand that he will be broken."
Look closely and seriously at the pronouncements that have emerged
from the recent summit between Bush & Putin.
"this visit was a visit of peace, where we cast aside the old ways
of suspicion and now embrace peace." Bush
"When I got out of college in 1968, America and the Soviet Union
were enemies -- bitter enemies. Today, America and Russia are
friends. It's important for you to know that that era is long gone,
as far as I'm concerned. The treaty we signed says a lot about
nuclear arms; it speaks about the need for peace; but it also says
the Cold War is over, and America and Russia need to be, and will
be, friends, for the good of the world." Bush
Today the two presidents will seal a treaty to radically slash the
offensive nuclear arsenals of both sides from the current levels of
around 6,000 warheads each to about 2,000 each by the year 2012.
...the deal is more far-reaching than even the wildest cold war-era
hopes for disarmament- Christian Science Monitor.
The cold war-era strategic calculus is no longer the crucial
measure of relations, optimists say, but rather economic and more
mundane political issues have come to the fore. "That is a major,
and probably permanent, shift from the past," says Anatoly Bursov,
a professor at the Diplomatic Academy.
"The Soviet era is gone. The Cold War, I hope, is
past us. And today, President Putin and I signed an historic
document. It was more than just a document that reduces nuclear
weaponry, although that in itself is good. It's a document that
says there's a new era ahead of us; that instead of being stuck in
the past, these two leaders are willing to take two great countries
forward in a new relationship built on common interests and
cooperation. And cooperation on all fronts" Bush
"Today, as Bush and Putin meet again on Russian soil, there is a
lot of talk about finally putting an end to the old confrontation.
This new summit is claimed to be the last one on strategic arms and
the first one on strategic partnership."- Moscow Tribune
"President Putin and I have signed a treaty that will substantially
reduce our nuclear -- strategic nuclear warhead arsenals to the
range of 1,700 to 2,200, the lowest level in decades. This treaty
liquidates the Cold War legacy of nuclear hostility between our
countries." BUSH
"We've also signed a joint declaration of new strategic
relationship that charts a course toward greater security,
political and economic cooperation between Russia and the United
States. Our nations will continue to cooperate closely in the war
against global terror." BUSH
"the treaty is setting a period of time in the rear-view mirror of
both countries. And I am not only confident that this is good for
world peace, I'm confident this sets the stage for incredible
cooperation that we've never had before between our countries."
BUSH
"There may be old vestiges in place, but Russia's not an
enemy. You don't think about how to deal with Russia the way they
used to. Russia is a friend. And that's the new thinking. That's
part of what's being codified today." BUSH
FINALLY FROM THE Joint Declaration OF The United States of America
and the Russian Federation,
"We are achieving a new strategic relationship. The era in which
the United States and Russia saw each other as an enemy or
strategic threat has ended. We are partners and we will cooperate
to advance stability, security, and economic integration, and to
jointly counter global challenges and to help resolve regional
conflicts."
Probably the most significant thing about this latest declaration
of peace is that nobody cares. Very little attention has been
given to the Putin-Bush summit. People are indeed in the state of
mind described in Daniel 8:25 "freedom from care".
Daniel 8:24 begins by giving three identifiers of the King that
would bring about destruction during this "freedom from care".
He is described as 1. Stern-Faced 2. Master of Deception 3.
Becomes powerful but not by his own power. I have made several
posts showing how this applies to Putin. Putin has been described
by several media pieces as being "stern-faced" (using those exact
words.) Putin was head of the FSB (KGB equivalent) and therefore
was a master-spy or professional deceiver. Putins ascension to
power was by means of appointment (not by his "own power"). Putin
never held an elected office which is the usual route to the top.
Therefore Putin had no political constituency. He was made
president by Yeltsin when he resigned in Jan 2000. Putin gave
Yeltsin the agreed to protection from criminal charges of
corruption.
So what is Putin's purpose in befriending the USA?
Has Putin REALLY become a friend of the USA? Consider this piece:
The Rise of Russian Anti-Americanism after September 2001:
Envy as a Leading Factor
By Vladimir Shlapentokh
Professor of sociology at Michigan State University
( [email protected])
" As a common case, the inferiority complex in the Russian mind is
combined with a claim of superiority over the United States. On the
same pages of newspapers in which journalists and intellectuals
downgrade Russia, they go on harangues about their country's
decisive edge over the U.S. in culture and morals. In Nezavisimaia
Gazeta, an author depicted Russia as "a country whose greatness is
based on her spiritual, intellectual and moral potential. Only
Russia, with her moral position in foreign policy, can oppose the
American cowboy style in the international arena. If the U.S. is
permitted to act alone, America herself, along with the whole
Western civilization, will suffer."
Some envious Russians dream of revenge against America. They hope
for new conditions in which "they will have some new power" (for
instance, by becoming America's major oil supplier) to punish
America "for what it did to Russia." The mainstream Russian
newspaper Nezavisimaia Gazeta hinted that America's hegemonic
policy and its gigantic military expenditures portend a
catastrophe for the country. These claims were similar to reports
in Zavtra, which regularly predicts a total collapse of America.
Reading Putin's mind
In light of the Russian elites' embedded hatred of America and the
ease with which they influence the masses, the most pressing
question is: What does President Putin think of America? Only two
years ago, he came to power with clear intentions to increase
Russia's geopolitical role in the world. Though he has obfuscated
his hostility toward the U.S., it seems clear that he regarded the
country as a major obstacle to this goal. In fact, Putin has tried
to flirt with Europe and China in an effort to pit these countries
against the U.S. While he remains an ostensible advocate of
cooperation with the U.S., the rise of anti-Americanism in Russia
has placed his true feelings in question.
During the Olympics, Putin joined the propagandistic campaign
against the U.S. The respected Moscow journalist Pavel Felgenhauer
said on "Echo Moskvy" (a prestigious Moscow radio station) that the
scandal was initiated directly by the president and it was his idea
to boycott the Games. The next day Putin downgraded his anger and
simply mentioned that he was suspicious of the "objectivity" of the
judges "who live and work in North America." Later he completely
changed his conduct, dropped the idea of a boycott and
pretended that nothing special had happened, explaining the
outcomes as a case of having "too high expectations."
Even if Putin had no complicity in the ferocious anti-American
campaign in Russia, he did nothing to calm it. Meanwhile, he has
decisive control over the mainstream media, particularly the
television networks. Without his consent it would not be possible
for the media to sustain the anti-American campaign, which shows no
signs of slowing down. Indeed, on April 18, Putin gave a long
presidential address to the Federal Assembly in which he mostly
ignored the subject of America. The only attempt he made at
reducing negative feelings toward the West came in his statement
that "cruel competition for markets, investments, and political and
economic influence is normal in the international community."
The views of Putin's close circle of advisors provide another
glimpse into the president's mind. Putin lives in a milieu that is
deeply immersed in envy and hatred of America. The editor of
Moskovskii Novosti Victor Loshak noted, "Putin is forced to rely on
those inside the country who hate his foreign policy." As another
prominent author said, "Whatever is the future of the romance with
the West, Putin's team, which is responsible for foreign
and defense policy, continues to live by the logic of the Cold
War." It is hard to believe that while many people in his milieu
(i.e., leading members of the presidential administration, several
deputy prime ministers with whom he communicates regularly, and the
absolute majority of the State Duma, which is firmly controlled by
his people) are deeply anti-American, the president himself holds
the opposite view. Such a discrepancy between the feelings of the
leader and members of his or her team could never happen in
Washington, London or Beijing. All the more, a blatant disagreement
like this one has never been tolerated by the supreme leader in all
of Russian history.
It is reasonable to assume that Putin's subordinates, who spout
their anti-American sentiments from time to time, comprehend the
true feelings of their boss and advance these negative statements
about the U.S. as a sign of solidarity. Using this logic, it is
understandable that Putin, who has control of the media, tolerates
the public critique of his foreign policy. Indeed, there are not
many Russian politicians and political experts who openly defend
Putin's foreign policy. None of the eight prominent participants of
the roundtable discussion, "V.V. Putin: two years after the
elections, New Frontiers" (organized by the Civil Debate Club in
Moscow at the end of March), uttered even one word of endorsement
of the president's foreign policy. Some authors freely accused the
Kremlin "for its lack of strategic vision in international
relations," for its acceptance of Russia as "a minor partner" of
the U.S., and for "delegating decision making about the country's
national interests to NATO, the European Union and the U.S."
Boris Yeltsin, who is usually reserved with respect to his heir and
who had been accused of being submissive toward the West during his
tenure, recently assailed Putin as a weak leader, particularly in
his foreign policy.
It is quite likely that Putin sympathizes with the patriotic
feelings of his critics. On several occasions, he has openly
expressed his admiration for the glorious Soviet past; he has also
talked about the necessity of restoring Russia's greatness. In the
first months of his tenure, Putin was determined "to stop Russia's
geopolitical retreat," to use the terminology of the Russian media.
While remaining sympathetic to the calls for Russia to regain its
influence in the world, Putin recognizes, perhaps more accurately
than his critics, the real state of affairs in the country. In the
past, he has sternly rebuked Russian politicians who strayed from
a sober assessment of the country's problems. At a recent meeting
with scholars in Irkutsk, Putin ardently, though not without
sadness, criticized the wishful thinking of some of his
interlocutors who demanded Russia's rapid return to its previous
role in the world.
Considering his personality, it seems unlikely that he could enjoy
the role of junior partner of the U.S. At the same time, he can not
claim to be on equal ground with Bush in view of the gigantic
economic and military gaps between Russia and the United States.
There is little doubt that the U.S. has an ambivalent partner in
Putin. He came to power with the goal of regaining Russia's
decisive geopolitical role. Now, after only two years, it seems as
though the president has abandoned this goal. He could hardly be
fond of those he deems responsible for forcing this outcome. For
this reason, his mind is open to the pressures of the envious
elite. The American government should use the utmost
sensitivity in dealing with the Russian president and be prepared
for various twists in Russian-American relations in the near
future." END QUOTE
Peace has been declared. What's next?
The Russians could easily explode a nuclear device in Manhattan.
Terrorists would be blamed. Thus starts the Great Tribulation.