What Happens When Pack-Like American Media Is Not Unbiased Or Free?

NBC Nightly News host Brian Williams immediately spun the story as a political pitfall for the possible presidential contender: "In a jam. A big problem for a man with big ambitions. Tonight, how a traffic nightmare on the world's busiest bridge has spilled into a full blown scandal with the power to damage Chris Christie's political future." Image Credit: MRCTV

What Happens When Pack-Like American Media Is Not Unbiased Or Free?

Information released last week about a possible scandal in the timing and reality of a traffic study leading to the entrance of a main transportation bridge spanning from Ft. Lee, New Jersey to Manhattan, New York had the American media complex working overtime.

The issue raised additional attention because the traffic study/lane closure actions involved New Jersey Republican Governor, Chris Christie, thought of by the media elite as a front-runner for the Republican political party nominee for President of the United States in 2016 against the assumed Democrat political party, former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

Emails were discovered that placed the lane closures in Ft. Lee, New Jersey as a trumped-up action for payback to the Democrat Mayor of Ft. Lee for not endorsing Chris Cristie's second term run for Governor.

As a result, EMT response to a missing child and a heart attack victim were delayed.  Even after being informed of the EMT problems his traffic study/lane closure actions were causing, it was asserted that an angry Governor Christie refused to lift his vindictive blockade.

In a series of emails, Christie’s deputy chief of staff Bridge Anne Kelly discussed the closures weeks before they occurred, and appears to suggest that the closures were politically motivated.

“Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee,” Kelly wrote to David Wildstein, a Christie’s appointee to the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey. ”Got it,” Wildstein replied.

How Democrats React graphic. Image Credit: The Patriot Post

This excerpted and edited from NewsBusters -

There's Already 17 Times More Coverage on Christie Scandal Than in Last Six Months of IRS
By Scott Whitlock

In less than 24 hours [after these assertions came to light, and after Gov. Christie held a 2 hour news conference],the big three networks devoted 17 times more coverage to a traffic scandal involving Chris Christie than they've allowed in the last six months to Barack Obama's Internal Revenue Service controversy. Since the story broke on Wednesday that aides to the New Jersey governor punished a local mayor's lack of endorsement with a massive traffic jam, ABC, CBS and NBC have responded with 34 minutes and 28 seconds of coverage. Since July 1, these same networks managed a scant two minutes and eight seconds for the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups.

In contrast, journalists such as Good Morning America's George Stephanopoulos pounced on the developing Christie story. The GMA host opened the program on Thursday by announcing, "Chris Christie in crisis. Calls at this hour for the feds to step in, investigate the explosive e-mails."

Stephanopoulos later wondered, "One of the big questions right now, how much has it hampered his White House prospects?" Guest Matt Dowd insisted that, on a scale from one to ten, the controversy was already at a "four or five."

On the CBS Evening News, anchor Scott Pelley sounded a similar alarm: "Tonight, a potential presidential candidate caught up in scandal. E-mails show massive New Jersey traffic jams were engineered by aides to Governor Chris Christie as political payback."

Since Wednesday night, NBC included six reports over 14 minutes and 14 seconds. CBS devoted five reports over 12 minutes and 27 seconds. ABC managed 4 stories over seven minutes and 47 seconds.

As a comparison over the last six months, NBC featured a scant five seconds on updating the IRS story. CBS responded with a minute and 41 seconds. ABC produced a meager 22 seconds.

Although the media downplayed the IRS controversy from July through December (it first broke in May), it's not as though there wasn't much happening. As the Media Research Center documented, many potential story leads developed.

In December, House investigator Darrell Issa announced that the FBI and IRS chief counsel is stonewalling the investigation. In October, newly obtained e-mails showed that the scandal-plagued Lois Lerner, the woman at the center of the controversy, illegally gave Tea Party tax info to the FEC. That same month, it came out that an IRS official may have given confidential information to the White House.

These stories were buried by ABC, CBS and NBC, the same networks that have immediately deluged Republican Chris Christie, a 2016 contender, with coverage for his scandal.
[Reference Here]

The American media complex is neither Free or Unbiased.

Most people who listen to, or read information dispatches from AP, Reuters, NBC, CBS, ABC, The New York Times, BBC, and etc. do not know that they are getting their information from employees that all work from offices that can only be understood as a complex. The media complex, centered in the middle of the island of Manhattan, New York, is a four square block area above and below ground level around Rockefeller Center. The people who work for any of these organizations work just around the corner from each other, usually go to lunch and dinner with each other, foster professional relationships for future job opportunities, and to a high 80 to 90 percentile, vote for much the same large central government policies and politicians as America's Democrat Political Party embraces.

It is this herd-mentality and herd-proximity that has diluted the hallmark values of a free and open press. The Gov. Christie flap is just puts a magnifying glass on the level of bias and lack of freedom upon which an organization has to investigate, produce information, and broadcast it in a sufficient volume so that all citizens become informed.

This excerpted and edited from PJ Media -

No, Those de Blasio-as-Bane Parodies Make No Sense Whatsoever
Ed Driscoll - PJ Media - January 13th, 2014 - 1:25 pm

Plus #Bridgegate, Gotham City-style, when “De Blasio’s handpicked City Council speaker blocked the Brooklyn Bridge with Occupy Wall Street,” the Daily Caller reports today:

Democratic New York City mayor Bill de Blasio’s handpicked City Council speaker was arrested for blocking traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge while participating in a union-organized Occupy Wall Street protest.

The incident occurred a little more than two years before de Blasio railed against the “immoral” and “not mature” actions of New Jersey governor Chris Christie’s aides in conducting a disruptive “traffic study” on the George Washington Bridge for apparently political reasons.

Melissa Mark-Viverito, who became Council speaker last week after de Blasio and his aides lobbied Council members on her behalf, was arrested on November 17, 2011 while sitting with a group on the approach to the Brooklyn Bridge chanting “We are the 99 percent” and “All day! All week! Occupy Wall Street!”

Mark-Viverito, an eighth-district City councilwoman, and her group only remained in their position for a “few minutes” before they were arrested, but Mark-Viverito noted that “we probably would have been there you know 16, 17 hours.” SEIU 1199 president George Gresham was also part of the group.
----
Meanwhile, back in New Jersey, Ed Morrissey notes that the Feds may be probing Chris Christie over the use of Hurricane Sandy relief funds:

Christie burned a lot of bridges in that debate, and in his embrace (literally) of Obama in those final days of the 2012 election.  Ironically, it’s the Obama administration that is widening its probe into the use of those funds now. Don’t expect too many Republicans to rush to Christie’s side in this fight, except to point out that the $2.2 million difference between the two advertising campaign proposals amounts to 0.041% of the porkfest Barack Obama and Chris Christie demanded from Congress for Sandy relief.  There may be a lot of reasons why victims haven’t seen their Sandy aid yet, but this ad campaign isn’t one of them.

George H.W. Bush tried to make nice with Democrats in 1990 by giving in to a tax increase, only to have Bill Clinton(!) call him a liar and use Bush’s rhetoric successfully against him during the 1992 campaign:

John McCain spent virtually his entire career in politics playing the role of iconoclastic “Maverick,” which meant frequently siding with Democrats and pulling the rug out from Republicans, only to discover in 2008 that at election time, the media wing of the Democrat party plays hardball, for keeps, and in the midst of fullblown hopenchange fever cheerfully devoured his presidential campaign in 2008 without batting an eye. Similarly, Chris Christie has all too often as governor of New Jersey embraced Obama and offered very few coattails to his fellow Republicans, particularly when it mattered in the fall of 2012 during the Romney campaign. He too is in the process of having his presidential hopes devoured by the media left.

Charlie Brown never learned that Lucy will always pull the football away; why don’t Republicans ever learn that however much they cozy up to the left, they will eventually be fatally stung. It is the nature of the scorpion.
[Reference Here]

Perspective is everything. One has to stick one's head out from under the Media Complex rock that it is 'imposed' under via the traditional methods and look around in order to begin to find something that is more in-depth than the herd-media-news we get so easily.

... notes from The EDJE

Golf cart debuts as anti-terror vehicle

The A-TAC assault vehicle - It weighs just under half a ton, has bullet-proof windows and contains numerous firing ports. Furthermore it is able to negotiate corridors and lifts. The manufacturer, Metaltech says the squat and heavily armored vehicle can also withstand grenade blasts and last for six hours on a single charge - with a top speed of 25km/h (15mph). Image Credit: AFP news agency

Golf cart debuts as anti-terror vehicle

That's right, this assault buggy looks, for all intents and purposes, like a beefed-up USGA golf cart with gun ports for carrying on a firefight while protected from return gunfire and/or riot missiles.

WE, at MAXINE, know that match play can get pretty brutal, almost war-like, at times ... but this is ridicules.

The designer/manufacturer created this battery-powered Anti-Terrorist Assault Cart (A-TAC) vehicle as a response to threats that were exposed after the Mumbai (Bombay, India) hotel attacks of 2008 and is expected to cost only about $45,000.

This excerpted and edited from the BBC -

'Anti-terror buggy' unveiled by firm in India
BBC - 17 February 2010

A mini armored car, designed for use in confined spaces such as airports and hotels targeted in terror attacks, has gone on display at an Indian arms fair.
----
It has been specially designed to transport two armed security personnel during or after terror attacks.
----
The company behind the cart, Metaltech Motor Bodies Pvt Ltd, said the A-TAC had been designed in the aftermath of the attacks [in Mumbai, India].
----
"It's a product of our sense of helplessness over the casualties we took in the attacks. We put our heads and hearts together and came up with the A-TAC." said Metaltech managing director JB Sehrawat.
----
The company said it was offering a prototype of the vehicle, which drew applause from visitors and military scientists attending the arms fair in Delhi, for trials with the sponsors of the Commonwealth Games, due to be held in the city in November.

India has had to reassure foreign countries that those games and next month's hockey World Cup in Delhi will be safe and free of terror attacks.
Reference Here>>

Ladeen's Analysis: Iran And The Lust For Freedom

An estimated 1.5 to 2 million citizens took to the streets of Tehran June 15, 2009. Image Credit: mousavi1388's flickr photostream

Ladeen's Analysis: Iran And The Lust For Freedom

The world, especially the President of the United States, Barack Obama, expected that Ahmadinejad would be replaced as President in Iran's national election over the weekend but this was not the case.

Barack felt that the speech he gave a few days earlier would have convenienced the ruling class Mullahs to allow a different result than to have Ahmadinejad serve another term as their figurehead as President. As far as an election goes, there are no real elections in Iran unless the ruling Mullahs want to spend the time to actually count all of the individual paper ballots that were cast.

The citizens, however, actually believed that their vote counted and wondered how this could be that Ahmadinejad could win as President since everyone else they talked with, voted for ... the other guy - Mousavi.

An estimated 1.5 to 2 million citizens took to the streets of Tehran June 15, 2009. Image Credit: mousavi1388's flickr photostream

To get people caught up, Hugh Hewitt decided to devote his three hour nationally syndicated radio program on the election and the street protests that were happening throughout Iran's capitol city, Tehran. The BBC reported that an estimated 1.5 to 2 million citizens took to the streets on June 15, 2009 to protest the declaration of Ahmadinejad the winner in just a couple of hours after the polls closed.

The following is a transcript of an interview of Michael Ladeen, long recognized as a leading expert on Middle East affairs.

An estimated 1.5 to 2 million citizens took to the streets of Tehran June 15, 2009. Image Credit: mousavi1388's flickr photostream

This transcript has been excerpted and edited from Hugh Hewitt's Townhall Blog -

Michael Ledeen's take on the Iranian election crisis.
Monday, June 15, 2009 at 9:42 PM

HH: I’m joined now by Michael Ledeen, who probably has forgotten more about Iran than almost everyone commenting on it right now. Michael, welcome, it’s great to have you on today.

ML: Thank you.

HH: Is the regime in Iran in trouble enough that conceivably it could be toppled?

ML: Yes, it certainly is, and the fact that they’re apparently bringing in foreigners for crowd control shows that they do not have confidence even in their own thugs. They seem to have brought in Hezbollah from Syria and Lebanon.

HH: And the fact that…

ML: And there are stories, and there’s rumors, I mean, who knows, but there’s rumors that there are Venezuelans running around, too.

An estimated 1.5 to 2 million citizens took to the streets of Tehran June 15, 2009. Image Credit: mousavi1388's flickr photostream

HH: Given that, what are you looking for, Michael Ledeen, as a sign of the regime cracking?

ML: I’m looking for two things. I’m looking for denunciations of the regime and of the elections and of the violence by senior ayatollahs, and I’m looking for significant defections from the Revolutionary Guard. And that may be happening.

HH: And why do you say may be happening?

ML: Because there’s, you know, there’s reports of Revolutionary Guard guys that refused to shoot and wouldn’t beat up people, and told people we’re with them. I mean, this whole thing is being chronicled on Tweeter, as you undoubtedly know.

HH: Yeah…

ML: And I mean, even while we’re, the short time that you and I have been talking, there’s 215 more posts on Tweeter…

HH: Twitter.
----
ML: Twitter, yes.

HH: Michael Ledeen, in terms of the American response from the Obama administration, how do you rate it? What do you want them to do?

ML: I want them to support Iranian freedom. I want them to support the Iranian people. I want them to denounce the violence against peaceful demonstrators. I mean, I want them to stand up for American values all over the world, but they’re not doing it. They’re running away from it.

An estimated 1.5 to 2 million citizens took to the streets of Tehran June 15, 2009. Image Credit: mousavi1388's flickr photostream

HH: What did you make of Biden’s comments on Meet The Press yesterday?

ML: Incoherent, as usual.

HH: Yeah.

ML: I mean, Biden is a marvel of incoherence.
----
HH: Now I talked to Amir Taheri a couple weeks back, and he described this convoluted governing structure that they’ve got, the six to ten different sources of authority in Iran. Does the Iranian Army have an independent will divorced from the mullahs, Michael Ledeen, that might bring it…

ML: Oh, absolutely. No, the army has made it clear that they’re not going to intervene in this. They’re not going to start shooting citizens. No way. And the regime knows it. And the regime doesn’t even trust the Revolutionary Guards. I mean, what they’re using mostly here are Basij, who are the fanatical, religious sadists that have always been used to put down demonstrations of women and children and so forth, and then these foreigners. I think the regime is extremely worried.

The Basij are a volunteer force who are sworn to defend the regime and the Supreme Leader at all costs. Image Credit: mousavi1388's flickr photostream

HH: Explain to people who the Basij are.

ML: The Basij are a volunteer force of mostly young, religious fanatics who are sworn to defend the regime and the Supreme Leader at all costs, and so forth, and they’re not very well paid, and they’re not very well treated. I mean, they’re sort of a proletarian force, and widely despised by educated and cultured people. But they are effective at intimidating, and they’re the ones probably who have been doing the killing. They’re undoubtedly the ones who assaulted the University of Tehran, broke into the dormitories and started killing people. And they’re probably the ones who have been doing the shooting in the big rallies. By the way, BBC of all places, which most Iranians think is not sympathetic to their cause, said that there were between one and two million people at that demonstration today.

The Basij are a volunteer force who are sworn to defend the regime and the Supreme Leader at all costs. Image Credit: mousavi1388's flickr photostream

HH: Yeah, Michael Ledeen, you’ve written not one but two comprehensive books on Iran. Have any of the American major networks called you yet?

ML: No.

The Basij are a volunteer force who are sworn to defend the regime and the Supreme Leader at all costs. Image Credit: mousavi1388's flickr photostream

HH: Now I am appalled at the nature of the coverage we’re getting. Is anyone doing a good job? I actually think Totten and Sullivan are doing pretty good jobs, but who else?

ML: Yeah, I think Sullivan’s been doing a good job. I agree that Michael Totten’s doing a good job. I mean, but these are blogs. Pajamas Media is doing a great job where I blog. Huffington Post is doing a good job, interestingly enough, even though you know, they’re pro-Obama by and large. I don’t know about the networks. I don’t watch television. People tell me Fox News has been trying to keep up. It’s very hard to keep up with this. I mean, it’s hard for a TV network, because the feed out of Iran is of course censored. And I’m sure that foreign journalists have been thrown out by now. One was arrested, a Belgian journalist.

An estimated 1.5 to 2 million citizens took to the streets of Tehran June 15, 2009. Image Credit: mousavi1388's flickr photostream

HH: Now important is Western media coverage to the actual events on the ground, Michael Ledeen?

ML: I don’t know. There are these heartbreaking posts on Twitter and on YouTube from kids over there who are saying where are world leaders? Why is nobody standing up for us? And they follow it, and I’ve seen a couple of enthusiastic things saying ABC News was pretty good. There’s a whole site on Twitter now called #CNNfail, which you can imagine what that’s all about.

An estimated 1.5 to 2 million citizens took to the streets of Tehran June 15, 2009. Image Credit: mousavi1388's flickr photostream

HH: What did you make of Ahmadinejad’s press conference with Christianne Amanpour throwing him a softball, having him discard it, and having her throw the softball again?

ML: Well, she’s one of the worst. She’s always been one of the worst on Iran, so that’s no surprise. We knew that.
----
HH: Michael Ledeen, I’m going to have a guy named Frank Dowse on to end the show today. He’s an international security consultant, because he and I agree if the regime gets desperate enough, they’ll start grabbing any Westerner they can, preferably Americans as a way of diverting attention. Do you believe that’s a genuine threat?

ML: Well, they might do that, but this has gone way beyond things like that. I mean, this is an all-out street confrontation right now. And there’s going to be a winner and a loser, and that’s all there is to it. And if the regime loses, we’re going to see hanging from streetlights.

An estimated 1.5 to 2 million citizens took to the streets of Tehran June 15, 2009. Image Credit: mousavi1388's flickr photostream

HH: I just had a caller say Mousavi’s got bloodier hands than Ahmadinejad from the beginning of the regime, but it doesn’t matter, he was the vehicle for people’s repressed desire for freedom. Do you agree with that assessment?

ML: Well, we’ve had revolutionaries who turned against the regime in the past. There’s nothing new there.

HH: Interesting.

ML: I mean, the fact is that all kinds of experts, including CIA experts, have been saying for years to people like me who said that revolution in Iran was easy if we would just support it. They were saying that you can’t have a revolution, because there’s no leader. Well, of all the unlikely leaders, here’s Mousavi, who was you know, who was there at the beginning, who was a loyal servant of the Ayatollah Khomeini, and all of that, and yet he is a revolutionary figure. Even more than he is his wife. That’s the revolutionary fact that a lot of people have missed.

HH: Michael Ledeen, we’ll check with you throughout the week. Thank you, friend.

End of interview.
Reference Here>>

Additional Video Assets HERE>>

Mexico City - Earthquake Rocks Tixtla, Guerrero, 5.8 Magnitude

Mexico rattled by 6.0 magnitude earthquake (double-click image for video). Image Credit: USGS

Mexico City - Earthquake Rocks Tixtla, Guerrero, 5.8 Magnitude

ACTIFY YOURSELVES! (see video, it is really rich!)

First reports have the earthquake set at 5.8 magnitude on the Richter scale but as these things go ... could go higher.

It is too soon to report on possible damage and injuries.

This just in from Reuters:

Mexico was hit by a 6.0 magnitude earthquake on Monday, the U.S. Geological Survey said.
The USGS said the quake hit 19 miles south-southeast of Tixtla, Guerrero, about 150 miles south of the capital, Mexico City. It was 25.6 miles deep.

Buildings in the capital shook.

Quakes of this magnitude are classified as strong and are capable of causing severe damage.
The USGS earlier reported the quake measured 5.8.
Source: reuters.com

This excerpted and edited from the BBC -

A strong earthquake has struck south of Mexico's capital, Mexico City, causing buildings to shake and prompting workers to rush out onto the streets.
----

Mexico is currently battling an outbreak of the swine flu virus, which has claimed 149 lives in the country.
Source: news.bbc.co.uk

This excerpted from Bloomberg News -

Some phone lines were knocked out of service in the capital’s historic center, El Universal newspaper reported on its Web site. Reforma newspaper cited the public security ministry as saying there were no reports of major incidents of damage related to the earthquake.
The quake hit at about 11:46 a.m. local time at a depth of about 49 kilometers, according to the USGS.

Petroleos Mexicanos, the state-owned oil company, said its refineries are operating normally following the earthquake.

A Health Ministry press conference about the country’s outbreak of swine flu paused during the temblor, then resumed.
Source: bloomberg.com

The New Soviet Russia - Five Principles!

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev lays out the five principles. Image Credit: Image Credit: Voices From Russia - Barbara-Marie Drezhlo (“Vara”)

The New Soviet Russia - Five Principles!

This new position of Russia shows its adherence to the SOVIET principals that made the governance of this country … as President Ronald Reagan put it – “The Evil Empire”.

What the new leadership is trying to do is to re-establish its dominance in the region, strengthen its strategic access to energy and build its military so that it can realize its agenda through force.

The beauty of the positioning is that it will be able to pursue its objectives without a cost of its standing in the world community.

The first evidence of this is its takeover of parts of the sovereign democratic nation of Georgia. (Soviet) Russia, in its pursuit of its new “Principles” has broken international agreements signed as recently as April 2008 and the rest of the free world seems powerless to do anything except issue harsh letters and proclamations.

This disturbing declaration from the Russian leadership and analysis excerpted from the BBC News Europe -

New Russian world order: the five principles
In the aftermath of the Georgian conflict, the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has laid down five principles that he says will guide Russian foreign policy.
By Paul Reynolds - World affairs correspondent BBC News website - 9-1-2008

Going back to the 19th Century?

The principles, with their references to "privileged interests" and the protection of Russian citizens, would probably seem rather obvious to Russian leaders of the 19th Century. They would seem rather mild to Stalin and his successors, who saw the Soviet Union extending communism across the globe.

In some ways, we are going back to the century before last, with a nationalistic Russia very much looking out for its own interests, but open to co-operation with the outside world on issues where it is willing to be flexible.

President Medvedev's principles do not, for example, necessarily exclude Russian agreement to continuing the strong diplomatic stance against Iran. And energy contracts are not necessarily threatened.

Above all, what they tell us is that the Georgia conflict was for Russia, in Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov's words, a "long-cherished moment of truth", which has created a new "clarity".

Here are the principles, in the words which President Medvedev used in an interview with the three main Russian TV channels (translated by the BBC Monitoring Service).

1. International law

"Russia recognises the primacy of the basic principles of international law, which define relations between civilised nations. It is in the framework of these principles, of this concept of international law, that we will develop our relations with other states."

2. Multi-polar world

"The world should be multi-polar. Unipolarity is unacceptable, domination is impermissible. We cannot accept a world order in which all decisions are taken by one country, even such a serious and authoritative country as the United States of America. This kind of world is unstable and fraught with conflict."

3. No isolation

"Russia does not want confrontation with any country; Russia has no intention of isolating itself. We will develop, as far as possible, friendly relations both with Europe and with the United State of America, as well as with other countries of the world."

4. Protect citizens

"Our unquestionable priority is to protect the life and dignity of our citizens, wherever they are. We will also proceed from this in pursuing our foreign policy. We will also protect the interest of our business community abroad. And it should be clear to everyone that if someone makes aggressive forays, he will get a response."

5. Spheres of influence

"Russia, just like other countries in the world, has regions where it has its privileged interests. In these regions, there are countries with which we have traditionally had friendly cordial relations, historically special relations. We will work very attentively in these regions and develop these friendly relations with these states, with our close neighbours."

Asked if these "priority regions" were those that bordered on Russia he replied: "Certainly the regions bordering [on Russia], but not only them."

And he stated: "As regards the future, it depends not just on us. It also depends on our friends, our partners in the international community. They have a choice."

The implications

Those therefore are the stated principles. What implications do they have?

To take them in the order he presented them:

The primacy of International Law: This on the face of it sounds encouraging. But Russia signed up to Security Council resolution 1808 in April this year, which reaffirmed "the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Georgia... " - and has since abandoned that position.

It argues that a Georgian attack on South Ossetia on 7/8 August invalidated its commitment and required that it defend its citizens there. But it perhaps cannot proclaim its faith in international law and at the same time take unilateral action.

This principle therefore has to be seen as rather vague.

The world is multi-polar: This means that Russia will not accept the primacy of the United States (or a combination of the US and its allies) in determining world policy. It will require that its own interests are taken into account.

The Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov hinted at what this really means. "There is a feeling that Nato again needs frontline states to justify its existence," he said in a speech. He was putting down another marker against the extension of Nato membership to Ukraine and Georgia.

Russia does not seek confrontation: Again this sounds hopeful but it based on the requirement that Russia's needs are met first. If the world agrees to its demands, then it is happy to be friends. But if not... therein lies the warning.

Protecting its citizens: The key phrase here is "wherever they are". This was the basis on which Russia went to war in South Ossetia and it contains within it the potential for future interventions - over Crimea, for example, populated by a majority Russian-background population yet owned by Ukraine only since 1954. If Ukraine looked set to join Nato, would Russia claim the protection of its "citizens" there?

Privileged interests: In this principle President Medvedev was getting down to the heart of the matter. Russia is demanding its own spheres of influence, especially, but not only, over states on its borders. This has the potential for further conflict if those "interests" are ignored.
Reference Here>>