Article: Russian Sub Skirts Coast

[vector7]

Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Russia's Secret War Plans



Westerners, for the most part, continue to take news regarding Russia, China, North Korea, Georgia, etc. at face value. This self-deluding needs to stop if the free world is to have any chance of survival.

Defectors from Russia and former Soviet states have long been warning the West that it is being duped into defeat. One of the most remarkable defectors in this regard is Colonel Stanislav Lunev, the highest-ranking defector from Russia's military intelligence services, the GRU. In 2001, Lunev was interviewed by NewsMax.com and HERE are some critical excerpts that everyone should listen to very closely. Russia is pursuing an all-out third world war against the West in a necessarily secretive way, and it appears Moscow's plans are nearing a violent phase.

At the current juncture, multiple critical flashpoints are heating up to a potentially explosive level: North Korea vs. South Korea, Georgia vs. Russia, Israel vs. Iran, Pakistan vs. Taliban.

Regarding North Korea's recent provocations, just keep in mind the following key facts:

Today, China supplies about 90% of North Korea's oil, 80% of its consumer goods and 45% of its food. Beijing is Pyongyang's only formal military ally and its primary backer in the United Nations Security Council and other diplomatic forums. If it weren't for the Chinese, there would be no North Korean missile program, no North Korean nuclear program and no North Korea. (Forbes, 5/25/09)

Pyongyang would not be testing nukes and/or otherwise provoking a confrontation with the West unless it has at least tacit approval from Beijing. The threat of China applying what would effectively be strangling economic sanctions means that North Korea's behavior is shaped by Chinese policy toward its Stalinist neighbor. So the real question here is not what the supposed lone madman, Kim Jong Il, is up to....but rather what is China up to?

China operates in concert with Russia, and Russia shapes history according to astrology similar to the occult practices of Hitler's Germany in waging World War Two.

"Astrology is a quite serious science. It helps us launch spacecraft, missiles; we use it broadly to forestall suicides among the personnel. Experience shows it is unreasonable to reject it. Our estimates and forecasts are usually corroborated up to 70-75 percent." - Viktor Yakovlev, Commander of the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces

"Believe it or not, every three months a summary of astrological prognoses predicting the place and date of future extraordinary occurrences is sent from the St. Petersburg Naval Scientific Research Institute to the Russian Defense Ministry's General Staff." - Komsomolskaya Pravda; January 21, 1998

Note that the first of a triple conjunction between Jupiter and NeptuneThis is more rare than I had thought, last occurring in 1971. The last time a triple conjunction occurred involving outer planets was 1993. With the third Saturn-Neptune conjunction in 1989, the Berlin Wall came down as the staged "Velvet Revolutions" took place in Eastern Europe.

Notably, when the Berlin Wall came down, a major phase of "peaceful" convergence between East and West, Communism and Capitalism, got underway.

Korea's DMZ constitutes the final Cold War "battleline" between world Communism and Capitalism, East and West.

With this week's conjunction of Jupiter and Neptune, North Korea carried out an underground test of an atomic bomb the size of the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and test launched medium range ballistic missiles stirring regional tensions.

Should North Korea go back to war with South Korea, a major phase of "violent" convergence between East and West will be underway. That a new Korean conflict, potentially involving nuclear weapons, may be in the works is suggested by concerns of Russian officials:
just occurred.

In Moscow, news agencies quoted an official as saying that Russia is taking precautionary security measures because it fears tensions over the test could lead to nuclear war. (Reuters, 5/27/09)

Russian intelligence agencies received task to thoroughly monitor developments in Korean peninsula

Russia has revealed an unprecedented level of concern over Pyongyang's increasing belligerence and is taking security measures as a precaution against the possibility that tension over North Korea could escalate into nuclear war, The Moscow Times reports, referring to unidentified officials. Sensitive political decisions taken by Moscow are traditionally revealed by anonymous officials through Russian news agencies.

A security source told news agency Interfax that the standoff triggered by Pyongyang's recent nuclear test could affect the security of Russia's far eastern regions, which border North Korea. "The need has emerged for an appropriate package of precautionary measures," the paper cites the unidentified source. "We are not talking about stepping up military efforts but rather about measures in case a military conflict, perhaps with the use of nuclear weapons, flares up on the Korean peninsula." The official did not elaborate further, The Moscow Times notes.

Radio Ekho Moskvy reported earlier this week that Russian intelligence agencies had received task to thoroughly monitor developments in the Korean peninsula and to report immediately on changes of situation. (Axis News, 5/28/09)

It seems that this 'sudden' Korean crisis has long been in the works as evidenced by the concerns expressed by Joe Biden and Colin Powell last October:




And how did these U.S. officials know such trouble was coming for a future Obama Administration way back then? The odds are intelligence was fed to Washington by Moscow and/or Beijing to set the stage for what is now unfolding. This would have been done so that Western perceptions of the upcoming geopolitical crisis are properly shaped so Washington believes the story.

Meanwhile, Georgia continues to lure NATO into a potentially direct military confrontation with Russia.

All said and done, the megolamaniacal totalitarian regimes in Moscow and Beijing continue to tailor world history toward an apocalyptic world war according to astrology with great success because the West is wholly deluded and unaware of the secret war plan unfolding.

As long as people fail to think for themselves and no one calls these evildoers to account for their occultic machinations against humanity, then the free world ultimately will be subject to the fate of the North Korean people:




When will people make a stand against 'The Old Enemy'?

[vector7]

Are we about to be setup?

Al Qaeda says would use Pakistani nuclear weapons against the United States

By Inal Ersan Inal Ersan – Mon Jun 22, 4:07 am ET

DUBAI (Reuters) – If it were in a position to do so, Al Qaeda would use Pakistan's nuclear weapons in its fight against the United States, a top leader of the group said in remarks aired Sunday.

Pakistan has been battling al Qaeda's Taliban allies in the Swat Valley since April after their thrust into a district 100 km (60 miles) northwest of the capital raised fears the nuclear-armed country could slowly slip into militant hands.

"God willing, the nuclear weapons will not fall into the hands of the Americans and the mujahideen would take them and use them against the Americans," Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, the leader of al Qaeda's in Afghanistan, said in an interview with Al Jazeera television.

Abu al-Yazid was responding to a question about U.S. safeguards to seize control over Pakistan's nuclear weapons in case Islamist fighters came close to doing so.

"We expect that the Pakistani army would be defeated (in Swat) ... and that would be its end everywhere, God willing."

Asked about the group's plans, the Egyptian militant leader said: "The strategy of the (al Qaeda) organization in the coming period is the same as in the previous period: to hit the head of the snake, the head of tyranny -- the United States.

"That can be achieved through continued work on the open fronts and also by opening new fronts in a manner that achieves the interests of Islam and Muslims and by increasing military operations that drain the enemy financially."

The militant leader suggested that naming a new leader for the group's unit in the Arabian Peninsula, Abu Basir al-Wahayshi, could revive its campaign in Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter.

"Our goals have been the Americans ... and the oil targets which they are stealing to gain power to strike the mujahideen and Muslims."
"There was a setback in work there for reasons that there is no room to state now, but as of late, efforts have been united and there is unity around a single leader."

Abu al-Yazid, also known as Abu Saeed al-Masri, said al Qaeda will continue "with large scale operations against the enemy" -- by which he meant the United States.

"We have demanded and we demand that all branches of al Qaeda carry out such operations," he said, referring to attacks against U.S.-led forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The militant leader said al Qaeda would be willing to accept a truce of about 10 years' duration with the United States if Washington agreed to withdraw its troops from Muslim countries and stopped backing Israel and the pro-Western governments of Muslim nations.

Asked about the whereabouts of al Qaeda's top leaders, he said: "Praise God, sheikh Osama (bin Laden) and sheikh Ayman al-Zawahri are safe from the reach of the enemies, but we would not say where they are; moreover, we do not know where they are, but we're in continuous contact with them."

(Editing by Michael Roddy)

[vector7]

Marina Kalashnikova’s Warning to the West

by J. R. Nyquist
Weekly Column Published: 07.17.2009

Meet Marina Kalashnikova: a Moscow-based historian, researcher and journalist. Last August she criticized foreign “experts” for suggesting that a conflict with Moscow will not happen because Russia’s elite is too closely associated with the West. According to Kalashnikova, “The West does not care to wake from the dream of its wishful thinking, even when Moscow turns to … reanimating Stalin’s cult of personality together with the ideology of the Cheka [i.e., the secret police].”

I’m afraid that Marina Kalashnikova is right. The West has been dreaming, and the West will suffer the consequences. If the Kremlin likes Stalin, then there will be trouble. If KGB officers have established a sophisticated form of dictatorship in Russia, they have done so for a reason. We should remind our politicians, with their short memories, that Stalin and his secret police did not run a Sunday school. Furthermore, the recent trail of blood and radiation leading back to the Kremlin is like a finger pointing to the greatest danger of our time – nixed from the news media’s prattle of the hour. (A retired KGB officer recently told me that “nobody is easier to buy than a Western journalist.”)

Russia has built an alliance of dictators, what Kalashnikova calls an “alliance of the most unbridled forces and regimes.” Extremists of all kinds serve the purpose of breaking the peace, damaging Western economies, and setting the stage for a global revolution in which the balance of power shifts from the United States and the West to the Kremlin and its Chinese allies. “Among the ideas that animate general staff analysts in the Kremlin, there is the idea of diffusion,” says Kalashnikova, “It is not that the Kremlin should strive for territorial expansion and the dissemination of its [political] model. The critical thing is power and the fulcrum of an overall strategic context. In that case, even if the Americans appear influential in the post-Soviet countries, Moscow remains in charge. The [Russian] General Staff therefore has successfully expanded Moscow’s position beyond and above the old Soviet position in Africa and Latin America.” What prevails, she says, is Moscow’s “assertiveness and determination without fear of a reaction from the West.”

In other words, the West has already been outmaneuvered. The KGB and the Russian General Staff have taken our measure, and they are laughing at us. Our leaders do not realize the sophistication of their enemy. They cannot see or understand what is happening. They blink, they turn away, continuing to use concepts gifted to them long ago by Soviet agents of influence. As a nation we are confused and disoriented, believing that the world is beholden to the West’s money power – and therefore, peace can be purchased.

“The Kremlin has activated a network of extremists in the Third World,” wrote Kalashnikova. “[At the same time] Russia has managed to shake off nearly all international conventions restricting the expansion of its military power.” In this situation, the only counter to Russian power is American power. Yet the American president is preparing to surrender that power in a series of arms control agreements that will leave the United States vulnerable to a first strike. Placing this in context, nuclear weapons are ultimate weapons, so that the West’s superiority in conventional weapons is therefore meaningless. Whoever gains strategic nuclear supremacy will rule the world; and the Russian strategic rocket forces are in place, ready to launch, while America’s nuclear forces are rotting from neglect.

The Russian historian sees that the West relies on the greed of Russia’s elite to keep the Kremlin in line. But this is a foolish conceit. Mao Zedong said that political power “flows from the barrel of a gun.” Therefore, the Kremlin’s logic is ironclad: Let the West keep its worthless currency. Moscow will have weapons, and in the end Moscow and its allies will control everything. The liberal may believe that protests and appeals to humanity are the ultimate trump cards. The financiers may believe that money makes the world go ‘round. Let them try to stop a salvo of ICBMs with liberal sentiment and cash. As far as the laws of physics are concerned, their favored instruments cannot stop a single missile.

According to Kalashnikova, “It is clear that the [Kremlin] regime has no restraint and will commit any crime, break any rule, surpass any benchmark in order to consolidate its already illegitimate power….” Even the old KGB chief, Vladimir Kryuchkov, was appalled: “Putin and others have to answer for what they are doing today to the country,” he said. But the West sleeps. The West doesn’t want to hear about the danger that rises in the East – from the Kremlin and its Chinese allies. As Kalashnikova points out, the warnings of Russian observers like Viktor Suvorov and Vladimir Bukovsky have been almost totally ignored. Western chauvinism is deep-rooted, and the Westerner takes his military and economic superiority for granted. He laughs at the idea that “the Russians are coming.” But the joke is on America. The Kremlin’s psychological advantage is vital and immediate, and extends into the political domain. This is significant because the outcome of every war is pre-determined by the political process leading up to the war.

Kalashnikova laments that Suvorov and Bukovsky remain largely unknown, “and are even hated by the Western establishment … [which] avoids uncomfortable truths about the world and themselves, especially when the truth comes from Russian critics.” Do the Americans have sense? Are they serious people? No, said Suvorov more than two decades ago. No, says Kalashnikova today. The Russian generals are getting ready. They are consolidating their influence because the coming war requires it.

“The NATO idea of deterrence means absolutely nothing to the Russian generals,” wrote Kalashnikova. “Unlike their Western counterparts, they are not afraid of big military and civilian losses. This was true in the time of Stalin. Losses do not affect the popularity of Kremlin rulers….” The philosopher Nietzsche once wrote that sacrificing people for a state or an idea makes that state or idea all the more precious to those who have made the sacrifice. Such is human psychology, yesterday, today and tomorrow.

“The strategic balance,” warned Kalashnikova, “has by and large never worked.” Standing outside the logic of nuclear deterrence, Kremlin leaders have modernized their nuclear bunkers. They are prepared to survive. “The current Russian military is not weaker than the USSR,” she says, “and in some areas it surpasses the Soviet military.” – This from a writer who has personally interviewed Russian generals, spy chiefs and statesmen. She goes on to say that after 9/11 Russia’s terrorist allies can be realistically assumed to play a key role in the strategic equation. And then she fatefully quotes a NATO functionary who spoke about the role of al Qaeda and Bin Laden as follows: “This [9/11 attack] is beyond their intellectual capabilities.” Insights of this kind have been known to trigger “polonium reactions,” as in the case of former FSB Lt. Col. Alexander Litvinenko – who publicly declared that Vladimir Putin was the master terrorist behind al Qaeda.

And here is where the plot thickens. When Marina Kalashnikova presented her analysis to Russian and Ukrainian readers on August 26, 2008, she annoyed the regime and made herself a target of the Russian secret police. Her Moscow residence was broken into. Private papers were stolen. Threats were made. And last, but not least, she was forcibly incarcerated in a psychiatric clinic for 35 days. “I am completely healthy,” Kalashnikova told me during a telephone interview on Sunday. “It was absolutely political … and not medical at all.”

And what excuse did they offer for breaking the door locks and grabbing her? “I was allegedly aggressive,” she explained, “even though I was staying behind the door of my own home.” What she had done, of course, was reveal the hostile intentions of the Russian government toward the United States. “Just yesterday,” she explained, “I got some threats that they would get me back to the clinic because I did not fulfill the agreement of not interfering in political subjects here. I am forbidden to do journalism and politics and interviewing and everything. So I can only arrange everyday life. My endeavors, and my active communication with the West regarding this psychiatric imprisonment [is forbidden]. I feel completely insecure here. It is no joke. It is no exaggeration. The reality is even more awful and criminal. I try not to frighten people. The American people are too comfortable. I have underestimated and under-described the situation. It is very dangerous. The situation needs their urgent sorting out.”

And what situation is she talking about?

“I think that Russia has always had America as the enemy,” Kalashnikova told me, “and it remains in such a capacity. I think that all preparations that Russia makes are military preparations, and preparations for war. I talked three times during recent days with … a former politician and party functionary and bright diplomat … and he confirmed that they expect war.”

I hope that Marina Kalashnikova is safe, and that Americans will appreciate her courage, heed her warnings, and prevent the outbreak of war through care and vigilance. Marina gave me permission to tell her story and relate her words to those who are sleeping in the West. She needs our help, and she deserves it.

[vector7]

Russia desires a war in Iran

Moscow is trying to deprive the international community of any leverage against Tehran

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 By RFE/RL

If his spokesman Dmitry Peskov is to be believed, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in his Valdai club discussions with foreign experts came out against both military action and against imposing further sanctions on Iran.

The paradox here is that it was the Kremlin's decision not to support the UN Security Council proposal to impose new sanctions that pushed Washington, Israel, the Persian Gulf, and Europe closer to consensus on a military solution to Iran's nuclear crisis. By blocking sanctions, Moscow is trying to deprive the international community of any leverage against Tehran.

In the short term, Moscow's approach is anything but absurd.

Sanctions would inevitably precipitate a catastrophe in the form of serious economic problems within Iran and Russia losing its influence in Europe, the Caucasus, and most Persian Gulf Arab states.

Moscow could even find itself in a situation where its already limited options for asserting its importance would be reduced to following Nikita Khrushchev's lamentable example in banging his shoe on the table at the United Nations.

There has been quite enough discussion of how Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev have shown the West through their position on Iran that it is up to anyone else you care to name to press the ill-fated "reset" button, but not them.

There is no point in wasting time on analyzing the two top leaders' appeal to the nation that the Russian president came out with a few days ago, especially the part dealing with foreign policy and Russia's place in the world. That role under the flourishing tandem is perfectly clear, and it has nothing to do with the good of the country.

Nor is it worth paying any attention to Medvedev's "serious" question to Putin about who will be elected Russian president in 2012, given that nothing will change, whoever is elected.

It is also time to stop speculating about what Washington offered Moscow in return for its consent or silence during the UN Security Council vote on sanctions against Tehran.

Finally, it's time to lay to rest talk of how the Kremlin's approach to Iran is the litmus test of its entire foreign policy, an argument favored in particular by those experts and politicians who tend to attribute Moscow's decisions to its perception of having been humiliated by the West.

All of this is pointless because it looks as though the Kremlin really does want a war between the West and Iran. I can offer no other explanation for Moscow's behavior, especially taking into account the fact that statements that Russia is emerging from economic crisis have no grounding in reality.

On the other hand, a sharp rise in oil and gas prices as a result of such a war would enable Russia to emerge with full coffers from a crisis that has become a headache for the duo who personify "sovereign democracy" in Russia.

I would go so far as to say that such a political gambit would inevitably result in a Pyrrhic victory for Moscow, and not only because the hundreds of billions of dollars that would flow into the federal budget, the Stabilization Fund, the Reserve Fund, and the Fund for the "Greening of Russia" would certainly not be channeled into diversifying the economy. The past nine years have demonstrated graphically how the Kremlin tries to avoid such idiocies, restricting itself to words that are starkly at odds with its deeds.

War's Main Losers

Russia's foreign-policy influence, which is based on confrontation with the West, long-standing friendship with rogue states (thank you, former Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov), and on using energy and military force to pressure Europe and its own nearest neighbors, will come to an end very soon. Within five, or at most 10 years after the war with Iran (if indeed it takes place), there will be a regime change in Tehran as a result of the dire economic situation, and Russia will lose any influence on Iran.

Europe, by contrast, will be in a position to buy Iranian gas, and thus to talk to Russia on normal terms, and not from a position of weakness. Then fraternal Syria will fall off the Kremlin wall -- Syria, where Russian warships can moor freely as and when they please, and whose "sovereign democracy" Russian military instructors do such a wonderful job of defending from Israeli "aggression."

Recollections of partnership with the regime in Tehran and senseless dreams of a gas monopoly in Europe and influence on the post-Soviet Caucasus will become the last refuge of those who indulged in, and/or proclaimed, the imperial ambitions of an economically weak, but for that very reason extremely aggressive country. Those whose knowledge and capabilities differ from those of their early communist predecessors only in the degree of their greed and thievery.

It's difficult to believe that the Arab states of the Persian Gulf and the Near East, which have a genuine fear of Iran, would agree to cooperate with Moscow, which is doing all it can to provoke a conflict between the West and Tehran, especially as those states would be directly affected by Iran's response in that conflict.

No Hope For Change

The Kremlin's adaptation of Stalin's approach that led to the start of World War II -- "We'll maneuver them into a fight and then move in and pick up the pieces" -- will not bring the Kremlin any long-term dividends.

There will be more grandiose "national projects," fewer results, the money will run out or be diverted into various pockets (there have been many examples of that remarkable phenomenon), and no one will let anyone take anything. On the contrary, the Russian leadership duo will be left empty-handed.

In fact, all this may well happen even without a war in Iran, over more or less the same time period, and with the same miserable outcome for Russia. There is simply no chance either for a real improvement in relations between the present Russian leadership and the West, or for implementing the domestic political and economic reforms that Russia desperately needs.

In the absence of basic freedoms, a civil society, and economic expertise, a regime that relies only on dubious strength and on natural resources is doomed to suffer major domestic and foreign policy and financial defeats, even if it enjoys the support of a population that for centuries has refused to understand how it is being abused.

You may call me a dreamer, a Russophobe, or worse, but this is the reason why Russia will have to learn geopolitical literacy from its own mistakes, to the accompaniment of slightly adapted but still familiar Kremlin slogans, declarations of its own greatness and parallel threats to the West.

Where 's your shoe, Khrushchev? It's the last hope we have! And that is both sad and frightening, as no one can predict what the likely consequences of that exercise will be, either for the Russian Federation or for the rest of the world.

Dmitry Sidorov is a Moscow-based commentator.

[vector7]

Medvedev warns of Israel-Iran war

Middle East News
Sep 20, 2009, 13:26 GMT

Moscow - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in an interview broadcast Sunday warned of the consequences of a war between Israel and Iran.

'This is the worst thing imaginable,' the Kremlin chief told US broadcaster CNN.

However Russia would - despite protests from the United States - reserve the right to continue supplying weapons to Iran, Medvedev said.

Neither Iran nor Israel could, in the event of war, count on Russia's support, he added.

Medvedev said he hoped a decision of this nature was never made, according to the CNN interview, which the Kremlin said was recorded on September 15.

The Russian president also confirmed that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had paid a 'secret visit' to Moscow in early September. Israel has to date not confirmed the visit.

Russian and Israel media have reported that their had focused on 'sensitive security issues' and planned arms deals between Russia and Iran.

Iran is awaiting the delivery of S-300 missiles from Russia, which Tehran wants to use to secure its nuclear facilities, according to official reports. Russia is building Iran's first nuclear power plant.

[vector7]

Inside the Apocalyptic Soviet Doomsday Machine

By Nicholas Thompson 09.21.09



The technical name was Perimeter, but some called it Mertvaya Ruka, Dead Hand.
Illustration: Ryan Kelly

Valery Yarynich glances nervously over his shoulder. Clad in a brown leather jacket, the 72-year-old former Soviet colonel is hunkered in the back of the dimly lit Iron Gate restaurant in Washington, DC. It's March 2009—the Berlin Wall came down two decades ago—but the lean and fit Yarynich is as jumpy as an informant dodging the KGB. He begins to whisper, quietly but firmly.

"The Perimeter system is very, very nice," he says. "We remove unique responsibility from high politicians and the military." He looks around again.

Yarynich is talking about Russia's doomsday machine. That's right, an actual doomsday device—a real, functioning version of the ultimate weapon, always presumed to exist only as a fantasy of apocalypse-obsessed science fiction writers and paranoid über-hawks. The thing that historian Lewis Mumford called "the central symbol of this scientifically organized nightmare of mass extermination." Turns out Yarynich, a 30-year veteran of the Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces and Soviet General Staff, helped build one.



Chart source: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Natural Resources Defense Council

The point of the system, he explains, was to guarantee an automatic Soviet response to an American nuclear strike. Even if the US crippled the USSR with a surprise attack, the Soviets could still hit back. It wouldn't matter if the US blew up the Kremlin, took out the defense ministry, severed the communications network, and killed everyone with stars on their shoulders. Ground-based sensors would detect that a devastating blow had been struck and a counterattack would be launched.

The technical name was Perimeter, but some called it Mertvaya Ruka, or Dead Hand. It was built 25 years ago and remained a closely guarded secret. With the demise of the USSR, word of the system did leak out, but few people seemed to notice. In fact, though Yarynich and a former Minuteman launch officer named Bruce Blair have been writing about Perimeter since 1993 in numerous books and newspaper articles, its existence has not penetrated the public mind or the corridors of power.

The Russians still won't discuss it, and Americans at the highest levels—including former top officials at the State Department and White House—say they've never heard of it. When I recently told former CIA director James Woolsey that the USSR had built a doomsday device, his eyes grew cold. "I hope to God the Soviets were more sensible than that." They weren't.

The system remains so shrouded that Yarynich worries his continued openness puts him in danger. He might have a point: One Soviet official who spoke with Americans about the system died in a mysterious fall down a staircase. But Yarynich takes the risk. He believes the world needs to know about Dead Hand. Because, after all, it is still in place.

The system that Yarynich helped build came online in 1985, after some of the most dangerous years of the Cold War. Throughout the '70s, the USSR had steadily narrowed the long US lead in nuclear firepower. At the same time, post-Vietnam, recession-era America seemed weak and confused. Then in strode Ronald Reagan, promising that the days of retreat were over. It was morning in America, he said, and twilight in the Soviet Union.

Part of the new president's hard-line approach was to make the Soviets believe that the US was unafraid of nuclear war. Many of his advisers had long advocated modeling and actively planning for nuclear combat.

These were the progeny of Herman Kahn, author of On Thermonuclear War and Thinking About the Unthinkable. They believed that the side with the largest arsenal and an expressed readiness to use it would gain leverage during every crisis.


You either launch first or convince the enemy that you can strike back even if you're dead.

Illustration: Ryan Kelly

The new administration began expanding the US nuclear arsenal and priming the silos. And it backed up the bombs with bluster. In his 1981 Senate confirmation hearings, Eugene Rostow, incoming head of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, signaled that the US just might be crazy enough to use its weapons, declaring that Japan "not only survived but flourished after the nuclear attack" of 1945. Speaking of a possible US-Soviet exchange, he said, "Some estimates predict that there would be 10 million casualties on one side and 100 million on another. But that is not the whole of the population."

Meanwhile, in ways both small and large, US behavior toward the Soviets took on a harsher edge. Soviet ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin lost his reserved parking pass at the State Department. US troops swooped into tiny Grenada to defeat communism in Operation Urgent Fury. US naval exercises pushed ever closer to Soviet waters.

The strategy worked. Moscow soon believed the new US leadership really was ready to fight a nuclear war. But the Soviets also became convinced that the US was now willing to start a nuclear war. "The policy of the Reagan administration has to be seen as adventurous and serving the goal of world domination," Soviet marshal Nikolai Ogarkov told a gathering of the Warsaw Pact chiefs of staff in September 1982.

"In 1941, too, there were many among us who warned against war and many who did not believe a war was coming," Ogarkov said, referring to the German invasion of his country. "Thus, the situation is not only very serious but also very dangerous."

A few months later, Reagan made one of the most provocative moves of the Cold War. He announced that the US was going to develop a shield of lasers and nuclear weapons in space to defend against Soviet warheads. He called it missile defense; critics mocked it as "Star Wars."

To Moscow it was the Death Star—and it confirmed that the US was planning an attack. It would be impossible for the system to stop thousands of incoming Soviet missiles at once, so missile defense made sense only as a way of mopping up after an initial US strike. The US would first fire its thousands of weapons at Soviet cities and missile silos. Some Soviet weapons would survive for a retaliatory launch, but Reagan's shield could block many of those. Thus, Star Wars would nullify the long-standing doctrine of mutually assured destruction, the principle that neither side would ever start a nuclear war since neither could survive a counterattack.

As we know now, Reagan was not planning a first strike. According to his private diaries and personal letters, he genuinely believed he was bringing about lasting peace. (He once told Gorbachev he might be a reincarnation of the human who invented the first shield.) The system, Reagan insisted, was purely defensive. But as the Soviets knew, if the Americans were mobilizing for attack, that's exactly what you'd expect them to say. And according to Cold War logic, if you think the other side is about to launch, you should do one of two things: Either launch first or convince the enemy that you can strike back even if you're dead.

Perimeter ensures the ability to strike back, but it's no hair-trigger device. It was designed to lie semi-dormant until switched on by a high official in a crisis. Then it would begin monitoring a network of seismic, radiation, and air pressure sensors for signs of nuclear explosions.

Before launching any retaliatory strike, the system had to check off four if/then propositions: If it was turned on, then it would try to determine that a nuclear weapon had hit Soviet soil. If it seemed that one had, the system would check to see if any communication links to the war room of the Soviet General Staff remained. If they did, and if some amount of time—likely ranging from 15 minutes to an hour—passed without further indications of attack, the machine would assume officials were still living who could order the counterattack and shut down. But if the line to the General Staff went dead, then Perimeter would infer that apocalypse had arrived. It would immediately transfer launch authority to whoever was manning the system at that moment deep inside a protected bunker—bypassing layers and layers of normal command authority. At that point, the ability to destroy the world would fall to whoever was on duty: maybe a high minister sent in during the crisis, maybe a 25-year-old junior officer fresh out of military academy. And if that person decided to press the button ... If/then. If/then. If/then. If/then.

Once initiated, the counterattack would be controlled by so-called command missiles. Hidden in hardened silos designed to withstand the massive blast and electromagnetic pulses of a nuclear explosion, these missiles would launch first and then radio down coded orders to whatever Soviet weapons had survived the first strike. At that point, the machines will have taken over the war. Soaring over the smoldering, radioactive ruins of the motherland, and with all ground communications destroyed, the command missiles would lead the destruction of the US.

The US did build versions of these technologies, deploying command missiles in what was called the Emergency Rocket Communications System. It also developed seismic and radiation sensors to monitor for nuclear tests or explosions the world over. But the US never combined it all into a system of zombie retaliation. It feared accidents and the one mistake that could end it all.

Instead, airborne American crews with the capacity and authority to launch retaliatory strikes were kept aloft throughout the Cold War. Their mission was similar to Perimeter's, but the system relied more on people and less on machines.

And in keeping with the principles of Cold War game theory, the US told the Soviets all about it.

Great Moments in Nuclear Game Theory

Permissive Action Links When: 1960s What: Midway through the Cold War, American leaders began to worry that a rogue US officer might launch a small, unauthorized strike, prompting massive retaliation. So in 1962, Robert McNamara ordered every nuclear weapon locked with numerical codes. Effect: None. Irritated by the restriction, Strategic Air Command set all the codes to strings of zeros. The Defense Department didn't learn of the subterfuge until 1977.

US-Soviet Hotline When: 1963 What: The USSR and US set up a direct line, reserved for emergencies. The goal was to prevent miscommunication about nuclear launches. Effect: Unclear. To many it was a safeguard. But one Defense official in the 1970s hypothesized that the Soviet leader could authorize a small strike and then call to blame the launch on a renegade, saying, "But if you promise not to respond, I will order an absolute lockdown immediately."

Missile Defense When: 1983 What: President Reagan proposed a system of nuclear weapons and lasers in space to shoot down enemy missiles. He considered it a tool for peace and promised to share the technology. Effect: Destabilizing. The Soviets believed the true purpose of the "Star Wars" system was to back up a US first strike. The technology couldn't stop a massive Soviet launch, they figured, but it might thwart a weakened Soviet response.

Airborne Command Post When: 1961-1990 What: For three decades, the US kept aircraft in the sky 24/7 that could communicate with missile silos and give the launch order if ground-based command centers were ever destroyed. Effect: Stabilizing. Known as Looking Glass, it was the American equivalent of Perimeter, guaranteeing that the US could launch a counterattack. And the US told the Soviets all about it, ensuring that it served as a deterrent.

The first mention of a doomsday machine, according to P. D. Smith, author of Doomsday Men, was on an NBC radio broadcast in February 1950, when the atomic scientist Leo Szilard described a hypothetical system of hydrogen bombs that could cover the world in radioactive dust and end all human life. "Who would want to kill everybody on earth?" he asked rhetorically. Someone who wanted to deter an attacker. If Moscow were on the brink of military defeat, for example, it could halt an invasion by declaring, "We will detonate our H-bombs."

A decade and a half later, Stanley Kubrick's satirical masterpiece Dr. Strangelove permanently embedded the idea in the public imagination. In the movie, a rogue US general sends his bomber wing to preemptively strike the USSR. The Soviet ambassador then reveals that his country has just deployed a device that will automatically respond to any nuclear attack by cloaking the planet in deadly "cobalt-thorium-G."

"The whole point of the doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret!" cries Dr. Strangelove. "Why didn't you tell the world?" After all, such a device works as a deterrent only if the enemy is aware of its existence. In the movie, the Soviet ambassador can only lamely respond, "It was to be announced at the party congress on Monday."

In real life, however, many Mondays and many party congresses passed after Perimeter was created. So why didn't the Soviets tell the world, or at least the White House, about it? No evidence exists that top Reagan administration officials knew anything about a Soviet doomsday plan. George Shultz, secretary of state for most of Reagan's presidency, told me that he had never heard of it.

In fact, the Soviet military didn't even inform its own civilian arms negotiators. "I was never told about Perimeter," says Yuli Kvitsinsky, lead Soviet negotiator at the time the device was created. And the brass still won't talk about it today. In addition to Yarynich, a few other people confirmed the existence of the system to me—notably former Soviet space official Alexander Zheleznyakov and defense adviser Vitali Tsygichko—but most questions about it are still met with scowls and sharp nyets. At an interview in Moscow this February with Vladimir Dvorkin, another former official in the Strategic Rocket Forces, I was ushered out of the room almost as soon as I brought up the topic.

So why was the US not informed about Perimeter? Kremlinologists have long noted the Soviet military's extreme penchant for secrecy, but surely that couldn't fully explain what appears to be a self-defeating strategic error of extraordinary magnitude.

The silence can be attributed partly to fears that the US would figure out how to disable the system. But the principal reason is more complicated and surprising. According to both Yarynich and Zheleznyakov, Perimeter was never meant as a traditional doomsday machine. The Soviets had taken game theory one step further than Kubrick, Szilard, and everyone else: They built a system to deter themselves.

By guaranteeing that Moscow could hit back, Perimeter was actually designed to keep an overeager Soviet military or civilian leader from launching prematurely during a crisis. The point, Zheleznyakov says, was "to cool down all these hotheads and extremists. No matter what was going to happen, there still would be revenge. Those who attack us will be punished."

And Perimeter bought the Soviets time. After the US installed deadly accurate Pershing II missiles on German bases in December 1983, Kremlin military planners assumed they would have only 10 to 15 minutes from the moment radar picked up an attack until impact. Given the paranoia of the era, it is not unimaginable that a malfunctioning radar, a flock of geese that looked like an incoming warhead, or a misinterpreted American war exercise could have triggered a catastrophe. Indeed, all these events actually occurred at some point. If they had happened at the same time, Armageddon might have ensued.

Perimeter solved that problem. If Soviet radar picked up an ominous but ambiguous signal, the leaders could turn on Perimeter and wait. If it turned out to be geese, they could relax and Perimeter would stand down. Confirming actual detonations on Soviet soil is far easier than confirming distant launches. "That is why we have the system," Yarynich says. "To avoid a tragic mistake. "

The mistake that both Yarynich and his counterpart in the United States, Bruce Blair, want to avoid now is silence. It's long past time for the world to come to grips with Perimeter, they argue. The system may no longer be a central element of Russian strategy—US-based Russian arms expert Pavel Podvig calls it now "just another cog in the machine"—but Dead Hand is still armed.

To Blair, who today runs a think tank in Washington called the World Security Institute, such dismissals are unacceptable. Though neither he nor anyone in the US has up-to-the-minute information on Perimeter, he sees the Russians' refusal to retire it as yet another example of the insufficient reduction of forces on both sides. There is no reason, he says, to have thousands of armed missiles on something close to hair-trigger alert. Despite how far the world has come, there's still plenty of opportunity for colossal mistakes. When I talked to him recently, he spoke both in sorrow and in anger: "The Cold War is over. But we act the same way that we used to."

Yarynich, likewise, is committed to the principle that knowledge about nuclear command and control means safety. But he also believes that Perimeter can still serve a useful purpose. Yes, it was designed as a self-deterrent, and it filled that role well during the hottest days of the Cold War. But, he wonders, couldn't it now also play the traditional role of a doomsday device? Couldn't it deter future enemies if publicized?

The waters of international conflict never stay calm for long. A recent case in point was the heated exchange between the Bush administration and Russian president Vladimir Putin over Georgia. "It's nonsense not to talk about Perimeter," Yarynich says. If the existence of the device isn't made public, he adds, "we have more risk in future crises. And crisis is inevitable."

As Yarynich describes Perimeter with pride, I challenge him with the classic critique of such systems: What if they fail? What if something goes wrong? What if a computer virus, earthquake, reactor meltdown, and power outage conspire to convince the system that war has begun?

Yarynich sips his beer and dismisses my concerns. Even given an unthinkable series of accidents, he reminds me, there would still be at least one human hand to prevent Perimeter from ending the world. Prior to 1985, he says, the Soviets designed several automatic systems that could launch counterattacks without any human involvement whatsoever. But all these devices were rejected by the high command.

Perimeter, he points out, was never a truly autonomous doomsday device. "If there are explosions and all communications are broken," he says, "then the people in this facility can—I would like to underline can—launch."

Yes, I agree, a human could decide in the end not to press the button. But that person is a soldier, isolated in an underground bunker, surrounded by evidence that the enemy has just destroyed his homeland and everyone he knows. Sensors have gone off; timers are ticking. There's a checklist, and soldiers are trained to follow checklists.

Wouldn't any officer just launch? I ask Yarynich what he would do if he were alone in the bunker. He shakes his head. "I cannot say if I would push the button."

It might not actually be a button, he then explains. It could now be some kind of a key or other secure form of switch. He's not absolutely sure. After all, he says, Dead Hand is continuously being upgraded.

Senior editor Nicholas Thompson (nicholas_thompson@wired.com) is the author of The Hawk and the Dove: Paul Nitze, George Kennan, and the History of the Cold War.

[vector7]

USA Prepares to Attack Russia in 3 or 4 Years?



US army bases will appear on the Black Sea Coast – in Bulgaria and Romania. About $50 million will be assigned to build the base in Romania, and the Pentagon plans to spend $60 million more for the same purpose in Bulgaria.

The Romanian base is expected to be put in operation in 2010, whereas the second one will most likely be launched in 2011 or 2012. Over 4,000 US military men are expected to serve at the two bases: 1,600 in Romania and 2,500 in Bulgaria. The authorities of the two nations expect that the US military men will settle there for a long time.

Col. Gary Russ, commander of Joint Task Force-East, sad that no one in Bulgaria and Romania had anything against the US military presence in the two countries. Vice President Joseph Biden, who recently visited several countries of Eastern Europe, including Romania, stated that the European nation supported a new configuration of the US missile defense system.

It is not ruled out that elements of the US missile defense system may eventually appear in Eastern Europe. US officials say that the appearance of army bases in Bulgaria and Romania strictly corresponds to the plans of the US administration to relocate troops in foreign countries (George W. Bush announced the plans in 2004).

It goes about the Pentagon’s intention to cut its 55,000-strong group in Germany and redeploy a part of the troops in several countries of Eastern Europe, including Bulgaria and Romania.

Alexander Khramchikhin, deputy director of the Institute for Political and Military Analysis, said in an interview with Pravda.Ru that the plans of the United States to build army bases in Romania and Bulgaria were exposed nearly a decade ago.

“Indeed, the Americans need more bases for their actions in the Middle East. They have bases in Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, but they are not enough to satisfy all of Washington’s needs. The Pentagon needs new bases in Eastern Europe to maintain its troops in the Middle East,” the expert said.

Another expert, Konstantin Sivkov, told Pravda.Ru that the appearance of new army bases in Bulgaria and Romania would pose a threat to Russian interests.

“The number of US military men at the two bases is not going to be large, but who can say that it will not be doubled, tripped or quadrupled in the future? Furthermore, the appearance of NATO bases on the Black Sea coast will come as an addition to the US military objects in the Baltic region. As a result, Russia will find itself trapped.

[Malsua]

Pravda strikes again. The headline says one thing, the text another.

[vector7]

Triangular Constellation

Jeff Nyquist talks to Dariusz Rohnka

Part One

Dariusz Rohnka: Jeff, you belong to a very small group of American writers trying to understand the events of 1989-1991. What in your opinion was the decisive factor in the universal acceptance of the official version of events? Why is it that other interpretations aroused so little interest?

Jeff Nyquist: The decisive factor in the universal acceptance of the official version of the “fall of Communism” was the success of Soviet active measures in Western countries, along with the steady advance of socialist ideas within those countries.

Why were alternate interpretations disregarded? The West is addicted to comfort, to the flattery of public conceits, to obligatory economic optimism, and to the mistaken assumption that only popular regimes can endure. The West does not realize that dictatorship is the norm in human history while freedom is the exception. Therefore, the West was ready to assume that its way of life was bound to win. The Conservatives were eager to claim a victory for themselves, while the socialists were given the chance to advance their agenda without the stigma of the USSR.

DR: Myth of collapse of communism survived unscathed and unchallenged through the last 20 years. General perception is that not only was communism eradicated as a political force but also the concept of Soviet power as enemy disappeared. In its place we have instead the “axis of evil” or Islamic terrorism, and their ties with Moscow or Peking, both in the past and presently, are overlooked. What are the practical consequences of such persistent and effective disinformation?

JN: Soviet strategy entered a diversionary phase in 1989, with the following features. First, they took away the West’s concept of the enemy by removing the word Soviet. By September 2001 they succeeded in establishing a new enemy – al Qaeda. The practical consequence of this strategy is twofold: The Americans are engaged in a program of nuclear disarmament; and they have become diverted by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This means that the U.S. is no longer monitoring or countering the war preparations of Moscow’s new military bloc.

DR: Long term strategy, which has global triumph of communism as its ultimate goal, adopted under the guidance of Shelepin and Mironov in the Sixties, was perfected for decades. The so called “democratic opposition” was organised in Eastern Europe to take over “democratic” government. In Western Europe cooperation of Eurocommunists with Social-democratic parties of the Left brought EU into being. Could election of Barack Obama be seen as a similar development in the United States?

JN: The election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States signifies the end of the American Republic as a bulwark against socialism, and the end of America’s protective nuclear umbrella for the free world, which will soon face an unprecedented crisis. Barack Obama began his political career in the living room of an infamous American terrorist and communist named Bill Ayers. It was at Ayers’s home, in 1995, that Alice Palmer introduced Obama as the man who would take over her Illinois State Senate seat while she committed to run for U.S. Congress. Palmer’s ideology may be seen in the fact that she attended the 27th Congress of the Communist Party Soviet Union (which she wrote about in glowing terms afterward). Obama is clearly from the Communist dominated element within the Democratic Party. He is, indeed, the American equivalent of a Eurocommunist.

DR: You mentioned Bill Ayers who is not widely known outside the United States. It is difficult for non-Americans to comprehend how a person like him could play such a prominent part in American politics today? Could you please enlighten us?

JN: Ayers is not prominent, insofar as President Obama has publicly distanced himself from Ayers for obvious political reasons. This is done in a calculated way, in order to confuse the public. In fact, Ayers has been an ally and mentor to Barack Obama for many years. It is rumored that he wrote Obama’s first book. The very suspicion of such a connection should have disqualified Obama from the presidency. He does not deny visiting Ayers’s house or being the hand-picked successor of Alice Palmer. There is no question, in all of this, that Ayers and Palmer hail from a communist milieu. But most Americans today do not know what a communist is. Furthermore, the era of strong anti-Communism in America has been maligned in media reports, television documentaries and popular movies. It has been debunked generally as “McCarthyism,” which signifies injustice and paranoia. Of course, there are voices who are warning the American people about the connection between the former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers and Barack Obama, and a minority is troubled by the news. The majority, however, thinks nothing about it. They have been indoctrinated with the notion that people who talk about Communists in government are not credible, and even if it were true it wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing (as far as they know).

DR: The optimists would say that the American Republic has had its fair share of socialist Presidents and yet survived. What, in your opinion, makes Obama significantly worse than F.D. Roosevelt, J.F. Kennedy or that most famous of peanut farmers, Jimmy Carter?

JN: I don’t think it’s correct to describe Roosevelt, Kennedy or Carter as socialists. While Roosevelt flirted with socialists, he was not himself a socialist. Jimmy Carter was manipulated by socialists within his party but his anti-Soviet measures in the wake of the Afghan invasion were tougher than those of President Reagan (i.e., grain embargo and boycotting the 1980s Olympic Games in Moscow). Kennedy was stridently anti-Communist and his socialist pretences were little more than political posturing. The danger in these politicians was the way in which they pandered to the left, mixing traditional messages with concessions to socialism. In the case of Obama, we see a man who was groomed by actual Communists, like his boyhood mentor Frank Marshall Davis, or Bill Ayers – who is suspected as having ghost-written Obama’s first book. Obama is unlike any previous American politician, and there is every reason to suspect that he hates America’s free market system.

DR: In your Origins of the Fourth World War you start with the assumption of the inevitability of another global conflict. You see war as a constant and essential element of human history. If so conflict between the Soviets and China on one hand and the United States on the other, is inevitable. Are you convinced that this is the only possible scenario?

JN: In the triangular constellation of Russia, China and the United States we find decisive factors that make Russia and China allies of necessity. They are temporary allies, of course, because all alliances are temporary. The factors that make this alliance may be simplified as follows: First, Siberia and the deserts of Central Asia provide an enormous natural barrier between the two countries. It is plain to see that even if China defeated Russia, she would merely take control of Siberia. How many Chinese can be settled in Siberia? As for Central Asian oil and gas reserves, it is cheaper to buy oil and gas than to take these resources from a nuclear superpower. As for the Russians, their position in the Far East depends on the future status of Japan and South Korea (currently under the American umbrella). Here is where the most decisive factor comes into play; namely, the existence of the United States. If China attacked Russia, the United States would undoubtedly help Russia and penalize China. If Russia attacked China, the United States would help China and penalize Russia. This is the well-known pattern of American international behavior. If China wanted to overrun all of Russia, it would have to deal with the United States first. This is the real lesson which dictator states learned from studying World War II. They learned that America will not allow an aggressive power to dominate Europe or Asia unchecked.

The need to undermine the United States economically and internally has been a key aspect of Soviet and Chinese strategy since the death of Stalin. The Russian and Chinese leaders continue to show their commitment to overthrowing American power by their subtle campaign against the dollar, by their aid to anti-American dictators and movements around the world. The key point is, Russia and China cannot enjoy the dominance they otherwise would enjoy over Europe and Asia without the fall of the United States. Russian and Chinese strategists are very clear on this point. They understand their position perfectly. Even the Sino-Soviet split was used by the Chinese to break out of the West’s containment and achieve favored nation trading status with the U.S. This, in fact, was a policy for penetrating and damaging the U.S. position economically. And so it has proved to be the case.

DR: Does this mean that you do not expect the Kremlin and the Chinese politburo to continue with the charade of Sino-Soviet split to keep deceiving the West? Do you expect the conflict between Peking and Moscow to be “real” or merely for the show, i.e. to extract further concessions?

JN: The Sino-Soviet split ended long ago. In 2001 the Russians and Chinese signed a friendship treaty. Genuine conflict between the two countries is only likely if America is removed from the international scene as a major power.

DR: Should we accept the theory of inevitable armed conflict, we must consider relative military potential of both sides, even if our knowledge on the subject is only fragmentary. Is America prepared to repel an all out attack? If so how likely is that state of readiness to continue?

JN: The theory of inevitable armed conflict is not a theory. Armed conflict is always inevitable. How would it sound if I spoke of the “theory” that all men are mortal, or the “theory” that the earth will continue to turn on its axis? These are not theories at all. A philosopher may haggle on the fine points of theory, but every sensible person knows that those who came before us are dead, and those who come after us will die; that the earth will continue to turn on its axis. Furthermore, we know that history is punctuated by periods of war between major powers – between Athens and Sparta, between Rome and Carthage, between Christendom and Islam, etc. If you want to see who is going to fight, look at the major powers.

Today the strategic position of the leading countries is absolutely clear: In order to divide the world between them, Russia and China must destroy American power. If the dictator states fail to do this, they will not survive. Eventually, democracy and the imperatives of normal life will overtake them; for this is what America represents in the world. America has therefore relied on the common sense of humanity to recognize the superiority of free markets and free elections. Sadly, it has been a grave error to rely on “common sense” alone. The leading dictator states have turned to a more elaborate system of subversion. They know that common sense is easily confused. Their goal is not simply attained by a sudden nuclear strike against the United States. Decades of subversion and psychological warfare have already passed. At this late hour the United States has been undermined culturally, spiritually and politically. And now America is being disarmed by false diplomacy. We must not forget, as well, the promotion of anti-Americanism within America itself. Then there is economic warfare, as conducted through China’s trade policy and Russia’s manipulation of oil and gas prices (via its operatives in the Middle East and elsewhere). And do not forget the diversionary warfare technique of “gray terror”, as described by Viktor Suvorov in his book titled Spetsnaz and further illuminated in the testimony of Alexander Litvinenko (who named al Qaeda’s Ayman al-Zawahri as a longtime KGB agent). The Russians and Chinese have penetrated American banks, organized crime and politics. The poison has gone everywhere, and no effective antidote has been applied. After thousands of KGB-GRU operations against the United States, there is little chance that the U.S. nuclear umbrella will remain for much longer. The United States is in the process of disarming itself in a decisive way. Of course, there may be an attempt to oppose this disarmament. But such an opposition only introduces us to the fact that America is divided between an unwitting Soviet faction and a befuddled patriotic faction. In a civil war between these factions, the Russians and Chinese gain the advantage.

DR: How possible is it, bearing in mind the economic weakness of the developed world and the apparent readiness of the West to unilaterally disarm, that Soviet objectives could be achieved without armed conflict on a global scale?

JN: It is possible, but not likely. This is because the pre-condition of Moscow’s victory includes a severe slump in the global economy. This slump, while contributing to America’s displacement as global power, will necessarily lead to the destabilization of Europe and Asia. Wars will break out, and nationalism will re-emerge as a force. It is hard to say how things will play out, but the Russians will not be able to keep Europe under their thumb through peaceful means for long.

DR: You wrote some time ago about the Arctic Sea incident. Isn’t it just too puzzling for words? Why would the soviets use such complicated means of transport to Iran if they could have delivered the missiles via the Caspian Sea without anyone knowing? In that context doesn’t the Iranian connection look suspiciously like a smoke screen for something else?

JN: The Arctic Sea was obviously carrying secret cargo of strategic value. And you are right to say that the Iranian connection looks like a smokescreen. For those who do not understand the Russian General Staff’s operational method, I will quote the words of former GRU Colonel Stanislav Lunev: “If you ever hear that Arab terrorists have attacked an American city with nuclear weapons, don’t believe it.” He said it would be Russian special forces commandos conducting the attack. I asked him what followed this initial nuclear terrorism phase, and he said, “After a period of weeks or months the Russian missiles will come [to finish the job].” Instead of making an elaborate explanation I will list a few concepts: (1) A decapitation attack to eliminate all those with the authority to launch nuclear retaliation strikes; (2) diversionary attacks to conceal the identity of the real attackers; (3) disarming attacks to eliminate remaining nuclear weapons.

DR: Perhaps you could offer us an elaborate explanation after all, please?

JN: The public, generally, does not understand the concept of a nuclear war. Like all other forms of warfare there are tactics and strategies. It is not a simple affair of nuclear strike and counterstrike. Put yourself in the position of someone charged with winning a nuclear war. How do you defeat a nuclear-armed opponent? The key to winning a nuclear war is to eliminate the enemy’s nuclear weapons without allowing him to launch any in retaliation. In strict military terms, the nuclear strategist wants to paralyze his victim by attacking and eliminating the leadership of the target country, so that there is nobody left who can order a nuclear strike. Please keep in mind that only a handful of people in the United States can order the launch of nuclear missiles, and only they have the launch codes. Therefore, the attacker begins (1) with a decapitation attack under false colors. The attackers will seem to be Arab terrorists. In reality, however, they will be Russian or Chinese special forces commandos tasked with breaking the U.S. military’s chain of command. The diversionary attacks have already happened, and 9/11 was probably one of them (if we are to believe the testimony of Alexander Litvinenko and others). Finally, when there is no danger from American nuclear weapons, the main Russian missile forces can be used to destroy American missiles which will be sitting helpless in silos and in ports or air bases. The elimination of a society’s leaders is a temporary expedient, so that a brief window is opened for attacking the weapons themselves. Once the weapons are eliminated, America could not deter enemy attacks on her cities. Russia and China will then have strategic nuclear supremacy. No country will then be able to stop them. At that moment, the world will belong to them. The small arsenals of France, Britain and Israel would have no effective deterrent power. The Russians would demand their dismantling in the same way Sparta, in ancient times, demanded that defeated cities take down their fortifications.

Part Two

DR: Let’s go back to your President. Was the recent decision of the Nobel Peace Prize committee a direct result of his UN speech where he declared his goal of nuclear disarmament? Or do you think we ought to see it in a wider context?

JN: The Nobel Peace Prize was given to Obama because he promised to strip the United States of nuclear weapons. Of course, he should have received the Stalin Prize; but today we do not have the Stalin Prize. We have the Nobel Prize. As for a wider context awarding the Nobel Prize was meant to push Obama to making key concessions to Moscow.

DR: Can Obama be seen as a latter day Salvador Allende or is he more sinister than that?

JN: I think Barack Obama is, indeed, very close to being an American version of Salvador Allende. I cannot tell if he is animated by darker motives. His words are politically correct, his tone is that of a social democrat, yet his physical mannerisms set off alarm bells. His verbal delivery, his way of standing, reminds me of Hitler: the set jaw, the furrowed brow, the commanding tone. I hesitate to make this last point, since I’m not an expert in body language. Nevertheless, I watched his State of the Union Speech with dismay. I recently interviewed an American businessman who worked in Moscow during the 1990s who heard about a young half-black communist being groomed by Moscow to become U.S. President. Investigators are attempting to pull together corroborating evidence, and I suspect there is something to this story – which may soon be confirmed by documents.

DR: Is Obama really in charge or are the Clintons pulling the strings?

JN: Obama and the Clintons are Leftists who despise American power. The main difference is that Obama is more audacious and he will do what the Clintons didn’t dare attempt. One must view them as a coalition that assists Moscow within the United States.

DR: Communism wants to conquer the world. Since the October revolution, Bolsheviks celebrated many triumphs. After WWII they occupied half of European continent, then Asia, etc., etc. In the last decade they had many successes in Latin America. All this was achieved in the face of almost perfect indifference of the so called Free World. Is there a limit to this passivity? Are there any bounds to the West’s appeasement of communist aggression?

JN: The free world is indifferent because the free world is distracted. I was once asked by a Russian defector why Americans are not more patriotic. I said, “Because they are too busy shopping and having fun.” Well, the shopping spree is coming to an end. The peace and prosperity mediated by American power is also coming to an end. What happens next will depend on the people of Poland, Ukraine, Germany and France (among others). Poland is a front line state in the struggle against Russian power, and everything that happens in Poland today is decisive for Europe. The Russians face serious problems at home, and their strategy of neutralizing the United States is simply a preliminary step to subjugating Europe. If the countries of Europe show their resolve, Russia will be placed in a hopeless situation. Here Poland can set the tone for the rest of Europe. It is my hope that Europe (in the days to come) will recover its moral courage, its internal vitality, and its faith.

DR: I am taken aback by your courtesy. Nevertheless, I can’t see how countries of the communist bloc can play any role in the struggle against the Soviet power, simply because their sovereignty is as authentic as the Moscow coup in August 1991, or the massacre in Timisoara in 1989. The “democratic process” in these countries is successfully manipulated by institutions created by the Soviets. Political parties without any base, fully controlled media, biased opinion polling centers, essentially communist armies, security forces, courts, etc. Apart from playing a role of a fig leaf what other role can these countries play?

JN: Former Warsaw Pact and Soviet countries are under the control of hidden Soviet structures, hidden KGB and mafia structures that work for Moscow. There are several methods of controlling people through these structures: (1) control by murder and the fear of being murdered; (2) control by blackmail; (3) control by economic influence or the promise of economic opportunity; (4) control by the use of mind control drugs (which are less understood outside the special services of the former USSR); (5) control by ideology/propaganda or active measures. All of these forms of control break down when the global economy contracts beyond a certain point. When this occurs, the countries of Europe will be transformed psychologically as well as physically. I do not believe Moscow can cope with this problem, and all attempts at improvisation will prove ineffective. This is because force by itself cannot make people obey, and fraud requires a stable foundation and a predictable set of psychological reactions. But Europe is not going to exemplify a predictable set of reactions once the global economy fails; and there will be no stable foundation.

DR: America was the only power to stand up to the communist aggression and with that in mind I would like to ask you the last question: Would you kindly offer our readers your vision of the future? How will the global political situation look like in a decade or two?

JN: It is only a matter of time before Russian and Chinese power can advance unchecked. The Communists will gain strategic ascendency, but this won’t be the end of the story. The future Communist empire will suffer the following self-destroying effects: (1) Collapse of the global economy leading to global starvation on a massive scale; (2) conflict between Russia and China; (3) revolts and mutinies on all sides; (4) Russian troops entering Europe to crush pockets of independence; (5) then will arise the opinion throughout Europe that death is preferable to servitude; (6) and the realization in Moscow that they cannot use nuclear weapons on everyone.

DR: You maintain that there is no way of stopping the process of disarming of the United States and, furthermore, America is doomed to be defeated by the commies. Is the situation really that tragic? Is there no possibility of stopping the rot and replacing the current administration with people less divorced from reality?

JN: America’s leaders are divorced from reality because they are intellectually corrupt. This is very serious because our civilization requires intellectual integrity to maintain its current level. When we look at Washington, we find that intellectual integrity has given way to the pursuit of power, money and career advantage. Leaders have been dishonest in previous generations, to be sure. But today’s dishonesty includes an exceptionally high degree of self-deception – or self-dishonesty – that necessarily leads to a self destructive policy. The rampant narcissism of American national life and culture leads Americans to place a premium on appearances over reality; so that we now accept image as reality. But image is not reality.

To answer your first question, there is no way to stop the U.S. disarmament process, which has tremendous political momentum behind it. The fact is, America was decisively defeated during the extended Cold War, and few observers realize the magnitude of the defeat. While the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact has little strategic significance for Europe, except to make the “Finlandization” of Western Europe more likely, the Communist Bloc has gained control of South Africa, Congo, Angola, Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia and more. One country after another is falling, and there is no response from the American side. The Muslim world, also, has adopted a stronger anti-American position. To make matters worse, the American political system is on its last legs. Communist measures have been adopted and are being pushed by the federal government as well as by states like California, and the ideology of the U.S. president has a Soviet coloring. So we can see, without much trouble, what is coming to the whole world.

Communism is a philosophy of death, and when practiced on a global scale will bring about the greatest falling-off of population yet known. The breakup of many countries will occur as the result of the collapse of the global market system – with America at its nexus. There can be no ready adjustment to the economic calamity I am describing. Some countries will fare better than others. On the whole, there won’t be enough food, currencies will fail in nearly every country, and governments will be replaced. Everyone will see, quite clearly, that the acknowledgement of Russian power will accompany the advance of these phenomena. There may be an interval of seeming peace and relative adaptation to the new conditions, but in the end there will be a cascading economic downturn without any apparent bottom. The world has not understood the consequences of strangling the global market. Socialism in one country survives by plugging into the global market, however incidentally. The same applies to socialism in several countries. Once you reduce the entire planet to a socialist commonwealth, the global economy loses the core of its vitality. You don’t merely reduce everything to the level of the former Soviet Union. This crash continues until mankind is reduced to cannibalism, or until mankind rejects socialism. This is not mere rhetoric on my part, but seconded by reference to the most elementary economic principles – which are liberal principles, and which cannot be abandoned without calamitous economic effects. Therefore, socialism is going to meet its own death through the process of its victory. I see this happening in Europe, as well as America. And because America will be greatly damaged, and is far from the other inhabited continents, Europe will likely be the decisive battlefield – as in previous wars.

DR: Jeff, thank you for your time and thanks for sharing your views with our readers.

Article printed from : http://wydawnictwopodziemne.com/en

URL to article: http://wydawnictwopodziemne.com/en/2009/11/08/trojkatna-konstelacja/

[vector7]

Went looking for this article to be posted here and couldn't find it. I'm sure its somewhere around here.

Check out the lists below in red, think about the articles and threads we've been posting recently.

---

---

Surprise nuclear missile attack, part 2

---

Posted: November 15, 1999
1:00 am Eastern

By J.R. Nyquist
© 2011 WND

The greatest danger facing America is a possible nuclear attack from Russia.

This danger is not something imaginary. Russian nuclear missiles can reach America in about 30 minutes, reducing America's cities to rubble. Unlike Russia, America has no anti-ballistic missile defenses and no national shelter system. Furthermore, political changes in Russia have not reduced the danger of nuclear war. According to former CIA analyst Peter Vincent Pry, there has been a five-fold increase in nuclear war scares since the collapse of Communism. What accounts for the increased danger?

We have to look at Russia with an eye to previous defector warnings about Kremlin strategy. Americans need to reconsider the importance of KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, who predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union several years before it happened. Golitsyn's 1984 book, "New Lies for Old," alleged that the coming Soviet collapse would be orchestrated by the KGB in order to disarm the West. Gen. Jan Sejna, a high ranking Czech defector, made a similar claim in his 1982 book, "We Will Bury You." In 1967 Sejna learned of a plan to fake the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. This plan hoped to advance the arms control process, encourage Western disarmament, and alter the balance of power in Russia's favor.

Golitsyn and Sejna -- two significant defectors from the Communist bloc -- both described a long range Soviet plan. Both of them said this plan involved a grand deception, unprecedented in scope. Western policy-makers did not believe Golitsyn or Sejna's statements. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, for example, refused to consider the possibility of a Soviet plan. "One of the basic problems with the West," explained Sejna, "is its frequent failure to recognize the existence of any Soviet 'grand design' at all. Those rejecting this concept unwittingly serve Soviet efforts. ..."

To understand why the danger of nuclear war is increasing, we need to remember what Golitsyn and Sejna said about the final moves envisioned by Soviet deception planners. In 1984 Golitsyn predicted a future Russian military alliance with China. This alliance would be formed towards the end of the "final phase" of the long range strategy, when Russia would turn the tables on America and emerge with renewed strength. Golitsyn's 1984 book suggested that the end of the "final phase" would roughly correspond with the year 1999. A quick review of recent events shows the accuracy of this astonishing prediction. Consider Golitsyn's overall description of the future: First, the West disarms after Communism's "collapse"; then, Russia forms a military partnership with China while both countries increase their military power.

Accurate predictions need to be credited. If Golitsyn's allegations about a Soviet long-range deception are true, then Gorbachev and Yeltsin were never our friends. In that context, an increase in war scares may not be entirely accidental -- but intentional. In fact, every time Russia prepares its nuclear forces for launch, or sends its ballistic missile submarines to sea, America's reaction is studied by Russian specialists. Is there a weakness in U.S. early warning systems? Can these systems be bypassed or fooled? How quickly can America get her submarines to sea and her bombers into the air?

One can almost hear Russia's top generals saying, "Let us test the Americans."

It should be noted that the Norwegian rocket launch of January 1995, which momentarily triggered panic among the Russian generals, was definitely not such a "test." This case is interesting because of its psychological implications. Russia's generals feared that a harmless science rocket was part of an EMP precursor attack on their communications infrastructure -- a standard opening move in a nuclear war. Given America's generosity toward Russia, and the good relations that existed at the time, the generals' had no reason to fear a NATO attack. It might be argued, however, that their momentary panic suggests a bad conscience. In other words, no one is more paranoid of being robbed than a thief. And nobody is more frightened of a surprise nuclear attack than those who are plotting one themselves.

Totalitarian mentalities are always projecting their own evil intentions onto others. For example, Stalin plotted against his colleagues, accusing them of plotting against him. In nearly all cases Stalin's victims were innocent and Stalin was guilty. The same technique was used by Chairman Mao. When the Chinese tyrant wanted to destroy someone, he would begin with false accusations. In most cases Mao's accusations against others could justly be turned against Mao.

Armed with this psychological insight into the totalitarian mind, we need to take a fresh look at the statements of Russian strategists and military planners. According to "Soviet Military Strategy," a classic text used in the education of Russia's current crop of generals, America "plans to initiate a new world war by a surprise nuclear attack. ..."

"It must be realized," explains the Russian text, "that (America's) preparation for such a blow has gone too far, that too great financial and material resources have been expended (to permit a reversal of policy). Moreover, it must be remembered that adventurism and recklessness have always been characteristic of imperialism."

According to this same text: "The (American) imperialists are preparing an offensive against our country, a war of total destruction and mass annihilation of the population with nuclear weapons."

When Russian military texts say that America is planning to launch a surprise nuclear attack, it is time to consider what the Russian generals are up to themselves. In fact, Russian military literature takes great pains to justify a surprise nuclear attack on America. Since the Americans are planning an attack on Russia, and the best defense is to strike first, then Russia must prepare a surprise attack against America. According to Col. A. Sidorenko, Doctor of Military Science at the Frunze Military Academy, "Preemption in launching a nuclear strike is considered to be the decisive condition for the attainment of superiority ... and the seizure and retention of the initiative."

Last Friday a meeting took place between Russia's top generals. It was the last day of a three-day conference. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who attended this meeting, emerged from the occasion with warlike resolve. He spoke of building up Russia's military. "I very much hope," he said, "that concrete decisions ... will allow us to mobilize all available resources to make our armed forces more powerful and effective."

Why the big military build-up?

Russia's military leaders now believe -- or pretend to believe -- that Russia is in grave danger. And what is the grave danger at hand? Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev gave a speech last Friday. In that speech he accused America of attempting to "weaken Russia and squeeze it out of the Caspian region. ..."

Most of Russia's oil is located in the Caspian region.

Sergeyev's anti-American vitriol was unmistakable. He said that the North Caucasus military conflict was "fanned from the outside" and U.S. national interests required this. He said that America was purposely destabilizing the global situation by following a plan based "on the use of force, disregard for universally recognized international legal norms, dictatorship and arbitrariness."

With this idea in mind, the General Staff wants to dispatch strategic bombers to Cuba and Vietnam. Meanwhile, the commander of the Russian Air Force, Gen. Anatoly Kornukov, lamented Russia's weakness in air power: "The geopolitical state of the Russian Air Force is depressing," he lied. Kornukov said the air force budget should be increased. He warned that a powerful NATO military force is approaching the Russian border.
"When aggression cannot be stopped by conventional weapons, when it poses a threat to the very existence of Russia and its people, then Russia has the right to use all its potential in defense of its sovereignty, including its nuclear potential," said Col.-Gen. Valery Manilov, deputy chief of the Russian General Staff.

Manilov made this statement on Russian television three days ago.

America is being accused of plotting Russia's downfall. The terror bombings in Moscow and other cities, which have claimed 300 innocent lives, are being indirectly laid at our door. These accusations, of course, are vintage Communist propaganda. As noted above, totalitarian accusations involve subtle reversals; in truth, they are unwitting psychological confessions. America is not following a plan based on "dictatorship and arbitrariness." It is Russia that follows such a plan -- which involves the deception and disarmament of the United States. If the complete and total disarmament of America cannot be achieved, then America will be smashed by nuclear missiles.

"Nuclear strikes by strategic missiles will be of decisive, primary importance to the outcome of a modern war," says the text of Soviet Military Strategy.

"Massive nuclear blows on the enemy's strategic nuclear weapons, economy, and system of governmental control, and the concurrent defeat of his armed forces in military theaters will permit attainment of the political aims of war much more rapidly than in previous wars."

The logic of the situation -- psychologically and militarily -- should be obvious.

In Chapter 7 of "Soviet Military Strategy," the classic text quoted above, "victory in (nuclear) war is quite unthinkable without thorough and timely preparation of the country and the armed forces."

In this type of war, preparation is 90 percent of the game. The leaders of a successful nuclear offensive must plan for the survival of their own people.

They must lay the groundwork for post-war economic recovery. Without such preparations the war becomes an exercise in suicide. Therefore, if Russia's leaders have decided on war, their preparations must give them away.

As it happens, the Russian generals are taught that war preparations follow three main lines: 1) preparation of the armed forces, 2) preparation of the national economy and 3) preparation of the population.

In terms of preparing the armed forces for nuclear war, the Russian generals are taught that surprise is essential. They are also taught that large forces must be mobilized beforehand. But how can force mobilizations take place without giving away the game? That may seem like an insurmountable problem, but it isn't.

In 1968 the Soviet General Staff established the Chief Directorate of Strategic Camouflage (Glavnoe Upravleniye Strategicheskoy Maskirovki). It should be added that the Russian term for "camouflage" (maskirovka) also translates as "diversion" and "deception" as well. The Chief Directorate of Strategic Camouflage is tasked with guiding the enemy toward erroneous conclusions by the use of authentic information. In other words, the Russian strategists do not deny the reality of a mobilization. They merely paint it in harmless colors.

For example, the Americans see Russia mobilizing forces in 1999 (authentic information), but American analysts are nonetheless tricked into concluding that the mobilization is to deal with a terrorist threat in the North Caucasus (erroneous conclusion). They will not notice that a deployment exceeding 100,000 troops is out of proportion to the 5,000 lightly armed guerrillas that are led by one of the GRU's own agents (in this case, Shamil Basayev).

As the operation proceeds, the Chief Directorate of Strategic Camouflage will continue to generate diversions and feints.

If belief in the authenticity of the Russian crisis wears thin, a second tier of strategic camouflage and misdirection stands at the ready -- like rumors of a Yeltsin dictatorship accomplished by a bogus state of emergency, or the latest manipulations of Moscow's fake capitalist oligarchs, or the elevation of Boris' newest KGB pet. Many confusing questions arise. Are the generals taking over? Is somebody exploiting all this to gain votes in upcoming parliamentary elections? American analysts, lost under the big tent of Boris' three-ring circus, aren't likely to break free of the clowns, the bears and other performing animals. Distracted and diverted by a torrent of trivia, American observers always fail to boil Russia's mess down to the inconsistencies which rise on every side, blocking out all light and truth.

Consequently, they never ask why the general who lost the Maikop Brigade in the first Chechen war should be promoted to chief of the General Staff.

They never ask how 1.5 million Chechens could possibly defeat 147 million Russians in a military conflict. Once you fall for the first lie in a series, the next lie becomes easier to swallow. Continue swallowing lies and after a while you aren't a human being any more -- you're a joke.

"Men are so simple, and so much creatures of circumstance," wrote Machiavelli in The Prince, "that the deceiver will always find someone ready to be deceived." The inconsistencies of a strategic maskirovka operation will never be noticed by people whose reality is encompassed by the Washington Beltway.

Maskirovka is a technique which utilizes real military movements -- even defeats -- to disguise the true intentions of the Russian General Staff. That is how you accomplish a mobilization in plain sight without alarming the enemy's high command.

Having explained the technique of deceptive mobilization, it is now time to list ten indicators of Russian military preparations for nuclear war:

1. Significant troop mobilizations in response to a fabricated crisis;
2. An increase in missile tests, to assure the readiness and accuracy of the Strategic Rocket Forces;
3. An increase in prohibited underground nuclear tests;
4. An increase in war exercises of all service branches;
5. Significant troop mobilizations in satellite or allied countries, especially China, North Korea, Iraq or Serbia;
6. Any attempt to create a unified nuclear command;
7. Efforts to extend the range of fighter-bomber formations by upgrading them with extra fuel tanks and in-flight refueling capability;
8. An increase in high-level meetings between government and military leaders;
9. Misleading official statements about the military readiness of the armed forces;
10. The sudden distribution of a new generation of conventional weapons to the armed forces.

Item 2 -- underground nuclear tests in Russia -- is not proven, but is strongly suspected by some intelligence experts. As for item 4, China is mobilizing its armed forces, North Korea has been mobilizing since last December, Iraq slightly increased its force levels during the winter, and Serbia has been building its troop strengths since June. Item 6 -- the creation of a unified Russian nuclear command -- was reported last January but was supposedly dropped. (The importance of this item has to do with advantages related to unity of command in coordinating a surprise attack.) Every other indicator in the above list has been reported and verified by the Russian or Western press.

Next, we should look at the question of Russian Economic preparations for nuclear war. Any close examination of Russian industry will reveal it is oriented toward war preparedness more than it is oriented toward profit or productivity. According to the text of Soviet Military Strategy, Russia's leaders want "the capability ... to wage war over a protracted period; the ability to 'stand up' under massive nuclear assault by the enemy, with minimum losses; and the maintenance of a high level of morale and will-to-win among the population." These officially mandated capabilities require a different type of industry than that possessed by Western countries engaged in commercial competition. Consequently, Russia has a very unusual industrial system. Its deformations baffle Western economists. But there is nothing baffling about a country that bases itself on war instead of commerce.

The normal prewar pattern acknowledged by Russian military theorists holds that "the volume of military production sharply increases with the start of military operations." It should also be noted that increased troop training and mobilization also consumes resources. Filling out military formations and distributing new weapons requires large expenditures of fuel, along with nonferrous and rare metals needed to produce the new weapons. Therefore, the ten key economic indicators of Russian war preparations are:

1. The unusual stockpiling of nonferrous and rare metals;
2. Significant cutbacks in petroleum exports for increased military consumption and/or stockpiling;
3. Large government purchases of gold;
4. A large increase in food imports (above normal domestic consumption);
5. Large imports of agricultural machinery;
6. The creation of hardened underground sites for the relocation of war factories;
7. The sudden closing of heavy industrial plants or key scientific centers involved in aerospace research;
8. An increase in shipping assets operating along the Volga and Caspian waterways;
9. A sharp increase in rail traffic in the Ural Mountains and Far East regions;
10. A sudden rise in domestic energy consumption.

Except for item 8, all of the above listed indicators have been reported in the Russian or Western press.
The third "main line" of war preparation described in Russian military writings is the preparation of the population. This consists of four elements which are listed in Russian military texts:

1. Warning the population in advance of attack;
2. Evacuating areas which lack blast or fallout shelters;
3. Construction of emergency shelters;
4. Proper instruction of the population on protective measures against weapons of mass destruction.

More important however, is the psychological preparation of the population.

According to Soviet Military Strategy, "The political preparation of the morale of the people is of decisive importance ... since the use of weapons of mass destruction in war imposes exceptionally high and unprecedented demands on the political morale of the population."

First and foremost, the population must be taught "love of the Motherland."

The architects of war must motivate the people to bear all the hardships of war in the name of victory. To accomplish this, the Russian leadership must clearly expose America as a vicious and warmongering country. America's preparations for surprise nuclear attack on Russia must be exposed. To quote again from the text of Soviet Military Strategy, "Hatred of the enemy should arouse the desire to destroy the armed forces and military-industrial potential of the aggressor and achieve complete victory in a just war."

From these excerpts it is obvious what the Kremlin must do in order to psychologically prepare the Russian public for nuclear war:

1. Convince the Russian people that America is out to destroy them;
2. Show that Western capitalists have been looting the Russian economy;
3. Say that the United States has designs on Russia's neighbors, or on Russian resources;
4. Say that the United States is preparing to build new weapons -- in violation of treaty obligations -- that will make
5. America invincible to attack;
6. Suggest that corrupt Russian officials and capitalist "oligarchs" are agents of the CIA;
7. Work behind the scenes to provoke a regional crisis that makes the United States appear in the role of aggressor;
8. Repeatedly expose the public to official statements that nuclear war is close at hand;
9. Increase the number of civil defense drills;
10. Require the population to organize itself into voluntary civil defense units;
11. Initiate a new program of education on methods of defense from nuclear weapons and fallout radiation.

All of the above indicators have been reported in open press reports except for item 10. The closest thing to 10 involved a special Kremlin meeting chaired last summer by former Prime Minister Stepashin. This meeting focused on civil defense and the creation of an improved program for the people. Russia's leaders reportedly agreed that protecting the Russian people from nuclear attack was the government's number one priority.

Detailed reports about specific policy changes or programs were not given.

In the event a nuclear war is only hours away, further danger signals will be evident. If any three of the following indicators appear, then nuclear attack is probably imminent.

1. A rash of high level assassinations within the United States and other Western countries;
2. A sudden outbreak of an unknown and virulent disease which quickly kills or debilitates thousands of people in a matter of hours;
3. Unexplained underwater nuclear explosions in the North Atlantic, Norwegian Sea, North Pacific or Arctic;
4. Reports or rumors of an attempted military coup against the president of the United States;
5. A collapse of the power grid throughout most of North America;
6. Failure of the phone system in the United States and Canada;
7. Motor vehicles with computerized ignition systems failing to start up;
8. Widespread terrorism, mayhem in the cities, rioting, looting, fires and general unrest caused by "unknown forces" (regardless of who is blamed);
9. The Russian population is moved into fallout and blast shelters; and
10. Russia evacuates many small towns and rural districts.

In this coming Thursday's column I will discuss recent reports from Russia on the stockpiling of strategic metals, food and fuel. I will go into greater detail about some of the indicators listed above. China's war preparations will also be touched upon.

[vector7]

Posting some recent Russian propaganda to show what they are preparing their citizenry for...

Nuclear war on the horizon

05.12.2011



It might be the lazy way, to just sit and accept the utter bilge and lies coming from the mainstream western media when they report on events in Syria and Iran. But is it worth it? Would those who accept these lies still think it's worth it, not to look for the truth, if they realize that we are heading straight for a third world war?

There comes a point in time, a point from which there is no return. Someone is going to get fed up and take that step, ignite that spark, that will lead to the beginning of another world war. This world is as close to world war as it was during the Cuban Missle Crisis.

Thirteen days in October 1962, the world looked on as Nikita Khrushchev and John Kennedy both, thankfully, tried to avoid a collision course that would set off a nuclear war between the two superpowers.

While conducting a spying mission on the Island of Cuba, the U2 aircraft discovered that missiles had been installed on the island to prevent the threat of any future invasion.

Kennedy decided to impose a naval blockade, or a ring of ships, around Cuba. The aim of this "quarantine," as he called it, was to prevent the Soviet Union from bringing in more military supplies. He demanded the removal of the missiles already there and the destruction of the sites.

On October 22, President Kennedy spoke to his countrymen about the crisis in a televised address. Eye to eye, furious communications later, finally an agreement was made and both sides were able to stand down.

The missiles in Cuba would be removed, as would those in Turkey, and a promise to leave Cuba alone...demanded by Khrushchev. Later, movement towards peace and cooperation included the establishment of a teletype "Hotline" between the Kremlin and the White House and the signing of the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty on July 25, 1963.

Iran's military said on Sunday it had shot down a U.S. reconnaissance drone aircraft in eastern Iran, a military source told state television. What was this drone doing over Iranian territory?

A potential conflagration between the two superpowers is reaching frightening levels in the Mediterranean with vessels of both the US and Russia maneuvering into confrontational positions.

The United States and its European allies have run roughshod over international law, rendering it null and void. The bloody aggression and genocidal campaign against Libya were just a beginning of the end.

The Yugoslavia campaign of lies and false accusations was repeated once again, while rubber stamp robots incorporated, known as the UN, gave the coalition of barbaric savages their cover of legitimacy with UN Resolutions 1970 and 1973, which were also repeatedly run over, violated and trashed as they crept toward total war and invasion rather than the established no-fly zone and no boots on the ground.

Infamous were the lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and no less ridiculous were the claims that the Gaddafi government was "killing its own people." Now they say the same about Syria and accuse Iran of trying to use nuclear energy to make nuclear weapons.

In a court of law, if the judge catches you lying even once, he will totally disregard your case because you were caught in a lie. All it takes is just one lie. You have destroyed your credibility totally and forever in his eyes.

If I find out you've lied to me once, from that time forward you will have to prove you're not lying again when you make claims, otherwise I have no reason to not think you are not just lying again.

So, too, any thinking person cannot take what the U.S. and Europeans say or claim as remotely even credible, along with their Israeli friends. In all cases, they have to prove they are not lying because all they ever do is lie.

It's more a case of these entities projecting their own evil intentions onto their marked, targeted victims.

So people out there, don't accept what they say at face value, not from PROVEN LIARS.

Iran, one of their next targets of choice, does not constitute a threat to global security, or a threat to the security of Israel. Iran hasn't done anything aggressive in over 250 years...and they have repeatedly allowed inspections beyond the call of reason and assured others that they have no intention of making nuclear weapons.

In Syria, so many lies already coming fast and furiously...inventing incidents that never happened. The people at the locations where several incidents were alleged to occur say no such thing ever happened.

Why is the west, as in the case of Libya, sending terrorists and weapons into Syria? Why are snipers shooting at unarmed civilians and at police/military?

They have declared they want Assad gone, just as they declared they wanted Gaddafi gone.

Who gives them the right? Let the people decide, and not a gang of terrorists and garbage faced airplanes dropping bombs on innocent civilians. Leave people alone.

The world community is getting fed up with this. China and Russia cannot be hoodwinked now into approving sanctions or approving military action.

The forces of demonic evil now have come nose to nose with the forces of reason. Ships from the U.S. and ships from Russia are now on the coast of Syria. Anything could happen.

Something will happen.

These two counties, China and Russia, also know they are on the list of targets.

You cannot on one hand have a fully armed, nuclear weapons possessing Israel and then tell Iran they cannot even use nuclear energy for peace...their right as signatories of the NPT, a treaty that Israel refuses to sign while also refusing any inspections.

Any one of a number of confrontations is going to start the next world war.

These powerbroker elitists think they can escape the effects of a nuclear exchange...just shows how insane they are. They must be stopped and this warning must be taken seriously.

Either the citizens of the world demand these war pigs stand down, or face total global nuclear war. Demand that they stop the lies. Demand that they stop sending terrorists to disrupt the peaceful lives of your brothers and sisters.

[American Patriot]

This danger is not something imaginary. Russian nuclear missiles can reach America in about 30 minutes, reducing America's cities to rubble. Unlike Russia, America has no anti-ballistic missile defenses and no national shelter system. Furthermore, political changes in Russia have not reduced the danger of nuclear war. According to former CIA analyst Peter Vincent Pry, there has been a five-fold increase in nuclear war scares since the collapse of Communism. What accounts for the increased danger?

A little less than 30 minutes. Like 24 minutes.

We DO have missile defenses, though they are not "shelter type" defenses to protect human life. Basically, unless you're not in a drop zone, and you don't have a basement you can fortify against fallout, you're dead.

For most of us, even with a basement, we'll die within a couple of weeks after an attack.

Five fold increase? I'm aware of... some of them. Perhaps a lot escaped my attention.

It should be noted that the Norwegian rocket launch of January 1995, which momentarily triggered panic among the Russian generals, was definitely not such a "test." This case is interesting because of its psychological implications. Russia's generals feared that a harmless science rocket was part of an EMP precursor attack on their communications infrastructure -- a standard opening move in a nuclear war. Given America's generosity toward Russia, and the good relations that existed at the time, the generals' had no reason to fear a NATO attack. It might be argued, however, that their momentary panic suggests a bad conscience. In other words, no one is more paranoid of being robbed than a thief. And nobody is more frightened of a surprise nuclear attack than those who are plotting one themselves.

That Russians were scared of a Norwegian rocket launch is in and of itself fascniating. You know why? Because if they are as "prepared" as the very first paragraph states then why fear the unknown?

Secondly, if this is true that they were "scared" of a harmless rocket launch, then WHY are they so scared?

The US will NEVER be the first to launch an all out attack. We have to be provoked first. Unless the Russians are"projecting" their current fears as facts that they, themselves WOULD launch a first strike, then they really, truly have nothing to fear.

Totalitarian mentalities are always projecting their own evil intentions onto others. For example, Stalin plotted against his colleagues, accusing them of plotting against him. In nearly all cases Stalin's victims were innocent and Stalin was guilty. The same technique was used by Chairman Mao. When the Chinese tyrant wanted to destroy someone, he would begin with false accusations. In most cases Mao's accusations against others could justly be turned against Mao.

AH! I was right. They ARE projecting their own evil intent up on others. Us. See? This is what I get for reading one paragraph at a time. LMAO...

"It must be realized," explains the Russian text, "that (America's) preparation for such a blow has gone too far, that too great financial and material resources have been expended (to permit a reversal of policy). Moreover, it must be remembered that adventurism and recklessness have always been characteristic of imperialism."

We have never been and never will be "Imperalists".

imperialism

American Heritage Dictionary:

im·pe·ri·al·ism

(ĭm-pîr'ē-ə-lĭz'əm) pronunciation
n.

1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government.

Never.

England? Yes. USSR? Yes France? Yes. Spain? Yes. Italy? Yes. USA? No. No. No. No.

According to this same text: "The (American) imperialists are preparing an offensive against our country, a war of total destruction and mass annihilation of the population with nuclear weapons."

This is not now, nor has it ever been true that America is doing such a thing. Americans are very good at separating the "Government" from "The People" in other countries.

Even Pravda is saying what I am saying:

The forces of demonic evil now have come nose to nose with the forces of reason. Ships from the U.S. and ships from Russia are now on the coast of Syria. Anything could happen.

Demonic evil.... the Russians and the US, according to Pravda. /chuckles

[vector7]

Companion Threads:

• War in the US; when will it come?
• World War Three Thread....
• The Rise of the Second Soviet Empire
• UN's Marxist Plan for Global Government

Gorbachev threatened with Third World War in 2012, when the non-socialist world government New World Order will be installed

Oliver Janich

At 10.12. 2011 Mikhail Gorbachev at the presentation of Franz-Josef-Strauss-price by the CSU made ​​near Hanns-Seidel-Stiftung statements of profound significance.

The speech ran (at night) in the Bavarian Radio, but was otherwise ignored in the mainstream.
(On YouTube the related video will be deleted again.)



In order to understand what he really said, you have to read between the lines a little, but not very much.

On the reaction of the audience, however, read that this is not attending the live audience really succeeded.

The video will be uploaded on Youtube warns usually with the title "before Gorbachev's Third World War".

But if you listen closely, noted that he warned less than threatening.

He announces the steps being taken, if it does not happen, ask what he and his comrades.

For this one must first deal with the blueprint for his speech, the Report from Iron Mountain .

The report will be the report of a government commission in the sixties.

Meanwhile, it is claimed that it was a satire.

From the comments made ​​by Harvard professor and Council on Foreign Relations member John Kenneth Galbraith is read, that the report is very likely true, although the exact origin is unknown.

But this is not as important as can be seen on the reality that the Council on Foreign Relations and other organizations like the Club of Rome and follow exactly the same Mikhail Gorbachev in the report proposed strategy.

In brief, the Content: It is about the question of how to bring people under control of a world government, under which there are no more wars.

People - so the argument - accept only a strong state, if it protects them against an external threat.

This danger would be apocalyptic, thus threatening the whole mankind, and credible.

Whether it's real does not matter.

As the scenarios were played (seriously) by an alien attack, and a global environmental catastrophe.

The alien attack was (then) rejected as too unbelievable and we chose the variant with the global environmental catastrophe.

End of the sixties painted alleged Russian dissident Andrei Sakharov as the danger posed by the man-made global warming on the wall.

This was in turn according to research by Torsten Mann ( Red lies in a green robe ) to a strategy of the KGB, Communism under green signs all over the world to spread.

Man relies mainly on the statements of a number of defectors Eastern intelligence agencies such as Mikhail Goleniowski, Anatoly Golitsyn, Jan Šejna, Ladislav Bittman, Ion Pacepa, Viktor Suvorov, Stanislaw Ilia, and Yuri Bezmenow Kanatjan Alibekow.

These defectors revealed the CIA plan.

Since they came from the CIA on deaf ears, some of them written as Anatoly Golitsyn (New Lies for Old, The Perestroika Deception) or Jan Šeijna books about it.

The plan included the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Golitsyn predicted that back in the sixties, and his first book appeared in 1984!

But why the CIA does not respond to that?

You should know that there was an old feud between FBI and CIA, because the FBI suspected that the CIA had infiltrated Communist.

In addition, the CIA is again fully staffed with members of the Council on Foreign Relations, whose plan was exactly the same and, like the Communists: A totalitarian world government.

The evidence for these plans can be found summarized in my book, The Capitalist Conspiracy .

The communist long-term strategy, supported by Western globalists, is described in great detail, with all references in Torsten's World October.

You can also find the most important quotes from the books of defectors.

The key to this strategy was called "perestroika" and the main protagonist of Mikhail Gorbachev.

The word "perestroika" restructuring should therefore be related not only to a transformation of society, but a change in Communist strategy, including the KGB was rebuilt.

Plan A included reaching out to the western parties to infiltrate them and offer them a deal: We dissolve the Warsaw Pact to allow the reunification, the Eastern European countries join the EU in and the western parties transform the EU using economic crises in one EUSSR kind.

Been on this plan, originally developed by Lenin, but Stalin temporarily shelved, it was one, to destroy the Western currencies, as Lenin said earlier early. "For the civil society to destroy, must destroy to their money being" This plan is apparently nearing completion, what the - apparently real - Russian dissident Vladimir Bukovsky points.

Wolfgang Schäuble introduced recently in that it would come in less than 24 months of fiscal union and thus the abolition of nation states.

Finally, the plan, Russia should join the EU.

The fear of a global environmental catastrophe (Gorbachev founded in 1983 in Kyoto , the Green Cross ) should achieve, Asia, Europe and America together under a socialist world government.

If this does not succeed, however, there was a Plan B: Violence, which is the third world war or the threat thereof.

The global carbon regime in Durban is the latest failure, even if their German protagonists that do not want to admit.

The German environment minister Norbert Röttgen albträumt still, every single person using CO _2-quotas to control.

Against this background, the models are to be understood only by Gorbachev.

Before we analyze the speech, always keep in mind: No politician tells you over the head that he wants to establish a totalitarian dictatorship.

He always justified it with the common good, protecting the environment, peace and the like fuss.

The times given are approximate and refer to the linked videos Part 1 and Part 2 .

The translation is somewhat awkward, because simultaneously, but I have taken over from the original.

2:10: "We (Russia) are willing to use weapons in order to ensure our safety.

And what that means: Third World War "This is not difficult to recognize as a threat..

5:00: After about five minutes, "he criticized the" radical market philosophy "which would lead one bubble after another".

Like the entire financial oligarchy, he conceals the people that the state-created central banks produce these bubbles and push the crises in the market economy, making it clear that he does not want a market economy, but socialism.

6:20: JFK, 7:09: Eisenhower: After six minutes, he mutates into a conspiracy theorist by the Kennedy assassination in the context of bringing Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex Eisenhower and agrees: "The man was right," .

This is a favorite trick of the Hegelian dialectic: As he rightly criticized the military-industrial complex, he stands there as a peacemaker.

This is to enable people eventually the New World Order will be sold.

8:45: "So, now we are preparing (Russia).

But if one looks at the situation closely you'll see that our government is right and proper. "That is very interesting because it confirms that Putin to act properly.

He continues: "Because I'll tell simply, damn it, there is no system for the cases of global decisions in a world that is already global.

Such mechanisms are still missing quite simple. "Do you need the knowledge of Orwellian newspeak, to recognize the need for a world government?

A "system for the cases" of global decisions, of course, is nothing more than a world government.

It would also be interesting to understand the original word (who speaks Russian, may be on my blog report), maybe he also spoke of an "institution", which would be even clearer.

Part 2 of this video:

1:40: "We must build a system to make global decisions in a global world.

This will require new systems, new models.

Betting on super profits, super consumer runs into space and stuff. "Here again clearly linked the need for a world government with criticism of the market economy.

Trained dialectically speaking, of course, not by the free choices of free people, but like all socialists, he stirs up the envy on the rich to say no to that, especially the poorest people in a market economy will benefit.

2:35: "I beg you, my dear Germans, even if you remain their responsibility.

You initiated the € zone.

And if the access control mechanisms, then this system is exactly what needs Europe and the world. "In my book I describe in detail that the EU is the model for the New World Order.

He reiterated here.

Everything should be centrally controlled and the "dear Germans"'s pay (at first).

3:35: "We are sick!

We all need to be treated and cured! "If he is referring to the globalists, he has certainly right.

But I fear he means us.

7:51: After eight minutes, he refers to Occupy the artificial opposition with one, so get it, even the last, which is also the part of the staging to the Hegelian dialectic: "And the people who are demonstrating on Wall Street to demand social justice and equality. "

8:30: And for those who have still not grasped what it is, he quotes the man who designed this plan, Lenin, "From the chaos of new forms of life.

And therefore, the chaos is a problem, a crisis is a problem, but since there are always opportunities with (poorly translated), you should use absolutely. "

Eureka!

He cites not only Lenin, but also to the age-old Masonic motto: "" order out of chaos.

And down the country proclaiming globalists like Rockefeller or their assistants, that it is the first major crises, which will help to advance their agenda, Merkel and Schäuble talk - true to the Hegelian dialectic - the fact that the crisis is also a great opportunity.

And last but not least it gives us also a time: "This time you will have enough yet for New Years Eve Sausage and pork knuckle.

Well, for that matter next year, as we should worry us, together. "Requires no translation probably more.

2012 is the year of decision, according to Gorbachev.

I am aware that all this must be designed for inexperienced sound bad. These few lines will not convince you, too.

Therefore, I strongly recommend you consult the literature cited.

We also do not know whether the original of Wall Street-financed Lenin and designed by the KGB again taken up is still intact.

But you should be aware, that have both Gorbachev and Putin KGB past. The Stasi connections of leading German politicians would be worth further consideration.

Remember: The deserters, spies have uncovered numerous, have revealed to us the scenario includes wall case previously.

Ironic side note: One of those who found using KGB archives that the Berlin Wall and the fall of Honecker were controlled from Moscow, is Andreas Bönte (Bayerischer Rundfunk), together with Ralf Georg Reuth (World on Sunday), the book The Conspiracy wrote.

Bönte I met during my studies at the edge of a seminar organized by the Hanns Seidel Foundation.

A friend took me to the seminar, which was also for non-members like me open.

He talked a lot about ethics in journalism, which irritated me because I was told that just a BR-editor at a seminar of the Hanns Seidel Foundation.

He then made an honest impression on me.

Today it seems that my impression was correct.

On his bosses the less true, however.

Or do you have of this book and this thesis had ever heard of?

Now, Gorbachev also gets the Franz-Josef-Strauss-Preis of the Hanns Seidel Foundation.

Crazy world.

"The person must be blind, can not see, in fact, that here on earth, a great project, a big plan is executed, we may participate in its realization as faithful servants" -. Winston Churchill.

[American Patriot]

Report from Iron Mountain

Council on Foreign Relations

Club of Rome

As the scenarios were played (seriously) by an alien attack, and a global environmental catastrophe.

End of the sixties painted alleged Russian dissident Andrei Sakharov as the danger posed by the man-made global warming on the wall.

These defectors revealed the CIA plan.

Since they came from the CIA on deaf ears, some of them written as Anatoly Golitsyn (New Lies for Old, The Perestroika Deception) or Jan Šeijna books about it.

And on and on.

This is a load of bullshit.

[American Patriot]

As I said, it's a LOAD of crap.

[American Patriot]

lol

[American Patriot]

Yes, yes, and yes.

I think first off, Iron Mountain report, then moving on to New World Order... then Gorby, and Golitsyn then more Conspiracy Theory.

The "CIA" plan?

Come on.

I believe all Russians are a "Threat" to Capitalism right now. All of them. Even those who think that Capitalism is a good thing. Because a good number of them are still and always will be Communists.

That Golitsyn was some kind of a new age prophet is also questionable.

No one here seems to even understand that there was a lot of mind games during the Cold War.

The Russians weren't as capable as we or they made them out to be. Real facts show otherwise. Mostly they were bluster and propaganda and they did it well.

Who is to say that Golitsyn wasn't anything more than a mind player. He planted all this crap in peoples' minds to make them THINK the Russians has some over arching plan to own America someday - and yet, what has kept America busy during the Cold was was fighting something that wasn't even really there at all.

I don't trust the Russians, or any other Communists or "former" Communists as far as I could throw them, but I think that this kind of conspiracy theory does nothing but harms us all.

If it's not the Russians plots, the CIA plans or some New World Illuminati keeping you all occupied, it's some bullshit about alien abductions, New Age beliefs or something else......

[vector7]

Notice the reversal though, Rick. This guy correctly admits Gorbachev & Co. as a threat, and cites Golitsyn, Sejna, Lunev, etc...As sources, but then contaminates the information by making It (the COMMUNIST Conspiracy!) a CIA/capitalist/Club of Rome/Iron Mountain etc BS Plot...Incredible.

The Bilderberg Group, Club of Rome, and other Western Organizations were created after WWII to help PROTECT the West from International Communism. Therefore, They make perfect targets for Communist propaganda and infiltration. This is also how all the 'NWO' conspiracy crap got started....spread by the GRU/KGB/Central Committee organs of the Soviet Union.

Interesting...

This gives Alex Jones a whole new meaning when he shows up on Russia Today (RT) talking about these subjects. Is he a knowing or unknowing participant in attacking these original anti-communist groups?

Having said that, has these groups after WWII once created to stop the spread of Communism been infiltrated by Socialists now to promote a Global Order under Socialism?

We hear this when they talk about the redistribution of our wealth to other countries in the 45 Communist Goals.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

It was one of the 45 Communist Goals to take over one or both of the political parties in the US. We know the Democrats have evolved into Socialism/Communism and even a few in the Republican party have emerged as progressive Socialists.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

This Administration (Obama-Clinton) has been working to promote the UN treaties and mandates to subvert America's freedoms where it has been impossible to get their agenda passed.

Nikita Khrushchev on TV while he was visiting the UN, his famous hammering the shoe on the podium incident, exclaiming how the Communists would bury America without firing a shot, “Your children’s children will be living under communism.” This left me a bit shaken’ as I was very young and it has never left my memory. Then in a previous interview with the Sec. of Agriculture, Esra Taft Benson during the Eisenhower administration, Khrushchev said, “You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright; but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you; we will so weaken your economy until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”

Some years after, Nikita Khrushchev and David Rockefeller met behind closed doors in Moscow for two and one half hours. It seems the name Rockefeller leaves its indelible print where ever it goes.

In 1973, David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Breznski founded the Trilateral Commission {TC} which controls both the Republican and Democratic Parties which may explain why both nominated candidates seem to tow a more Global Agenda.

[American Patriot]

Jones has NO credibility. I don't care WHERE he appears.

[American Patriot]

Everything Golitsyn said would happen has happened, and his testimony is backed up by other like Jan Sejna, Stanislav Lunev, and Victor Suvorov.

Well, that's fine. Other Russians backing another Russian.

I'd say that's more than 'a mind game', and why is he still subject to a death sentence for 'treason' against what is supposed to be a new non-communist regime?

I'd say because "Once a commie, always a commie" might be considered more true a statement than anyone wants to admit.