The Russian/Chinese Endgame Strategy for World Dominance

[vector7]

RUSSIAN EXPANSIONISM
The Russian Endgame Strategy for
World Dominance
A Strategic Analysis of Global
Current and Future Events
Part 1

CHINESE EXPANSIONISM
The Russian/Chinese Endgame Strategy for
World Dominance
A Strategic Analysis of Global
Current and Future Events
Part 2

[vector7]

Mission Bulletin of Strategic Crisis Center

Jeff Nyquist Mission Statement

A grave strategic crisis is coming. The U.S. Congress has decided to allow the nation's nuclear arsenal to sink into disrepair. At the same time, the president is eager to sign a nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia, while Russia is modernizing its nuclear forces (not to mention what China is doing). It is possible, within a year, that America will have less than 400 strategic nuclear warheads. The strategic posture of the United States has become a makeshift affair; partly based on the dictates of political correctness, partly based on the false market optimism of a business community that wants to trade with Communist China. It does not occur to these businessmen that China is trading with them today in order to hang them tomorrow.

Today's strategic crisis is an intellectual crisis. It occurs because men have not studied the strategic situation with due diligence. They have abandoned common sense, and they have failed to name their enemies.

The Islamic threat notwithstanding, the United States faces two powerful opponents: Russia and China. Due to the advance of "politically correct" thinking in Washington, and to the softening of the American psyche, few politicians are willing to admit that Russia and China are working against the security interests of the United States. Other countries, as well, are part of the Russian-Chinese alliance. These include Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela, and others.
It would seem, indeed, that the old Communist Bloc still exists, and is growing, especially in the Third World. Meanwhile, Communist influence in Europe is spreading through KGB-businesses, Russian organized crime, and agents of influence. Though former Soviet Republics and Warsaw Pact states have gained entry into NATO, the governments and economies of these countries are largely in the hands of Moscow's agents. Even Lech Walesa in Poland has long since been exposed as an agent of the communist secret police. It is no wonder, therefore, that Russia and China are engaged in a military buildup while the strategic attention of the United States is focused on Iran and Afghanistan. A deception has been promulgated, and the United States has been taken for a ride.

It now becomes evident, twenty years after the so-called collapse of communism, that America didn't win the Cold War. The communist bloc merely reorganized itself under new banners and new slogans. The old ideology was outwardly abandoned to facilitate the interpenetration of East and West. It is an indisputable fact that the collapse of Communism in 1989 was part of a longstanding Kremlin plan. We know this from the testimony of defectors and researchers like Jan Sejna, Anatoliy Golitsyn and Vladimir Bukovsky. It was Bukovsky who acquired documents from the Communist Party Soviet Union archive proving the existence of the plan. We also know that this plan did not play out as envisioned. After the unification of Germany, the German people did not abandon NATO as Kremlin strategists had projected. The Kremlin's miscalculation in this regard led to a major upset for the Soviet side, leading to a series of setbacks. To recover lost ground, the Kremlin strategists set to work after 1991. They built what has been called a KGB regime in Moscow.

And they have been building an international alliance with which to change the global balance of power.

Some historical background is necessary to understand how we got where we are today: In December 1961 a KGB major named Golitsyn defected to the United States with information about a Soviet long-range strategy. He provided the CIA with a package of documents, including one that described a new KGB directorate of disinformation (Department “D”). The document said that catching American spies was not the KGB’s primary concern. Better to create an elaborate web of disinformation “to negate and discredit authentic information the enemy has obtained.” The KGB’s tactic was to feed the CIA a steady diet of pleasing falsehoods. Eventually, the CIA would only believe stories tailored by the KGB. This, in turn, would allow Soviet agents to penetrate more easily into the heart of U.S. intelligence.

Golitsyn warned the CIA that Soviet disinformation was carefully devised to support a long-range plan in which the balance of power would be inconspicuously shifted in favor of the communist bloc. With the exception of the CIA’s James Angleton, few credited Golitsyn’s warning.

Having been disbelieved and cast aside, Golitsyn submitted a top secret manuscript to the CIA in 1982. According to this manuscript, by 1986 the Soviet Union would be led by a man “with a more liberal image.” This man would initiate “changes that would have been beyond the imagination of Marx or the practical reach of Lenin and unthinkable to Stalin.” The Soviet system would be liberalized, and the liberalization “would be spectacular and impressive. Formal pronouncements might be made about a reduction in the Communist Party’s role; its monopoly would be apparently curtailed…. The KGB would be reformed. Dissidents at home would be amnestied; those in exile abroad would be allowed to take up positions in the government…. Political clubs would be opened to nonmembers of the Communist Party. Leading dissidents might form one or more alternative political parties. Censorship would be relaxed; controversial books, plays, films, and art would be published, performed, and exhibited.”

The CIA did not take Golitsyn’s manuscript seriously, and gave Golitsyn permission to publish it as a book, titled New Lies for Old, which appeared in 1984. It included 148 falsifiable predictions. According to researcher Mark Riebling “139 out of 148” of Golitsyn’s predictions “were fulfilled by the end of 1993 – an accuracy rate of nearly 94 percent.” Did anyone agree with Golitsyn’s analysis, or approve his predictions at the time? Leading pundits and CIA analysts mocked Golitsyn’s work.

“Unfortunate is the only term for this book,” wrote a CIA analyst in 1985. There were no CIA apologies tendered to Golitsyn when 139 of his predictions came true. By that time Golitsyn’s critics were busy congratulating themselves on winning the Cold War. The success of Soviet disinformation was total. From that point forward the world would only understand what the KGB wanted them to understand.

According to the 1982 memoirs of a high-level Czechoslovakian defector named Jan Sejna,, “One of the basic problems of the West is its frequent failure to recognize the existence of any Soviet ‘grand design’ at all. Those rejecting this concept unwittingly serve Soviet efforts to conceal their objectives and further complicate the process of determining such objectives.” As a leading official, Sejna worked directly for the top level of the Czech communist government. In 1967 Sejna and his colleagues were briefed on Moscow’s strategy. “It had always been made clear that the Plan’s objectives were firm but the means and methods of achieving them were flexible,” wrote Sejna in his memoirs.

“This flexibility often serves to confound Western political analysts, who tend to confuse a change in tactics with a profound change in … thinking.” Therefore, Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin in 1956 was a tactic and not a change of heart. According to Sejna, even though Khrushchev denounced Stalin’s crimes, the Kremlin had not abandoned Stalin’s objectives.

While addressing Western ambassadors during a reception at the Polish Embassy in Moscow on 18 November 1956, Khrushchev publicly stated: “Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!” ("Мы вас похороним!")

On 24 July 1959 Khrushchev told visiting U.S. Vice President Richard Nixon that his grandchildren would live under communism.

Two months later Khrushchev visited the United States where he made the exact same boast to U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ezra Taft Benson.

When Benson assured him the opposite, Khrushchev reportedly 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’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”

Khrushchev’s intention was recently explained by the former deputy chief of Romania’s foreign intelligence service, Ion Pacepa, who made the following observation to the Czech-American researcher Robert Buchar: “The whole foreign policy of the Soviet bloc states, indeed its whole economic and military might, revolved around the larger Soviet objective of destroying America from within through the use of lies. The Soviets saw disinformation as a vital tool in the dialectical advance of world communism. KGB priority number one was to damage American power, judgment, and credibility.”

It is noteworthy that Khrushchev did not say, “You will live under communism.” He also did not say, “Your children will live under communism.” He told his American opposites that their grandchildren would live under communism.

Khrushchev was admitting that Moscow’s plan was a long-range plan, involving decades of work.

Starting in February 1967 the Warsaw Pact countries received regular directives detailing their part in the overall Plan. “When my friends and I studied the Strategic Plan,” wrote Sejna, “our initial reactions were identical: we considered it quite unrealistic, especially in its timing, which we thought wildly optimistic.” Only after Sejna defected to the West did he change this opinion. “I could find no unity, no consistent objective or strategy among Western countries. It is not possible to fight the Soviet system and strategy with small tactical steps.

For the first time I began to believe that the Soviet Union would be able to achieve her goals – something I had not believed in Czechoslovakia.”

The Kremlin strategists envisioned that sometime after 1990 an economic and political sequence would unfold, leading to the collapse of the American economy and “the advent to power in Washington of a transitional liberal and progressive government.” In September 1967 the Secretary of the Soviet Central Committee, Konstantin Katushev, arrived in Prague to orally brief the Czech communist leaders. The Czechs feared that an economic crisis in America would lead to the emergence of a right-wing regime. The United States could move to “either extreme,” Katushev admitted, “as … in the McCarthy period and the Vietnam War. If we can impose on the U.S.A. the external restraints proposed in our Plan, and seriously disrupt the American economy, the working and lower middle classes will suffer the consequences and they will turn on the society that has failed them. They will be ready for revolution.”

The Russian strategists foresaw that the American workforce would be facing a difficult situation in twenty to forty years.

America’s enormous progress in technology, said Katushev, was a destabilizing influence because it led to underemployment by unskilled workers.

“This phenomenon,” Katushev noted, “is one I consider the United States cannot deal with.”

Though American workers could turn to the right, he added, “It’s more likely … that a progressive regime will emerge because, in spite of their power, the governing bureaucratic elite and industrial elite, and the media, are fundamentally liberal in their outlook and ashamed of their failure to solve basic national problems.”

In 1967 Soviet Marshal Matvei Zhakarov visited Prague to encourage the recruitment of “high-level agents of influence” in the rising elite of America’s universities, media and government. Moscow perceived that power was passing from the hands of the “old industrial plutocracy.” If the Soviet bloc could penetrate the U.S. media and academia, it would be easier to manipulate the society as a whole.

While the Strategic Plan called for disrupting the U.S. economy and encouraging the election of a progressive presidential candidate, it also aimed at splitting the United States from Europe. According to Sejna, “The Russians planned to play upon the nationalist, bourgeois prejudices of the leading European countries in order to convince them that Europe must strive to become a distinct entity, separate from the United States.”

In order to gain technology and money from the West, Moscow also planned to launch an unprecedented peace offensive, which would involve the liquidation of the communist bloc. About this plan, Sejna wrote: “The erosion of NATO begun in Phase Two [of the Plan] would be completed by the withdrawal of the United States from its commitment to the defense of Europe, and by European hostility to military expenditure, generated by economic recession and fanned by the efforts of the ‘progressive’ movements.

To this end we envisaged that it might be necessary to dissolve the Warsaw Pact, in which event we had already prepared a web of bilateral defense arrangements, to be supervised by secret committees of Comecon.”

In terms of operational details, the Plan relied on future sabotage and terrorist operations. These would benefit from the infiltration of organized crime and Soviet-sponsored drug trafficking.

The Russian planners believed that the American economy could be sabotaged, that the CIA was effectively blind, and that drug trafficking could open a back door to America’s financial centers and geographical heartland.

Sejna’s testimony on this subject was published in 1990 a book titled Red Cocaine, written by Joseph D. Douglass, Jr., with an introduction by Ray S. Cline, former Deputy Director for Intelligence at the CIA.

The role of terrorism was especially important to the thrust of the Strategic Plan.

When researcher Robert Buchar asked Russian historian Vladimir Bukovsky whether the Soviets fathered modern terrorism, Bukovsky replied:

“Oh definitely. I can show you hundreds of documents proving that. I mean how they supplied, trained, created and … control almost every terrorist organization on earth. I have these documents.”

The former Deputy Director of the Romanian intelligence service, Ion Mihai Pacepa, has written about Russia’s involvement with international terrorism. “Today’s international terrorism,” he wrote in August 2006, “was conceived at the Lubyanka, the headquarters of the KGB…. I witnessed its birth in my other life, as a Communist general.”

In a 1987 book, titled Spetsnaz: The Inside Story of the Soviet Special Forces, a Soviet military intelligence defector writing under the pen name Viktor Suvorov explained the ultimate purpose to which terrorism would be put to use.

In Chapter 15 of the book, Suvorov listed various acts of economic sabotage and terrorism to be undertaken in advance of all-out war against the United States.

“All these operations,” wrote Suvorov, “are known officially in the GRU as the ‘preparatory period,’ and unofficially as the ‘overture.’

The overture is a series of large and small operations the purpose of which is, before actual military operations begin, to weaken the enemy’s morale, create an atmosphere of general suspicion, fear and uncertainty, and divert the attention of the enemy’s armies and police forces to a huge number of different targets, each which may be the object of the next attack.” According to Suvorov, the overture is carried out by intelligence agents and by “mercenaries recruited by intermediaries.”

The strategy they follow is known as “grey terror,” described by Suvorov as “a kind of terror which is not conducted in the name of the Soviet Union.” Instead, the terror is carried out in the name of “already existing extremist groups not connected in any way” with Russia. According to Suvorov, “The terrorist acts carried out in the course of the ‘overture’ require very few people, very few weapons and little equipment.” The example of 19 men with box-cutters comes to mind, though Suvorov lists “a screw driver, a box of matches or a glass ampoule.”

In a July 2005 interview with the Polish Newspaper Rzeczpospolita, FSB/KGB defector Alexander Litvinenko alleged that al Qaeda’s second-in-command, Ayman Al-Zawahri, was “an old agent of the FSB.” Political writer and former KGB officer, Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy, confirmed Litvinenko’s allegation, stating: “[Litvinenko] was responsible for securing the secrecy of Al-Zawahri’s arrival in Russia, who was trained by FSB instructors in Dagestan, Northern Caucasus, in 1996-97.”

Preobrazhenskiy further stated: "At that time, Litvinenko was the Head of the Subdivision for Internationally Wanted Terrorists of the First Department of the Operative-Inquiry Directorate of the FSB Anti-Terrorist Department. He was ordered to undertake the delicate mission of securing Al-Zawahri from unintentional disclosure by the Russian police.

Though Al-Zawahri had been brought to Russia by the FSB using a false passport, it was still possible for the police to learn about his arrival and report to Moscow for verification. Such a process could disclose Al-Zawahri as an FSB collaborator.”

Litvinenko detailed Russia’s role as the originator of modern terrorism in his July 2005 interview with Rzeczpospolita: “I know only one organization that has made terrorism the main tool of solving political problems. It is the Russian special services. The KGB has been engaged in terrorism for many years, and mass terrorism. At the special department of the KGB they trained terrorists from practically every country in the world. These courses lasted, as a rule, for half a year.

Specially trained and prepared agents of the KGB organized murders and explosions, including explosions of tankers, the hijacking of passenger airliners, along with hits on diplomatic, state and commercial organizations worldwide.” Litvinenko added that the agents of the KGB/FSB were “the bloodiest terrorist in the world.” He then listed Carlos Ilyich Ramiros (Carlos the Jackal), Yassir Arafat, Saddam Hussein, and a host of others. According to Litvinenko, “all these figures and movements operated under their own slogans; however, none of them especially hid their ‘intimate’ … relationship with the Kremlin and Lubyanka. There is a simple question: whether the Russian special services would train and finance people and groups which are unsupervised by Lubyanka and did not serve the interests of the Kremlin? You understand perfectly, they would not. Each act of terrorism made by these people was carried out as an assignment and under the rigid control of the KGB of the USSR.”

Asked if this terrorism continues under the post-Soviet leadership, Litvinenko warned that “the center of global terrorism is not in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or the Chechen Republic. The terrorist infection is spread worldwide from Lubyanka Square and the Kremlin cabinet. And until the Russian special services are outlawed, dispersed and condemned, the terrorism will never stop.” Roughly 16 months after his public statements about the KGB’s connection to Al Qaeda, Litvinenko was poisoned at the bar of a London hotel by Kremlin agents who put radioactive polonium-210 in his tea. He died in November 2006.

The strategic crisis facing the United States is a life-and-death crisis. If we continue to ignore the growing evidence of danger, the free world may not survive. The Strategic Crisis Center wants to encourage widespread debate, involvement, and concern with these issues. Citizens need to get educated, they need to get involved, and they need to alert their neighbors, their friends, and their families to the danger.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23806267/J...sion-Statement