Russia’s Pre-World-War-III Propaganda: Not for the Fainthearted


“Your grandchildren will live under communism. […] Capitalism is a worn-out mare while socialism is new, young, and full of teeming energy. […] Our firm conviction is that sooner or later capitalism will give way to socialism. No one can halt man’s forward movement, just as no one can prevent day following night. […] Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you. […] We will give up communism when crabs learn to sing.” – Nikita Khrushchev, November 18, 1956, speaking to Western diplomats at a reception at the Polish embassy in Moscow.

“In October 1917, we parted with the old world, rejecting it once and for all. We are moving towards a new world, the world of communism. We shall NEVER turn off that road.” – Mikhail Gorbachev, November 1987, 70th anniversary of the October Revolution (Christopher Story: The European Union Collective; Edward Harle, 2002; p. 19).

l“We see that confusion has arisen in some people’s minds: aren’t we retreating from the positions of socialism, especially when we introduce new and unaccustomed forms of economic management and public life, and aren’t we subjecting the Marxist-Leninist teaching itself to revision? … No, we are not retreating a single step from socialism, from Marxism-Leninism…” – Mikhail Gorbachev; Current Digest of the Soviet Press, 40, Nr. 7, 1988, pp. 3-4. (Christopher Story: The European Union Collective; Edward Harle 2002; p. 14)




Under normal circumstances and in a sound environment, the Russian word “pravda” is supposed to mean “truth”. However, in the devilish parallel universe of Soviet communism (that secretly continues even today), where black was white and white was black, “Pravda”, “Truth”, was the name of the official organ of the Communist Party Soviet Union. Truth, under communism, wasn’t the truth, but what the communist criminal leadership ordered it to be. And so the daily lies from the communist propaganda apparatus were being disseminated, boldly, under the banner of “Truth”. (George Orwell extensively portrayed such inverted semantics in his famous dystopian novel 1984, where traditional language is getting replaced by “newspeak”.)


Pravda, Dec. 1941, Red Square

December 1941, view over Manezhnaya Square, Moscow: A Red Army soldier reads the latest “Pravda” as Hitler’s armies have gathered on the Western outskirts of the city.



As with all the other “former” Soviet institutions in “post-Soviet” Russia, also “Pravda” was not shut down, but rather transformed. For a while, the newspaper continued under new foreign ownership until it was brought back in 1996 – after much manouevering and bullying, we can assume – to being the official organ of Gennady Zyuganov’s “post-Soviet” Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF), the most obvious continuation of the old CPSU among the fake party pluralism of the supposedly new Russia (premier Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn had most precisely predicted all these alleged changes, warning tirelessly that they would be only cosmetic, a grand deception designed to psychologically and militarily disarm the West).

But the much more important format of “Pravda” today, not connected with the CPRF, appears to be Pravda online, available meanwhile not just in English (and Russian anyway), but also in Italian and Portuguese. Like RT (Russia Today), the infamous English-speaking television channel, Pravda online too serves as an aggressive international media outlet that has nothing to do with reporting and everything to do with old-style Soviet propaganda targeted at the populations of the West.

Certainly, in the present situation of wildly deteriorating international relations, everybody can see and read in the daily news that Russia (read: the still-intact Soviet Union), along with communist China, once again has changed course and is now openly threatening Europe and the United States on a regular basis and at an ever-more brutal scale.

This article simply wants to provide a closer look into (increasing military provocations aside) what appears to have become all-out pre-war propaganda on the part of “Russia”, and so – pars pro toto – by the example of the rantings of Pravda online, along with statements and speeches by representatives of this supposedly “democratic” entity now known as the “Russian Federation”, that is no less Soviet-communist as its predecessor, the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic and the overall Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, respectively (the latter continuing – minus the Baltic states and, for the moment, Georgia, but still including Ukraine! – as the “Commonwealth of Independent States”).



Russia (in coordination with the other “ex-Soviet” republics and Red China) now is in the business of calculated gradual escalation. Ever since Vladimir Putin followed Boris Yeltsin as Russian President in late 1999, the previously displayed friendliness of Russia was being ever more replaced by a tough anti-Western and particularly anti-American stance all too well-known from the old days of the official Soviet Union. What had happened? It wasn’t the new figurehead of Putin instead of Yeltsin as such, that caused the change, but with Putin, who was selected for the job, Russia was plannedly leaving behind eight years of seeming democracy and seeming market economics. Not overnight, and not officially declared, but slowly. It’s been a more confusing variation of the end of the New Economic Policy of the 1920s. At the time, in 1929, Stalin put an end to this period of equally eight years of fake liberalisation, that was the model for the fake perestroika “reforms” under Gorbachev and Yeltsin and to this day. However, Stalin finished off the liberalisation within a few weeks and completely, whereas the pragmatic Leninists of today seem to have decided on a double-standard course for a while, i.e. to continue to extract from the West, as Western-style businessmen, valuable investments, credits, and know-how, while at the same time building up, gradually, an ever more threatening political and military posture vis-à-vis the West, the latter now plain for everyone to see.

Why has the West – again – fallen for the deception? Because it allowed itself to be guided by pure wishful thinking rather than sober analysis (apart from the sickening reality of communist agents and moles well-placed throughout the societies of the free world ever since the 1930s). So, here we are, confronting the same old world communist bloc, that’s now even greatly extended (just think of South Africa, the Congo, or most of Latin America) and much more powerful compared to 1991, while the West still has no clue what all the Sino-Russian sabre-rattling finally is all about. We stand on the brink of Communist World October and, absurdly, are not even aware of it.



After years of opening up to and cooperating with an apparently reformed and democratised new Russia, the West is now baffled over Russia’s renewed hostility that seems to come out of the blue. And not only is there neither willingness nor ability to go back, say, to Anatoliy Golitsyn and review the whole of the alleged collapse of communism in 1989/91, or to J. R. Nyquist and think about the deeper causes within the Western societies themselves that have brought them to this miserable point in history. There’s also hardly any time left for such an endeavour, as events are moving forward so enormously fast. The West now stands with its back against the wall, having opened itself in so many ways to political and military blackmail. Let’s face it: The communist bloc has effectively swung the balance of world power in its favour. And neither Comrade Obama, nor Comrade Merkel, nor any other of those insidious communist Trojan Horses installed in the West will do a thing to protect us, or save us (neither will the European “Far Right”, ironically an alliance of nationalist parties, which in fact are firmly in Moscow’s pocket). They will most cynically deliver us to the upcoming communist world state, with “enemies of the people” in the millions soon to find themselves in box-cars en route to the Gulag camps of Russia and, probably, Alaska.

Here now is that barabaric pre-war propaganda, in itself already asymmetrical warfare, as it hits a Western world restricted by civility, political correctness, and -–sadly – by decades of most suicidal pacifist indoctrination. Yet, before coming to a number of gems of Pravda-online propaganda mainly of September 2014, it may be useful to start with several shocking expressions by Vladimir Putin, by fake Mr. Democracy alias Mikhail Gorbachev, by 2008-2012 Russian President and now-Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and others, made roughly during the last decade.

• On November 11, 2002, Vladimir Putin, in a press conference following a meeting in Brussels, gave the following jaw-dropping reply to a French journalist who had dared ask about the possible use of heavy weaponry against civilians in Chechniya:

If you want to become an Islamic radical and have yourself circumcised, I invite you to come to Moscow. Our nation is multi-confessional, we have experts in the field. I would recommend that he who does the surgery does it so you’ll have nothing growing back afterward.

Leninistically bold, as always, but also the language of a thug. Whereby the sobering political reality of the Chechniya war is that it was a staged war controlled from both sides of the conflict by the Kremlin. For what ends, one could ask? To be able to show the West that they too have an “Islamic problem” and put themselves on the green tables with the political leaders of the West and tie them into ever deeper cross-border co-operation between all sorts of intelligence services and possibly police. Also, by this apparent “war against Islamic militants” they could distract attention from the fact that none other than Moscow has been the sole originator, ever since the 1960s, of international terrorism, including Arab/Islamic terrorism. In addition, it turns out, the Chechniya war – construed, but still real – served as a real-life exercise for the upcoming World War.

On February 10, 2007, Vladimir Putin attended the 43rd Munich Security Conference and delivered a speech that caused, for a short moment, a veritable earthquake in Western policy circles. The speech should have been taken as a wake-up call, but sadly the West soon went back to its cosy business-as-usual. Here are some excerpts of this outrageous speech, that was in fact an official starting shot for a renewal of the Cold War (bold print by this author):

[…] The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place either. The history of humanity certainly has gone through unipolar periods and seen aspirations to world supremacy. And what hasn’t happened in world history? However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making. It is a world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within. And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority. Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves. […] We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this? In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate. And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasise this – no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race. […] Madam Federal Chancellor already mentioned this. The combined GDP measured in purchasing power parity of countries such as India and China is already greater than that of the United States. And a similar calculation with the GDP of the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China – surpasses the cumulative GDP of the EU. And according to experts this gap will only increase in the future. There is no reason to doubt that the economic potential of the new centres of global economic growth will inevitably be converted into political influence and will strengthen multipolarity. […] Did not our country have a peaceful transition to democracy? Indeed, we witnessed a peaceful transformation of the Soviet regime – a peaceful transformation! And what a regime! With what a number of weapons, including nuclear weapons! Why should we start bombing and shooting now at every available opportunity? Is it the case when without the threat of mutual destruction we do not have enough political culture, respect for democratic values and for the law? […] Plans to expand certain elements of the anti-missile defence system to Europe cannot help but disturb us. Who needs the next step of what would be, in this case, an inevitable arms race? I deeply doubt that Europeans themselves do. Missile weapons with a range of about five to eight thousand kilometres that really pose a threat to Europe do not exist in any of the so-called problem countries. And in the near future and prospects, this will not happen and is not even foreseeable. And any hypothetical launch of, for example, a North Korean rocket to American territory through western Europe obviously contradicts the laws of ballistics. As we say in Russia, it would be like using the right hand to reach the left ear. […] But what is happening at the same time? Simultaneously the so-called flexible frontline American bases with up to five thousand men in each. It turns out that NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders, and we continue to strictly fulfil the treaty [on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe] obligations and do not react to these actions at all. I think that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: “the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee”. Where are these guarantees? The stones and concrete blocks of the Berlin Wall have long been distributed as souvenirs. But we should not forget that the fall of the Berlin Wall was possible thanks to a historic choice – one that was also made by our people, the people of Russia – a choice in favour of democracy, freedom, openness and a sincere partnership with all the members of the big European family. And now they are trying to impose new dividing lines and walls on us – these walls may be virtual but they are nevertheless dividing, ones that cut through our continent. And is it possible that we will once again require many years and decades, as well as several generations of politicians, to dissemble and dismantle these new walls? […] In conclusion I would like to note the following. We very often – and personally, I very often – hear appeals by our partners, including our European partners, to the effect that Russia should play an increasingly active role in world affairs. In connection with this I would allow myself to make one small remark. It is hardly necessary to incite us to do so. Russia is a country with a history that spans more than a thousand years and has practically always used the privilege to carry out an independent foreign policy. We are not going to change this tradition today. At the same time, we are well aware of how the world has changed and we have a realistic sense of our own opportunities and potential. And of course we would like to interact with responsible and independent partners with whom we could work together in constructing a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all.

The speech was all classic Soviet anti-Americanism. Confrontative, and completely upside-down in its deceptive argument: poor, peaceful, encircled Russia versus belligerent, expansionist United States and NATO. Regarding NATO’s extension into Eastern Europe, this wasn’t against Soviet strategic interests at all. On the contrary, it enabled the communists, along the lines of ancient Chinese theorist Sun Tzu, to “peacefully” enter the enemy’s camp. In other words, this Eastern European extension of NATO was the final nail in the organisation’s coffin, and made it indeed, to paraphrase Mao, into a paper tiger. As for the alleged multipolarity promoted by the Russians, it is in fact a tightly coordinated communist unipolarity controlled by them (and the Chinese), i.e. a communist world federation. Also, the mentioning of a “fair and democratic world order” ensuring “security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all,” shows the Russians are determined to use the UN and other international organisations, including the IMF and the World Bank, to bring about drastic redistribution of wealth to the detriment of the Western nations and the United States in particular. In addition, one could view the remark also as a coded demand, again, for communism (prosperity for all)!

• A year later, exactly on Valentine’s Day 2008, Putin gave a big international press conference (that lasted, Soviet-style, for about five hours), his last press conference as President before he returned into that office in 2012. Adrian Blomfield wrote in his excellent February 15, 2008 article, “Vladimir Putin’s nuclear threat to the West”, for The Telegraph online (bold print by this author):

Vladimir Putin has delivered perhaps his most menacing tirade against the West yet, repeating threats to train nuclear missiles on Europe and warning of unspecified retaliation if Kosovo declared independence. Addressing his last press conference as Russian president, Mr Putin mounted a defiant display that demonstrated more emphatically than ever the widening gulf between Moscow and its former Cold War rivals. In a vintage performance, the former KGB spy laced almost five hours of invective with crude insults, threats and admonitions often expressed in the argot of the Russian street. Reserving his greatest ire for the United States, which he accused of harbouring a colonial mentality towards Russia, Mr Putin again said that Europe would pay the consequences for a Washington-backed plan to erect a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. “Our generals, our security council, consider these moves a threat to our national security,” he said. “We asked our partners to stop but no one listened to us. So if they continue we will have to react appropiately by retargeting our missiles.” Mr Putin also made similar threats against Ukraine if it joined Nato. The Russian leader – often accused of returning his country to a state of autocracy – portrayed his nuclear threat as an act of democratic generosity, saying he was acting in the interests of Europeans who opposed American military expansionism. […] He told Western observers who refused to monitor the forthcoming election, widely seen as a sham, that they should “rather teach their own wives how to cook cabbage soup.”

Note Putin’s sinistre “recommendation”  to the West their wives should learn how to cook cabbage soup! The message: prepare for poverty and hunger, because we are going to crush you. And the cabbage soup comment even contains an additional element: the Western societies, by decades of communist/feminist indoctrination, will be completely HELPLESS; with men unable or unwilling to fight, and women who know nothing about the basic necessities of survival in a time of crisis or war!!!

• Nov. 23, 2011: Then-President of the Russian Federation, Dmitri Medvedev, surprised the West with an official public announcement, formally addressed to the people of Russia, but of course really directed to the United States and the West, starting out with the alleged U.S. threat against Russia by trying to build up a missile defence in Eastern Europe much more moderate, by the way, than the Bush-43 administration had had in mind. However, these arguments by Russia seem to be but excuses (every aggressor in history had his version of things, nothing new) for coming up with their deadly alternative: cooperate, on our communist terms – or else! Obviously, the unchanged Soviets feel now strong enough to launch the last final chapter of their world revolution. In other words, either the West agrees to submit to a world communist federation, complete of course with brutal purges and mass killing worldwide akin to Lenin & Dzerzhinksy’s Red Terror that followed the Bolshevist rise to power, or that brutal end will come about anyway, albeit preceded by war as a means of the revolution, and certainly the worst war the world has ever seen; and the Russian generals, unlike Western militaries, have always seen nuclear war as leadable and winnable, apart from the fact that, according to Czech top defector Jan Šejna, the military doctrine of the communist bloc has always been oriented along exclusively offensive lines; of course, they knew the West would never attack them (full-length video source here; German subtitles translated into English by this author):


To the citizens of Russia!

Today I speak to you regarding the situation of the missile defence systems of the NATO states in Europe.

Russia’s relations to the USA and to NATO in the field of missile defence have a long and complicated history. When U.S. President Barack Obama in September 2009 cancelled his predecessors’ plans for the erection of a missile defence system in Europe, we welcomed this as a positive step. This decision paved for us the way towards finalising the important New START Treaty, that was signed recently and that clarifies the interconnection between strategic offensive weapons and missile defence. Let me again say that this was a great accomplishment.

Later, however, the USA began implementing a new plan that foresaw the creation of a missile defence system in gradual steps. Especially this is being viewed by Russia with some concern. Ultimately, this would lead to the stationing of U.S. missiles and military near Russia’s borders and in the surrounding waters.

One year ago, at the summit of the NATO-Russia Council in Lisbon, I suggested the development of a joint and sectoral missile defence system in Europe, in which each country should be responsible for one particular sector. Furthermore, we were ready to discuss additional modifications of such a system so to allow for the wishes of our NATO partners.

Our sole aim was to keep up the fundamental principle that Europe does not need new dividing lines, but rather a common security space with full-fledged and legally defined Russian participation. It is my conviction that in this way Russia and NATO would create the unique opportunity for building a genuine strategic partnership. We must replace in our relations, friction and confrontation by the principles of equality, undivided security, mutual trust, and predictability.

Unfortunately, the USA and other NATO allies have not shown enough readiness to go in that direction. Instead of showing the readiness to listen to and understand our concerns over the European missile defence system, they merely repeat that the plans are not directed against Russia and that therefore there is no reason for concern. This is the position of executive force, but representatives of some countries say openly that the whole system is directed against Russia. Yet, our requests for laying this down in the form of clear legal obligations were strongly rejected.

We hold a reasonable position. We are ready to discuss the status and content of such obligations, but our colleagues should understand that these obligations must be filled with substance instead of being empty words. They must not be formulated as promises and assurances but as specific military-technical criteria that would allow Russia to evaluate how far the actions of the USA and of NATO in the field of missile defence are congruent with their declarations, whether our interests are violated, and to what degree the strategic nuclear balance is still intact. This is the fundament of today’s security situation.

We will not participate in a programme that could in short term, say, within five, six, or eight years, weaken our nuclear deterrence ability. The European missile defence programme is already underway, and, regrettably, the works are progressing fast, in Poland, Turkey, Romania, and Spain. We are being confronted with a fait accompli.

Of course, we will continue the dialogue about this topic, with the USA and with NATO. I had an exchange over this with President Obama during our latest meeting and again made very clear at that opportunity our concerns. There is still time to come to an agreement. Russia has the political will to conclude the agreements necessary in this area, agreements that would open a new chapter in our relations with the USA and with NATO. If our partners show a sincere and responsible attitude towards Russia’s legitimate security interests, I am sure we will be able to find an agreement.

But if one demands from us “to cooperate” or even to act against our own interests, it will be difficult to find common ground. In that case, we would be forced to react differently. We will decide about our steps according to the factual course of events, stage after stage as the missile defence programme will be implemented.

In this context, I have made the following decisions:

First: I decree that the Ministry of Defence immediately put in combat readiness the radar system near Kaliningrad for the early warning of missile attacks.

Second: As a primary measure, the protection for Russia’s strategic nuclear weapons will be increased under the programme for the development of our air- and space defence.

Third: The new ballistic strategic missiles, that have been commissioned by the Strategic Missile Troups and the Navy, will be equipped with advanced systems for the penetration of missile defence as well as with new, highly effective warheads.

Fourth: I have given order to the armed forces to put together a catalogue of measures by which, if necessary, the data material and control systems of missile defence systems can be rendered useless.

These measures will be adequate, effective, and cost-efficient.

Fifth: In case the measures given above should prove insufficient, the Russian Federation will station modern offensive weapons in the West and the South of the country that guarantee our ability to incapacitate every part of the U.S. missile defence in Europe. One step in this process will be the stationing of Iskander missiles in the area of Kaliningrad.

Further measures against the missile defence system in Europe shall be developed and applied, as needed.

Should the situation still continue to develop not in Russia’s favour, we reserve to us to terminate further disarmament- and arms control measures.

Because of the close relation between strategic offensive- and defence weapons, there could furthermore arise conditions for an exit from the new START Treaty, and this option is written into the treaty. Yet, let me emphasise that we do not stand back from a continued dialogue with the USA and with NATO over missile defence and practical cooperation in this field. We are ready for this.

But, this can only be achieved via the fundament of a clear legal basis for cooperation, that would secure that our legitimate interests and concerns are met.

We are open for dialogue and hope for a reasonable and constructive approach from the side of our partners in the West.


The phrase about the incapacitation of “every part of the U.S. missile defence in Europe” is certainly outrageous and shocking, as such U.S. installations are not only in “former” Warsaw Pact states Poland and Romania, but also in Western-European Spain and in traditional NATO-country Turkey! The Soviets are gearing up for war, they raise their nuclear forces to combat readiness – and what’s the reaction of the “Reset”/”Overload” Obama White House? Basically none. No substantial response to this increasing military posture. Let them prepare for war, or even open war against us; we want peace, at any price. It goes without saying that under such asymmetrical political conditions, what is a “reasonable and constructive approach” will be one-sidedly defined by the Russians. The West, greatly facilitated by a de-facto communist U.S. Administration, has become the victim of communist military blackmail. However, as the Soviets might deem all-out war against the non-communist world (and particularly Europe and the United States) indispensable for establishing their new communist world society, this isn’t merely a return to the Cold War, but a run-up to hot war!

• The next notable outburst was by Comrade Gorbachev, and so, again, in Munich, Germany, on December 10, 2011. The conservative, CSU-affiliated Hanns Seidel Foundation had chosen him for that year’s prestigious Franz Josef Strauß Award (which shows how deeply the Germans are still hypnotised by Gorbachev’s alleged “charisma”). Gorbachev’s acceptance speech was quite an eye-opener. So much so that the German (and overall Western) media must have decided not to give it too much publicity. Here is about the second half of the speech (translated by this author from the Russian-German simultaneous interpretation on Bavarian Television; bold print by this author):

Gorbatschow, Franz-Josef-Strauss-Preis, 10. 12. 2011, 6

[…] But now I’m also slowly asking myself: what’s this all about? For, what we can see is that the missile defence is meant as a defence against Russia. Everything else is just talk, or a wall of fog to cover the truth. Yes, and as a result, the Russian government said: We’re going to station means of defence, here and there, and we are ready to use weapons that guarantee our security. What does this mean? WORLD WAR III! And if Russia and the USA should again be at loggerheads, this IS World War III! This won’t be restricted to a local war! And we need to again clearly remember the lesson, you know: the Cold War was over; our partners were triumphing, and they wouldn’t see the forest for the trees any more, in the West, and especially in the USA. They wanted to build a new empire, with a super-super-super-power – to which I say: the Germans are a serious and reflecting nation, and they know well what is being said in the USA; and when they don’t react to it and sometimes nod, it means all this can’t be taken for serious: It’s the attempt to threaten Russia a bit; and there is still in Europe a bit of fear left towards Russia. Yet, we only wish to build and develop: No one has led more wars in the 20th century than us. So much we had to suffer, and, just as a sidenote: We had no plans after WWII to start military action against the USA. I know it. I MUST know it. And, suddenly, all this starts all over again. This reminds me of those 200 or 300 U.S. bases, spread all over the world, from the Cold War era; and have they been of any use to anybody? I have the impression that the evildoer of the system in which the West lives, and so with the consent of Washington, this radical market philosophy, all this hasn’t turned out positively. What have we got? Bubbles! One bubble after the other, and they all burst. And, one should understand at last that the solution can’t be an arms race, the militarisation of the world and the economy, because we’d keep on throwing money out the window. And former Finance Minister Waigel spoke of 10 billion DM or Dollar, of course it was Mark, Deutschmark, that he didn’t give to Gorbachev at that time. How much money are we simply throwing out the window! Eisenhower is again quoted these days, General and President Eisenhower. Yesterday I had again the idea to watch that movie: “FFF”. – No. – “JFK”. On the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. I like such films, and one should watch them from time to time just so to remain awake; if possible: wide-awake! And, Eisenhower, to come back to that, said that the military-industrial complex is a dangerous thing; and one should never lose control over it! He said that in a way as had never been said before. And I want to say: the man was right! The military-industrial complex in our grand countries, that’s those who set the tone, who exert pressure on politics. I know how our military-industrial complex is doing this, and it is still very critical of Gorbachev because of Perestroika and the freeing of the country from these military expenditures. But, these people have been accustomed to always “play the first fiddle”, and I think that if an economy cannot provide for its people, it is an ill economy; AND SUCH AN ECONOMY MUST BE CURED, AND SO BY RADICAL MEANS! This was my idea, this was my approach. And I’m still repeating it today. But, no, what are they telling people? They are telling them things that make them afraid. Well, and now they’re arming up. But when one looks at the situation thoroughly, one can easily see that our government is acting correctly and appropriately, because – I just say: the devil take it – there is no system for executing global decisions in a world that is already global. We simply still lack such mechanisms, and I have heard with great interest that, as has been said by your Prime Minister, “we are ready to help, but not to throw money into a bottomless pit.” After all, IT WAS THE GERMANS who initiated the Euro, the European single currency, and therefore Germany carries also great responsibility, and Germany is big and strong, and thus carries an especially great responsibility, from which it cannot just steal away. But, this is also about the processes within the countries. Many have entered the EU in an expectation of having things for free, I think you know exactly what I mean. Yes, so quickly did they rush to the West and left the Warsaw Pact and COMECON, all up and away towards the West, and the West immediately welcomed them and quickly incorporated these new countries, which all entered suit the United Nations; and you yourselves have greatly furthered this development; thus: look who is talking! And, shouldn’t one be grateful to the Greeks for having established the fundaments of our civilisation? But, well, I believe we know exactly what we need to think of each other, and we must build a system for executing global decisions in a global world. And for this, NEW systems, NEW models are needed! Betting on super-profits, super-consumption, and the like, leads nowhere. That’s of no use! Now, we have a billionaire who owns a submarine. And now he wants to commission a second one. Is this going to give the man happiness? No! One should find a small submarine, torpedo his first one in order to prevent the second one from being built; because no one needs this. Who needs this? And I ask you, my dear Germans: stand you also by your responsibility! You have initiated the Euro-zone, and as soon as the control mechanisms become effective, this system will be precisely what Europe and the world need! I think we should all really think about, together, how we can prevent a violent solution of the problems at hand, because when someone chooses force, this is the most dangerous thing that there is; and I repeat: we’re again in an arms race! It’s obviously about re-militarisation, not only militarisation of the economy, but also of consciousness. WE ARE ILL; WE ALL NEED TO BE TREATED AND CURED! And Generals again become heroes; Generals who believe they had disarmed too much, one missile of many thousands, that’s too much. And here I ask myself: How do the Generals think? If one bets on solving problems militarily, then one commits a mistake, and I’d like to say this again, I’ve heard this, we just had in France an annual meeting, the annual conference of the World Political Forum, that I brought into being several years ago, really a serious organisation; there it was said: to bet on force and strength isn’t efficient. The nations, and most politicians, condemn such an attitude. And at the end we came to the conclusion that wars do not solve problems, and in earlier days thinkers said that war is necessary, that war brings about a movement ahead etc. – No! War means a giant failure of politics. For what should one take up arms, aeroplanes, extremely destructive weapons? And why? Because the politicians got it wrong, because the politicians still lag behind the fast changes in the world. And, so to speak, the Russians, the Germans, the French, the Americans, the Japanese, and now also the Chinese, by the way, these nations are responsible for providing for the world a peaceful, positive perspective. And, also, it’s definitely wrong to believe one could hide away, one could sit out anything. No one can hide any more or sit anything out! Also small countries need contacts. I believe I have now strayed quite far from the Franz-Josef-Strauß Award, but I’m convinced that the one is closely connected to the other; connected to the legacy passed on to us by smart brains. I’d like to once again express my heartfelt thanks. You know, I speak at home, here in Germany, in Europe, in the world; I advocate cooperation and of course a deepening in the cooperation between Russia and Germany. Because, this means very, very much for the overall situation; it stabilises it, develops it towards a positive outcome, and the people who are demonstrating in Wall Street demand social justice and equality. And, as you can see, also in the EU, mistakes were made. But this isn’t yet the essential point I want to make. I have the impression that – of course we aren’t out of the old crisis yet, and there are already signs on the horizon for a new crisis, but – as LENIN calmed his comrades-in-arms, this was when the Soviet power came into being, when there was a chaotic situation in the country: “Yes, of course we have chaos, BUT FROM CHAOS SPRING UP NEW FORMS OF LIFE“. And therefore, chaos IS a problem, a crisis IS a problem, all this isn’t easy, but there are always included opportunities that definitely should be made use of. And I wish the Germans a healthy New Year. And this time you will still have enough bratwursts and pork-knuckles for New Year’s Eve. WELL, AND AS FOR THE NEXT NEW YEAR’S EVE, WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT THAT, TOGETHER! And, I tell you quite frankly: it is for me a special, an emotional day. And regarding the accomplishments that I myself associate with my life – the German question, the destiny of Germany – these were for me of determining importance. And I’m proud of what I could do. – Thank you very much! I’m wishing you good success!

What an uninterrupted flow of Leninist revolutionary energy! Hopping back and forth between deceptive arguments and open threats, Gorbachev – like Putin at the 43rd Munich Security Conference in February 2007 – paints a grim scenario of renewed Cold War, arms race, and even looming World War III, all the while blaming the United States as the aggressor (which is totally ridiculous by any standards, and particularly as at that time Soviet plant Obama had already been “President” of the United States for almost three years). But Gorbachev also mocks the United States, alluding to the U.S.’s strategic blunder following the false premise of a victory of the Cold War. He exploits the ongoing economic crisis, saying capitalism has failed and the world needs “new models”; what he means is the West should adopt communism. Finally, he even threatens the poor, unexpecting Germans with poverty and hunger, letting them know that they will have to cooperate with Russia. This represents, as the late British analyst Christopher Story put it, the instance of collaboration-blackmail. But the West seems now caught in this trap, particularly the Germans. The communists have successfully turned the tables on us, and are now laughing at us, mercilessly.

• February 27, 2012. During “roundtable” defense talks of Russia’s military elite most symbolically held in Sarov, the “birthplace” of the first Soviet atomic bomb, then Prime Minister Vladimir Putin made the following eye-opening remarks about Russia’s military power vis-à-vis the West (video source here, resp. section starts at 0:34):

We have more aces up our sleeve that would push our Western colleagues and partners to a more constructive dialogue than we have seen before. What do I mean by this? Just a few years ago, as I know, they used to speak of us among their fellow allies as follows: “Russia could tinker with its military as much as it wants, we are not the least interested in what’s happening there. All they have is rusted-out junk.” But this is not true. [Laughs.] Today, it’s a different game. [Watch the agreeing, conspiratorial, superior grin on the face of Vice Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin in the audience, as Putin says, “But this is not true.” Rogozin – below: left -–certainly knows, as he is in charge of Russia’s defence industry!]


In other words, the West, having naïvely fallen during the last 25 years for the calculated disinformation projected by “Russia” regarding an allegedly run-down Russian military, is now being laughed at for its stupidity. Still-communist Russia and communist China, along with their numerous allies around the world, now represent a combined military power so great and formidable that they can easily face down and defeat the West. Also, note the insidious expression that these aces Russia’s got up its sleeve (read: achieved military superiority!) will push the West to a “more constructive dialogue” than before: in plain English, this foreshadows a scenario of military blackmail that will force the so-far-non-communist world to accept global communist tyranny!     

• May 2, 2012: The nuclear threats keep coming. This time, it’s the chief of the Russian General Staff of the day, Nikolai Makarov, threatening pre-emptive strikes against the planned American anti-missile sites in Poland and elsewhere in Eastern Europe. The general said i.a.,

Taking into account a missile-defense system’s destabilizing nature, that is, the creation of an illusion that a disarming strike can be launched with impunity, a decision on pre-emptive use of the attack weapons available will be made when the situation worsens.

Any alarm about this in the power centres of the West? Apparently no. Only polite diplomatic assurances to the Russians that Obama’s “Phased Adaptive Approach” programme – a massively cut-down version of the initial anti-missile project envisioned by President George W. Bush – does not, and cannot, threaten Russia, or – absurdly – Russian ICBMs on their way to the United States.

On Sept. 27, 2012, Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, towards the end of an interview on the American Charlie Rose Show, made a more than ominous remark regarding the Middle East situation as it then stood in autumn of 2012, including Syria, Iran, and the so-called Arab Spring. Here is that crucial exchange between Charlie Rose and Sergey Lavrov (it’s from 48:59 till 49:27 in the video), including two screenshots showing Sergey Lavrov’s facial expressions at the two critical moments during that exchange:

Rose: Do you have fears about the Arab Spring? As to what those governments might become?

Lavrov: Well, I think we are now in the Arab Autumn and –

Rose: Okay, do you have fears about the Arab Autumn, and where do you think it’s going?

Lavrov: Well, I hope it’s not going to the Nuclear Winter.

Lavrov after having completed the words, “Nuclear Winter.” Look at his eyes, look at his expression, here on the snapshot or directly on the video: It was a massive, diabolical threat, a hint, maybe unplanned, to a Russian first-strike nuclear attack – and not a diplomatic expression of concern with regard to Iran or the Middle East in general.


Rose (somewhat taken aback, but reacting extremely clever): What would lead it to a Nuclear Winter?

Lavrov in the moment when Rose asks, “What would lead it to a Nuclear Winter?” Look at his triumphant face! The West is completely in the dark about what’s coming, and they smile – or rather grin – at us, with the most devilish amusement!


Rose (continuing): Iran getting a nuclear weapon – which is not an Arab country? What would lead to the Nuclear Winter?

Lavrov (trying to get away from his weird statement): Ah, this was a figure of speech, of course …

• March 16, 2014: In his weekly prime-time news show on state-controlled Russian television, Rossiya-1, controversial news-anchor and Putin-protegé, Dmitry Kiselyov, commented on the ongoing Russian annexation of Crimea and the subsequent economic sanctions under preparation by the West, threatening:

Russia is the only country in the world that is realistically capable of turning the United States into radioactive ash, [adding,]

Even if people in all our command posts after an enemy atomic attack cannot be contacted, the system will automatically fire our missiles from mines and submarines in the right direction.

Not enough with that, one could see on the screen behind him the image of a huge atomic mushroom cloud, along with the words, “into radioactive ash”! – Charming…

Dmitry Kiselyov

• April 6, 2014: Pravda Online (Harun Yahya): “Isolated Russia” Although Russia has annexed Crimea, Hitler-style, in March 2014, and is now trying to get hold of the critical industrial centres of Eastern Ukraine (and, furtheron, of all of Ukraine as well as of all former Soviet republics), the aggressor, according to the well-oiled Soviet propaganda machine, is NATO and the United States (while the Soviet Cold-War counterpart allegedly no longer exists). Some excerpts from this article (bold-print by this author):

“Why is NATO expanding? We can’t see real reasons for that. We all know that the competitor who is the reason behind the establishment of NATO no longer exists.” These words belong to Sergey Yastrzhembsky, the presidential aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin back in 2004. Yastrzhembsky felt the need to make these remarks because NATO seemed to be expanding by incorporating former Soviet states while seemingly isolating Russia in the process. Surely there are reasons that make Russia’s concerns well-grounded. It is fair to say that the goodwill and conciliatory efforts by Russia under the leadership of Putin in the aftermath of the Cold War were not reciprocated in kind, on the part of the US and the EU countries. The process, which first began and included former Soviet states into NATO and the EU, was exacerbated with the Syrian civil war and became an undeniable rift with the Ukrainian crisis. The Western world seems to be pursuing an agenda to isolate Russia, which brings to mind the possibility of a revival of the Cold War mentality. […]

The current Ukrainian crisis is a clear proof of this new policy of isolation. The importance of Ukraine as an ally for Russia is clear and the actions of the USA and the EU in pretending not to understand that, while at the same time working to isolate Russia and forming friendships with former Russian allies, could be seen as an effort to divide the world into two poles. The Western world is perfectly aware of Ukraine’s position as an old friend, a trade partner and a defensive bulwark in the Black Sea for Russia, and should have been perfectly capable of foreseeing the reaction of Russia to such behavior. Realizing this fact the EU should encourage and extend a helping hand to Russia in its integration with the West. Regarding the issue of Ukraine and Crimea, the policy of isolation of Russia is completely wrong and unacceptable. I’ve been repeating one important fact for a long time: Putin is a wise and approachable leader with a good deal of foresight. He has made important strides in his country and is open to negotiation and reconciliation. The Russian people are also a very decent and loving people: Therefore, no one can condone leaving these beautiful people and a good leader isolated and pushing them into a mindset of insecurity and fear.  [And so on, and so forth.]

• August 10, 2014: Vladimir Zhirinovsky at it again. In an appearance on the Russian television channel Russiya 24, the infamous Vice Speaker of the Russian State Duma, head of Russia’s fake “Liberal Democratic Party”, and – according to the late former Mayor of Leningrad/St. Petersburg and Putin-mentor, Anatoliy Sobchak  a KGB operative, commented upon the current situation in Ukraine (he himself is said to be actively supporting Russian separatists in the Donbass region). Here are some of his as ever astonishing remarks (based on the Russian-English translation via Google Translate):

Ukraine’s fate is already sealed, Zhirinovsky says, decided upon in Moscow. Europe may be in for some catastrophic consequences. The Baltics and Poland are doomed, they will be swept away. Russia will have to preemptively carpet-bomb these countries so to neutralise all NATO missile launchers and planes. Europe will beg for an agreement with Russia to avoid another May 1945.

Of course, much of Zhirinovsky’s rantings can’t be taken for serious. He serves as a probe, internally to test the degree of discontent within Russia, but then also externally to not only confuse or frighten the West, but equally test whether there might be some awakening in the free world about the communist longrange strategy. Also, his job is to make the official Russian leadership (i.e., Putin) look good so that the West gladly assembles around the Kremlin. Yet, not everything Zhirinovsky says is “ultranationalist” madness. But hardly ever his wild attacks are considered in the West as perhaps being very much an expression of true Russian strategy (which was frequently emphasised by the late British political analyst, Christopher Story). And so the Russians find out again and again that the West remains firm asleep.

August 29, 2014: Speaking to young people at the pro-Kremlin (quasi-Komsomol) Seliger 2014 National Youth Forum outside Moscow, Vladimir Putin commented on the situation in Ukraine and beyond, reminding the West of Russia’s nuclear potential and of better accepting the current restoration process of the old USSR:

Russia is far from being involved in any large-scale conflicts. We don’t want that and don’t plan on it. But naturally, we should always be ready to repel any aggression towards Russia…. Russia’s partners…. should understand it’s best not to mess with us…. Thank God, I think no one is thinking of unleashing a large-scale conflict with Russia. I want to remind you that Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers.


• Sept. 2, 2014: Pravda Online (Lyuba Lulko): “Europe Makes One Step Towards Russia, Away From USA” – This article boasts about the powerful position in EU politics of German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, who was once a communist cadre in the GDR and now very obviously serves as a communist mole in unified Germany in order to bring about a unified communist Eurasia under the control of Moscow. It seems things are going very well for Soviet communism as far as the European Union is concerned. (Bold-print by this author.)

Elections to the governing bodies of the EU finished, and it was the word of German Chancellor Angela Merkel that played the crucial role in the elections. What prompted her to opt for the Polish PM Donald Tusk and Italian FM Federico Mogerini? During the summit, Poroshenko was hysterically lobbying new sanctions against Russia, but his voice was not heard. […]

However, EU leaders, except for President of Lithuania Dalia Grybauskaite, were restrained in their assessments of the “invasion” and decided not to provide “military-technical” support to Ukraine. As for the price, as Obama said Moscow would have to pay, four member countries of the EU – the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Cyprus – disagreed with the decision to expand the sanctions. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico said: “I reserve the right to veto the sanctions, should they cause damage to national interests of Slovakia,” said the Slovak leader.

After the discussion of the Ukrainian crisis, the leaders of 28 countries proceeded to the elections of the administrative board. The appointment of Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Federica Mogerini as the new EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security appears to be an important move. She will replace Catherine Ashton – the main adviser to Petro Poroshenko. This was a victory of Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, who came into conflict on the issue with the already elected European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and representatives of Poland and the Baltic countries. All of them did not want to see a Russian ‘dove’ on the key post. However, according to the Italian press, Angela Merkel’s support of the candidate played a crucial role in the election. Federica Mogerini, 41, is a diplomat with 20 years of experience, first as a political scientist, then a curator of peace settlement in the Middle East, Iraq and Afghanistan. In her interview for the Carrera [sic!] de la Sera, she said that Europe faces two challenges – escalation of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and the return of foreign fighters to Europe from the Middle East. Mogerini believes that the President of Ukraine “violates obligations and goes against the interests of his people.” Yet, “the only way to resolve the conflict in Ukraine is diplomacy and not a military solution, which simply does not exist.” Ukraine can choose association with the EU, but it is important neither to harm nor to threaten Russia, the Italian official believes.

The position of the President of the European Council – the highest political body of the EU – previously taken by Dutchman Herman Van Rompuy, will now belong to Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk. Tusk is the founder and leader of the liberal party Civic Platform (CP) that has won the parliamentary elections twice. Tusk has been leading the government of Poland for seven years. He is a historian by education, an activist of Solidarity. Again, CP is a part of the bloc of right-centrist people’s parties of the European Parliament, along with CDU/CSU of Chancellor Angela Merkel. Euronews noticed that it was Merkel who persuaded Tusk to take the post. According to the German press, the Polish prime minister “is easy to grow” for Frau Chancellor. In a nutshell, he has always done and will do what Merkel says. “The EU position on the Ukrainian conflict must be bold, but not radical,” Tusk said on Saturday. He further announced that he would seek unity of the Union in this case. […]

Here is another point of view. “In my opinion, the choice (for Russia) is more positive than negative,” – Pyotr Isgenderov, a senior fellow at the Institute of Slavic Studies told Pravda.Ru. – Donald Tusk, against the backdrop of the Polish political landscape, is the most pro-Russian figure, given sentiments at the Polish political elite. Tusk has always been a counterweight to the party of Kaczynski brothers Law and Justice. He has always advocated the development of cooperation with Russia, especially economic and trade cooperation. In addition, Tusk had a fairly balanced position in relation to the tragedy of Lech Kaczynski’s aircraft, Russian-led politics on post-Soviet space, and other “very painful issues for the Russian-Polish relations. Thus, the figure of Donald Tusk is rather neutral, especially in this volatile political field in Poland. In his new position, he will most likely stand up for the preservation and restoration of trade and economic relations between the EU and Russia.” […]

More moderate forces take the lead at the EU under the guidance of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who calls on all parties to the Ukrainian crisis to negotiate,” concluded the expert. […]”

• Sept. 2, 2014: Pravda Online: “Russia to Change Its Military Doctrine in Light of NATO’s Growing Aggression” – As if Soviet-Russia had ever been training its military for anything else but attack …

[…] The present military doctrine of the Russian Federation was adopted four years ago – in 2010. In the conclusive part of the document, it was said that its provisions could be altered against the background of changing nature of military dangers and military threats. Since that time, the situation has changed considerably.

“I have no doubt that the expansion of NATO and steps to move military infrastructure of NATO member countries closer to the borders of Russia will remain one of external military threats to the Russian Federation,” said [Deputy Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, Mikhail] Popov.

In addition, he said, the trend of the United States and NATO members to increase their strategic offensive potential had become a lot stronger. […]

• Sept. 3, 2014: Pravda Online: “Russia Names Its Prime Enemy” – More of the same, yet more in detail …

Russia is changing its military doctrine due to the expansion of NATO, the missile defense problem and the situation in Ukraine and around it. The current doctrine, the provisions of which can be adjusted given the changing nature of military dangers and threats, was adopted in 2010.

Since then, the military-political situation in the world has changed dramatically. The new version of the document is to be ready by the end of the year. Experts believe that the language of the current version of the doctrine is too diplomatic due to Russia’s unjustified expectations regarding the partnership with the United States and NATO. Now, when relations with the West have become extremely strained, Russia must clearly identify where threats come from, what they are and at what stage they can materialize.

The news about the preparation of the new doctrine was announced by Deputy Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Mikhail Popov in an interview with RIA Novosti. The information appeared on the eve of the NATO summit, to be held on September 4-5 in Wales. […]

Chief Editor of National Defense Magazine, a member of the Public Council of the Ministry of Defense, Igor Korotchenko, said that the current version of the Russian doctrine contains too abstract, subtle and diplomatic formulations. “We had illusions about partnership with NATO and the United States, so the formulations that were adopted four years ago, are abstract,” he said.

Now illusions are gone. Korotchenko does not doubt that at the coming NATO summit in Wales, Russia will be proclaimed as the prime enemy of the Alliance. Afterwards, the alliance will continue moving its military infrastructure closer to Russian borders. NATO bases will appear in Poland and Baltic countries. “NATO forces will be permanently deployed in the Baltic States. This is obviously the time for the Russian military doctrine to clearly designate the enemy, proceeding from who sees Russia as the prime enemy. This will be a response to the decision of the NATO summit in Scotland,” said the expert. […]

Chief editor of Russia in Global Affairs, chairman of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, Fyodor Lukyanov, believes that the designation of enemy in the doctrine is quite logical. “It is clear that the relationship between Russia and the West have mentally returned to the cold war. Both sides see each other as a potential enemy. One shall probably expect remilitarization of Europe,” Lukyanov told Expert Online. […]

Noteworthy, in the current doctrine, it is indicated that Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction against Russia or its allies. Russia can also use nuclear weapons in response to large-scale aggression with the use of conventional weapons, when the existence of the Russian state is endangered.

“The alliance, which is going to march to the East, is 4.5 times bigger and stronger than Russia in terms of both manpower and military equipment. We should consider how to deter NATO, eliminate disparities and prevent the threat of war in Europe, in particular, with the use of tactical nuclear weapons.” […]

“Experience shows that the reliability of some of our Western partners is a temporary phenomenon, and it is associated, unfortunately, very closely with the political situation,” said Popov. According to him, effective functioning of the military-industrial complex of the country is one of the most important factors in the ability of the army to protect the state, which is possible only under the conditions of technological independence in the field of arms production.

• Sept. 5, 2014: Pravda Online (Gaither Stewart): “Putin’s Restraint” – This is a quite sinistre piece of anti-Western rage (written by an American communist):

President Putin’s matter-of-fact statement over last weekend that, “If I wanted to I could take Kiev in two weeks”, following his mid-week reminder of Russia’s sometimes forgotten nuclear capacity, was most certainly startling to European Union leaders gathered in Bruxelles to shuffle around EU functions in such way that the bureaucrats – who have made non-elected careers in Bruxelles running as much as possible the lives of Europeans – can keep their jobs.

Putin’s softly spoken words plastered across newspaper headlines shook them out of their reveries. They had hoped the Ukrainian problem would just go away. Now they don’t know what to do. Several countries – members – Slovakia, Hungary and Cyprus oppose sending arms to the Chocolate King Poroshenko’s forces getting whipped by the “separatists-terrorists” in the Southeast Donbas and losing huge quantities of military hardware and yesterday losing also the Luhansk airport. No one in fact is really sincere about the whole US idea of sanctions. Europe, afflicted by uncertainty about its own identity and the centrifugal forces at work to tear it apart (anti-Europeanists, the secession referendum in Scotland this month, similar movements in Cataluna [sic!] and the Basque country) has the nerve to give Russia seven days to withdraw its troops from inside Ukraine (which Russia denies) to which Putin responds laconically that “it’s impossible to foresee when the crisis will end.” Putin has repeated a paraphrased version of US East European policymaker Nuland’s words to the EU: “Fuck off!” Merkel is meanwhile really pissed with the Kremlin but can’t do much about it, and probably would not even if she could: half of Russia’s foreign trade is with her Germany.

Restraint? I firmly believe Russia could take back Kiev in much less than two weeks. Maybe overnight. The Ukrainian army might even join in with Russian forces. And the Nazi-Fascist militias? What would they do? Oh, they would fight a bit, but would be overwhelmed by events and quickly melt away. The US/NATO would face exactly the same situation as when Russia quietly took over the Crimea.

But, as Putin intimates in the conditional tense, ” … if he wanted to,” why should he? That is what he is saying. Why should he? He knows. Russians will drink Russian beer instead of Heinekens and wait. Let Poroshenko’s ragged army and any Westerners who join in walk straight into Russia’s arms. The US/NATO has already suffered defeat after defeat in Ukraine: Crimea, the Donbas, Novorossiya, the ignominy of a banana republic political clique trying to manage to stay afloat in Kiev and ridiculously requesting admission into the European Union and NATO. In whose name, anyway, one wonders? The Bandera-Nazi militia whom every Russian and most Ukrainians detest?

While Putin waits patiently, right on Ukraine’s eastern borders, if one even exists, which I doubt. Let NATO or their proxies walk into another Stalingrad.

In this chiefly verbal conflict for everyone except those doing the fighting in southeastern Ukraine, Europe plays the roll of patsy for both the US and Russia. Obama in Washington can incite Europe to violent words and sanctions and expressions of solidarity for which it then must pay the bill. Russia can direct its political maneuvering, its solidarity with the Ukrainian people, its opposition to the US-backed puppet government in Kiev, and direct its counter-sanctions against a vulnerable Europe still in the throes of economic crisis.

Putin’s restraint. Russia’s patience. America’s unknowing.

• Sept. 5, 2014: Pravda Online: “Gorbachev on Ukraine: Terrifying Massacre in Store for Europe” – Gorbachev is no “peace angel” concerned about the well-being of Europe etc.; he has been, and still is, a key figure in the revolution and works in close alignment with the official Russian leadership. His “concerns” in reality are threats!

To resolve the conflict in Ukraine, it is highly important to resume the dialogue between Moscow and Washington, as “their role and responsibility is special,” first president of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev believes. Earlier, Gorbachev stated that Europe may face “terrifying massacre” because of the current crisis in Ukraine. According to him, “too much is at stake; dangers and risks are too high.”

Mikhail Gorbachev has recently finished working on a new book, which is going to be published soon. The book, titled “After the Kremlin,” is devoted to events in Russia and the world over the past two decades. In the epilogue to the book, Gorbachev wrote that the deep cause of what is currently happening in Ukraine was the failure of perestroika and “opportunistic dissolution of the USSR.” Gorbachev blamed the then Russian administration for that.

“At the same time, I must remind you, the Ukrainian leadership sabotaged the process of transformation of the Union – both before the August 1991 coup and after it, despite the fact that the majority of republics had coordinated the text of the Union Treaty,” said Gorbachev. […]

Mikhail Gorbachev earlier said that Europe may eventually face “terrifying massacre,” should the conflict in Ukraine spread to Europe. Gorbachev supports the policy of the Russian administration as far as the Ukrainian crisis is concerned.

In an interview with the Russian News Service, Gorbachev stressed out that the Russian Federation must not interfere in the conflict in Ukraine, “If our country interferes, it may trigger the fire that the whole world will not be able to extinguish,” he said. […]

As for Russia’s move to reunite with the Crimea, Mikhail Gorbachev said that it was a move “to correct the mistake of the USSR”.

• Sept. 8, 2014: Pravda Online: “Medvedev: Russia Will React Asymmetrically to All Sanctions”

[…] “We understand that at first, there are economic sanctions, and then political ones follow in response, and political things are always asymmetrical. This is bigger than restriction of supplies, as it may break security in the world. I hope that our Western partners do not want it, and there are no crazy people among those, who make decisions,” said Medvedev. […]

However, the prime minister said, sanctions could be advantageous to the countries, against which they were imposed. As an example, Medvedev referred to the People’s Republic of China, against which sanctions were imposed in 1989.

“The sanctions against China are very similar to those that were imposed on us. Now let’s see: did China’s economy begin to develop worse after that? None. Did the Chinese deviate from the course that was set exactly at the end of the 80s? No. Are they a successful economy? Without a doubt. This is an economy, which will soon become the first in the world. Did they change the social order, did they feel punished? No. They just mobilized internal resources, in a way not to cut the country from the outside world. To a certain extent, the People’s Republic of China took advantage of those sanctions,” said Medvedev.

As Medvedev said in the interview, Russia could have taken responsive measures before, but the government had the position not to respond to the actions of the West. According to him, the decision on the embargo on food supplies was taken after consultations and could be adjusted in the interests of Russian companies.

It was not us who started it. We wanted to respond earlier, but it was the position of the president – not to respond to those actions. When there were several waves of sanctions, we had to make a decision. What is important: this is a political decision that the vast majority of the population of our country supports,” said Medvedev.

As the head of the government said, the decision on responsive measures was not spontaneous – it came after consultations with experts in the field of foreign trade and economy. Speaking about the damage to Russian business and protection of interests of Russian companies, Medvedev said that for business, the measures taken were force majeure, but doing it in a softer way was impossible. […]

At the same time, Medvedev said, if Russia’s Western partners “come to their senses” and shelve sanctions, the Russian authorities will also waive restrictions. “I hope that by that time, our suppliers will be able to take the right place on the market,” he said.

Medvedev analyzed the situation in Ukraine from the point of view of economy. He emphasized that the burden of reconstruction of destroyed regions will lie on the Kiev authorities, and it is already clear that the burden will not be easy. […]

Russia’s turn to the Asia-Pacific region emerged due to the need to diversify trade flows, said Medvedev. […]

“We need to trade, receive investments, work with China, India, Vietnam, with other major and not very major players of the region. Therefore, this turn came on time, but it was not because of the sanctions and the political situation – it was because we had to diversify trade flows,” says Medvedev.

“I do not see any problems here, if we are going to make sound decisions,” he replied to the question of whether Russia was going to fall into dependence on China.

“China is the largest trade partner of the United States of America. There are many discussions going on about it there, but no one calls independence of the United States into question,” said Medvedev.

Should the West impose new sanctions against Russia in energy or financial sector, Moscow will have to respond asymmetrically, for example, banning flights over the territory of the Russian Federation, said Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. […]

According to him, if Western carriers are forced to fly out of Russian airspace, it may lead to the bankruptcy of many airlines, especially those that already balance on the brink of survival. “But that is a bad story. We would like our partners to realize that at some point. Sanctions do not build peace in Ukraine,” Medvedev said. […]”

• Sept. 15, 2014: Pravda Online (Andrey Mikhailov): “Can Russia Counter USA’s Prompt Global Strike?” The usual mix of exaggerated American military capabilites on the one hand, and proud boasting over Russia’s indeed amazingly modernised weapons systems.

Deputy Defense Minister of Russia Yuri Borisov said that Russia may create its own prompt global strike system. The plans would be implemented on the basis of the defensive doctrine of arms development. As can be understood, this could be a response to US developments on the subject. Can Prompt Global Strike be a threat to Russia and what can Russia do to counter the US system?

To a certain extent, Russian officials have already given answers to these questions. “Russia can and will be forced to do it, but we will develop systems to counter these new types of weapons, because the basic doctrine of our country is the defensive doctrine, and we are not going to change it,” said Borisov after a meeting devoted to the state program for arms development in 2016-2025 years. He stressed out that all decisions of the Russian authorities in the sphere of arms should not be perceived as an arms race.

Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia, Sergei Ryabkov, in an interview with the Kommersant newspaper said: “The development of the prompt global strike system in the United States may lead to a conflict with apocalyptic consequences.” […]

In response to the statements about the prompt global strike from the United States, Russia started, for example, developing a new generation of combat rail missile systems. Under the conditions of the vast territory of our country, such complexes would be very hard to target and destroy. Hiding a “combat train” on the vast territory of Russia is a piece of cake, even if they can supposedly see everything from space. […]

Russia de facto has ballistic missiles and hypersonic cruise missiles. The recent launch of Bulava missile from strategic missile submarine the Vladimir Monomakh showed that Russian warheads are not less accurate than American ones.

Russia has protection from all ballistic and cruise missile of the PGS in its present form. We have, for example, S-300PMU-2 “Favorit,” let alone S-400 that are already capable of striking targets moving at the speed of up to 4,500 meters per second. There are other systems too.

In general, this American dream is doomed to fail. When it comes to effective military developments, Russia and the USA go “head to head.”

When Reagan was in power, some American money bags profited from SDI. During Obama’s presidency, they profit from PGS.

United States President Ronald Reagan was called the father of “Star Wars” that was a subject of much controversy, but then quietly disappeared. There was a lot of PR that proved to be big nothing. Barack Obama may give birth to PGS that may also go up in smoke after some time. […]

The SDI program scared Soviet military and political leaders, and the Soviet Union was seriously drawn into an arms race in this area, despite Gorbachev’s pacifism. In 1987, it became known that the Soviet Union was also working on a similar program. A few years later, the country ceased to exist. The subject of Star Wars faded out soon afterwards. The former “empire of evil” stopped its existence without any space battles.

• Sept. 16, 2014: Pravda Online (Nicolas Bonnal): “Why Western Capitalism Misses Good Old Times of Yeltsin” Here is an example of complete upside-down rhetoric, equally laughable and absurd:

If there is nowadays so much western hatred against Vladimir Putin, why was there so much adoration and backing for Yeltsin in the nineties?

We have to recall some facts about western freedom, democracy and voodoo economics. For the post-soviet age was characterized by a steep decline of the western way of life. The fear of communism and a strong red army had so far prevented savage capitalists and market bolshevists inspired by utopia’s gurus like Hayek or Friedman to destroy the acquisitions made in the West during the Keynesian age. I already underlined this point here; and so did Naomi Klein in her stressful opus on shock therapy:

When the Cold War was in full swing and the Soviet Union was intact, the people of the world could choose (at least theoretically) which ideology they wanted to consume; there were the two poles, and there was much in between.

But Hayek in his mediocre book The Way to Serfdom has accomplished the intellectual deed to compare social protection with serfdom and social-democracy with Nazism (chapter 12).

The connection between socialism and nationalism in Germany was close from the beginning. It is significant that the most important ancestors of National-Socialism are at the same time acknowledged fathers of socialism.


In the name of this brilliant demonstration everything could then be destroyed in England, America and elsewhere (Russia, Latin America and so on). And Thatcher dared to compare in England the coal miners to the Argentinean colonels. And the Wicked Witch of the West always cherished infamous dictator Pinochet while she wanted to drop a nuclear bomb on Cordoba, Argentina.

The golden age was gone with Soviet Union and the neo-liberal agents presented their bill: destroy social warfare, give to the cronies all the national industries, multiply the debt.

The social-democrats submitted in Europe; Trotsky already had pointed in 1924 that they always grovel to America.

Of course such peaceful agenda had to be enforced. As we know western democracies adore enforcing law, peace, and economic freedom. It is their semantic obsession since 1918, to enforce, and they never hesitate to use ruthless violence in Iraq or elsewhere.

The agenda began in Chile and Argentina with dictators well considered by the anglo-Saxon elite then it extended elsewhere including a Russia abandoned then to her sad fate by Gorbachev and clearly betrayed by Yeltsin. It is now extended to continental Europe, a rich area so far spared by the growing evil of “economic freedom”.

Naomi Klein has explained the contents of this dreadful and enduring agenda (forty years of enforcement!). She tells us about the market Bolsheviks:

Stiglitz called Russia’s reformers “market Bolsheviks” for their fondness for cataclysmic revolution. However, where the original Bolsheviks fully intended to build their centrally planned state in the ashes of the old, the market Bolsheviks believed in a kind of magic: if the optimal conditions for profit making were created, the country would rebuild itself, no planning required. (It was a faith that would re-emerge, a decade later, in Iraq.)

We may remind that while the West demonizes Putin, it kindly and warmly backed Yeltsin during his “economic reforms”. As we know economic reform is a euphemism meaning pillage and enforcement of democracy. Adds Klein:

The majority of the Western press also sided with Yeltsin against the entire parliament, whose members were dismissed as “communist hardliners” trying to roll back democratic reforms. They suffered, according to the New York Times Moscow bureau chief, from “a Soviet mentality suspicious of reform, ignorant of democracy, disdainful of intellectuals”.

There is nothing new under the sun. But this is what Yeltsin did with the blessing of western economists and diplomats:

Yeltsin called in five thousand soldiers, dozens of tanks and armoured personnel carriers, helicopters and elite shock troops armed with automatic machine guns – all to defend Russia’s new capitalist economy from the grave threat of democracy.

Naomi Klein marks remarkably the following point:

Finally, on the morning of October 4, 1993, Yeltsin fulfilled his long-prescribed destiny and became Russia’s very own Pinochet, unleashing a series of violent events with unmistakable echoes of the coup in Chile exactly twenty years earlier.

The destruction and looting of Russia and the extermination of the poorest part of its population were decided in Washington. So discovered lately megalomaniac and imprudent Professor Sachs, one of the masters of the shock therapy:

Sachs now sees that there was something else at work: many of Washington’s power brokers were still fighting the Cold War. They saw Russia’s economic collapse as a geopolitical victory, the decisive one that ensured U.S. supremacy.

The American elite were ready to wreak vengeance on all Russians. Russia lost ten million habitants which is a kind of genocide, isn’t it? Nobody knows exactly the balance of these terrible years (not finished in Ukraine for instance).

Is this an exaggeration? Read Klein and other commentators:

“The years of criminal capitalism have killed off 10 percent of our population.” Russia’s population is indeed in dramatic decline – the country is losing roughly 700,000 people a year. Between 1992, the first full year of shock therapy, and 2006, Russia’s population shrank by 6.6 million. Three decades ago, André Gunder Frank, the dissident Chicago economist, wrote a letter to Milton Friedman accusing him of “economic genocide.” Many Russians describe the slow disappearance of their fellow citizens in similar terms today.

Next question: why are we betrayed by our elite in Europe these days? The answer is found in Latin America were the students of the so-called Catholic universities betrayed their country. These Catholics who were not Christians were formatted and turned into hostile elite in the famous university of Chicago. This fact was subtly labelled by a Chilean politician a transfer of ideology. For our elite is not our elite anymore.

Juan Gabriel Valdés, Chile’s foreign minister in the 1990s, described the process of training hundreds of Chilean economists in Chicago School orthodoxy as “a striking example of an organized transfer of ideology from the United States to a country within its direct sphere of influence . . .”

In France now, since the fall of Gaullism, all leaders are chosen among the Young leaders selected from their twenties by American embassy and US agencies. When a servant like that comes to power, he is ready to privatize anything, half the pensions, bomb Libya, rediscover Mars and atomize Russia. Uncle Sam just has to ask him!

These unhappy days, sanctions are taken to debilitate Russia and prepare another coup – like in unfortunate Ukraine. The putsch’s agents can use Gene Sharp’s methodology, the guide for the orange revolutions, and the goal is to eliminate Vladimir Putin in order to re-establish a Russia militarily submitted to corporate America – like in the good old times of Yeltsin.

• Sept. 18, 2014: Pravda Online: “Will Russia Revise Its Cooperation with European Union?” – It’s very obvious: All recent moves by Russia to reorient much of its trade and commerce towards Asia, particularly China, must have been thoroughly premeditated and coordinated in time with its growing military posture in Ukraine and beyond. 

“The EU should look at the relationships with Russia from a different angle and abandon the concept of strategic partnership with the country,” the European Parliament says, Interfax reports.

The European Parliament, at a plenary session in Strasbourg on Thursday, adopted the resolution about the state of affairs in Ukraine and the relations between the EU and Russia. The European Parliament called on the EU and its member states not to lift sanctions imposed against Russia if Moscow does not meet the requirements to de-escalate the Ukrainian crisis. According to European MPs, the EU must be prepared to impose new restrictive measures, such as exclude Russia from Russia cooperation in the nuclear field and from the system of international settlements SWIFT.

As stated in the resolution, any EU sanctions against Russia should be elaborated in a way not to let the Kremlin-associated businesses bypass them. MEPs call on the EU to closely monitor such forms of cooperation as the exchange of shareholdings and joint ventures. The European Parliament supports the decisions of the NATO summit to strengthen collective security in accordance with Article 5 of the Washington Treaty – about the strengthening of the eastern periphery of the alliance. The European Parliament called on the EU to consider gas storage systems, pipeline connections and reverse pipelines as strategic objects.

The Parliament urged the European Union to cancel the planned agreements with Russia in the energy sector, including in relation to the South Stream project. According to MEPs, one should strengthen energy independence and resistance to external pressure to create a fully functioning gas market in Europe. They also welcomed the decision of the French government to suspend the supply of Mistral helicopter carriers to Russia and called upon other countries to take a similar stance on the export of goods, especially weapons and dual-use goods.

The European Parliament “strongly condemns the Russian Federation for waging the unannounced hybrid war against Ukraine by using Russian regular armed forces and by supporting illegal armed groups.” The document contains the previously announced position on the illegitimacy of the Crimean referendum to become a part of Russia and its non-recognition by EU countries. At the same time, the European Parliament welcome ceasefire in the east of Ukraine and Kiev’s move to grant a special status to certain territories of Luhansk and Donetsk regions.

European lawmakers highlight the key role of the OSCE in addressing the Ukrainian crisis, demanding OSCE observers should be immediately deployed on the entire part of the Ukrainian-Russian border, which is now controlled by opponents of the Ukrainian authorities. They note the importance of establishing a national dialogue in Ukraine, avoiding propaganda and hate speech.

Welcoming the simultaneous ratification of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, the by European Parliament and the Verkhovna Rada, MEPs expressed regret in connection with emergency measures and pressure from Russia. They also said that the text of the agreement “can not be changed.”

According to MEPs, the European Commission should monitor the influence of economic measures of Russia against the EU and increase the currently allocated amount of 125 million euros to compensate European farmers and actively explore the markets of third countries.

The European Parliament also expressed regret that the militias in eastern Ukraine had not given an international access to experts to the crash site of the Malaysian airliner, calling all parties to immediately provide access for the experts.

“Russia does not show pressure on the West by means of sanctions. Instead, Russia is being guided by the interests of its own development,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said at a meeting of the State Council.

“Protective measures were not prompted by the wish to punish some of the partners,” he said. “God will judge them, it’s their decision,” he said. “We, first of all, think about our own interests and development objectives,” said the president.

Putin also noted that a number of Western countries allowed themselves to cross out the principles of the WTO by imposing sanctions on Russia. “The introduction of restrictions against Russia is nothing but rejection of the basic principles of the WTO of some of our partners,” he said. “It violates the principle of equality of conditions for all countries to access markets of goods and services and ignores most favored nation treatment in trade, as well as the principle of fair and free competition,” the president said.

“This is all politicized, without complying with WTO rules,” he said. “In fact, a group of Western countries unilaterally crossed out these and other principles and rules of the WTO for Russia, which is among six largest economies in the world,” said Putin.

In the next two years, to improve the competitiveness of the real sector of the Russian economy, one would have to do the amount of work, the implementation of which would take years before, Vladimir Putin said.

“I want to emphasize that over the next year or two, it is necessary to make a real breakthrough in enhancing the competitiveness of the Russian real sector – to do the work that would take, perhaps, years before,” Putin said at the meeting of the State Council on the development of domestic business.

• Sept. 19, 2014: Pravda Online: “Russia to Be Disconnected from the Internet?” This article is the height of boldness and hypocrisy, but also demonstrates that Russian war preparations are very real: First, it’s been the communist bloc, whether Russia or China, that is the No. 1 perpetrator of systematic internet crime, whether espionage or sabotage. Yet, they worry about their internet safety. But of course it’ll be greatly about control, surveillance, restriction, and even disconnect of the Russian internet for the war time soon to come.

The issue of security of the Russian segment of the Internet will be a topic for discussion at the meeting of the Russian Security Council, with the participation of President Vladimir Putin and several high-ranking officials. The meeting will take place next week. According to various reports, the officials will make a number of decisions regulating the use of the Internet in Russia, providing for the ability to cut the Russian Internet, known as Runet, from the outside world, in case of emergency.

Officials at the Ministry for Communications, the Vedomosti newspaper wrote, will inform the president on the results of July tests that showed the vulnerability of the Russian segment of the world wide web.

This is not a question of disconnecting Russia from the international network, yet, Russian operators will need to set up their equipment in a way to be able to disconnect the Russian Internet from the global network quickly in case of emergency, the newspaper wrote. As for the state of emergency, it goes about both military actions and large-scale riots in the country.

In addition, the government reportedly discusses a possibility to empower the state with the function to administer domains. Currently this is a function of a public organization – the Coordination Center for the National Domain of the Internet.

The purpose of the possible measure is not to isolate Russia from the outside world, but to protect the country, should the USA, for example, decide to disconnect Russia from the system of IP-addresses. It will be possible to avoid this threat, if Russia has a local regulator to distribute IP-addresses inside the country, rather than the ICANN, controlled by the United States government. This requires operators to set up “mirrors” that will be able to receive user requests and forward them to specific domain names.

Russian IT specialists have already discussed such an opportunity and said that it would be hard, but possible to do. This will require a connection with a country, where there is no such prohibition. Any CIS country, for example, could become a donor of the free Internet in this case.

The president’s press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, strongly refuted the above-mentioned media reports. “Of course, disconnecting Russia from the global Internet is out of the question,” he said. However, he added, “our partners in the United States and in Europe have been quite unpredictable lately.” “In Russia, we must think how to ensure our national security.” He confirmed that Russia was developing measures in the field of information security.

Meanwhile, representatives of the Coordination Center for the National Domain of the Internet said that they were prepared for Russia’s possible disconnection from the global network. “The infrastructure of national domains that has been built over 20 years, will withstand any attack,” the press service of the center told ITAR-TASS.

The head of the League of Safer Internet, Denis Davydov, said that the changes would be prepared in case Russia was going to be cut off from the Internet from the outside. There is such a possibility, the expert said, although he preferred not to comment on how high such a probability could be.

According to him, ICANN international corporation, which manages all domain names, IP-addresses of the Internet and regulates global address Internet space, still remains under the supervision of the US Department of Commerce.

Rumors of tightening control over the Russian segment of the Internet appeared in spring, against the backdrop of deteriorating relations with the West. It was said that a work group of the presidential administration was developing a new three-level system of data transfer to ensure all traffic of regional and local operators goes only through networks of Russian national operators. It was also said that placing DNS-servers of .ru .rf domains outside Russia would be prohibited. However, press secretary of the Russian president, Dmitry Peskov, said that he had never heard of the existence of such a work group.

In early September, State Duma deputies appealed to the government with a request to prepare a “plan of civil defense,” should Russia be disconnected from the Internet, to prevent damage to banking and commercial organizations, the work of which is based on the world wide web.

• Sept. 22, 2014: Pravda Online (John Anthony Robles II): “The Lunacy of Sanctions and the Psychosis of US Exceptionalism”  – This one is a gem:

The Insanity of Sanctions and the “Secret” U.S. Dirty War on Russia

Sanctions, sanctions and more sanctions! Every day we are subjected to an onslaught of stories and reports about how western countries, Europe, certain Asian countries and their master across the Atlantic are imposing new and ever more expanded and devious sanctions against Russia, its leaders, its businesses, industries, entire segments of the financial sector and other parts of the Russian world, even Japan has jumped on the sanctions wagon to show “support” for the hegemon across the Pacific, yet no one stops to question or stand up and say “Wait! All of these sanctions are based on lies.”

From the onslaught of the US campaign to steal Ukraine, Russia has been forced to deal with almost every imaginable threat to its own security and safety and has had to watch as a brotherly nation succumbed to the Machiavellian manipulations of the entire US/NATO/CIA arsenal of instruments used to destroy nations. If that is not enough Russia has had to watch as it is actually blamed for the destabilization of its neighbor and the fratricidal war unleashed on the populace by geopolitical strategists from across the Atlantic, who remain untouched despite documented proof of their involvement in everything from the Maidan to suspicious events surrounding the downing of Malaysian Flight MH-17.

Everything the West has done to destroy Ukraine and force it into being another NATO/US client state has been illegal from the outset. Yet their campaign continues with impunity and we see it every day with: accusations against Russia based on fantasy and social media posts; anti-Russian sentiment and war hysteria pummeled onto the masses 24 hours a day 7 days a week; the continuing US/NATO/EU/CIA support for fascist neo-nazis who were armed, trained and unleashed on their own people for the sole reasons that they speak Russian and are pro-Russia; endless false reports of Russian troops and the invasion of an invisible Russian army led by President Vladimir Putin, when nothing of the sort exists or has existed.

We also see, even on certain Russian media the direct effects of the manipulations of a 5th column, long implanted and protected even at the highest levels, with endless quotes demonizing Russia and President Putin delivered without context or counter argument, by NATO warmongers such as Anders Fogh Rasmussen and US warmonger Barack Hussein Obama, who won a Nobel Peace Prize but continues to destabilize the entire planet with reckless military expansion and threaten every country with annihilation if it does not toe the US line.

For those who talk about history and say we must not forget it or allow it to be re-written we might recall exactly what really transpired in Ukraine. Let us recall how the Maidan was provoked by the huge net of civil society manipulation apparatus brought to you by USAID, the (Pierre) Omidyar Network, George Soros’ International Renaissance Foundation and the US Congress’ National Endowment for Democracy, all spreading the myth of some abstract European dream and demonization of Russia and its President Vladimir Putin to provoke civil unrest.

Let us remember the direct interference by the US and its officials into the affairs of the sovereign country of Ukraine, the organizing of an armed coup d’état, the over-throwing of its democratically elected president and the open installation of a post-coup puppet government leading to the holding of a sham election which brought to power another US puppet who is currently making the rounds on his knees begging Obama and NATO for weapons to continue killing his own people.

If that is not enough we can recall the blacker side of the entire Ukrainian fiasco, events which no one wants to talk about and the world seems to want to bury and pretend they never happened, such as the junta’s snipers on the Maidan, the burning alive of what may have been over a hundred people in Odessa, the slaughter of innocent civilians in Mariupol, the use of illegal weapons and tactics by Ukrainian nazis in their fratricidal punitive war against the people of NovoRossiya who refused to recognize as legitimate the US installed neo-nazi regime, the shooting down of a passenger jet full of innocent civilians in an Operation Northwoods type pretext for war, the thousands dead in the completely illegal punitive war waged by the junta against civilians and backed 100% by the US/CIA/NATO, NATO’s interference and direct meddling in the affairs of Ukraine, the over 400 CIA/Greystone mercenaries operating in Ukraine and on and on.

Even the over 5 billion dollars in stolen Russian gas might be reason to ponder the legitimacy of the US backed puppet government in Kiev, or the fact that the son of the US Vice President is now enjoying a high post in a “Ukrainian” energy concern, but no one in the West wants to know about that, all the sheep want to hear is how President Vladimir Putin is at fault and how Russia must pay the price.

Knowing all of that then you might also feel the rise of bile and a bit nauseous as I do every time you hear the words sanctions with regard to Russia because in all reality and in a sane world the neighborhood of nations ought to be screaming for sanctions to be waged against America, if not for overthrowing governments and destroying nations at will then at least to force it to abide by international law as the rest of the world is forced to do.

If you doubt what I am saying ask yourself this: Why did the European Union impose new sanctions on Russia AFTER Russian President Vladimir Putin brokered a real peace in the Donbass? Does this make sense? Of course not. The sanctions are a way to save the failing western economies and attempt to destroy Russian led economic influence and the rise of the BRICS and the Eurasian Economic Union. Ukraine is just a pretext my friends.

Possible World Peace Destroyed by One Rogue Nation

In an ideal civilized world living in harmony with all of its multi-faceted cultures and peoples there must be agreement on key moral principles and clearly defined guidelines, rules and laws which govern the relations between all the members of the family of nations, and which perhaps more importantly are followed by all countries equally and without interpretation or deviation.

We could be living in such a world, where peace, mutual respect and civilized behavior defined the relations between all of the members of the family of nations as there do exist organizations like the United Nations and countless treaties, conventions and international laws that are supposed to govern and lay down the framework for the actions of all nations, but as we have seen when one nation (the US) becomes rogue (for lack of a better term) and determines unilaterally that it can twist, interpret or outright ignore the laws and standards that the rest of the world lives by and the family of nations fails to react accordingly, the entire balance of the civilized world is sent into a dangerous schism of instability, diminished security and even outright war.

Although the West gives lip service to peace the only real goal of the US with regard to peace, which of course runs second to Full Spectrum Dominance and the establishment of the US as the only global hegemon, is establishing the Pax Americana. Yet this can in no way be a substitute for real and lasting peace worldwide because the Pax Americana only benefits the western world, meaning the US and its client states.

Russian Humanitarian Assistance vs. US Barbaric Interventions

To liken the peaceful referendum in Crimea (where the people themselves chose to reunite with Russia), the Russian assistance to refugees fleeing the punitive war Kiev sought to punish them with for not recognizing the illegal junta and the now three humanitarian convoys that Russia has sent to assist in alleviating the humanitarian catastrophe the fault for which lies completely with Kiev and its US masters, to some sort of Russian annexation, aggression or invasion, is to turn truth on its head and make an abomination of the facts on the ground.

In reality what the US has done in Ukraine, under the guise of “democracy” is barbaric. But then again what the US has done everywhere else it has laid its bloody hands on is also barbaric, also under the guise of bringing democracy or under the all-encompassing modicum of “humanitarian intervention”.

Starting with Yugoslavia the US has invaded, destroyed and decimated country after country and population after population in a shameful barbaric attempt at establishing global US hegemony by force. This was the openly stated doctrine after 9-11 and was the plan drawn up before 9-11 by the neo-conservative think tank the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) which needed a mass casualty event such as 9-11 to serve as the catalyst for global military interventionism.

From Yugoslavia to Somalia, from Iraq to Afghanistan, from Yemen to Libya, and now in Ukraine, the US has intervened under various false pretexts and the result is always the same, destroyed states and massive casualties, up to 3.3 million now in Iraq alone. For each of these countries the US should have been sanctioned and stopped but the world is passive, subservient or just plain scared that they will be next. Russia and China stopped the US invasion of Syria and what they did to Ukraine is the answer to that.

The US can not tolerate any power challenging them in their doctrine of Full Spectrum Dominance and any possible challenger must be destroyed. The US, in their self-anointed role as “masters of the world”, deluded by their own belief in their own exceptionalism, continue to commit atrocities and destroy peoples and states worldwide, and they remain unchallenged. They sell their aggressive wars to the people as “humanitarian interventions” or “democracy” operations, but the reality is that all of the recent US aggressive wars have been and continue to be illegal acts and crimes against humanity and peace.

If you aggressively invade a country for territory or any other reason it is illegal, if you do the same for ideological reasons or because you are against the president or government it is also illegal. Even the pretext of preventive war was denied at the Nuremburg trials, therefore there can be no justification whatsoever for aggressive war. And that is exactly what the US has been engaged in time and time again.

As for real humanitarian intervention a country for example with vested territorial, strategic, monetary, resource or other interests should in no way be allowed to engage in the practice or be part of a UN sanctioned mission. And I say UN sanctioned because any legal humanitarian intervention must meet the standards and have the backing of the United Nations. No country can do so unilaterally.

As for the Russian “intervention” in Ukraine, it has been of a completely humanitarian nature without a military component, unlike in South Ossetia where Russian citizens were being killed for 3 days by (again US backed) Georgian Forces, before Russia moved in and put a very quick and decisive stop to it.

Countries “Humanely” Destroyed by the United States

The following is a list of countries where the US has organized coup d’états, supported revolutions, overthrown governments, invaded, annexed, supported groups or forces who overthrew or attempted to overthrow governments or outright executed the leaders. Again all of these “interventions” were illegal.

Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Argentina, Bolivia, Bosnia, Brazil, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guam, Guatemala, Haiti, Hawaii, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Korea, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Macedonia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Russia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, USSR, Venezuela, Vietnam, Virgin Islands, Yemen, Yugoslavia and Zaire (Congo).

The US War on Journalism and the Subversion of the Media

The current US war on the media started in the wake of the events of 9-11. The US and its security bodies waged an unprecedented campaign of silencing and destroying anyone who questioned 9-11 or the illegal rise to power of George Bush and the neocons. It continued with implanted journalists in Afghanistan and Iraq and further against anyone who exposed any of the war crimes the US was guilty of in those countries.

That war has continued unabated and has effectively killed investigative journalism worldwide and turned almost all of the world’s English language media (and others) into mere echo chambers for the US Government.

The manipulation of the media by the US is important because it serves to allow for the continued funding of the illegal wars and continues to protect those guilty of war crimes, subverting the US Government, involved in 9-11 and those who effectively committed a coup in the US in the wake of 9-11. It is also important as it serves to convince the world that the US is unbeatable and all powerful, when in fact this is far from the case.

The US manipulation of the media in selling their aggressive wars as somehow humanitarian turns the meaning of that word on its head and as the American people somehow believe it and equate mass casualty aggressive invasions with the word “humanitarian” it is therefore understandable why when Russia delivers humanitarian aid western reporters are looking for weapons in the trucks and the western media is calling it an act of aggression and infringement on sovereignty. Yet when the US armed and backed ISIL in Syria that was an infringement on the sovereignty of the country and an act of aggression, but it is ludicrous to say the same when Russia, with an agreement with the Ukrainian authorities, delivered humanitarian aid to the people of Donbass.

Sometimes it seems to be an almost useless fight to try to bring the truth to the American people and the world given the way they have been lied to and convinced of their own exceptionalism but the truth must be known and in the end it is only the truth that will set us all free from tyranny. Even simple readers from the West have been conditioned to attack the messenger for the message and try to discredit anyone who shows them the illegality of their leaders, I am sure I will be attacked for what I have written here but if one person sees the truth then the effort was worth it.

Russia continues to seek a peaceful diplomatic settlement to all crises in the world yet the US/NATO in its self-appointed role as the world’s “interventionist” continues to seek only military solutions, even to the Ebola virus. This rampant militarism and the expansion of NATO as the Pentagon’s worldwide strike force are what can only be called “modern barbarism”. There can be no justification for aggressive war and the concept of “preventive” war is also illegitimate, therefore those who would wage such “endless wars” under any pretext can only be described as barbaric, and for the sake of all of us, they must be stopped.

• Sept. 23, 2014: Pravda Online (Sayeed Gafurov/Yuri Kondratyev): “ISIS Starts New Era in the History of Mankind” (Interview with the head of the Center for Strategic Studies “Russia – the Islamic World”, writer, and publicist, Shamil Sultanov) – One needn’t read too much between the lines to realize that there are obviously deep ties between ISIS and communism resp. ISIS and the still-intact USSR.

The head of the Center for Strategic Studies “Russia – the Islamic World”, writer and publicist Shamil Sultanov, spoke about the origins and organization of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in an interview with Pravda.Ru.

“How do you assess Obama’s program to use Air Force against the Islamist forces on the territories of Iraq and Syria?”

“I think that this is a very interesting and challenging turn in international politics. Barack Obama came to power against the backdrop of the breaking line of the previous course of the US administration in the Middle East. Now the Americans largely return to the ideology, the essence of which lies in the fact that Islamic fundamentalism is a universal threat, around which Iran, Arab and European countries, the United States and others must unite. The only difference is that instead of Al Qaeda the threat is the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.”

“US presidents are very dependent on their parties. Do you think that this step is connected with elections?”

“Yes. You are absolutely right. In November, a third of the Senate will be elected along with the whole House of Representatives and one-third of US governors. Many surveys suggest that Republicans may take control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Now they control the Congress. If they take over the Senate, then the remaining two years for Barack Obama, even in a personal sense, will turn into 24 months of quiet suffering, nightmares, political abuse, and so on. Naturally, he does not want this. He feels responsible to the party, to the forces that brought him to power.”

“I believe that the next president will be a Republican, a young, aggressive, and very rigidly opposed to Russia and the Islamic world. This will be the person who will have to challenge Putin. Obama was following recommendations. Back when he first became president, General Jones was appointed his national security adviser. I talked to him several times and concluded that Jones was simply recommended by certain people. And Obama could not refuse those recommendations.”

“It is America that destroyed all the worst enemies of fundamentalism. Colonel Gaddafi was opposed to fundamentalism, Saddam Hussein was a Baathist, who, despite playing with political Islam, was still strongly against radical Islam. Hosni Mubarak was an opponent of fundamentalism …”

“Fundamentalists strive to revive the Ummah – a human form, a phenomenon, a community, which, in their view, was lost. For them, it is important to return to the basic social form, the Ummah, rather than to a particular type of clothing, hairstyles, rituals, etc. Let’s look at current realities. ISIS leaders act by canons of Marxism. Ideology is a process to implement a common cause, which involves millions of people. This is not just a matter of class interests that some ideologues express. This is a mass movement of millions. They formulated the ideology and attracted people. The Islamic State serves as the common cause, which these fundamentalists speak of. They also say that this is the goal for all Muslims. They say to others – come here and build the state with us. Muslims from many countries of the world listen and go there together with their families, their children and they try to revive the Ummah.”

“Are there any people from Russia?”

“Yes, the Tatars and the Chechens. Tatarstan is a developed, rich republic, but people traveled to the north-western province of Pakistan, where they began to live by the laws of Islam. Why? One of the main contradictions of the modern world is that people lose the sense of the meaning in life. Many can only say that they live for the sake of children. Why do Muslims go there? A Muslim is convinced that the fate of his children and his own fate is predetermined by the will of God. He, unlike atheists, can not say “I live for the sake of children.” Good, satisfied life, oil and other benefits do not mean anything, when it turns out that the amount of money that you have in your pocket, does not define the meaning of your life. Money is a universal equivalent of material being. But at some point, people have to ask themselves – what is it all for?”

The problem is that our modern civilization is a civilization of zombies, a civilization of machines. Muslims and other believers feel this at a much greater extent than atheists. We are dominated by absolute automatism, the wish to copy everything. Young people copy so-called styles, fashions and so on, millionaires copy billionaires, everyone tries to copy everyone. This is universal automatism.”

“A human being, if he or she is a believer, an intellectual, has to learn their fate, because their destiny is a unique thing. Ghazali said that the number of ways to Allah equals the number of people. Every person has their own way.”

“I’m not defending fundamentalists, although I share some fundamental ideas. Saddam was an atheist. After Saddam lost in 2003, too many people took to the streets. Saddam had nine secret services – a huge number of qualified, highly intelligent professionals. They say that ISIS consists of fundamentalists, supporters of al-Qaeda and so on. ISIS was created by employees of Saddam’s secret services. They became disillusioned in their atheism and turned to Islam. The basic designers, creators of the organizational system of the Islamic State were employees of Saddam’s party intelligence that was controlling everyone. Then they took part in the fight against the Shiite government of al-Maliki, because they viewed his government as a puppet one.”

“When the uprising against Assad began in Syria, those guys thought that it was time to join in and solve the classic problem between Baghdad and Damascus. This is how they found themselves in Syria. Now they control approximately 30 percent of the Syrian territory.”

In ISIS, I see actions of very clever strategists of Saddam’s security forces. In contrast to what is happening in Libya, Mali or Niger, they establish relations with the underground Baath party in Iraq. They interact with the Sufis. In Iraq, there is the Naqshbandi army, the largest Sufi order. Thanks to ISIS, the relationship grows stronger. ISIS finances certain military operations.”

“And what about Christians? They kick them out. Christians, under Sharia, have a full set of rights and guarantees. Yet, in ISIS, they lose all those rights.”

“This is how it works. People come and attempt to establish a new ideology, a new form of state. They have a certain model, three options for Christians. The first one – Christians retain their independence and remain Christians. They only pay a special tax. In Ummah, everything is built on principles of justice. This tax exempts Christians from a variety of other taxes. For example, a Christian pays this tax, but does not pay other taxes that every Muslim pays. The second option – they convert to Islam. The third option – if you do not want to accept anything of the above, you can leave.”

“The Islamic State is a very complex phenomenon. There were intelligence services from at least four other countries: Syria, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States that took part in its creation. They needed this organization because al-Maliki started acting stubbornly after the April elections. The Islamic State went on the offensive, Mosul was captured, Iraqi troops fled. Baghdad was surrounded, a terrible blow was struck on al-Maliki, and three weeks later he resigned.”

“Is al-Maliki an enemy of the United States?”

“Al-Maliki is a protege, a puppet of the United States. Sometimes, though, a puppet may start wagging its master. We know this by the example of Hamid Karzai. Further, various relationships may develop. Sunni tribes of Iraq support ISIS. The main point is that there is an underlying movement, which already has tens or hundreds of thousands of people. And they will act. The Americans may create a coalition of 15-20 countries and they will defeat them, albeit temporarily.”

“As a result of air strikes, it is impossible to win absolute victory. They will go up to the mountains, and a long guerrilla war will start. The idea has been planted. This is the idea to ​​return to the Islamic State, the Caliphate, which carries a certain meaning, which the modern world does not have. About 1.5-2 years ago, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant had the population of 10-12 thousand people. Today, this is a 80-85 thousand-strong organization. They have the world’s best infantry and best weapons. All secular regimes in the Middle East – from Algeria to Saudi Arabia – tremble with fear.

“Is it a good thing?”

Yes, it is, because the time of world revolution is drawing near. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates call themselves the Islamic State, but then suddenly a fundamentalist Islamic State appears that is directed primarily against them. ISIS has about 10,000 Saudis – they are fundamentalist jihadists from Saudi Arabia. They already say that their prime goal is to topple the rotten and corrupt regime in Saudi Arabia.”

“Ultimately, we are entering a very interesting period. This is not a geopolitical or a global economic period – this is an ideological period. Once again, we are entering the period of ideological wars. Religious wars are one of the most acute forms of ideological war. Ideological wars always last till the end.

• Sept. 24, 2014: Pravda Online: “Ukraine May Soon Produce Three New Chernobyl Disasters with USA’s Help” – It is more than doubtful, as claimed by Pravda online, that the nuclear fuel rods Ukraine now receives from Westinghouse represent a “security risk.” Here is a Financial Times article that deals with the issue. (By the way, the initial Chernobyl disaster of 1986 was very much “produced” by the Soviet Union and was most likely not even an accident, but a deliberately contrived event meant to enable a large-scale, real-life nuclear-war exercise and at the same time scare the hell out of the West Europeans over their own nuclear power plants so that they would shift to Russian gas instead – which duly happened…) 

“Ukraine allowed the shipments of modernized nuclear fuel made by US-based company Westinghouse to nuclear power plants of the country, first deputy chairman of the State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate of Ukraine,” Mikhail Gashev said.

According to ITAR-TASS, the official signed three key documents on September 17: the positive expertise on modernized fuel made by Westinghouse, expert conclusion and permission to import Westinghouse’s modernized fuel to Ukraine.

According to experts’ estimates, the use of US-made fuel at Ukrainian nuclear power plants that were built on the Soviet model, may lead to nuclear accidents.

Russian nuclear scientists warn that the use of US-made fuel blocks at Ukrainian nuclear power plants may lead to new “Chernobyls.”

“Replacing Russian nuclear fuel with American fuel is an explosive idea of Ukraine’s leadership. Europe may face three new Chernobyl disasters,” Professor at the Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after Lomonosov, Vladimir Kuznetsov said.

• Sept. 24, 2014: Pravda Online (Dmitry Sudakov): “Sanctions? Don’t Make My Iskanders Laugh” – As one can see, the Anti-American propaganda is in full gear.

In Moscow, anyone can now express their indignation over the actions of the West by wearing a designer T-shirt with a patriotic print. In the center of Moscow, near the monument to Alexander Pushkin, a project was launched to exchange T-shirts with foreign symbols for T-shirts with patriotic slogans. One can exchange their shirts free of charge.

Right opposite the monument to the great poet, a variety of T-shirts is displayed on a table with a samovar on top. On the shirts, one can see mischievous inscriptions and meaningful prints: “Sanctions? Don’t make my Iskanders laugh.” On the shirt, there is an image of Iskander missile systems and the text of the Russian national anthem against the background of St. Basil’s Cathedral.

Designer Anastasia Zadorina said that her company produced 30,000 such T-shirts: “All of them are fashionable, nice and fun. ‘Trendy answer – no to sanctions’ – this is how our action is called,” she said.

The action attracts public attention. Men exchange their shirts right in the street. Writer Oleg Roy chose a shirt with the image of a pioneer tie around the collar and slogan “We have our own fun without your Coca-Cola.”

Actress Olga Kabo wore a T-shirt saying “Topol is not afraid of sanctions” with an image of the renowned mobile strategic complex. The actress is certain that Russia is going in the right direction. “We will win because we are big and strong.” The actress hopes that international confrontation will end soon. “Two such creative countries as Russia and Ukraine must be together,” she said.

An organizer of the action said that the point of the action was to show the whole world that Russia was not afraid of sanctions. Organizers are ready to give away T-shirts without asking anything in return, so that people can express their patriotic position. As for the fate of the T-shirts with foreign symbols on them, designers will utilize them and possibly create an art object, reports.

The action is sponsored by two Russian companies. The bus of the action will move from one place to another in Moscow. The event will last for two weeks in Moscow, and the bus will set off for a journey across Russian regions, including the Crimea. A special part of the action will be conducted on September 29 at Moscow’s Vnukovo Airport, where patriotic T-shirts will be handed out to passengers.

• Sept. 25, 2014: Pravda Online (Paul Craig Roberts): “Washington’s War Against Russia” – This article shows very clearly that the goal is to break up NATO and to drive Europe away from the United States right into Moscow’s arms, if not immediate preparation for large-scale war anyway. 

The new sanctions against Russia announced by Washington and Europe do not make sense as merely economic measures. I would be surprised if Russian oil and military industries were dependent on European capital markets in a meaningful way. Such a dependence would indicate a failure in Russian strategic thinking. The Russian companies should be able to secure adequate financing from Russian Banks or from the Russian government. If foreign loans are needed, Russia can borrow from China.

If critical Russian industries are dependent on European capital markets, the sanctions will help Russia by forcing an end to this debilitating dependence. Russia should not be dependent on the West in any way.

The real question is the purpose of the sanctions. My conclusion is that the purpose of the sanctions is to break up and undermine Europe’s economic and political relations with Russia. When international relations are intentionally undermined, war can be the result. Washington will continue to push sanctions against Russia until Russia shows Europe that there is a heavy cost of serving as Washington’s tool.

Russia needs to break up this process of ever more sanctions in order to derail the drive toward war. In my opinion this is easy for Russia to do. Russia can tell Europe that since you do not like our oil companies, you must not like our gas company, so we are turning off the gas. Or Russia can tell Europe, we don’t sell natural gas to NATO members, or Russia can say we will continue to sell you gas, but you must pay in rubles, not in dollars. This would have the additional benefit of increasing the demand for rubles in exchange markets, thus making it harder for speculators and the US government to drive down the ruble.

The real danger to Russia is a continuation of its low-key, moderate response to the sanctions. This is a response that encourages more sanctions. To stop the sanctions, Russia needs to show Europe that the sanctions have serious costs for Europe.

A Russian response to Washington would be to stop selling to the US the Russian rocket engines on which the US satellite program is dependent. This could leave the US without rockets for its satellites for six years between the period 2016 and 2022.

Possibly the Russian government is worried about losing the earnings from gas and rocket engine sales. However, Europe cannot do without the gas and would quickly abandon its participation in the sanctions, so no gas revenues would be lost. The Americans are going to develop their own rocket engine anyhow, so the Russian sales of rocket engines to the US have at most about 6 more years. But the US with an impaired satellite program for six years would mean a great relief to the entire world from the American spy program. It would also make difficult US military aggression against Russia during the period.

Russian President Putin and his government have been very low-key and unprovocative in responding to the sanctions and to the trouble that Washington continues to cause for Russia in Ukraine. The low-key Russian behavior can be understood as a strategy for undermining Washington’s use of Europe against Russia by presenting a non-threatening face to Europe. However, another explanation is the presence inside Russia of a fifth column that represents Washington’s interest and constrains the power of the Russian government.

Strelkov describes the American fifth column here:

Saker describes the two power groups inside Russia as the Eurasian Sovereignists who stand behind Putin and an independent Russia and the Atlantic Integrationists, the fifth column that works to incorporate Russia in Europe under US hegemony or, failing that, to help Washington break up the Russian Federation into several weaker countries that are too weak to constrain Washington’s use of power.

Russia’s Atlantic Integrationists share the Brzezinski and Wolfowitz doctrines with Washington. These doctrines are the basis for US foreign policy. The doctrines define the goal of US foreign policy in terms of preventing the rise of other countries, such as Russia and China, that could limit Washington’s hegemony.

Washington is in a position to exploit the tensions between these two Russian power groups. Washington’s fifth column is not best positioned to prevail. However, Washington can at least count on the struggle causing dissent within the Eurasian Sovereignists over Putin’s low-key response to Western provocations. Some of this dissent can be seen in Strelkov’s defense of Russia and more can be seen here:

Russia, thinking the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, opened herself to the West. Russian governments trusted the West, and as a result of Russia’s gullibility, the West was able to purchase numerous allies among the Russian elites. Depending on the alignment of the media, these compromised elites are capable of assassinating Putin and attempting a coup.

One would think that by now Putin’s government would recognize the danger and arrest the main elements of the fifth column, followed by trial and execution for treason, in order that Russia can stand united against the Western Threat. If Putin does not take this step, it means either than Putin does not recognize the extent of the threat or that his government lacks the power to protect Russia from the internal threat.

It is clear that Putin has not achieved any respite for his government from the West’s propaganda and economic assault by refusing to defend the Donbass area from Ukrainian attack and by pressuring the Donetsk Republic into a ceasefire when its military forces were on the verge of a major defeat of the disintegrating Ukrainian army. All Putin has achieved is to open himself to criticism among his supporters for betraying the Russians in eastern and southern Ukraine.

The European politicians and elites are so deeply in Washington’s pocket that Putin has little chance of courting Europe with a Russian show of good will. I have never believed that this strategy could work, although I would be pleased if it did. Only a direct threat todeprive Europe of energy has a chance of producing within Europe a foreign policy independent of Washington. I do not think Europe can survive a cutoff of the Russian natural gas. Europe would abandon sanctions in order to guarantee the flow of gas. If Washington’s hold on Europe is so powerful that Europe is willing to endure a major disruption of its energy supply as the price of its vassalage, Russia will know to cease its futile attempts at diplomacy and to prepare for war.

If China sits on the sidelines, China will be the next isolated target and will receive the same treatment.

Washington intends to defeat both countries, either through internal dissent or through war.

Nothing said by Obama or any member of his government or any influential voice in Congress has signaled any pullback in Washington’s drive for hegemony over the world.

The US economy is now dependent on looting and plunder, and Washington’s hegemony is essential to this corrupted form of capitalism.

• Sept. 26, 2014: Pravda Online: “Russia Readies to Arrest Foreign Property and Revise WTO Membership Terms” – This piece is very enlightenening (and alarming) as it seems to foreshadow the final end to all Western investments in Russia (and probably beyond), akin to what happened in 1929 when Stalin, after eight years of brilliant NEP deception, brought the fake liberalisation to an abrupt halt and confiscated all foreign property. (In contrast, the current Western sanctions, mainly aimed at inidividual Russian “oligarchs”, have only brought about a freeze of these assets, and not their confiscation!)

The Russian authorities develop a legal base to be able to arrest property of foreign states and entities and receive compensations for seized property of Russian citizens on the territory of foreign states.

Deputies of the State Duma received bill №607554-6, which stipulated amendments to the federal law “On compensations for the violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time.” […]

• Sept. 29, 2014: Pravda Online: “Russian FM Lavrov Blames the West for Global Chaos” 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, speaking at the 69th UN General Assembly on Saturday, September 27, cracked down on the United States for its foreign policy and spoke very strongly about the actions of the Ukrainian authorities in connection with the events in the Donbass.

In particular, the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry stated that the Western alliance led by the United States was acting on the international arena contrary to the principle of sovereign equality of all member states of the UN.

“Contradiction between the need for collective action in the interests of elaborating appropriate responses to common challenges and the wish of a number of states to dominate and revive the archaic bloc-like thinking based on the barrack discipline and flawed ‘friend or foe’ logic has been manifesting itself stronger and stronger. The Western alliance led by the United States, while advocating democracy, the rule of law and human rights in individual countries, acts with directly opposite positions on the international arena, rejecting the democratic principle of the UN Charter for sovereign equality of states and trying to decide for all what is good, and what is evil,” said Lavrov.

According to him, many actions of the West in international politics are motivated by the wish to create chaos in the world. “Highly powerful blows have been struck on the stability of the international system: the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the invasion of Iraq, the attack on Libya, the failure in Afghanistan. It was only intensive diplomatic efforts that prevented the aggression against Syria in 2013. Involuntarily, it brings up an impression that the only purpose of various ‘color revolutions’ and other projects to change undesirable regimes is to provoke chaos and instability.”

“Washington has openly declared its right to use military force unilaterally and anywhere – to defend its own interests. Military intervention has become a norm, even though all military operations that the United States has conducted during the recent years, ended deplorably,” Lavrov said, Interfax reports.

“Today, Ukraine has become a victim of such arrogant policy. The state of affairs in the country bared deep, systemic flaws in the existing architecture of the Euro-Atlantic alliance,” the Russian minister said.

“The West aims to vertically structure mankind to its own standards that are far from being harmless. Having proclaimed victory in the ‘cold war’ and ‘the end of history,’ the United States and the EU are committed to expanding their geopolitical space, without taking account of the balance of legitimate interests of all peoples of Europe,” said Lavrov.

“Western partners ignored many of our warnings about the inadmissibility of violating the principles of the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act. They repeatedly evaded serious work together to create common space of equal and indivisible security and cooperation in the area from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Russia’s proposal to develop the European Security Treaty was rejected,” he said.

Lavrov also commented on the deterioration of relations between Russia and NATO.

NATO’s instant switch to hostile rhetoric, to curtailing cooperation with Russia, even to the detriment of interests of the West, to building up military infrastructure at the Russian border has exposed the incapability of the alliance to change its genetic code that had been programmed during the ‘Cold War’ era,” he said.

The Russian Foreign Minister called for the UN to proclaim, in a special declaration, the principle of non-interference in the affairs of sovereign states and non-recognition of coup d’etat as a method of change of power.

Why not adopting a declaration of the General Assembly about non-interference in internal affairs of sovereign states, about non-recognition of coup d’etat as a method of change of power? It’s about time one should completely exclude attempts of illegal pressure of one state on another in the field of international communication. The pointless and counterproductive nature of unilateral sanctions became evident on the example of the American embargo against Cuba,” Lavrov said.

“The struggle against terrorists in Syria must be conducted only in cooperation with the government of the Arab republic,” Lavrov said.

“The struggle against terrorists on the territory of Syria must be built in cooperation with the Syrian government that clearly stated its readiness for it,” said the Russian minister.

He noted that a key challenge of the world community was “solid opposition to the terrorists, who are trying to gain control of increasingly vast areas in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan.”

“This objective can not be sacrificed to ideological schemes or an aspiration to settle personal scores. Terrorists, whatever slogans they use to cover themselves up, must remain outside the law,” said the minister.

“The threat of terrorism requires a comprehensive approach, if we want to eradicate its causes, rather than be doomed to reacting to symptoms. ISIS is only a part of the problem,” said the Minister.

“We offer, under the auspices of the UN Security Council, to arrange an in-depth study of the threats of extremism and terrorism in the Middle East and Central Asia in their entirety. A comprehensive approach involves the consideration of long-standing conflicts and above all – the Arab-Israeli conflict,” Lavrov said.

The Minister noted that the unresolved Palestinian issue remains one of the main factors of instability in the region for decades, helping extremists recruit more and more new jihadists, said the Minister.

“The perpetrators of all crimes in Ukraine must be identified and brought to justice, otherwise it is difficult to rely on reconciliation,” Lavrov said, speaking at the 69th session of the UN General Assembly.

“Attempts to distort the truth, hide facts behind the unfounded allegations were made at all stages of the Ukrainian crisis,” said the Minister.

“Nothing is being done to identify and punish those responsible for the bloody events on the Maidan in February, for massive killings in Odessa, Mariupol and other regions of Ukraine,” Lavrov said. “The extent of the terrible humanitarian disaster caused by the actions of the Ukrainian army in the south-east of the country is being diminished deliberately. New horrifying facts have been recently revealed, when mass graves near Donetsk were discovered. Contrary to Resolution 2166 of the UN Security Council, independent investigation into the collapse of the Malaysian airliner over Ukraine is being protracted. The perpetrators of all these crimes must be identified and brought to justice, otherwise it is difficult to rely on national reconciliation in Ukraine.”

Lavrov said that Russia was interested in restoring peace in Ukraine. The minister believes that a military solution can not resolve the conflict.

“We are convinced that with goodwill and refusal to support the ‘party of war’ in Kiev that tries to push the Ukrainian people into the abyss of a national catastrophe, a way out of the crisis is within reach,” said Lavrov.

According to him, “a way to the political settlement is known: in April, the Kiev authorities undertook to immediately start a national dialogue involving all regions and political forces in Ukraine to implement the constitutional reform.”

“Implementing this commitment would let all Ukrainians agree on how to live in accordance with their traditions and culture. It would let Ukraine return to its role of a link between different parts of European space, which, of course, implies the preservation and respect for its non-aligned neutral status by all,” said the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry.

Lavrov also said that the choice of the Crimean population in favor of self-determination was absolutely free. “The United States and the European Union supported the coup in Ukraine, started to blindly justify any act of the self-proclaimed Kiev authorities to violently suppress the part of the Ukrainian people, who rejected attempts to impose anti-constitutional orders and wanted to defend rights for their native language, culture and history,” noted the minister.

“It was an aggressive attack on the rights that pushed those living in the Crimea to take their destiny into their own hands and make a choice in favor of self-determination,” Lavrov said. “It was a completely free choice, whatever those primarily responsible for the internal conflict in Ukraine may invent.”

“Russia is ready to find a compromise in the resolution of any complex problem in an equal conversation,” Lavrov said.

“We have always been and will be open to discuss most difficult questions, no matter how insolvable they may seem at first,” said the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry.

“One needs to be honest: no one has a monopoly on truth, and no one is capable of adjusting global and regional processes to their needs,” said the minister.

On Saturday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to discuss the situation in Ukraine and the deteriorating situation in Iraq and Syria in connection with the growth of the terrorist threat of the Islamic State group, ITAR-TASS reports.

“Sergei Lavrov stressed out the need for unconditional and full implementation of the whole complex of agreements reached by the tripartite Contact Group in Minsk on September 5. The UN Secretary-General reiterated the readiness of contribute to the regulation of the Ukrainian crisis,” officials at the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

In turn, Ban Ki-moon called on Moscow to ensure sustainable cease-fire regime in the east of Ukraine, as well as strengthen cooperation with partners on the Syrian issue.

• Oct. 24, 2014: At the annual several-day “discussion forum” – read: Soviet propaganda event – called Valdai Discussion Club, held this year in Sochi, Russia, the final panel discussion featured Russian President Vladimir Putin, former French Foreign Minister and Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, and former Austrian Chancellor, Wolfgang Schüssel. Schüssel (speaking in the video from 1:00:35 till 1:14:13), stressed the need for international diplomacy in the Ukraine crisis and made i.a. the following naïve remarks,

I’m a born optimist, I tell you frankly. A pessimist has a harder life and de facto not really a good life. An optimist has always the hope that something can be better […],

even daring to school the Russian bear later in his 14-minute improvised speech, which visibly caused great amazement in the audience mainly made up of the usual stone-faced KGB types, as if they were saying to themselves: This political nobody wants to challenge us?

If diplomacy and political means are not successful, then you have either sanctions, economic sanctions, or – even worse – military actions. So it’s better to have economic sanctions than military actions between us.


Yet, in his insidious – and threatening – reply, agent of the world revolution Vladimir Putin just scoffed at Mr. Schüssel’s typically bourgeois prejudice of civilised consensus politics:

First of all I’d like to say that I generally agree with what Wolfgang has just said and with what Dominique said. I fully side with them, on everything. But I would like to clarify a few things. Dominique has described the Ukrainian crisis as the reason for the deterioration of international relations that we are seeing. But the crisis in Ukraine, while it has contributed to that trend, it was not initial reason. It was itself a result of this disbalance in international relations in the global architecture. As for the reasons of that, our colleagues have spoken about that at length, but I do see this disbalance in international relations as the main, the prime reason for these developments. We will talk about elections, or energy supplies, to Ukraine and to Europe, if you wish, we will discuss all that lateron. But first I would like to react to Wolfgang’s words that he is an optimist: Some people are also pessimists. I’ve already told you this old joke, it’s a bit harsh, but I still want to tell you: There is this joke about a pessimist and an optimist: A pessimist drinks some cognac and says, “Hmm, it smells like a cockroach,” and an optimist catches a cockroach and says, “Hmm, smells like brandy.” I would prefer to be a pessimist drinking brandy than an optimist smelling cockroaches – even though, of course, optimists say they usually have a better time in life. […]

Finally, during the Soviet-style Q&A session, Putin at some point in his monologues (1:24:24) issued the following grim warning towards the United States:

[…] And I keep thinking back to what people used to say about that in ancient times, if you remember this aphorism: “What Jupiter is entitled to do, an ox is not.” But we cannot agree to that. We cannot agree to those rules, and an ox might not be entitled to something like that, BUT LET ME TELL YOU: THE BEAR IS NOT ASKING ANYONE FOR PERMISSION! […]
In other words, Russia, i.e. the Soviet Union, – backed by its overwhelming military and political might and ready for World October – intends to do whatever it wants, and it will! 



It’s more than evident the world has reached on the brink of WWIII. Greatly emboldened by the fact that the once-great United States is under the control of one of them (not to speak of the current “leadership” in Germany and the EU), the Soviet strategists have unleashed a degree of anti-American, anti-Western, and overall anti-capitalist propaganda that even surpasses the usual communist propaganda of the official Soviet days of old. No doubt Moscow (along with Beijing) is seeking war, as war might be needed to establish a “new era” of all-unified world communism (and we shouldn’t rule out the possibility that the crisis in Ukraine could be a staged event, a provocation, a construed internal crisis within the “former” Soviet Union, a cloak under which they might be mobilising large numbers of military in preparation for war against Western Europe).

The communists won’t care how many millions, or billions, will get killed in their upcoming “World October”. Communism has sufficiently proved, and even admitted, ever since 1917, that it views mass killings on whatever numerical scale as a mere statistical matter. Moral, to them, is what serves the revolution, period. The ruthlessness of this deadly ideology, this anti-religion, that in itself is so religiously fanatical that it stubbornly refuses to acknowledge all the failures, all the sufferings, all the deaths it has brought upon mankind, represents a distinctly new phenomenon in world history. If they deemed it preferable – say, their monstrous project of Heaven on Earth finally fails – to wipe out all of mankind instead, or to destroy the whole planet (if that were technically possible), they would do it, without batting an eye.





Compiled by the Contemplative Observer




Toby Westerman Can’t, or Won’t, See the Forest for the Trees!


A Sad Example of a Supposedly Alternative Kremlinologist Who – even Now! – Refuses to Take into Account Any Continued Existence Whatsoever of a Communist Grand Design Aimed – still! – at Total Control over the Whole World. Instead, He Personalises (as if It Was All about Putin and Not about the Same Old World Revolutionary Steam Locomotive), and Adds Up Fact after Fact, Claiming to Be “Connecting the Dots”, Which Finally He Isn’t, as He Lacks – or Dismisses – the Indispensable Frame of Reference Necessary for Putting 2 and 2 together, Meaning a Solid Understanding – and Acknowledgment! – of Communist Longterm Deception Strategy as Laid out by Premier Soviet Defector Anatoliy Golitsyn. 


 I still just see a bunch of trees







“Subtle! Subtle! / They become formless. / Mysterious! Mysterious! / They become soundless. / Therefore, they are the masters of the enemy’s fate.

Sun Tzu, 6th century B.C.: “The Art of War”


“No parliament can in any circumstances be for Communists an arena of struggle for reforms… The only question can be that of utilising bourgeois state institutions for their own destruction.”

Lenin *


“Our only strategy at present is to become stronger and, therefore, wiser, more reasonable, more opportunistic. The more opportunistic, the sooner will you again assemble the masses around you. When we have won over the masses by our reasonable approach, we shall then apply offensive tactics in the strictest sense of the word.

Lenin *


“The withering away of the state, the precondition for the classless society, could not be entertained as a possibility until the encirclement of socialism by capitalism had been changed to the encirclement of capitalism by socialism. That is to say, until those conditions had been established which would assure world-wide Soviet domination.”

Stalin, 1939 *


“The point is that the Communist goal is fixed and changeless – it never varies one iota from their objective of world domination, but if we judge them only by the direction in which they seem to be going, we shall be deceived.”

Yelena Bonner, wife of Soviet nuclear physicist and leading figure of the controlled “dissident movement”, Andrei Sakharov *                                                                                                                           


“Capitalism’s short-term view can never envisage the lengths across which we can plan.”

Lavrentii Beria, early 1950s *


There is no wall between socialism and Communism. These are not two divergent types of society, but merely two phases of one and the same social formation, distinguished the one from the other by the degree of their maturity. The transition from socialism to Communism consequently constitutes a gradual process. Communism grows up out of socialism as its direct prolongation. In the very bosom of socialist society its germs and roots spring up. These shoots of the future, developing on socialist soil, will lead… to a consolidation of Communism. Naturally, the entry into a higher phase of the new society cannot be pinned down to a specific calendar date, but it will be accomplished without abrupt change.” – “From the fact that the transition from socialism to Communism will take place by degrees, it does not follow that this is a slow process. On the contrary, the transition is distinguished by a particularly high rate of development in all areas of social life… ending with the uplift of the culture and the conscious awareness of people.”

“Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism”, 1960 *


“Unlike in present United States, there will be no place for dissent in future Marxist-Leninist America. Here you can get popular like Daniel Ellsberg and filthy rich like Jane Fonda for being ‘dissident’, for criticising your Pentagon. In future, these people will be simply squashed like cock-croaches; nobody is going to pay them nothing for their beautiful, noble ideas of equality! This they don’t understand, and it will be greatest shock for them, of course. The demoralisation process in the United States is basically complete already. For the last 25 years – actually, it’s overfulfilled because demoralisation now reaches such areas where previously not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such a tremendous success. Most of it is done by Americans to Americans, thanks to lack of moral standards. As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter any more. A person who was demoralised, is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures, even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him concentration camp, he will refuse to believe it – until he is going to receive a kick in his fat bottom. When the military-boot crashes his balls, then he will understand, but not before that. That’s the tragic of the situation of demoralisation.”

Soviet defector of 1970, Yuri Bezmenov, 1984 (interview conducted by G. Edward Griffin; therein: minutes 1:12:20 till 1:14:02)


“Gentlemen, Comrades, do not be concerned about all that you hear about ‘glasnost’ and ‘perestroika’ and democracy in the coming years. These are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant change within the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans, and to let them fall asleep.

Mikhail Gorbachev, early in his tenure, speaking before the Politburo *


The Party has made “specific decisions on how to update our political system”. – “Thus we shall give a fresh impetus to our revolutionary restructuring. We shall maintain our quiet [i.e. Leninist] creativity and daring in an efficient and responsible fashion in a Leninist Bolshevik manner.”

Mikhail Gorbachev, speaking at the 27th CPSU Congress, March 1986 *


“Adopting a bold, realistic, mobilising and inspiring strategy, one that is Leninist in spirit, the struggle for the triumph of Communist ideals, of peace and progress, the 27th Congress of the CPSU expresses the Party’s firm determination to honourably follow our great road, and open up new vistas for the creative energy and revolutionary initiative of the… people’s intelligentsia. The Congress calls on all Soviet people to dedicate all their strength, knowledge, ability, and creative enthusiasm to the great goals of Communist construction, and to worthily continue Lenin’s victorious revolutionary cause, the cause of the October Revolution!”

Mikhail Gorbachev, closing address to the 27th CPSU Congress, March 6, 1986 *


“Perestroika is a revolutionary process for it is a leap forward in the development of socialism, in the realisation of its crucial characteristics.”

Mikhail Gorbachev: ‘Perestroika’, 1987


“What is meant [by the term ‘revolution from above’] is profound and essentially revolutionary changes implemented on the initiative of the authorities themselves but necessitated by objective changes in the situation. It may seem that our current perestroika could be called ‘revolution from above’. True, the perestroika drive started on the Communist Party’s initiative, and the Party leads it. I spoke frankly about it at the meeting with Party activists in Khabarovsk [already!!!] in the summer of 1986. We began at the top of the pyramid and went down to its base, as it were. Yes, the Party leadership started it. The highest Party and state bodies elaborated and adopted the program. True, perestroika is not a spontaneous but a governed process.

Mikhail Gorbachev: ‘Perestroika’, 1987


“We openly confess that we refuse the hegemonial endeavours and globalist claims of the United States. We are not pleased by some aspects of American policy and of the American Way of Life. But we respect the right of the American people, just as the right of all other peoples, to live along its own rules and laws, its own morals and inclinations.”

Mikhail Gorbachev: ‘Perestroika’, 1987


“Those who hope that we shall move away from the socialist path will be greatly disappointed.”

Mikhail Gorbachev: ‘Perestroika’, 1987 *


“We are moving towards a new world, the world of Communism. We shall never turn off that road.”

Mikhail Gorbachev, 1987 *


“We see that confusion has arisen in some people’s minds: aren’t we retreating from the positions of socialism, especially when we introduce new and unaccustomed forms of economic management and public life, and aren’t we subjecting the Marxist-Leninist teaching itself to revision? … No, we are not retreating a single step from socialism, from Marxism-Leninism…

Mikhail Gorbachev, 1988 * 


“The image of the enemy that is being eroded has been … absolutely vital for the foreign and military policy of the United States and its allies. The destruction of this stereotype … is Gorbachev’s weapon.

Georgi Arbatov, 1988 *


We are for a Lenin who is alive! In building our future we are basing ourselves upon the gigantic intellectual and moral potential of the socialist idea linked with the theory of Marxism-Leninism. We see no rational grounds to give up the spiritual [sic!!!] richness contained in Marxism. Through restructuring [i.e. ‘perestroika’], we want to give socialism a second wind and unveil in all its plenitude [meaning: globally!] the vast humanist potential of the socialist system.” – “In order to achieve this, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union returns to the origins and principles of the Bolshevik Revolution, to the Leninist ideas about the construction of a new society… Our Party was and remains the Party of Lenin… In short, we are for a Lenin who is alive.” – “We must seek these answers guided by the spirit of Leninism, the style of Lenin’s thinking, and the method of dialectical cognition.

Mikhail Gorbachev, speaking to a group of Russian students, Nov. 15, 1989 *


“In a democratic state, a changeover to a multiparty system is inevitable. Various political parties are gradually being formed [out of the CPSU] in our country. At the same time, a fundamental renewal of the CPSU is inevitable… First, it is necessary to organisationally codify all the platforms that exist in the CPSU and to give every Communist time for political self-determination The Party should divest itself of all state functions. A parliamentary-type Party will emerge. Only this kind of Party, provided that there is a mighty renewal [of the CPSU]… will be able to be a leading Party and to win elections for one or another of its factions. With the development of democratic movements in the country and the further radicalisation of restructuring, it will be possible for this alliance to become the vanguard of society in actual fact. This will provide a broad social base for the renewal of society … [and to] erect a barrier against attacks by the conseratives, and guarantee the irreversibility of restructuring.”

Boris Yeltsin, speaking at the 28th CPSU Congress on July 6, 1990 *


“Now, about the Party itself. Allow me to formulate three conditions necessary for the Party to fully demonstrate its viability and actually attain its vanguard potential. In the first place, to this end it must, resolutely and without delay, restructure all its work and reorganise all its structures on the basis of the new Statutes and the Congress’s Programme Statement, so that under the new conditions, it can effectively perform its role as the vanguard party. We must do everything to firmly establish in the CPSU the power of the Party masses behind an all-encompassing democracy, comradeship, openness, glasnost and criticism. Secondly, when there are various views and even platforms on a number of questions of policy and practical activity, the majority must have respect for the minority. And thirdly, Comrades, we must study, learn, and improve our culture. If we embark on this path, it will be easier to interact and have contacts with other forces. The Central Committee and I will do all we can to help the Republic Communist Parties gain their new independent status as soon as possible, a status that will lead not to a fragmentation of Communists and nations but to a new internationalist unity of the CPSU on a common ideological basis. Let us prove that the CPSU, as it restructures itself, is capable of living up to these expectations… and then it will become a truly vanguard party whose power lies not in giving orders but in influencing people.”

Mikhail Gorbachev, speaking to the 28th CPSU Congress, July 13, 1990 *


“He [Gorbachev] isn’t a Leninist any more.” – “I don’t think we have been deceived; at least, I hope we haven’t.”

Margaret Thatcher, July 1991, in a personal conversation with Christopher Story *


Gorbachev’s ‘Perestroika’ was exactly modelled after Lenin’s ‘New Economic Policy’ of the 1920s. And the West fell for the same lies TWICE:

“GORBACHEV OFFERS PARTY A CHARTER THAT DROPS ICONS – HARD-LINERS CRITICIZED – Opening a 2-Day Meeting, He Challenges Even Sanctity of Marxism-Leninism” (Headline of The New York Times, July 26, 1991) *

“LENIN ABANDONS STATE OWNERSHIP AS SOVIET POLICY – Official Decree Retains Control of Only a Few of the Big National Industries – TO LEASE TO INDIVIDUALS – Payments for Postal, Railroads and Other Public Services Are Re-established” (Headline of The New York Times, August 13, 1921) *


“I think that the idea of a Common European Home, the building of a united Europe, and I would like to underline today, of Great Europe, the building of Great Europe, great, united Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, from the Atlantic to Vladivostok, including all our territory, most probably a European-American space, a united humanitarian space: this project is inevitable. I am sure that we will come to building a united military space, as well. To say more precisely: we will build a united Europe, whose security will be based on the principles of collective security. Precisely, collective security.”

Soviet foreign secretary of the day, Eduard Shevardnadze, on November 19, 1991, interviewed on a Moscow television programme along with NATO Secretary General of the day, Lord Robertson *


“Our vision of the European space from the Atlantic to the Urals is not that of a closed system. Since it includes the Soviet Union, which reaches to the shores of the Pacific, it goes beyond nominal geographical boundaries.”

Mikhail Gorbachev in his prepared Nobel Peace Prize speech in Oslo in June 1992, when the Soviet Union had already been ‘disbanded’ by him half a year earlier!!! *


“I dare say that the European process has already acquired elements of irreversibility. In such a context, in the process of creating a new Europeself-determination of sovereign nations will be realised in a completely different manner.

Mikhail Gorbachev, in the same speech in June 1992; nota bene: speaking for the Yeltsin regime to which, allegedly, he was in opposition! *


“There was a brilliantly planned and executed, large-scale, unprecedented provocation in which the roles were scripted for the intelligent and the stupid, all of whom consciously or unconsciously played their parts.”

Lt-General Aleksandr Lebed, commenting in retrospect three years after, on the fake August coup of August 1991, as was published by ITAR-TASS on August 19, 1994 *


“One thing, I think, needs to be said here: And that is that the KGB and the GRU, Soviet intelligence, cannot exist without the Communist Party. The Communist Party and the KGB share the same bloodstream. They are the same entity. This was made clear by the head of the KGB, Alexander Shelepin, in 1961, when he made a very important speech, pointing out that the Party lives inside the structures of the KGB, and the KGB lives inside the Party. Now, I want to emphasise that at the outset because a number of books have appeared recently, suggesting the thesis that, you know, the Party disappeared, Communism died, the Soviet Union collapsed, but for some reason the KGB and the “Organs”, as they call it, continued.” – “The simile that I like to use, you know, is: the dog, the front of the dog, the head and the front legs fell off, and the back legs of the dog carry on walking. This is of course absolutely absurd!”

Christopher Story, 1995 (interview conducted by Bill McIlhaney; therein: minutes 3:41 till 7:28)


“They write that I am the mafia’s godfather. [But] it was Vladimir Lenin who was the real organiser of the mafia and who set up the criminal state.

Otari Kvantrishvili, a Georgian mafia ‘leader’, who was later murdered; published in April 1994 in Komsomolskaya Pravda. *


“One tries to make Westerners believe that the mafiya is the product of post-Communism, whereas in reality it is organised, controlled and staffed by the KGB.

Algirdas Katkus, then Vice-President of ‘newly independent’ Lithuania in an interview for the French publication Libre Journal: ‘Un pays sacrifie’; Number 26, page 29; Paris 1995 *


“The collective security model… should pave the way for a gradual evolutionary synthesis of several processes: integration within the CIS and the EU, strengthening and increasing the role of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, transforming NATO [and] working together to prevent or resolve conflicts.”

Yuriy Ushakov, Director of the Directorate for European Cooperation at the Russian Foreign Ministry, in International Affairs, Vol. 4, #5 (1995): ‘Europe: Towards a New Security Model’ * 


“Russian membership of the Council of Europe will open up intensified new cooperation between Russia and Europe and will assist us in reaching our objectives of achieving membership of the European Union and of NATO.

Then Russian Foreign Minister, Andrei Kozyrev, after Russia’s admission to the Council of Europe by February 8, 1996


Vladimir Zhirinovskiy is “just the probe they use to measure the depth of dissatisfaction in Russia.” [But Zhirinovskiy also acts as a ‘probe’ to test whether Soviet strategy has possibly been understood by Western observers, which to the satisfaction of the strategists just never happens to be the case: the West continues to be sound asleep.]

Mikhail Poltoranin, then head of the ‘Federal Information Centre’, Jan. 13, 1994, ITAR-TASS * 


Vladimir Zhirinovskiy also did his work well. He was in good shape and did his best to show everybody present [at the Council of Europe, in Strasbourg] what a wild and horrible person he is. Russia, he said, is the most democratic state in the world, unlike any member of the Council of Europe – for instance, the Germans, who are harming the Turks, the Turks who are suppressing the Kurds, and so on. Having succeeded in frightening the gentle Europeans [indicating how much the Leninists despise the compliant European ‘useful idiots’; Christopher Story] he concluded by saying that he personally would be happy if Russia were refused admission – as, in that case, he (Zhirinovskiy) would win the Presidential elections by a still larger margin.” [This is how the Soviets dialectically make the West call for what the Soviets want: In this case, ‘Yeltsin must be supported so to prevent a dictator Zhirinovskiy’, and money kept flowing …] 

Vladimir Lukin, formerly Russia’s Ambassador to the United States and Chairmain of the State Duma Committee of Foreign Affairs: International Affairs, Volume 42, Number 2, 1996: “Russia’s Entry to the Council of Europe” * 


“Ukrainian Comrades [should] not be involved in political infighting in their country [but] strengthen their ranks [and] set up primary organisations based on the CPSU platform [!!!].” – “The most powerful branches of the Union of USSR Officers operate in the units of the 43rd Missile Army, in Crimea, Dnepropetrovsk, Odessa, Kharkov, and Kiev.”

From a 1996 secret resolution addressing the work in the Ukrainian Armed Forces, published on March 19, 1996 (more than 4 years after the alleged dissolution of the USSR!!!!!) by the US Foreign Broadcast Information Service, FBIS: FBIS-SOV-96-054; page 44 *

(Quotes marked with ‘*’ are all taken from Christopher Story’s book, “The European Union Collective”)




It is quite amazing – and frightening – to see how, these days, intellectual discernment & sincerity have come down to virtually zero. Not that we could afford such laxness, opportunism, or plain incompetence in a time when the fate and destiny of the whole of humankind is at stake. We can’t. Yet, as Moscow and Beijing are now gearing up their joint efforts towards a new world unified under communism, not only the Pravdaesque mainstream media in the West, but even supposedly staunch conservatives and alternative columnists appear to be firmly immune, still, against the hard realities right in front of their noses. The “spectre of communism” has never left the scene, the USSR was never dissolved but simply relabelled, and yet these “useful idiots” (Lenin’s phrase) keep parrotting Soviet disinformation, some of them even praising the unchanged Evil Empire as the future centre of gravity of a renewed Christian civilisation. Can madness get any more absurd than that?

If one reads premier communist defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, one can see how skilled the Soviet apparat always has been and still is in planting in the Western mind false hopes and illusory expectations. As a consequence, the fictitious dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and of the Soviet Union itself was naïvely hailed by the West as the dawning of a new, democratic era throughout the world, worse: the West was convinced it had won the Cold War! In reality, however, this greatest deception operation in the history of mankind simply removed from the sleepy Western eyes the image of the enemy, and the image only, opening up formerly unthinkable new prospects for the communist bloc to modernise and solidify its economies and militaries. Tragically, whilst Russia and China were growing stronger and stronger, the West, disabled to see reality for what it was, was missing out on the ever more imminent threat to its very existence.

Deception has never ceased to be at the heart of everything the communist bloc does and never will, but there has taken place recently an alarming change in rhetoric and action on the part of Moscow and Beijing that can only be characterised as a seismic shift, at least in terms of appearance, for all that really happened was that the communists are now moving on, in their revolutionary strategy, from projecting weakness and internal division (the latter a.k.a. the “scissors strategy”) and from allegedly seeking good and friendly relations with the West to an open display of their actual strength and unity as well as their unchanged hostile revolutionary intentions. Anatoliy Golitsyn perfectly foresaw our present situation, that isn’t even recognised by most today, on page 328 of his 1984 book, New Lies for Old (bold print by this author):

“Before long, the communist strategists might be persuaded that the balance had swung irreversibly in their favor. In that event they might well decide on a Sino-Soviet “reconciliation.” The scissors strategy would give way to the strategy of “one clenched fist.” At that point the shift in the political and military balance would be plain for all to see. Convergence would not be between two equal parties, but would be on terms dictated by the communist bloc. The argument for accommodation with the overwhelming strength of communism would be virtually unanswerable. Pressures would build up for changes in the American political and economic system on the lines indicated in Sakharov’s treatise. Traditional conservatives would be isolated and driven toward extremism. They might become the victims of a new McCarthyism of the left. The Soviet dissidents who are now extolled as heroes of the resistance to Soviet communism would play an active part in arguing for convergence. Their present supporters would be confronted with a choice of forsaking their idols or acknowledging the legitimacy of the new Soviet regime.” – “There might even be public acknowledgement that the splits and disputes were long-term disinformation operations that had successfully deceived the “imperialist” powers. The effect on Western morale can be imagined. In the new worldwide communist federation the present different brands of communism would disappear, to be replaced by a uniform, rigorous brand of Leninism. The process would be painful. Concession made in the name of economic and political reform would be withdrawn. Religious and intellectual dissent would be suppressed. Nationalism and all other forms of genuine opposition would be crushed. Those who had taken advantage of détente to establish friendly Western contacts would be rebuked or persecuted like those Soviet officers who worked with the allies during the Second World War. In new communist states – for example, in France, Italy, and the Third World – the “alienated classes” would be reeducated. Show trials of “imperialist agents” would be staged. Action would be taken against nationalist and social democratic leaders, party activists, former civil servants, officers, and priests. The last vestiges of private enterprise and ownership would be obliterated. Nationalization of industry, finance, and agriculture would be completed. In fact, all the totalitarian features familiar from the early stages of the Soviet revolution and the postwar Stalinist years in Eastern Europe might be expected to reappear, especially in those countries newly won for communism. Unchallenged and unchallengeable, a true communist monolith would dominate the world.



Dear reader, we have now reached exactly there! Golitsyn was right. He didn’t want to be right, as his reason to defect in the first place was to try and warn, and eventually save the West from the impending danger. Sadly – by a mixture of communist infiltration and systemic arrogance, we can assume – his top-notch assessments were dismissed by the majority in American intelligence, and, just as Golitsyn had also predicted, a number of false defectors (Yuri Nosenko as the most prominent) soon followed him and succeeded in getting him branded as unstable and paranoid. But Golitsyn’s first book, New Lies for Old, published in1984, isn’t the manic rage of a paranoid madman, but a thorough, scholarly work for readers with the necessary background in political science and strategy. And here is how Golitsyn most meticulously explained his dilemma in the closing part of the foreword to his second book of 1995, The Perestroika Deception: The World’s Slide Towards the Second October Revolution – Memoranda to the Central Intelligence Agency; Edward Harle Ltd., London-New York (bold print by this author): 

“[…] Since the Central Intelligence Agency did not react to my Memoranda, I decided to publish them and asked the CIA to declassify them for the purpose. The Agency agreed. Several considerations forced me to take my decision.

First, the democracies of the United States and Western Europe are facing a dangerous situation and are vulnerable because their governments, the Vatican, the elite, the media, the industrialists, the financiers, the trade unions and, most important, the general public are blind to the dangers of the strategy of ‘perestroika’ and have failed to perceive the deployment of the Communist political potential of the renewed ‘democratic’ regimes against the West. The democracies could perish unless they are informed about the aggressive design of ‘perestroika’ against them.

Secondly, I could not imagine that American policymakers, and particularly the conservatives in both the Republican and Democratic parties, despite their long experience with Communist treachery, would not be able to grasp the new manoeuvres of the Communist strategists and would rush to commit the West to helping ‘perestroika’ which is so contrary to their interests.

It has been sad to observe the jubilation of American and West European conservatives who have been cheering ‘perestroika’ without realising that it is intended to bring about their own political and physical demise. Liberal support for ‘perestroika’ is understandable, but conservative support came as a surprise to me.

Thirdly, I was appalled that ‘perestroika’ was embraced and supported by the United States without any serious debate on the subject.

In the fourth place, I am appalled by the failure of American scholars to point out the relevance of Lenin’s New Economic Policy to understanding the aggressive, anti-Western design of ‘perestroika’ or to provide appropriate warning to policymakers, and their failure to distinguish between America’s true friends and its Leninist foes precisely because these foes are wearing the new ‘democratic’ uniform. Given the pressures they face, policymakers have no time to study the history of the period of Lenin’s New Economic Policy, or to remind themselves of Marxist-Leninist dialectics.

But how could such learned and distinguished scholars as S. Bilar and Z. Brzezinski have failed to warn them about the successes of the New Economic Policy, the mistakes made by the West in accepting it and Gorbachev’s repetition of Lenin’s strategy and its dangers for the West? What happened to their credentials as great scholars? Why was it left to Professor Norman Stone of Oxford University to detect and make the parallel in his article in the London ‘Daily Telegraph’ of 11th November 1989, and to express concern at the euphoria over Gorbachev? In his book, ‘The Grand Failure’, Brzezinski limited his description of Lenin’s New Economic Policy to three brief phases. He described the New Economic Policy as amounting to a reliance on the market mechanism and private initiative to stimulate economic recovery. In his words, it was probably ‘the most open and intellectually innovative phase’ in Soviet history.

For Brzezinski, the NEP is ‘a shorthand term for a period of experimentation, flexibility and moderation’ [see ‘The Grand Failure’, Charles Scribner and Sons, New York 1989, pages 18-19]. I am appalled by Brzezinski’s failure to explain the relevance of Lenin’s New Economic Policy to ‘perestroika’.

This failure is further illustrated by the following:

(a) S. Bialer, a former defector from the Central Committee apparatus of the Polish Communist Party, wrote a foreword to Gorbachev’s book, ‘Perestroika’, introducing it to the US public without inserting any warning about the parallel with the New Economic Policy and its dangers for the Western democracies.

(b) During his recent visit to Moscow, Z. Brzezinski, the former National Security Adviser in the Carter Administration, met leading Soviet strategists including Yakovlev, an expert on the manipulation of the Western media, and advised them on how to proceed with ‘perestroika’. Furthermore, Brzezinski delivered a lecture on the same subject to the Soviet diplomats at the High Diplomatic Academy!

In the fifth place, I am disappointed that Gordievsky, a recent KGB defector, did not help much to explain ‘perestroika’ as the final phase of Soviet long-range strategy, to describe its essence or to point out the deceptive nature of the changes and the strategic danger for the West. Gordievsky’s articles in ‘The Times’ of London of 27-28 February and 1 March 1990, contained a rather optimistic, if not laudatory, description of the ‘reforms’ initiated under Gorbachev and Yakovlev. I am puzzled that he should write so enthusiastically about them in the London ‘Times’. He might as well have published his comments in the Party newspaper ‘Pravda’ or in Korotich’s ‘Ogonek’. His assessment of ‘perestroika’ and its meaning for the West is in complete contradiction to that set out in my Memoranda to the Central Intelligence Agency. Further comment would be superfluous. I leave it to the reader to make his own judgment.

In the sixth place, misguided Western support for ‘perestroika’ at all levels, and especially among the Western media, is destabilising Western societies, their defence, their political processes and their alliances. It is immensely accelerating the successful execution of the Soviet strategic design against the West. In 1984 I thought that, in the event of Western resistance to Soviet strategy, the scenario of convergence between the two systems might take the next half century [see New Lies for Old, pages 365-6].

Now, however, because the West has committed itself to the support of ‘perestroika’ and because of the impact of the misguided and euphoric support for it in the Western media, convergence might take less than a decade. The sword of Damocles is hanging over the Western democracies, yet they are oblivious to it. I believe in truth and the power of ideas to convey the truth.

Therefore, I present my Memoranda to the public – convinced that they will help them to see the ‘perestroika’ changes, and their sequels, in the Communist world and beyond, in a more realistic light, and to recover from their blindness.

Anatoliy Golitsyn, United States, 1995″



It is entirely incomprehensible, given the (well-timed) renewed aggressiveness and threats from this now openly displayed Moscow-Beijing communist alliance, that supposed analysts and commentators stubbornly keep rationalising things to the effect that either “Russia” has a right to defend itself; just happens to be ruled by a bunch of power-ridden oligarchs who want the USSR back; should be applauded for showing strength and traditional Russian self-esteem; or whatever more outlandish distortions of reality are in circulation. Yet, what we are facing is the final mobilisation of the whole of the communist bloc towards slaying the West! Therefore the most unfriendly language, therefore all the military moves.

Because of this deplorable inaptitude across the board, because of these laughable non-assessments one can read everywhere (the shameful example to be introduced here being supposed political analyst Toby Westerman), this author sat down in late August 2013 and mailed a little reader’s comment to the traditional-Catholic website, where same Toby Westerman appears to be in the position of regular house Kremlinologist, so to speak (that comment by this author was then posted by TIA in their “What People Are Commenting” section on August 29, 2013):


Dear Mr. Guimarães,

With all due respect, after having read your contributor Toby Westerman’s articles on Russia and China for quite some time, I’ve come to the conclusion that although he desperately tries to figure out the writing on the wall, still he cannot identify WHY the “new Russia” so fatally resembles the old Soviet Union.

For, had he ever read – let alone: grasped – the two books by outstanding Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, New Lies for Old (1984) and The Perestroika Deception (1995), as well as the late Christopher Story’s reference work, The European Union Collective (2002), he certainly would stop parroting the official Soviet line of deception of a “fall” of the USSR back in 1991.

The shocking reality – according to Golitsyn and Story and very easy to realise as soon as one really opens one’s eyes – is that there has been NO discontinuity in the Soviet/pan-communist project of Marxist-Leninist world revolution whatsoever. Indeed, the alleged “fall of communism” of 1989/91 in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union was the greatest lie ever sold, precisely to confuse and strategically disarm the United States and the West and to finally swing the balance of world power in favor of world communism, the latter of which we can now observe, real-time, as open cooperation-blackmail and WWIII-threats.

Golitsyn is THE key to understanding this (and no less a man than once-CIA counterintelligence expert James Jesus Angleton came to appreciate the enormous value of Golitsyn’s fully accurate assessments as well as predictions). As an introduction to this, I recently published on my blog, beside much more extensive treatises on the same topic, a compilation entitled Photographic Proof the USSR Still Exists. Do read it, everybody, and awaken to the grim fact that Perestroika and Glasnost were simply a giant propaganda and brainwashing offensive to psychologically overwhelm and manipulate the West and remove from its eyes the IMAGE of the enemy, and the image only! 

All the best for your further work, and may God the Lord have mercy on us, 

O.R., Europe


And here is Westerman’s slick, evasive, and arrogant response, very obviously meant to defend his personal position of “respectability” as a good-for-nothing “analyst”, rather than to defend truth (that is foreign to him), published on that website a few days later – never mind that the editors there seem to be light-years away from willing to have a look into Golitsyn’s unique expertise on their part (bold print by this author; posted by TIA in their “What People Are Commenting” section on Sept. 3, 2013 under the header, “My Approach on Russia”):

Last week, a reader from Europe, O.R., sent a criticism to TIA for publishing Mr. Westerman’s articles on our website. According to this reader, his articles supposedly are out-of-touch for not considering the works of Golitsyn and Story. These authors – Mr. O.R. argues – defend that the fall of USSR never really happened. It is just a maneuver to deceive the West. TIA sent the criticism to Mr. Westerman. Below is his response. The Editor.



Thanks for the opportunity to respond, and thanks to O.R. in Europe for his interest.
l l
I have read Golitsyn’s works as well as Story’s. They present a compelling case for a planned end to the USSR.
Planned or not, however, the USSR did collapse, and, while I find the reasoning of Golitsyn and Story to be a valid explanation for the Soviet Union’s demise, the “it was all planned” hypothesis will be difficult for many to accept. Conspiracy theories, even if valid, tend not to be trusted by many if not most readers.
ll l
My approach is to document what is happening now in Russia and with its allies. I seek to show the link between the present and the old Soviet Union, as well as Moscow’s efforts to construct a new Communist State, which would be more in line with Lenin’s original intentions. I have consistently pointed out that the rulers in Moscow are a spy elite which traces its origins to the bloody Cheka of the early days of Bolshevik Russia.
In the end, it matters little if the current rulers in Moscow are following a grand plan from an earlier period or are simply totalitarians determined to cook up a “new and improved” Soviet Union. The result is the same: a clear and immediate threat to humanity which many, even many conservatives, are unwilling to acknowledge.
I agree with O.R. as to the level of danger, but I also believe that the best course is to concentrate on Moscow’s present intentions and its links and identification with the Soviet past.
I hope this clarifies my approach
Best to all at TIA and to O.R. 
Toby Westerman
Because of this kind of analytical incompetence, mixed with dishonesty and probably financial considerations, whether on the part of politics, intelligence, or journalism, we have reached where we have reached. There appears to be neither clarity of thought nor courage left anywhere, and those few who are heroically explaining as true educators the intellectual as well as moral and spiritual shortcomings of the West that have led to the disaster at hand today, and who are able to most accurately analyse (in the fullest sense of the word) what Moscow, Beijing and allies are in fact up to, are being at best ignored, or otherwise ridiculed as hopeless relics of the Cold War era, resp. attacked as ‘McCarthyiites’ of yesteryear.
And so, as this author recently came across yet another jewel of Toby Westerman’s “at-face-value analytical depth”, he just couldn’t help using that article absurdly titled “Thanks, Putin – America Owes You a Debt of Gratitude” for a pars-pro-toto refutation (not an ad-hominem attack against Toby Westerman, whom this author doesn’t know and has no need of getting to know) of this comfortable general ‘consensus’ that, yes, things are bad, and Russia’s moves are disturbing, but we must wait and see and pray that this present Russian oligarchy under Putin will come to their senses in time, and maybe the upcoming midterm elections will give a boost to American conservatives, and maybe by January 20, 2017, Barack Obama and his Marxist friends will be history. These are DREAMS, it’s the stubborn refusal of reality, in fact putting one’s head in the sand!
What follows is Toby Westerman’s pointless article of March 17, 2014, just as it was posted on the TIA website, complete with illustrations, yet extended by a whole number of orange-coloured comments resp. rectifications, as well as added bold print, by this author:       



By Toby Westerman

America owes a debt of gratitude to Russian president Vladimir Putin [Westerman throughout is personalising developments as if we were confronted with some Putin, the “lonely Czar”, rather than with a disciplined, well-oiled collective leadership machinery; premier Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, in contrast, always used the phrase, “the strategists”]. Before his Stalinist invasion of Ukrainian territory, few seemed concerned about Russia’s drive to modernize its military and Moscow’s ever tightening military alliance with China [the alliance, as shown by Golitsyn, had existed ever since 1957, despite all disinformation to the contrary, whereas recently that scissors strategy of disinformation merely gave way again to an overt display of their alliance, the switch from alleged Sino-Soviet split to “one clenched fist”; a mere change of appearance, not of fact]. After Putin’s military adventure in Crimea [it wasn’t an adventure, but a strategic chess move], a parade of experts, pundits, and talk show hosts are now talking about Putin’s goal of re-forming a new version of the Soviet Union, and some have even applied the term “communist” [rightfully so] to events in Russia. [Let’s see what ‘better’ and ‘deeper’ insight “expert” Westerman will provide us with …]

(INA Today readers, of course, have been informed of these and related matters for a decade and a half [having been fed half-truths and at-face-value “analyses”]).

Putin and the Plan [he keeps personalising the issue, proving his shortsightedness]

With this new awareness, a part of America’s news agencies is encouraging as vital a better understanding of the political oligarchy in Moscow and Beijing.

[Above:] An Eurasian Union is in motion to re-place the former USSR [the USSR has been all the while in place, through their internal structure of the “CIS” and with the CPSU still there behind the scenes; it’s simply coming out from its hiding and back to the forefront, that’s all; thus, not a “former” USSR is being replaced, but a temporarily covert USSR is now finally reappearing into plain sight; and that presently discussed “Eurasian Union” is only the preparation for what had been called for 25 years ago by Gorbachev and Shevardnadze as a “Common European Home from the Atlantic to Vladivostok”, that is a unified communist Eurasia including the whole of Western Europe!!! Western Europe, sooner rather than later, will be part of this extended Soviet Union, which by the end of the day will show that the so-called EU extension into the East was in fact a steady extension of Soviet influence over Western Europe, a Soviet Western extension! Also, they were boasting back then that the CSCE, now OSCE, was a net they’d thrown over Europe!!! Nothing of which, of course, Westerman dares to look at].

Putin is not merely a thug, a school yard bully or anything of the kind [they all are!!!]. He is a true believer in what he has referred to as “the cause” – Communism [otherwise he wouldn’t be President of the still-existing USSR!!!]. Various commentators, including talk show guru Rush Limbaugh, have stated this, but what is lacking is the realization that Putin is not alone in his desire to rebuild the Soviet Union. The restoration of the Soviet Union, in some version or other, has been the goal of the Moscow oligarchy since the collapse of USSR [For goodness sake, please stop talking of “oligarchs”; they are a political class, Bolshevist revolutionaries to the core; and we’re not seeing a “restoration” here, but a mere reemergence of something that had been kept hidden for 22 years, for reasons of strategy!].

While Russian president Boris Yeltsin, in 1992, was speaking to a joint session of the U.S. Congress and promising lasting peace and friendship, Russian spies continued to carry out Soviet-style deep penetration efforts against America and our allies [the main issue here is strategy, not the conventional spying business; and the problem of revolutionary moles in the Western structures, the most prominent and fatal one being Comrade Obama, is by far more crucial than spies: again, Westerman reveals he has no awareness of strategy and doesn’t even acknowledge the United States having been already in a post-revolutionary situation ever since Obama’s first election in 2008]. Yeltsin also took the first steps in forming what became under Putin, a “Union State” between Russia and the Stalinist pariah nation of Belarus. Where, it may be added, the KGB is still called the KGB [And so, what does this tell us??? Westerman fails in providing us with an explanation; which of course can only be that the “reforms” were only cosmetic, and done “more thoroughly” in the “once” RSFSR, now: Russian Federation, than in other Soviet republics. – Poor man: he simply can’t tell the forest for the trees!].

Putin continued and accelerated what Yeltsin had begun [Yeltsin had begun nothing. He merely was one element in the long chain of consecutive phases of their long-range strategy towards world communist domination; Westerman, go home, you haven’t understood a thing!]. The Russian army retained Soviet-era insignia and banners; Soviet Cold War spies, living and dead, were given special honors; the mass murderer, Josef Stalin, acquired a new coat of whitewash; even the cruiser Aurora, which is credited in Soviet lore for playing a key role in the Bolshevik overthrow of the Russian Provisional Government – which took power after the Tsar’s abdication – has again been given the pride of place it enjoyed in the Soviet era [this stretch is typical of Westerman: although he keeps listing mind-blowing fact after mind-blowing fact, which basically all prove a seamless continuity of the USSR all the way through the 1990s till today, he doesn’t and cannot come up with a coherent explanation or conclusion. He is registering, he is alarmed, yet he doesn’t understand, and so he leaves his readers with no clues about what these facts actually mean!].


The Role of the Ukraine

Russia and Ukraine share a common history that goes back over a thousand years [yet, the year 1917 marked, factually, a new year count, a radical new beginning akin to the French Revolution, which was the historical forerunner of the October Revolution]. Often, this shared history has been bloody and bitter, but similarities in language and culture [and particularly in their being two Socialist Soviet Republics of one and the same still-intact USSR!] make events in Ukraine immediate and vivid to the Russian people [a funny way of putting it; yet, we are not talking about a national question here, but about the USSR, along with all her allies around the world, prepping up for WWIII]. Ukraine was an important part of the Tsarist Empire and one of the original members of the USSR. In the Soviet era [he speaks of a “Soviet Era” as a thing of the past, yet the Soviet Union is still there, Mr. Westerman, and it isn’t being restored, but simply reemerging from its 22-year hiding], Ukraine was not only an important agricultural area, but also a center of industry.

Today, much of Russia’s natural gas exported to Europe goes through Ukrainian territory. Putin and the Moscow political oligarchy recognize that Ukraine is an important element in a new Soviet Union because of its historical ties to Russia [“historical ties to Russia” is typical Western-bourgeois sentimental babble; what communism once owns, it never lets go again, as simple as that! No need for well-measured historico-cultural findings. The only culture that is shared by post-revolutionary Moscow and post-revolutionary Kiev is Bolshevist, idiot!], its strategic location between Europe and Russia, its sheer size (the second largest nation in Europe [Ukraine ceased to be a “nation” many, many decades ago when it was forever subjected to communist rule during the years of the Red Terror; what we are dealing with is – still – an SSR, a Soviet Socialist Republic, not a nation!]), as well as its continued economic importance.

[Above:] Ousted president Viktor Yanukovych, disliked for his extreme pro-Russian, policies and corruption

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union [what a faithful servant of Soviet disinformation Westerman is: never once he questions the official version of a “collapse of the Soviet Union” as possibly having been a deception instead, a simple change of labels; he watches, and yet he cannot see!], Ukrainian leaders continued a generally pro-Moscow policy [there was no pro- or anti-Moscow “policy” on the part of the “Ukrainian leaders”, there was only joint strategic action behind the scenes; with some temporary allowance of an “Orange Revolution” feeding illusionary expectations mainly in the West]. Thousands of Russians migrated to Ukraine after the collapse of the Soviet Union, giving Moscow additional leverage in Ukraine’s affairs [even stronger influence than in official Soviet times? Come on! This is nonsense! Ukraine was and still is a firm part of the still-intact USSR, despite all the fuzz and “independence movement” going on! It’s deception!!!].

Of the post-Soviet [rather: still-Soviet!!!] Ukrainian leaders, none has labored more intently for Moscow than Viktor Yanukovych, who was first elected president in a rigged election in 2004. He was removed from office by another election in 2005, after mass demonstrations were carried out, known as the Orange Revolution. A split in the “Orange” movement allowed Yanukovych to be reelected in 2010, only to be deposed by mass protests in February 2014 because of his extreme pro-Russian policies, corruption, and generally tyrannical rule [and only an idiot would have ever thought that Yushchenko-style freedom and democracy would ever prevail in a Soviet Socialist Republic!!! There was also Vaclav Havel in Czechia; he was controlled. There was Lech Walesa in Poland; he was controlled too! They just move their chess pawns back and forth, advancing their strategy all the while; if they make mistakes, they take detours, that’s all].

The pro-freedom movement [more likely: the “pro-freedom provocation”, and weren’t these barricades really impressive???] that removed Yanukovych was not merely a localized rejection against Russian dominance and world-class corruption, but was, and continues to be, a direct threat to the existence of the Moscow political oligarchy [which is precisely what the Soviet strategists, whom you call “oligarchs”, want you, Westerman, and the West to believe!!!].


Moscow Fears a Revolution by Its Own People [Really?]

Putin’s desire to have Ukraine as a member of a nascent Soviet State [Putin is little more than a figure-head; he is not so much determining policies, but merely executing longrange strategy!] is second only to the knowledge that Moscow must suppress the pro-Western revolution that ousted Yanukovych. Moscow justifiably fears the contagion of the democratic spirit which is now evident in Ukraine [don’t say “evident”, say “apparent”, because all that you are describing is the mere surface of events, that you are unable to properly assess and interpret!].

For all the pro-Soviet propaganda and political manipulation after the collapse of the USSR [not again!], there still exists within the Russian people [the Russian people, the Russian culture irreversibly was consigned to the midden-heap of history by the Bolshevist Revolution; there is no longer a “Russian people”, there is only a Soviet “people”, which actually was the wording during the official USSR!], a desire for true human freedom [not true: they were “taught”, particularly by the calculated economic chaos under Yeltsin, that one cannot eat democracy. They do not long for freedom, whether political or economic, they long for stability, guaranteed minimum wages and pensions, and finally they long for Soviet greatness throughout the world!]. Moscow knows this, and lives in fear of it [which is why they are now most relaxedly laughing at NATO and the West??? Come on, Toby!].

[Above:] The people of Ukraine protest in the streets against the Putin invasion [personalisation again; here one should also perhaps throw in an important lesson every student of art history already learns in his first semester: to neatly discern between what his eyes can see and what his interpretative mind wants to see. What we actually see in the photograph to the right is a young man, surrounded by other young people draped in Ukrainian flags, who holds up a card-board sign saying, “Putin! Hands off Ukraine” in his one hand and a megaphone in the other. That is basically all that can be said about this photograph! Everything else is interpretation! When Westerman says the people of Ukraine protest, one could just as well speculate that probable Komsomol members are staging a protest, and so, if one chooses to interpret further, in a suspiciously calm manner!]

The unrest [resp., the probably staged “unrest”] recently unleashed on the streets of Kiev is the most significant reason for Moscow’s intervention [how does Westerman know? The reason for Moscow’s “intervention” much more likely is a mere playing out of strategy, and of mobilising the Soviet Army under a false pretext in an obvious preparation for World War]. The seriousness of this threat was made clear, ironically, by a political leader supposedly in opposition to Putin’s ruling party [surprisingly, here Westerman admits the existence of controlled or false opposition within the Russian State Duma, yet again without coming to the inevitable conclusion that some other force behind must be in control of all these apparent different parties, which is of course and always has been ever since 1992 the unchanged CPSU, that is operating from the shadows]. Communist Party Gennady Zyuganov declared with remarkable candor that “It is possible that in two years there will be a similar scenario in Russia,” if Moscow did not take action [Westerman parrotting a classic piece of misleading disinformation by Zyuganov, that implies that “Russia” is on the defensive, weak, and under pressure; yet, this is the classic “weak look” as taught by ancient Chinese strategic thinker Sun Tzu and frequently used by the Soviets to confuse the West about their real strength and their real intentions].

Moscow was extremely fearful of the “colored revolutions,” [they were either entirely in charge of them, or at least admitting them for some limited time!!!] inspired by the 2004 Orange Revolution and its spread to what Russia calls its “near abroad,” the States of the former Soviet Union [he never uses quotation marks, as he is a true believer in today’s “Russia” as a “former” instead of an unchanged Soviet Union]. Moscow’s spy services took action in cooperation with pro-Russian elements within the “near abroad” States to blunt the effects of that expression of human freedom [but what if the apparent roll-back is simply a removal of the illusion of post-Soviet “independence”???]. To a large extent, Moscow was successful [of course, it is; how can it not be, with Communists in control of all power centres also throughout the Western world, that in addition is by now completely unable to challenge a Russian-Chinese-led, read: all-out pan-Communist, military threat!!!].

After the overthrow of Yanukovych [“overthrow” is already an interpretation for which we do not have sufficient data to prove it, despite the dramatic protests against his opulent lifestyle; all that we can say is that Yanukovich disappeared], however, the same cold fear is again motivating Putin and the rest of Russia’s political class [come on: the ruling political class in the Kremlin is far from being afraid, whether of Kiev or the West!].

The [apparent] demonstrators in Kiev now were not merely [apparently] protesting a corrupt election. They rejected what would certainly become Ukraine’s merger with the new Soviet State, and the ousting of a loyal pro-Moscow figure [so it seemed]. The demonstrators [apparently] brazenly denounced the lies from both Yanukovych and his Russian masters. Putin had to make a bold move or risk not only a serious blow to his plans for a re-formed Soviet Union, but also face the wrath of his own people awakened by the cries of freedom coming from the streets of Kiev. [What a naїve look at events: Russia forced to react in the face of a freedom movement threatening to get out of control. Maybe we should feel sorry for the people in the Kremlin, given all the distress and crisis. Yet, what is getting ever clearer, and has been the much more plausible explanation all along, is that it’s again, like in 1989, 1991, or 1993, a well-planned and theatrically enacted provocation to distract the West’s attention from the ongoing military buildup almost certainly directed not against the still-communist Ukrainian SSR, but against the West!]

Although most of the world condemns his actions, Putin does have a loyal, and increasingly powerful, friend. In his confrontation with the West, Putin has a long cultivated ally. [Stop talking about “Putin”! The People’s Republic of China isn’t predominantly an ally of Putin, but of the (still-intact) USSR, and has been such, no matter what, since the late 1950s!]


An Old Moscow-Beijing Axis Recently Acknowledged

Some commentators have taken note of China’s support of Moscow’s invasion of Ukrainian territory, and the similarity of Russia’s land grab to China’s claim to the South China Sea, which is mineral rich and a vital corridor for world shipping. [Because these two communist great powers are engaged in a joint strategy, that requires joint, coordinated moves!]

Suddenly, some pundits are recognizing the common interests, methods, and close cooperation between Moscow and Beijing. [Oh yes! They call it: World Revolution!!!] This was not supposed to happen. [At least for those who naїvely believed in the authenticity of the alleged Sino-Soviet split!]

[Above:] Putin continues the Yeltsin/Jiang Zemin plans for a New World Order to replace US leadership. [He certainly continues Russian-Chinese cooperation towards a Russian-Chinese-controlled “New World Order”, yet that “New World Order” is intended to be a “New World Social Order”, i.e. communism everywhere in the world; also, this joint strategy leads much farther back than to Yeltsin and Jiang Zemin, but to Khrushchev and Mao Zedong, who commissioned the formulation of a joint communist longrange strategy of deception a.k.a. the “Shelepin Plan”. Anatoliy Golitsyn, when he defected over to the West in December of 1961, sacrificed for himself a privileged life in the Soviet structures so to let the West know of this deadly longrange strategy, even facing terrible ridicule and denigration in his new home country, the United States; he then sacrificed the greater part of his life in the West, i.e. at least until 1995, for continuingly warning and trying to educate Western decision-makers as for what lies ahead with most inevitable certainty, unless the West would in time awake to the communist bloc’s longrange scheme. The West “knew better”, and as a result we are now all awaiting indeed the second October Revolution. Westerman ignores all of this!]

After the collapse of the USSR, pundits in the U.S., of various political persuasions, speculated that fear of an increasingly powerful China would drive Russia to align with the West. These pundits, however, failed to acknowledge that Yeltsin’s Russia had, early on, began a policy of providing military assistance to China, providing technical aid, training for officers, and military hardware. [Westerman continues his line of “It started under Yeltsin”, which is pure nonsense. Moscow and Beijing had been tight allies ever since Khrushchev and Mao had sorted out any of their internal differences, adopting a split for outward consumption only, which soon was to lead the United States – by the mistaken, if not treacherous recommendations by then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger – to believe they could “contain” the USSR by opening up to, and building up as a great power, the People’s Republic of China. By this suicidal decision the groundwork was laid in selling the communists the rope by which to hang the hated capitalist world! Yet, not a word by Westerman about the Sino-Soviet split having been a long-term deception!] 

Moscow’s assistance to China has continued for years, unnoticed among the U.S. pundits, who still expect a U.S.-Russian alliance against China [also here, Westerman forgets to mention that the U.S.’s opening up to China in the early 1970s had in mind precisely the opposite: a U.S.-Chinese alliance against the Soviet Union. So, why has this expectation turned out as futile? Because both Moscow and Beijing were jointly fooling the United States and the West! Golitsyn called it the Scissors Strategy].

There also existed among U.S. policymakers and politicians the belief that the Chinese people would eventually emulate the example of Russia and rid themselves of their communist overlords [Amazing how many major flaws Westerman puts alongside each other in one short sentence: there is no Russian people any more, and bascially no longer a Chinese people either, only a “liberated” Soviet people, whether in the stil-intact USSR or in the PRC, and certainly did the Soviet people not rid itself of its communist oppressors in 1991, which was, like the events of 1989, the smoothest “fall” of a tyrannical system in the whole of human history! As a consequence, there’s no example for the people of “China” to emulate so to get rid of their tyrants, in the first place!] This confidence was so great that the U.S. exported much of its manufacturing capability to the Peoples Republic of China (PRC). Politicians hoped that industrialization and a new wealthy class would lead to the end of communist rule, and U.S. manufacturers saw great opportunity for quick profits from selling both to U.S. markets and satisfying a burgeoning consumer class. [Because they were duped, both politicians and industrialists, by communist lies and deception!]

In the meantime, millions of American workers permanently lost their jobs.

The American political leadership remained blind to the reality that none of their preconceptions were based on fact. Not only did Russia and China grow closer [they didn’t grow closer, but the strategic phase of projecting a split between them was slowly nearing its end], but in 1997, Yeltsin and then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin jointly declared a New World Order that would counter, and eventually replace, American leadership in the world. [Again, we’re talking about communist world revolution here, and by definition all communist parties, whether in communist states or in the West, are engaged in it: the goal is “Worldwide Democratic Peace”, i.e. global communist tyranny, or communist world domination! Whilst Westerman portrays it as some kind of conventional geopolitics!]

Putin again carried on and intensified what Yeltsin had begun [not begun, only continued]. Russian military aid to the PRC evolved into a full-scale military and naval alliance. Joint exercises are held involving ground, air, and sea forces of both nations. Moscow and Beijing are even considering a joint lunar base. As one military commentator on Fox News recently acknowledged, America is indeed facing a “Moscow-Beijing axis.” [And so a communist revolutionary axis determined to bring about infamous “World October”, doubt it not!!!]


Options? [No more options! America & the West now stand with their backs against the wall!]

To put the matter bluntly, neither the U.S., nor its European allies are ready to face Putin’s Russia [it isn’t “Russia”, but still the Soviet Union, and it belongs not to Putin, but to the Communist Party SU], an expanding China, and certainly not an alliance between Russia and China [at least, Westerman acknowledges this!]. Years of denial and self-deception have put us in a very dangerous position. Our options are limited, but they can be effective. [There are no more options, not to think of “effective” ones. The pan-communist bloc is now pushing forward, using its military superiority not only as a means of blackmail, but soon, it appears, as the very concrete means to win a global war and install communism throughout the world – no matter the casualties, and once and for all, they’re convinced! Yet, Westerman is playing down the scope and meaning of it all!]

To its credit, the E.U. is showing cooperation with the U.S. in placing some sanctions against Russia, and a political pact between the new Ukrainian government and the European Union is in the works. [At which the Soviets are simply laughing, knowing they’ve swung the balance of power irreversibly!]

There is, however, also the question of how much pressure the E.U. is able or willing to put on Russia. [Regarding the question of will, the two dominant countries in the EU, Germany and France, are ruled by an East-German communist apparatchik and a French socialist! The European Commission is headed by a “former” Maoist student leader at the University of Lisbon! Regarding their ability, well, the Russians certainly won’t lose time in making use of Europe’s energy dependence on Russia and of West European investments in Russia, before Europe could possibly free itself from this dilemma! – And, by the way, who was it, in the case of Germany, who set in motion Germany’s suicidal “Energiewende” back in the late 1990s, that was based on the green-communist lie of Anthropogenic Global Warming? It was the radical-left Red-Green Schröder-Fischer government, with their Minister for the Environment (also known as Germany’s “Salon Stalinist” No. 1), Jürgen Trittin! And who even further accelerated Germany’s exit from nuclear energy, merely two days after the Fukushima accident of March 11, 2011? The succeeding supposedly “conservative” coalition government of CDU/CSU and FDP, led by “former” East German Marxist-Leninist, Angela Merkel, who has remained in power to this day, meanwhile in a coalition with the Social Democrats! The West European countries are being crippled from within!!! – One more delicate aspect: What are former Chancellor Gerd Schröder (SPD) and former Vice Chancellor and Foreign Minister Joseph “Joschka” Fischer (Greens) doing today? Schröder is, beside his resumed profession as a lawyer, as well as a plethora of other splendidly payed activities, chairman of the board of the Nord Stream AG owned at 51% by the Russian gas giant Gazprom and engaged in building a submarine gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany; in other words, Schröder, a declared Marxist, functions as a lobbyist for Soviet-Russian expansionist interests! Joschka Fischer, on the other hand, once a Marxist-radical street fighter, too is involved with energy. He is i.a. a consultant with the German power supplier RWE and with the Austrian oil concern OMV. European energy dependence on Russia is key for the Soviet strategists, and comrades Schröder and Fischer, among many others, are helping the Russian bear in this strategic operation!] Unfortunately, unlike the period of the post-WWII Soviet threat, Europe is closely tied economically to Russia. The European Union gets one-third of its natural gas from Russia, and European financial institutions had heavily invested in Russia. Norway could assist Europe, as could the U.S., if unnecessary regulations were relaxed, but a change of suppliers would take time, increase costs, and the possibility of retaliation by Moscow would loom large. [So, what are the “effective options” then, Mr. Westerman?]

Although E.U. sanctions would be costly to Russia, Putin is betting that Russia can stand the pain, while Europe will not. [And you can bet he is right in his betting!]

[Above:] The US should back the anti-communist demonstrations like those in Caracas, Venezuela. [A U.S. under communist Obama will never support anti-communist protest movements! A pipedream!]

There is, however, another possibility for pressuring Moscow [really?], and it would not involve the vulnerable European economies. The United States could demonstrate its displeasure with Russian aggression and express its commitment to freedom by supporting pro-freedom manifestations in Moscow’s neo-communist allies in Latin America. [Which would certainly turn around the global balance of world power back to America’s favour in an instance! Does Westerman even think? The communisation of Latin America, by now, is almost complete. And before dreaming of supporting the conservative movements in these countries, one has to address the murderous fact that a second-generation Stalinist resides in the White House in Washington D.C.! As long as he and his comrades are in power, America won’t be able to do anything. In fact, as things stand now, America no longer exists! Not to mention the present Pope being an even more radical Marxist than his five preceding Conciliar Popes together! So, not even the Catholic Church will stand up against the world revolution; instead, it is part of it!]

The pro-Moscow governments in Latin America, Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua have recently hosted Russian bombers and warships. [You see: Kennedy was risking war over this. But where is the reaction now, under Obama? Nothing!] The intent is clear: turn Caribbean Latin American waters into a Russian lake. Moscow’s Latin friends, however, do have a problem: in each nation there are significant pro-democracy elements [fatally, supported by no one!].

It is our best interests to aid these pro-freedom groups [what is Westerman talking about, when he says, “Our best interest”? There is no such “We” any longer, as not the conservative parts of the U.S. population are in charge, and not even the military, but a hardcore-communist as President!], both from a moral and a strategic view. [The first moral obligation of truthful, conservative America should be to save itself from the communists presently in power at home! Then, they can think about moral obligations towards other nations. As for strategy, one can only ask what sort of “strategic thinking” Westerman has in mind, especially as he has no understanding of communist strategy whatsoever!]

Although the present administration would find this strategy distasteful, it is certainly open to the next U.S. President [there are almost 3 more years to go until January 20, 2017 – the year, by the way, of the centennial of the October Revolution. Does Mr. Westerman seriously believe that Moscow, Beijing, and their helpers around Obama will give the United States that much time, let alone a real chance, to take the country back???]. Moscow is planning for the long term. America must recognize this fact and do the same. [But it’s game over already, Westerman! Wake up! America should have done the same, but hasn’t. That is all that can be said. There’s no more time or room for turning this thing around again; not any longer!]

It is long past time to deny Moscow the naval and air presence in Latin America, which the Russian military now enjoys in Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua [you see!]. The Moscow oligarchy has shown its capacity for aggression when their interests seem to demand it. [This is not about the demands of “seeming interests” of a “Moscow oligarchy”, but about the firm revolutionary determination of the disciples of Marx and Lenin to establish, finally, a World Communist Federation across the entire globe, leaving non- and anti-communists perhaps with the only option, as Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov warned 30 years ago, to “defect” to Antarctica and live there with the penguins, which is of course an illusion as well!] The United States has every right to insure its safety and protect those who have the same values of human integrity, whether in Ukraine or in Latin America [but, tragically, lacks the political will and the capacity to do so! A useless article ending with a tame and defensive, politically correct phrase arguing the United States – at least – has got the moral highground; a way of thinking the Soviet imperialist madmen just laugh at mercilessly, as all that is moral to them is what serves the world revolution!!!].

Posted March 17, 2014



Toby Westerman, certainly terrified given the seriousness of the situation, but either unable or unwilling to put it all in proper perspective.

Toby Westerman, certainly terrified given the seriousness of the situation, but either unable or unwilling to put it all in proper perspective.


Also, Toby Westerman was interviewed by Cliff Kincaid on March 26, 2014 (the photo above was picked from that video by this author). They discussed the current Ukrainian crisis and Russia’s and China’s ever more aggressive stance against the West, in which the two powers appear to no longer bother about behaving nice or civilised or diplomatic. Unfortunately, despite Cliff Kincaid’s persistent questions, Toby Westerman carefully evaded the issue of a communist longrange strategy of deception as explained and warned of by Anatoliy Golitsyn (and without which the communist world – that is not “again-communist”, but STILL-communist – would never ever have been able to swing the balance of world power in its favour!).





Anybody seriously interested in the real nature and scope of present developments should read – rather than Westerman’s good-for-nothing sleeping pills – the following three books, that are absolutely key for understanding the situation and that should be regarded as unmatched, top-reference literature. Whatever one feels inclined to read in addition – certainly, the articles on this blog are very much recommended as a substantial introduction to this huge topic -, nonetheless it is these four absolutely outstanding books (plus a few interviews and lectures featuring these authors) that are perfectly enough to acquire a proper knowledge and grasp of what so-called “Russia” and so-called “China” are really up to:


ANATOLIY GOLITSYN: New Lies for Old: The Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation; Dodd, Mead & Co., New York 1984. (Read the book online for free as a complete scanned-in PDF-copy here, or try and order it via here!) 

ANATOLIY GOLITSYN: The Perestroika Deception: The World’s Slide Towards the Second October Revolution; Edward Harle Ltd., London-New York 1995. (Read the book online for free as a complete scanned-in PDF-copy here, or try and order it via here!)

CHRISTOPHER STORY: The European Union Collective: Enemy of Its Member States – A Study in Russian and German Strategy to Complete Lenin’s World Revolution; Edward Harle Ltd., London-New York 2002. (Read the book online for free as a complete scanned-in PDF-copy here, or try and order it via here!)

CHRISTOPHER STORY: A one-hour interview of 1995, conducted by Bill McIlhaney, on Anatoliy Golitsyn and the Soviet Union’s perestroika deception: part 1; part 2.

CHRISTOPHER STORY: One-hour-follow-up interview of 2003, again conducted by Bill McIlhaney, discussing the same issues, yet from the perspective of 2003: click here.

CHRISTOPHER STORY: “Lenin’s Satanic World Revolution”. – A 50-minute public talk at the “Fatima: 2000” World Peace Bishops’ Conference at Hamilton, ON, Canada, Oct. 11 – 18, 1999. Christopher Story at his best! A marvellous – and very, very comprehensive – talk that, luckily, is still preserved on the web: click here.

YURI BEZMENOV: 80-minute interview of 1984, conducted by G. Edward Griffin, titled, “Deception Was My Job: On the Soviet Subversion of the Free World Press”: click here

YURI BEZMENOV: One-hour public lecture on Soviet-communist subversion, given in 1983 in Los Angeles: click here


Thanks for your attention and reading!



All other articles on this blog can be checked out here.