THE AXIS OF OIL: China and Russia find a new way to advance their strategic ambitions

The Axis of Oil: China and Russia find a new way to advance their strategic ambitions

A COLD WEATHER WAVE HITS America's northeast, oil inventories are drawn down, and prices rise. A pipeline is blown up in Iraq, and prices rise even more. The OPEC cartel meets and agrees to cut back production, adding to price pressures. The government announces a rise in inventories, or weather forecasters predict a thaw, or the Saudis say they will step up oil production, and prices fall. All interesting, all important to those playing the oil market or running companies that rely heavily on oil as an input, or trying to predict the course of their economies.

But these hardy perennials of the business pages will soon seem trivial next to the structural changes occurring in the international oil industry. Start with the much-overlooked fact that President Bush's inaugural address was nothing less than a repudiation of a deal cut 60 years ago by President Franklin Roosevelt with Saudi king Ibn Saud. FDR took a detour en route to Washington from the Yalta conference to meet with Saud aboard the USS Quincy, anchored in the Great Bitter Lake in the Suez Canal. "The official record was surprisingly silent about what the two men said about oil," notes Daniel Yergin in his magisterial The Prize: The Epic Quest For Oil, Money & Power, and Roosevelt died before he could make a full report. But no one doubted that the president had pledged U.S. support for the Saudi regime in return for Saud's promise of a steady flow of oil onto world markets.

It is certainly arguable that the Saudis reneged on their end of the bargain long before Bush decided to consign the Bitter Lake arrangement to the dustbin of history. After all, their "guarantee" of a continued flow became inoperative when they joined the producers' embargo in 1973. More recently, they abandoned their reasonable-price pledge by allowing oil prices to shoot up without making any effort to expand production capacity. Nor can it be said that a regime that uses its oil revenues to fund the export of the virulent version of Islam that produced almost all of the terrorists who perpetrated the atrocities of September 11, and that pays bounties to the families of suicide bombers, is behaving in the way Roosevelt anticipated when he shook hands with Ibn Saud.

But if Saudi behavior is not a deal-breaker, George W. Bush's inaugural broadside against tyranny--against "governments with long habits of control"--certainly is, unless the long-standing Bush family relationship with the Saudis trumps the president's pledge. If Bush means what he says, and he usually does, he cannot favor the existing regime over such reform elements as might begin to emerge in Saudi Arabia. The kingdom will remain an important supplier of oil to the U.S. and world markets, and America will remain an important consumer of that oil, but it will be barrels-for-dollars from here on out, with no hidden promises to shore up the Saudi regime unless those threatening to replace it are an even greater threat to American interests. Which should please those eager to distance America from the odious House of Saud.

But hold the applause. America remains highly dependent on Saudi oil, the production of which is controlled by state-owned Aramco, an instrument of the Saudi government's foreign policy. Aramco is about 20 times the size of BP or Exxon Mobil, the largest private-sector oil companies. And Aramco is only one of the increasingly powerful state-owned players that are putting America not only at an increasing economic disadvantage, but at risk of losing a good deal of its diplomatic leverage in Asia, Europe, and the Western Hemisphere.

The end, if that is what it is, of the U.S.-Saudi special relationship is only one of the profound changes that are occurring in the oil market. Other developments make a break with the Saudis even more risky than it would ordinarily be, as our supplies of oil become subject to a complicated set of international games. For we are witnessing what might be called the geopoliticization of the world's oil and gas industry.

Given past government interference, whether it was the Texas government trying to keep prices high by restricting output in the early days, or the OPEC cartel doing the same in recent times, it can't be said that the free play of supply and demand ever set prices in the oil market. But we are now seeing an even more profound uncoupling of the oil industry from anything resembling the model characteristic of market economies. Governments rather than traditional commercial enterprises are increasingly taking control. And those governments often have interests quite hostile to ours.

The Chinese are desperate to secure supplies of oil to sustain an economic growth rate that is crowding double digits and that converted them into a net importer of oil in 1993. That means, first of all, forging closer economic and political ties in the Middle East. The Iran-China Chamber of Commerce, established in 2000, reports that trade between the two countries totaled $7 billion last year, a 25 percent increase over the previous year. But this is not the ordinary buying and selling of profit-driven companies. Instead, it is the result of state-owned companies in China buying oil from state-owned companies in Iran, in transactions aimed as much at mutual political advantage as at commerce. China buys oil and funds a U.S. adversary; Iran sells oil, and in return gets help with the nuclear weapons program that worries America. Score: Adversaries, 2; U.S., nil.

The China Petroleum & Chemical Company (Sinopec) also signed a 30-year natural gas purchase deal to help the mullahs get their gas industry moving and agreed to invest in the development of the Yadavaran oil field in return for Iran's agreement to sell it 150,000 barrels per day of crude oil. So much for U.S. trade sanctions.

The advantages to Iran of closer ties with China are obviously not restricted to payments received for oil. As Gal Luft and Anne Korin pointed out last year in Commentary, China "has sold ballistic-missile components to Iran as well as air-, land-, and sea-based cruise missiles. . . . Even more significantly, China has provided Iran with key ingredients for the development of nuclear weapons," and China's Fiber-Home Communications Technology is building a broadband network in Iran.

When Sinopec agreed to spend $300 million to develop natural gas resources in Saudi Arabia, "the deal raised eyebrows for its high risk and potentially low returns," reported the New York Times. Sure, the Chinese would like to find some natural gas. But most experts say that if Sinopec had to justify this transaction purely on commercial terms, as would an American company, the deal never would have been consummated. Or, as the Wall Street Journal puts it, "State-owned firms will have a higher risk appetite when buying assets than their listed counterparts." The Sinopec deal was aimed mainly at establishing a larger Chinese presence in the Middle East. And a market for products that are on America's list of embargoed items. The Sino-Saudi oil-for-arms trade has included the sale by China of ballistic missiles with a range of 1,800 miles and capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, according to Luft and Korin.

China clearly aims to position itself as an alternative to America as an ally and armorer of countries that oppose U.S. foreign policy. Amy Myers Jaffe, a fellow at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, told the New York Times that the Chinese "tend toward countries where the U.S. has sanctions like Sudan, Iran and Iraq." She might have added that China also tends towards countries that are key suppliers of the oil that keeps the wheels of American commerce turning.

China is not confining the extension of its influence to the Middle East. The Western Hemisphere is also in its sights. Canadian prime minister Paul Martin just visited Beijing and came away with a broad-ranging deal to cooperate in a wide variety of energy projects, including plans for a pipeline and ports that would allow as much as one million barrels per day of oil from Alberta's tar sands to move to Canada's west coast for export to China. That's one-third of the oil that America has been hoping might in the future be available to it from Canada's tar sands.

And, as always, there was more to the deal than a mere commercial transaction between consenting nations. According to their joint communiqué, the Strategic Working Group set up by Canada and China will not only broaden their energy relationship. In addition, in what can only be a shot at Washington, "Canada and China share the view that the United Nations and other multilateral institutions have an essential role to play in the development of a peaceful, prosperous and sustainable world." Little wonder that American officials have announced that they are "monitoring the talks," diplomatese for "sweating profusely."

In Latin America, China has made a series of oil deals that extend its influence, and must have James Monroe spinning in his grave. President Hu Jintao has agreed to invest $100 billion in Latin America in a variety of energy-related and other partnerships, as Latin American countries "try to lessen their trade dependence on the U.S.," according to reports in the Wall Street Journal.

Most threatening is the arrangement made with Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez, a man with close ties to Fidel Castro and who claims his country is under "a new U.S. imperialist attack." China has agreed to invest over $400 million in Venezuela's oil and gas industry, and to buy 120,000 barrels of that country's fuel oil each month. Chávez had made it known that he plans to use the proceeds of his oil industry to fund sales of cheap oil to Castro, and he has not denied rumors that he plans to finance revolutionary groups in other Latin American countries. Moreover, he has announced that he is no longer bound by his exploration and development deals with American companies ConocoPhillips, Harvest Natural Resources, and ChevronTexaco, putting into question the reliability of supplies from Venezuela, which account for 15 percent of U.S. imports.

To top off all of this, CNOOC, China's third largest oil company, is preparing a series of acquisitions in Asia that will allow China to acquire the resources it needs to fuel its growth and extend its influence into countries in which its commercial presence has until now been insignificant. Most notable is a probable $13 billion takeover of Unocal, to be followed by the disposal of Unocal's American assets but the retention of its substantial Asian properties.

MEANWHILE, VLADIMIR PUTIN has been developing what astute observer Roger Boyes calls "a new policy instrument" to reassert Russian power. That instrument is "the Russian gas and oil-exporting companies that already all but dominate Europe's energy supplies. . . . Gazprom has woven a web of energy dependencies from Turkey to Turkmenistan, from Berlin to Baku." According to the International Energy Agency, by 2020, natural gas will account for 62 percent of Europe's energy consumption, and Russia will supply two-thirds of that gas.

This domination has more than commercial consequences. When German chancellor Gerhard Schröder told a television audience that Putin is a "dyed-in-the-wool democrat," the uninitiated chuckled, but insiders knew that the chancellor was simply indicating that he is not prepared to bite the hand that controls the valves of the pipelines that warm his country. Germany already gets 35 percent of its oil and 40 percent of its gas from Russia, figures that will steadily increase as Germany pursues its policy of winding down its nuclear power industry. The head of one of the think tanks affiliated with the German government preferred to remain anonymous when he told the press, "Given Moscow's history of strong-arming neighbors, we might want to think whether we really want to be in such a relationship."

Russia also plans to use its ample reserves of oil and gas to extend its influence in Asia. It has already agreed to allow Japan to finance an oil pipeline from eastern Siberia to the Pacific, from where it can be transported to Japan. The line, to be built by Russia's Transneft, will cover some 2,600 miles, cost $11.5 billion (some put the price tag at closer to $18 billion), and allow Russia to export to several Asian nations as well as Japan. This was no mere commercial transaction: Japanese prime minister Junichiro Koizumi led the lobbying team that persuaded Putin to select the route that Japan favored.

Perhaps most important is Russia's use of oil to cement relations with China, an emerging alliance the consequences of which Charles Krauthammer has already warned are dangerous to American interests. A few weeks ago Russian energy minister Viktor Krishtenko visited Beijing to discuss areas of mutual interest with his Chinese counterparts. Just how China's desire to secure supplies of oil and natural gas, and Russia's desire for new markets and strategic advantage, will play out is uncertain. But there is every sign that Russian fuel is starting to warm historically chilly Sino-Russian relations. Putin has offered the China National Petroleum Corporation a piece of Yukos, the Russian oil giant that produces 1 percent of the world's crude oil, and that Putin effectively renationalized by jailing its principal shareholder (a Putin political opponent), and then slapping the company with a bankrupting demand for back taxes. Since American companies would have loved to have a crack at an interest in Yukos, Putin's decision to freeze them out is widely seen as a political decision to express unhappiness with American criticism of his recent power grabs, as well as an opportunity to cement relations with China, with which Russia's Gazprom already has signed agreements to cooperate in oil and gas markets.

Once again, we are witnessing deals that are more political than economic. Putin's siloviki, which includes his old KGB chums, is now firmly in control of Russia's oil industry, and plans to use the nation's resources to further diplomatic as well as economic goals, with the former taking precedence over the latter if the two goals should clash. As the Economist put it in a story titled "KGB Inc.," "It is a quirk of Russian history that the country's best hope of recovering the influence lost by Moscow with the fall of the Soviet Union is through the energy business." Former spies and "Kremlin henchmen," the story continued, quoting Paul Collison, an energy analyst at Brunswick UBS (a Russia-focused investment house), will make decisions in the interests of "only one shareholder--the state."

Putin knows that Chinese president Hu Jintao is more than a little annoyed that, to cater to Japan, his Russian counterpart selected the Pacific port of Nakhodka as a pipeline terminus, rather than Daqing. He wants "to make amends with China," Michelle Billig, a political risk analyst with PIRA Energy Group, told the International Herald Tribune, which may explain Putin's offer to the Chinese of a branch connection with the pipeline joint-venture with Japan.

That same source quotes "a Western energy executive" who insisted on anonymity as saying, "My feeling is that this is all about leverage with the U.S." Russia doesn't need the financing or technology that China or Japan can provide--the United States could make both available if Russia were in search of the best source of these assets. For Putin, the heavy dependence of Europe on his nation's oil and gas resources gives him a nervous Germany as a defender of his democratic credentials, and joint ventures with China convert a onetime antagonist with whom Russia shares a 2,500-mile border into, if not an ally, at least a partner with shared interests.

SO PICTURE THIS WEB OF INFLUENCE that is being woven by countries eager to constrain American power. Canada and China become joint venturers, as do Venezuela and China. Canada is America's largest source of imported oil, and Venezuela sells us the light, sweet crude oil that our refineries are best equipped to handle. This means that a significant portion of the incremental production from these countries--and perhaps some of what is now headed here--goes to China, rather than to the United States, as energy planners here have been assuming. More important, no one believes that these deals are strictly economic, or would meet shareholder approval were such a force present in China. These are deals by state agencies, designed to extend China's influence to corners of the world from which it has until now been absent.

China has also solidified relations with Iran and other countries on America's list of international pariahs, trading arms for oil, and using its financial clout to establish close diplomatic ties in the region that contains the largest reserves of oil and gas in the world.

Meanwhile, Russia is using its reserves to dominate the European energy market, and make Germany, France, and other countries heavily dependent on Putin's good will. Not that he would cut off supplies at the slightest provocation. He doesn't have to. All the Russian "dyed-in-the-wool democrat" has to do is rely on German and French self-interest to tip those countries to his side in any dispute with the United States, just as China can rely on Latin American countries that benefit from its billions of investment to give that fact some weight in formulating their foreign policies.

Add the emerging relationship of China and Russia, and you have something to worry about. But not, it seems, if you are in the Bush administration. The president has nominated Samuel Bodman as his second-term secretary of energy. Bodman is no doubt an estimable executive, but his only prior experience in energy markets came when he gassed up his car. Besides, his main assignment, other than tending to the security of our nuclear facilities, is to push the president's energy bill through Congress. And that bill contains no realistic provision to reduce American dependence on oil imports. Bush will use legislation that cannot be filibustered in an attempt to win his fight to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling, but even if he succeeds--which is doubtful--he will have added perhaps one million barrels per day to domestic supplies some two decades hence, by which time the Energy Information Administration estimates that oil consumption in America will be over 20 million barrels per day, of which over 15 million barrels will be imported. ANWR oil may some day come to more than a drop in the bucket, but it won't be enough to change the geopolitical consequences of American dependence on imports. Unless Bush's new coolness to the Saudi regime is accompanied by other policies to reduce the dependence that prompted FDR to strike a bargain with Ibn Saud in the first place, the president may wish he had limited the scope of his endorsement of democratic reform to countries that don't have any, or at least not much, oil under their soil. If we fail to reduce our reliance on oil, we will be obliged by economic self-interest to defend the Saudi royal family if--more likely, when--its control over some 25 percent of the world's oil reserves comes under assault.

Meanwhile, no thought is being given to the massive restructuring that is occurring in the international oil industry. Russia and China are using state-owned companies that are not bound to profit-maximize to achieve their long-term goal of weaving a web of relationships that will stand them in good stead in any diplomatic confrontation with the United States. Whether America can continue to rely on its private sector to provide us with comparable clout is no longer certain. After all, when companies that have to maximize profits compete with companies that seek to maximize national influence and power, the latter will engage in projects that the former simply cannot.

It may well be that state-directed ventures will prove so costly as to become unbearably massive consumers of their nations' resources--in the past, most countries (France being an exception) sooner or later decided that "national champions" are expensive luxuries, and the Soviet Union did collapse under the weight of its noneconomic enterprises. But it would be comforting to know that somewhere in our government a small group of knowledgeable people is worrying about something more than how to squeeze a few barrels of oil out of the frozen north.

Irwin M. Stelzer is a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard, director of economic policy studies at the Hudson Institute, and a columnist for the Sunday Times (London).

“I don’t think Gorbachev is a Leninist anymore…I don’t think we have been deceived—at least, I hope we haven’t.”
MARGARET THATCHER, Personal interview with Christopher Story, former occasional advisor to M. Thatcher and editor of Anatoly Golitsyn’s second book, Perestroika Deception.

As many of you are already aware, Mark Riebling, author of the book Wedge:The Secret War Between the FBI and the CIA, pays tribute to Anatoly Golitsyn by crediting his predictions in regards to the phony collapse of the Soviet Union with “an accuracy record of nearly 94%” [pg. 408].

There has been a recent and very public spate of mainstream news articles attempting to smear Anatoly Golitsyn and his principle sponsor in the CIA, James Jesus Angleton. I can only assume that either the CIA or the KGB, or both, have decided that Golitsyn’s warnings are beginning to catch on, so it has become necessary to dust off the old smear campaign folder and once again spread their lies about these two.

For the purposes of this post, I would like to communicate just how specific Golitsyn’s predictions are, and let the reader decide for himself whether or not they have come to pass. Please note that these predictions are taken from his 1984 book New Lies For Old (the manuscript was completed in 1980, ten years before the events themselves). Golitsyn is no psychic; his predictions are based on his inside knowledge of Soviet long-range strategy. It should also be noted that many of the predictions contained in New Lies For Old date back to the 1960s and 1970s, as the book is based on memos he was writing to the CIA during that time while still under their employ (he defected from the KGB in 1961). Of course, the CIA refused to heed Golitsyn’s warnings about the coming phony collapse of the Soviet Union (the one exception being the head of Counter Intelligence, James Angleton, and his staff…some of which, along with members of MI5 and MI6, took the bold step of writing the Editor’s Forward to Golitsyn’s book). It is my hope that you will read Golitsyn’s predictions, based as they are on his inside knowledge of long-range Soviet strategy, and forward them to as many people as possible!!! (Please keep in mind this is only a partial list of Golitsyn’s predictions).

Golitsyn’s Specific Predictions from his 1984 book New Lies For Old.

Pages 327-328: “The Communist strategists are now poised to enter into the final, offensive phase of the long-range policy, entailing a joint struggle for the complete triumph of Communism. Given the multiplicity of parties in power, the close links between them, and the opportunities they have had to broaden their bases and build up experienced cadres, the Communist strategists are equipped, in pursuing their policy, to engage in maneuvers and stratagems beyond the imagination of Marx or the practical reach of Lenin and unthinkable to Stalin. Among such…stratagems are the introduction of false liberalization in Eastern Europe and, probably, in the Soviet Union and the exhibition of spurious independence on the part of the regimes in Romania, Czechoslovakia and Poland.

Pages 224-226: “It would be worthwhile for the West to study the scenario and techniques of the Czechoslovak experiment [of 1968]—so as not to be taken in again. The scenario could well be repeated in essence, although with local variations…The staging of the ‘quiet revolution’ and its reversal served a wide variety of strategic and tactical objectives. [Among them:]

· To arouse sentiment against military pacts in Europe
· To increase pressure in the West for the convening of a conference on security in Europe, the Communist interest in which is to promote the dissolution of military pacts, the creation of a neutral, socialist Europe, and the withdrawal of the American military presence.
· To rehearse and gain experience for the repetition of ‘democratization’ in Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, or elsewhere in Eastern Europe during the final phase of the long-range policy of the Bloc.”

Pages 241-242: “The creation of a false, controlled opposition movement like the dissident movement serves the internal and external strategic purposes.

Internally it provides a vehicle for the eventual false ‘liberalization’ of a Communist regime; it provokes some would-be opposition elements to expose themselves to counter-action, and others are driven to conformity or despair. Externally, ‘dissidents’ can act as vehicles for a variety of disinformation themes on the subject of the evolution of the Communist system… It sets the scene for an eventual dramatic ‘liberalization’ of the system by heightening the contrast between neo-Stalinism and future ‘socialism with a human face.’ It creates a cadre of figures who are well known in the West and who can be used in the future as the leaders and supporters of the ‘multi-Party system’ under Communism. ‘Dissident’ trade unions and intellectuals can be used to promote solidarity with their Western counterparts and engage them in joint campaigns for disarmament and the reform of Western ‘military-industrial complexes.’ In the long run the Western individuals and groups involved will face the choice of admitting that their support for dissidents was mistaken or accepting that Communism has undergone a radical change, making ‘convergence’ an acceptable, and perhaps desirable, prospect.”

Page 262: “One of the objectives [of Euro-Communism] was to prepare the ground, in coordination with Bloc policy in general, for an eventual ‘liberalization’ in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and a major drive to promote the dissolution of NATO and the Warsaw Pact and the withdrawal of the American military presence from a neutral, socialist Europe.”

Page 323: “The Western strategy of a mildly activist approach to Eastern Europe, with emphasis on human rights, is doomed to failure because it is based on misconceptions and will lead ultimately into a trap when a further spurious liberalization takes place in Eastern Europe in the final phase of the long-range Communist policy. Not the least disturbing aspect of the present crisis in Western assessments and policy is that, if it is recognized at all, its causes are misunderstood. As matters stand the West is acutely vulnerable to the coming major shift in Communist tactics in the final phase of their policy.

Page 331: “The conclusion [is that] the ‘renewal’ in Poland was planned thoroughly, and well in advance, by the Polish Communist Party in cooperation with its Communist allies and with a view to furthering the Communist strategy for Europe. The conclusion is further supported by the evidence of the Polish Communist Party’s involvement in the formation and functioning of Solidarity.”

Page 334: “The creation of Solidarity and the initial period of its activity as a trade union may be regarded as the experimental first phase of the Polish ‘renewal.’ The appointment of Jaruzelski, the imposition of martial law, and the suspension of Solidarity represent the second phase, intended to bring the movement under firm control and provide a period of political consolidation. In the third phase it may be expected that a coalition government will be formed, comprising representatives of the Communist Party, a revived Solidarity movement, and of the church. A few so-called liberals might also be included. A new-style government of this sort in Eastern Europe would be well equipped to promote Communist strategy by campaigning for disarmament, for nuclear-free zones in Europe, perhaps for a revival of the Rapacki Plan, for the simultaneous dissolution of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and ultimately for the establishment of a neutral, socialist Europe. The revival of other elements of Communist strategy for Europe [such as human rights negotiations] would be timed to coincide with the emergence of such a government.

Page 335: “A coalition government in Poland would in fact be totalitarianism under a new, deceptive and more dangerous guise. Accepted as the spontaneous emergence of a new form of multi-party, semi-democratic regime, it would serve to undermine resistance to Communism inside and outside the Communist Bloc. The need for massive defense expenditure would increasingly be questioned in the West. New possibilities would arise for splitting Western Europe away from the United States, of neutralizing Germany, and destroying NATO.”

Page 338-340: “The intensification of hardline policies and methods in the Soviet Union, exemplified by Sakharov’s arrest and the occupation of Afghanistan, presages a switch to ‘democratization’ following, perhaps, Brezhnev’s departure from the political scene… Brezhnev’s successor may well appear to be a kind of Soviet Alexander Dubcek. The succession will be important only in the presentational sense.

The reality of collective leadership and the leaders’ common commitment to the long-range policy will continue unaffected… The Brezhnev regime and its neo-Stalinist actions against ‘dissidents’ and in Afghanistan would be condemned as Novotny’s regime [in Czechoslovakia] was condemned in 1968.

The economic field reforms might be expected to bring Soviet practice more into line with Yugoslavia, or even seemingly, with Western socialist models… The Party would be less conspicuous, but would continue to control the economy from behind the scenes as before…

Political ‘liberalization’ and ‘democratization’ would follow the general lines of the Czechoslovak rehearsal in 1968. This rehearsal might well have been the kind of political experiment Nikolay Mironov [former head of the Party’s Administrative Organs Department] had in mind as early as 1960. The ‘liberalization’ would be spectacular and impressive. Formal pronouncements might be made about a reduction in the Communist Party’s role; its monopoly would be apparently curtailed. An ostensible separation of powers between legislative, executive, and the judiciary might be introduced. The Supreme Soviet would be given greater apparent power and the president and deputies greater apparent independence.

The posts of President of the Soviet Union and First Secretary of the Party might well be separated. The KGB would be ‘reformed’. Dissidents at home would take up positions of leadership in government. Sakharov might be included in some capacity in government or allowed to teach abroad. The creative arts and cultural and scientific organizations, such as writers’ unions and the Academy of Sciences, would become apparently more independent, as would the trade unions. Political clubs would be opened to non-members of the Communist Party.

Leading dissidents might form one or more alternative political parties. Censorship would be relaxed; controversial books, plays, films, and art would be published, performed and exhibited. Many prominent Soviet performing artists now abroad would return to the Soviet Union and resume their professional careers.
Constitutional amendments would be adopted to guarantee fulfillment of the provisions of the Helsinki agreements and a semblance of compliance would be maintained. There would be greater freedom for the Soviet citizens to travel. Western and United Nations observers would be invited to the Soviet Union to witness the reforms in action.

But, as in the Czechoslovak case, the ‘liberalization’ would be calculated and deceptive in that it would be introduced from above. It would be carried out by the Party through its cells and individual members of government, the Supreme Soviet, the courts, and the electoral machinery and by the KGB through its agents among the intellectuals and scientists…”

Pages 340-342: “The dissident movement is now being prepared for the most important aspect of its strategic role, which will be to persuade the West of the authenticity of Soviet ‘liberalization’ when it comes. Further high-level defectors, or ‘official émigrés’, may well make their appearance in the West before the switch in policy occurs.

The prediction of Soviet compliance with the Helsinki agreements is based on the fact that it was the Warsaw Pact countries and a Soviet [agent of influence] who initiated and pressed for the [negotiations]…

‘Liberalization’ in Eastern Europe would probably involve the return to power in Czechoslovakia of Dubcek and his associates. If it should be extended to East Germany, demolition of the Berlin Wall might even be contemplated…

Western acceptance of the new ‘liberalization’ as genuine would create favorable conditions for the fulfillment of Communist strategy for the United States, Western Europe, and even, perhaps, Japan… Euro-Communism would be revived. The pressure for united fronts between Communist and socialist parties and trade unions at the national and international level would be intensified.

This time, the socialists might finally fall into the trap. United front governments under strong Communist influence might well come to power in France, Italy, and possibly other countries. Elsewhere the fortunes and influence of Communist Parties would be much revived. The bulk of Europe might well turn to left-wing socialism, leaving only a few pockets of conservative resistance.

Pressure could well grow for a solution of the German problem in which some form of confederation between East and West Germany would be combined with neutralization of the whole and a treaty of friendship with the Soviet Union. France and Italy, under united front governments, would throw in their lot with Germany and the Soviet Union. Britain would be confronted with a choice between a neutral Europe and the United States.

NATO could hardly survive this process. The Czechoslovaks, in contrast with their performance in 1968, might well take the initiative, along with the Romanians and Yugoslavs, in proposing (in the Helsinki context) the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in return for the dissolution of NATO.

The disappearance of the Warsaw Pact would have little effect on the coordination of the Communist bloc, but the dissolution of NATO could well mean the departure of American forces from the European continent and a closer European alignment with a ‘liberalized’ Soviet Bloc. Perhaps in the long run, a similar process might affect the relationship between the United States and Japan leading to abrogation of the security pact between them.

The EEC [EU] on present lines, even if enlarged, would not be a barrier to the neutralization of Europe and the withdrawal of American troops. It might even accelerate the process. The acceptance of the EEC by Eurocommunist parties in the 1970s, following a period of opposition in the 1960s, suggests that this view is shared by the communist strategists. The efforts by the Yugoslavs and Romanians to create stronger links with the EEC should be seen, not as inimical to Soviet interests, but as the first step in laying the foundations for the merger between EEC and COMECON. The European Parliament might become an all-European socialist parliament with representation from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. ‘Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals’ would turn out to be a neutral, socialist Europe.

The United States, betrayed by her former European allies, would tend to withdraw into fortress America or, with the few remaining conservative countries, including perhaps Japan, would seek and alliance with China as the only counterweight to Soviet power.”

Page 348: “The timing of the release of the Solidarity leader and the news of the appointment of Adropov confirm… that the ‘liberalization’ will not be limited to the USSR, but will be expanded to Eastern Europe and particularly Poland. The experiment with ‘renewal’ in Poland will be repeated again.

This time, however, it will be with full strategic initiatives and implications against Western Europe and NATO. The appointment of Andropov, the release of the Solidarity leader, and the invitation to the Pope to visit Poland in June 1983, made by the Polish government, all indicate that the Communist strategists are probably planning the re-emergence of Solidarity and the creation of a quasi-social democratic government in Poland (a coalition of the Communist Party, the trade unions, and the churches) and political and economic reforms in the USSR for 1984 and afterward.”

Pages 349-350: “How will the Western German social democrats respond when the Communist regimes begin their ‘liberalization’ by making concessions on human rights, such as easing emigration, granting amnesty for the dissidents, or removing the Berlin Wall? One can expect that the Soviet agents of influence in Western Europe, drawing on these developments, will become more active.

It is more than likely that these cosmetic steps will be taken as genuine by the West and will trigger a reunification and neutralization of Western Germany and further collapse of NATO. The pressure on the United States for concessions on disarmament and accommodation with the Soviets will increase.

During this period there might be an extensive display of the fictional struggle for power in the Soviet leadership. One cannot exclude that at the next Party Congress or earlier, Andropov will be replaced by a younger leader with a more liberal image who will continue the so-called ‘liberalization’ more intensively…

In is not inconceivable that the Soviets will make concessions on Afghanistan in order to gain new strategic advantages.”

Additional Predictions on ‘perestroika’ in Golitsyn’s memoranda to the CIA
(Taken from declassified memos published in Golitsyn’s second book The Perestroika Deception, 1995)

July 4, 1984: ‘At this time, the Soviet Strategists may replace the old leader, Konstantin Chernenko, who is actually only a figurehead, with a younger Soviet leader who was chosen some time ago as his successor, namely Comrade Gorbachev. One of his major tasks will be to implement the so-called liberalization. The strategists may also replace the old ‘hardliner’ Andrei Gromyko with a younger ‘soft-liner’…The new Soviet leadership may introduce economic reforms and striking political initiatives in order to project a clear message that the changes in the Soviet leadership and in Soviet policy require changes in US leadership, in US military policy and in the US budget. Inasmuch as both conservatives and liberals are confused by strategic disinformation about Soviet strategic intentions, it is possible that these manoeuvres, assisted by Soviet agents of influence, will be successful.’

July 5, 1985: ‘The changes in the Soviet leadership should be seen, not as indicating the consolidation by Gorbachev of his personal power, but as meeting the requirements of strategy. The appointment of Gromyko as President and of Eduard Shevardnadze as Minister of Foreign Affairs should be viewed as preparation for the coming programme of calculated economic and political reform which has already been described. Shevardnadze was chosen because of his experience as Minister of Internal Affairs in Georgia during the 1970s. His role will be to link the strategy of so-called “liberalization” with the strategies of Europe and disarmament. In all probability, the model for his appointment was Janos Kadar in Hungary. It was Kadar, the Minister of the Interior under the old regime, who launched the so-called liberalization in Hungary. Gromyko’s image as an old Stalinist would have made him unsuitable for the role of Minister of Foreign Affairs during “liberalization”. But his promotion to the Presidency is very important. It is a mistake to regard the position of President of the Soviet Union as purely ceremonial. Since the adoption of the present long-range policy in 1960, the Soviet President, then Brezhnev, later Podgorniy, has played an important role in the execution of that policy. As a member of the Politburo, Gromyko will provide Gorbachev with important advice on strategy. As President, he will use his exalted position to give guidance to Soviet agents of influence among heads of state in Europe and the Third World’.

August 1985: ‘There are no valid grounds for favourable illusions or for the euphoria in the West over the Gorbachev appointment and the coming ‘liberalisation’. In fact, these developments may present a major challenge and serious test for the United States’ leadership and for the West. The liberalization will not be spontaneous nor will it be genuine. It will be a calculated liberalization patterned along the lines of the Czechoslovak ‘democratisation’ which was rehearsed in 1968. It will be initiated from above and will be guided and controlled by the KGB and the Party apparatus. The ‘liberalisation’ will include the following elements:

(a) Economic reforms to decentralize the Soviet economy and to introduce profit incentives on the lines of those in Hungary and China. Since Gorbachev is a Soviet agricultural expert, one can expect a reorganization of the kolkhozy or collective farms into sovkhozy or state farms. In fact, Lavrentiy Beria was already planning the liquidation of the kolkhozy in 1953.
(b) Religious relaxation along the lines of Iosif Stalin’s relaxation during the Second World War. The recent sensational Soviet invitation to the Reverend Billy Graham to preach in Soviet churches indicates that the Soviet strategists have already introduced this element and have not waited for the formal installation of Gorbachev as Party leader.
(c) Permission for a group of Jewish émigrés to leave the USSR.
(d) Relaxation of travel restrictions to allow Soviet citizens to make visits abroad. This will be done to impress the West with the Soviet government’s compliance with the Helsinki agreements.
(e) Some relaxation for Soviet intellectuals and cultural defectors. Soviet writers and producers will be permitted to write books and produce plays on controversial subjects. Cultural defectors, musicians and dancers will be allowed to perform in the USSR and to travel abroad, thus getting the best of both worlds. One can expect that amnesty will be declared for the so-called dissidents.
(f) Some reduction in the military budget and the transfer of some military funds to improve the state economy’.

‘If presented and advertised by the innocent and uninitiated media as major radical change in the Communist system, the “liberalization” will allow the Communist leaders immediately to regain the political initiative and to revive the political and diplomatic détente which was so disastrous for the West and so beneficial to the Communists in the past. The charismatic personality of Gorbachev may play an important role in the over-reaction of the Western media’.

‘The Soviet “liberalization” is a major part of the strategy of the whole Communist Bloc, and particularly of Poland and East Germany, against the West. The main objective is to launch a political offensive against the United States and NATO and to develop a military détente in Europe by changing the political and military situation. This strategy is designed to accomplish the following:
(a) To bring about a “German Confederation” of East and West Germany and withdrawal from both the Warsaw Pact and NATO.
(b) To break up NATO and force a United States withdrawal from Europe’.

‘One can expect that, in order to accomplish their objectives, a similar “liberalisation” will be introduced in Poland and East Germany.

‘Presented and advertised as a new reality in Europe, the Soviet, Polish and East German “liberalization” will have a stunning and mesmerizing effect on both West Europeans and Americans. The resulting confusion will be exploited by the Soviet, Polish and East German leaders through their activist diplomacy especially towards West Germany. Czechoslovak, Hungarian and Romanian leaders may actively contribute to this strategy…’

‘The “liberalization” in the USSR, Poland and East Germany may set off a chain reaction in the West and inflict irreparable damage particularly on the NATO countries and the US military posture unless its true nature and role in Communist strategy are realized.’

‘The “liberalization” and its strategic manipulations, combined with overt and covert Communist operations, will also present problems for the leadership of the West. It will be aimed at confusing the Western leaders, splitting the West European allies from the United States and then splitting the people from their elected leaders. The leaders who are taken in by the “liberalization” can be expected to make erroneous and costly decisions, albeit unwittingly, in the interests of the Communists’.

Winter 1986: ‘The essence of the strategy is to introduce a calculated and controlled false democratization and to revive a discredited regime by giving it an attractive aspect and a “human face”. Its strategic objective is to generate support, good will and sympathy in the West and to exploit this sympathy in the West and to exploit this sympathy in order to shape new attitudes and new political realities which will favour Soviet interests. Another objective is to undercut and isolate traditional political parties and their leaders, particularly the conservatives and the realists in the West. A further objective is to shape new attitudes towards the Strategic Defence Initiative, the budget and the US military and to disarm the United States, basing these new attitudes on the premise that “the new regime which has emerged in the USSR is liberal and no longer poses any threat to the United States”. Given the surprise aspect of the Soviet Strategy, it may succeed. The possible implications of a failure to understand the essence of this strategy would be damaging to both the United States and Western Europe. The Americans, the West Europeans, their leaders and their military strategists would be influenced and misled by these developments all to the detriment of the national interests of the democracies. The probable impact on the West of such a Soviet revival would be equal to or greater than that of the October Revolution’.

‘The impact would in fact be greater and deeper because it would not be alarming but disarming for the West. The revival would become a significant influence in the political life of the United States and Western Europe. The revival might have a disproportionate influence on the attitudes of the democracies towards their military strategy, the NATO alliance and the Strategic Defence Initiative, all to the detriment of their national interests. It might eventually lead to the realization of the final goal of Soviet strategy, namely the convergence of the capitalist West with the Communist East on Soviet terms and the creation of a World Government as a solution to the arms race and nuclear confrontation’.

March 1987: ‘The USSR, China, Poland and probably East Germany are now in a position to launch a political and diplomatic offensive against the West to shatter its structure and its foundation…The next strategic moves will include: (a) Mass Jewish emigration intended to swing Western public opinion towards an acceptance of “democratization” as genuine; (b) The revival of “liberalization” in Poland and the introduction of economic reforms there; (c) New initiatives around the time of the Pope’s visit to the USSR; (d) An initiative leading towards German federation’.

CORRECT PREDICTIONS BASED ON THE NEW METHOD OF ANALYSIS

March 1989 ‘The great majority of the predictions both in New Lies For Old and in my subsequent Memoranda to the CIA have proved accurate both in substance and in detail. The question arises: why were these predictions correct and why did Western experts fail to predict these developments? The answer lies in the different methods of analysis. The new method takes into account the adoption by the leaders of the Communist Bloc in the period 1958 to 1960 of a long-range strategy of which ‘perestroika’ is the logical culmination.’

‘The new method incorporates the following elements:

(a) The Author’s inside information on the adoption of the strategy, the essence of which was the revitalization of Communism through the economic and political reform of the earlier repressive Stalinist system.
(b) The Author’s inside information on Shelepin’s 1959 report allotting the KGB a crucial role in the new strategy, in particular the task of creating a controlled political opposition which would give the Soviet and other Communist regimes a more liberal image.
(c) The Author’s inside information that the Party and the KGB launched a programme of strategic disinformation to support their strategy.
(d) The Author’s twenty-eight years of experience in interpreting developments in the Communist world in the light of this knowledge.
(e) Study of the official documents of the 1958-60 period in which the long-range policy was openly expressed and approved.’

‘In addition to predictions on forthcoming ‘liberalisation’ in the Soviet Union, New Lies for Old contained a critique of Western methods of analysis and an account of the new method. It is worth mentioning that the late Sir John Rennie, at that time head of the British Secret Service, read the whole of the chapter on this subject in New York in 1968 and expressed the opinion that it should be published. He offered to help in arranging this through his friendship with Mr. Armstrong, then editor of Foreign Affairs. The Author acknowledges that he mistakenly declined this offer. When New Lies for Old was published in 1984, its message did not attract the attention of the American media and public.’

‘Only the late Mr. James Angleton and his colleagues in the ‘Intelligence and Security Foundation’ realized the importance of the book as the basis for understanding ‘perestroika’ and devoted three special reports to a review of the main ideas in the book on long-range strategy. In subsequent Memoranda to the CIA, the Author emphasized that ‘perestroika’ is not Gorbachev’s invention but the logical culmination of the long-range strategy of 1958-1960’ (these dates fly in complete contradiction to the notion promoted by Soviet agents of influence and the naïve Western media that glasnost and perestroika were desperate last-ditch efforts initiated by the Soviet elites to save themselves from collapse—TTS).

‘The new method applies ‘creative Leninist thinking’ to the analysis of Soviet strategy. Leninist thinking, freed from Stalinist dogma and stereotypes, continues to be a principal source of inspiration in the Soviet strategic approach to national and international problems. The new method augments Leninist thinking by taking three factors into account in its analysis: Vladimir Lenin’s introduction of a limited form of capitalism into the Soviet system in the 1920s in order to strengthen the drive for world Communist revolution; Felix Dzerzhinskiy’s creation of GPU-controlled ‘political opposition’ in the USSR in the same period and its introduction to Western intelligence services and general staffs for strategic political deception purposes; and the thirty years of Soviet experience in applying the strategy culminating in ‘perestroika’.

THE ADOPTION OF THE LONG-RANGE STRATEGY OF ‘PERESTROIKA’

‘It was not in 1985 but in 1958 that the Communist leaders recognized, after the Hungarian and Polish revolts, that the Stalinist practice of mass repression had severely damaged the system and that radical measures were necessary to restore it. It was then that they decided to transform the Stalinist system into a more attractive form of ‘Communist democracy’.

‘It was not in 1985 but in 1958 that the Communist leaders accepted that their economic system was ineffective and lagging behind the West in productivity. It was then that they decided that it would have to be revived through the introduction of market incentives.’
‘It was then that the Communist leaders realized that Communism could not be spread abroad against a background of fear and mass repression and that world Communist victory could only be achieved by transforming the Soviet and other Communist regimes into a form more attractive to the West.’

‘It was during 1958-1960 that the Communist leaders envisaged the convergence of restructured and transformed capitalist systems leading ultimately to one system of World Government. Taking account of the military strength of NATO, the Communist leaders decided to build up their military strength as a guarantee of the success of their programme of domestic ‘reform’ and as a pressure weapon for disarmament negotiations with the West and the execution of their strategy of convergence.’

‘Accepting the necessity for stability in the political leadership of the USSR for the execution of the long-range strategy, the Soviet leaders rejected Stalin’s practice of eliminating his rivals and reverted to Lenin’s style of leadership. They solved the problem through the selection by the Central Committee of Nikita Khrushchev’s successor in advance of Khrushchev’s own retirement. Leonid Brezhnev had already been chosen in this way in July 1960 when he was made President and was given a special briefing by the Chairman of the KGB in preparation for the new responsibilities he would be assuming when Khrushchev stepped down.’

‘A common commitment to the long-range strategy itself became a factor in the prevention of further power struggles. Western experts failed to understand this because Khrushchev’s retirement was deliberately misrepresented by the Soviet leaders to the West as his dismissal.’

‘In this and in other ways, the origin of the long-range deception strategy of ‘perestroika’ was successfully concealed.’

(I am skipping Golitsyn’s rather lengthy review of Soviet research and preparation for the new long-range strategy, or perestroika. Instead, I pick up where Golitsyn talks about experiments and rehearsals for perestroika).

EXPERIMENTS AND REHEARSALS FOR ‘PERESTROIKA’ (same 1989 memo)

‘Since 1959 the Communist bloc Parties and governments have been involved in practical experiments and rehearsals for separate elements of ‘perestroika’ in different countries in preparation for its introduction overall.’

‘The most important of these experiments and rehearsals were:

· An attempt at ‘liberalisation’ in the early 1960s under Khurshchev.
· Publication of an article about market economics by Professor Yevsei Liberman and experiments with firms and ‘trusts’ in 1962 (along the same lines as Lenin’s NEP experiments in the 1920s—TTS).
· Alexei Kosygin’s economic reforms in 1965.
· Alleged ‘Romanian independence’ from the early 1960s onwards.
· The ‘Cultural Revolution’ in China—in fact a campaign of ideological and political re-education and a preparation of the inexperienced and inept Chinese Party bureaucracy for détente with the capitalist West.
· ‘Democratisation’ in Czechoslovakia in 1968.
· Legalisation by the Polish Communist Party of Solidarity in 1980.
· The introduction of capitalist incentives in China and Hungary during the 1070s and the 1980s.’

‘The Soviet strategists studied the performance, outcome, lessons and mistakes of these experiments and rehearsals. No doubt, they drew proper, practical conclusions from the excesses of the ‘Cultural Revolution’ in China and the loss of control over the experiments with ‘democratisation’ in Czechoslovakia and Solidarity in Poland. They probably also drew conclusions from the painful experiences of Yugoslavia. The experience gained was of enormous benefit for influencing the introduction of ‘perestroika’ in all its elements in their totality in the USSR.’

‘The development and execution of the strategy over a thirty-years period has strengthened Soviet power militarily, politically and, with Western help, economically. The Author strongly disagrees with Brzezinki’s assessment that the USSR is collapsing. The execution of the strategy has broadened the political base of the Communist Party in the Russian and other national Republics.’

‘Careful preparation has created the conditions for overall ‘perestroika’ and the transition of the regime in the most powerful and experienced of the socialist countries to a phase of ‘Communist democracy’.

‘Naturally, the Soviet leaders seek to avoid alerting the West to what is happening by describing the process in these terms.’

‘From the time the strategy was adopted, the Party leadership made it clear to its technocrats, bureaucrats, military and intellectuals that the requirements of the strategy are paramount for their activities and the assessment of their performance. Because of these demands and Party discipline, there can be no genuine opposition among conservatives in the Party, the military or the technocracy.’

‘Bold experiments and successful execution of the strategy in the USSR, Eastern Europe and Communist China have given Party leaders, KGB officials, generals, technocrats and leading intellectuals a political maturity and sophistication which they have revealed in ‘perestroika’.

‘Because of their longer historical experience, their greater political, economic and military potential and their thorough preparation, the Communist strategists and the ruling elite are confident that they can guide and lead their people without the loss of control which occurred in Czechoslovakia in 1968 and in Poland (1981). However, in the event of control nonetheless being endangered in given contexts, the situation will be retrieved in the usual manner—by means of military repression.’

‘PERESTROIKA’, THE FINAL PHASE: ITS MAIN OBJECTIVES

‘The new method sees ‘perestroika’, not as a surprising and spontaneous change, but as the logical result of thirty years of preparation and as the next and final phase of the strategy: it sees it in a broader context than Soviet ‘openness’ has revealed.’

‘It sees it, not only as a renewal of Soviet society, but as a global strategic design for ‘restructuring’ the entire capitalist world.’

‘The following strategic objectives of ‘perestroika’ may be distinguished:

For the USSR
(a) ‘Restructuring’ and revitalization of the Soviet socialist economy through the incorporation of some elements of the market economy.
(b) ‘Restructuring’ of the Stalinist regime into a form of ‘Communist democracy’ with an appearance of political pluralism [= ‘democratism’, or false democracy].
(c) ‘Reconsructing’ a repressive regime with a brutal face into an attractive socialist model with a human façade and seeming similarity to the Swedish social democratic system.’

For Eastern Europe

‘Economic and political ‘restructuring’ of the existing regimes into pseudo-social democratic models while preserving specific national historical features such as the strong Catholic Socialist tradition in Poland and the pre-war democratic tradition in Czechoslovakia.’

For Western Europe

(a) ‘Bringing about a new political alliance between the pseudo-social democratic regimes in the USSR and Eastern Europe and the Euro-Communist parties and genuine social democratic parties in Western Europe.
(b) ‘Restructuring’ political and military blocs—NATO and the Warsaw Pact—and the creation of a singe ‘Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals’ incorporating a reunited, neutral Germany.’

For the main US alliances

(a) ‘Splitting the United States, Western Europe and Japan.
(b) Dissolution of NATO and the US-Japan security pact, and the withdrawal of US troops from Western Europe and Japan.’

For Third World countries

‘The introduction and promotion of a new Soviet model with a mixed economy and a human face in Latin America, Africa and Asia through a joint campaign by the pseudo-social democratic regimes of the USSR and Eastern Europe and the genuine social democrats of Western Europe led by the Socialist International.’

For the United States

(a) ‘To neutralize the influence of the anti-Communist political right in the American political parties and to create favourable conditions for a victory of the radical left in the 1992 US presidential elections (In this context, Clinton’s stay with top Communists in Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union during the latter part of the Vietnam war has profound and disturbing implications—TTS).
(b) To ‘restructure’ the American military, political, economic and social status quo to accommodate greater convergence between the Soviet and American systems and the eventual creation of a single World Government.’

The paramount global objective

‘The paramount global objective of the strategy of ‘perestroika’ is to weaken and neutralize anti-Communist ideology and the influence of anti-Communists in political life in the United States, Western Europe and elsewhere—presenting them as anachronistic survivors of the Cold War, reactionaries and obstacles to ‘restructuring’ and peace. Anyone who warns about Moscow’s true objectives is automatically branded a ‘Cold Warrior’, even by people who have doubts about Moscow’s motives.’

THE ESSENCE OF ‘PERESTROIKA’: AN APPLICATION OF 1920s’ LENINISM

‘The new method penetrates the façade, tears the verbal mask off ‘perestroika’ and reveals its true meaning—which Gorbachev and ‘glasnost’ have failed to do. Lenin’s teaching and the experience of the New Economic Policy [NEP] are keys to understanding the essence of ‘persestroika’ and the reasons for Gorbachev’s downgrading and renunciation of elements of ideological orthodoxy like the class struggle and his emphasis on common interests and the benefits of close cooperation.’

‘Lenin advised the Communists that they must be prepared to ‘resort to all sorts of stratagems, manoeuvres, illegal methods, evasions and subterfuge’ to achieve their objectives. This advice was given on the eve of his reintroduction of limited capitalism in Russia in his work ‘Left Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder’.

‘The new method sees ‘perestroika’ as an application of Lenin’s advice in new conditions. Another speech of Lenin’s in the NEP period at the Comintern Congress in July 1921 is again highly relevant to understanding ‘perestroika’. ‘Our only strategy at present’, wrote Lenin, ‘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.’

THE WORLDWIDE COMMUNIST FEDERATION (should they succeed…taken from Golitsyn’s book New Lies For Old, 1984)

‘Integration of the Communist Bloc would follow the lines envisaged by Lenin when the Third Communist International was founded. That is to say, the Soviet Union and China would not absorb one another or other Communist states. All the countries of the European and Asiatic Communist zones, together with new Communist states in Europe and the Third World, would join a supranational economic and political Communist federation (this is precisely what the Soviets have in mind for the impending EU collective—TTS). Soviet-Albanian, Soviet-Yugoslav, and Soviet-Romanian disputes and ‘differences’ would be resolved in the wake, or possibly in advance of, Sino-Soviet reconciliation (Golitsyn goes to great lengths in previous chapters to show how the split between the Soviets and the Chinese was completely healed immediately after Stalin’s death…however, they continued the illusion of a split to dupe the West into backing alternating sides, depending on circumstances—TTS). The political, economic, military, diplomatic, and ideological cooperation between all the Communist states, at present partially concealed, would become clearly visible. There might even be public acknowledgment 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’ (the Soviets have employed this tactic on numerous occasions—TTS).

‘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. Concessions 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 oppositions 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.’

It seems every post by TapTheSource is filled with hatred for Russia. It appears his agenda is to direct venom at Russia to deflect from the evil committed by the Islamofacists. The follwing chart was created by JB6 to counter some of his lies he posts under various names.

TapTheSource/FearGodNotMen/GIJoel Propaganda

Propaganda	Truth
Putin is a communist	Putin has implemented a flat tax of 13%, got rid of the Sales tax, set the corporate tax at 24%, cut the VAT in half, cut 1/3rd off the payroll tax. He has cut back on government size (shrinking government). He has put up 20% of Russian land for sale, the government is in the process of divesting of the remainder of its shares in various companies. There has been judicial reform to a sitting jury from a triumvirate of judges. There has also been a total reform of the banking center, in order to make it transparent.
Russia and China are allied to destroy the US	Russia has recently passed up China for an oil export route and choose instead Japan. China had to turn to Iran. Russia is rearming in Siberia, while she arms India with over 400 new tanks, a wing of new aircraft, two nuclear submarines and an aircraft carrier to intercept Chinese shipping. Russia has armed S.Korea with T-90s, armed Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam and Kazakhstan. Russia has attempted (by itself and through the US) to arm Taiwan also. The majority of weapons sold to China are aimed at the US navy, to which China will not be able to catch up for at least another generation.
Russia trains with China to destroy the US/West	This year alone, Russia has had joint maneuvers with Japan & S.Korea and then again with the US and UK off the Chinese Coast.
There is a Putin pandering mafia after me.	There is a dedicated group of Freepers who are out to expose this propagandist's lies and distortions, for which he has already been banned twice.
If you are against me you must be a (take your choice) A. communist, B. Putin lover, C. Russian Orthodox, D. Russian, E. Delusional, F. All of the Above	G. None of the Above. You must be a lover of truth and a hater of yellow journalism, empty conspiracy theories and plain propaganda.
The FSB/Russians are behind all the terrorism, including the theater and Beslan.	Only someone blind or shilling for Islam would on a continuous basis shift blame away from the terrorists and onto the victims.
Russia is giving Iran nukes.	Wrong. Russia is providing a civilian nuclear reactor with a contract to return spent rods. Do most of us agree with this? No, we are against this. Is this nuclear weapons technology? No. Our allie Pakistan with the assistance of our Most Valued Trading partner China are giving Iran missile and bomb technology.
Russia, and Putin in particular, hate Israel and wish to destroy it.	Wrong. Russia is Israel's second closest allie and trading partner and provides Israel with most of its oil and sells it weapons technology.
Putin is an Atheist, a hater of Christ.	Putin was baptized as a child, a regular church goer and has proven his faith on numerous occasions.
Russia supports Islamic terrorism.	Wrong. The Soviet Union supported socialist Arab revolutionaries/terrorists like the Palestinian People's Liberation Front. Modern day Russia does not support these groups. Our allie Saudi Arabia is the number one backer of all major Islamic groups.
Putin is a dictator	Putin was popularly elected with over 70% of the vote, a mandate. He functions within a constitution. True Parliament is dominated by pro-Putin right wing parties, also elected freely. The various right parties received over 83% of the vote.
Putin hates Bush.	Putin has been Bush's loudest cheerleader, louder and in front of Sharon, Blair or Berlusconi
Putin is moving to grab power through selecting governors.	The governors still have to pass the local Oblast's Parliament's review (that's province). Further, England, Italy and France all have the same systems.
Robert W. Lee another TapTheSource writers are credible.	Hardly, most like Mr. Lee, belong to the John Birch society, an organization steeped in conspiracy theories.
Yeltsin's declaration of open borders is a hollow one for Soviet citizens, who still cannot leave their country. Even travel outside the Soviet Union is heavily restricted, regardless of the Soviet republic	Typical propaganda leveled by TapTheSource or his articles. Anyone without a criminal warrant can leave at will, so long as the receiving nation will issue a Visa.
The Secret Soviets are still in charge and everything is part of their plan.	Lets take this lunacy to its full extent: The Soviets in their diabolic mysterious master plan allowed the Warsaw pact to collapse, the countries to open up and half of them to join NATO (I guess to corrupt NATO from within, regardless that it is those new NATO members that support America now and most of old NATO that is against America, lets ignore that fact). They allowed the Soviet Union itself to fall apart, some of which is also now part of NATO. They allowed the military to degrade, trade secrets to be sold or stolen, Chinese immigrants to come in mass into southern Siberia. Most of their bases to shut down. The economy to dive and only grow again under Capitalism freer then America's. They further allowed the young to not even know who Lenin was, for Islamics (who are all pawns of the Soviets, you see) to attack Russia on a daily basis. All this so that once America was the only apparent supper power, had its military in 120+ nations they could do what? Spring their surprise offensive? Materialize the great invasion army from outer space or outer Mongolia? Or marry enough American men to convert them (think body snatchers) into 5th Columnists and take over the US from inside? (of course that more people then ever voted Republican is also part of their master and evil plan). As a matter of fact, everything that happens that makes this theory look ludicrous for the past 15 years, well that's just part of the brilliance of their master plan. Oh and did we mention that they were obviously able to make Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr. into a bunch of idiots who could not see into their plan. So either this is all BS, or every American expert in the government and politician is an idiot and we as a nation are a bunch of idiots (except for the members of the John Birth Society, the only masters of the illuminate able to see this grand Jewish .. erg .. Russian conspiracy.
Russia is a dirt poor country.	Russia ranks, according to the CIA World FactBook GDP: purchasing power parity - $1.282 trillion (2003 est.), which places it just behind (now ahead) of Italy, the world's 7th largest economy. Explaining Purchasing Power Parity
Anna Politkovskaya is a reputable Russian journalist who is fighting Putin's facism.	Hardly. Anna Politkovskaya is an opportunist and a leftist. Having become a "political" refugee in the early 1990s, she now has FRENCH citizenship, writes for the socialist La Monde and the socialist Novaye Gazeta. She has staged several of her own "assassination" attempts to better her street credits while meeting constantly with Chechin and Al Quida terrorists and writing gushing love stories of them. Further, anyone who thinks that just because she hates Putin she is pro Bush, you couldn't be more wrong. She is in league with the devil incarnate, Soros, and hates Bush as much. A leftist is a leftist, but judge for yourself and read her views of Bush and the CONSERVATIVES of AMERICA. COWBOY FRIENDS (Praise for Moore)
Russia is a nation that only relies on oil.	A total lie, mostly spread by Wahhabi islamic Saudi Arabia and various NeoCons who favor US investment to Facist (and pro-Islamic) China. Read here about the state of the Russian economy that is now returning as a major industrial and IT power. Russia competes directly with India on IT and has had manufacturing climbing at an incredible rate. Financ e Ministry to work on debt payment schedule Budget surplus higher than planned Person al incomes rise in Russia Most state enterprises to be privatized by 2007 Genera l Electric plans to invest $200m in Russia Person al incomes up in September Data on industrial production posted Russia 's foreign trade reported Gov 't considering airfield privatizations Russia posts increase in industrial production Russia 's foreign debt reaches six year low Russia 's debt to drop to 23% of GDP Russia leads in GDP growth Export s to play more important role in Russian economy
Ion Mihai Pacepa is a credible source.	Ion Mihai Pacepa was a 2-Star General in the Romanian KGB. The man made a career of upholding the second worst dictatorship Cecescu, in the Warsaw Pact, second only to Stalin's SU. He spent some 30 years building this murderer's power base. Obviously Pacepa was smart enough to read the writing on the way and see the end coming. He "defected" and now makes money writing books and articles. He never stood trial for his evil crimes, after the Romanian Revolution, even as his former master was executed.
The dramatic rise of oil prices, in April-September 2002, gave Kremlin new chances for survival.	Only if one ignores the 6-7% growth rates of 200 & 2001 and the tripling of revenues from the 13% flat tax in 2001.
Russia greatly expanded military supplies to China; in January-August 2002, the two countries concluded weapons supply contracts	Moscow is in the business of selling weapons, second largest after America. Thus, when China, rich with American cash from the giant trade deficit, ordered weapons from Russia, Israel and France. Russia did not give away "supplies" but sold weapons systems. They also sold weapons systems to India, Indonesia, South Korea, Kazakhstan, Greece, Cyprus, Malaysia, Thailand and a host of other nations.
During August and the first half of September, Russia\x{2019}s Defense Ministry and Foreign Ministry made a series of tough anti-Georgian statements, using as a pretext "the presence of Chechen terrorists in the Pankisi Gorge" (a small valley in Georgia bordering Russia). In the beginning of September, Russian bombers made a strike in Georgian territory.	The Pankisi Gorge is an area about half the size of W.Virgina, covered in some of the highest mountains and some of the deepest valleys of the world. Mostly unpopulated and forested, it is used as a training base for Islamics. Recently those none existent islamics perpetrated Beslan and Baseyov himself stated or boasted that he is allied to President Sakaashvili, president of Georgia and a Soros puppet. The strikes were made at early dawn by SU-25s, an impossability for Russia, since to reach it, it's closest SU-25s would have to have taken off and flow at night. Being a second rate SU, after the SU-33s, it is a day light capable only fighter/bomber. Georgia, on the other hand, has built several SU-25s with Israeli assistance that have state of the art night capabilities. Furthermore, no hard proof of the bombing was ever presented by the Georgian government, only recycled photos from 5 years prior.
And on Sept. 11, Putin himself threatened Georgia with a heavy military strike if the Georgian government didn\x{2019}t meet Russia\x{2019}s demands. Again, Washington protested, again with no results.	This was in response to a demand that Georgia stop granting visas, protection and support to Chechins, Arabs and other Islamics in the Pankisi Gorge and was limited to Russia stepping into that territory itself. This, after Georgia's only and now formally independent TV Station reported the presence of the terrorists, embarressing then President Shevernadze.

This is an ever growing list to bring the truth forward and fight the lies of these propagandists and Allah cheerleaders.

==it appears his agenda is to direct venom at Russia to deflect from the evil committed by the Islamofacists

Russia pretty much runs the Islamo-terrist network...

Inside Story: World Report
August, 1994

Terrorists in Muslim Disguise
Copyright (c) 1994 by Inside Story Communications

Now that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) is beginning to defeat Israel, it is pulling out one of its most powerful terrorist weapons to finish the surrender process. That weapon is commonly known as "Islamic fundamentalism."

On Monday, July 18, a powerful car bomb exploded in downtown Buenos Aires, Argentina. The target, a seven-story Jewish community center, was completely destroyed, leaving nearly 100 dead and another 100 wounded.1

Eight days later, another car bomb was detonated-this time at the Israeli embassy in London, England. The embassy and other adjoining buildings suffered damage, and 14 people were injured.2

Authorities in Israel and elsewhere immediately blamed Muslim "extremists" for the terrorist attacks, and specifically named the group Hezballah (meaning "Party of God"). For the PLO, this was a convenient dodge allowing it to disclaim responsibility.

But more importantly, the PLO is now using these attacks as an excuse to accelerate the surrender of Israel. The logic is chillingly simple: according to news accounts of the second bombing, British authorities "presumed it to be an attempt to disrupt the peace process," and "Prime Minister Ytzhak Rabin of Israel... said Islamic extremists were seeking to disrupt the Arab-Israeli reconciliation process."3 Thus peace on any terms must be made quickly with the PLO, lest the "extremists" succeed in stopping the "peace process." The PLO provides the carrot, while "Muslim fundamentalists" provide the stick.

A myth has been engineered in the last several years regarding "Islamic fundamentalism." Ac-cording to this idea, the PLO and its main factions have become moderate, willing to recognize Israel and negotiate a compromise solution. However, radical Muslims, including Hezballah, Islamic Jihad, the Amal Militia, and Hamas, are said to oppose such compromises violently. Every time these extremists carry out another terrorist attack, Israel is pressured to make more concessions to the PLO.

In reality, this is a classic example of dialectical strategy at work. Writing in Commentary magazine, Jerusalem Post editor David Bar-Illan exposed the clever strategy: "[Israeli] government spokesmen prefer to pretend that the killers are not operatives of the 'moderate' Arafat, supporter of the peace talks, but 'enemies of the peace process,' such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and PLO radicals... The not unreasonable assumption behind this charade is that the public might resent continued talks with proxies of the 'mainstream' PLO in Washington while its gunmen are killing Israelis back home."4

Just as the PLO does not represent palestinian or Arab interests, the "Islamic fundamentalists" are not religious in nature. Rather, all these organizations have been created, supported, and directed by the Communists, operating on orders emanating from Moscow.

The terrorist group Hezballah, and its official sponsor, the government of Iran, provide a case in point.

Because of media distortion, the Ayatollah Khomeini was seen in the West as a fanatic religious leader. But the Iraqi family of the Grand Ayatollah Muhsen Hakim-Tabataba'i, which in the 1960s and 1970s exercised leadership over the Shi'ite movement of Islam, opposed Khomeini so thoroughly that they worked closely with the Shah of Iran. Saddam Hussein, the Soviet-backed dictator of Iraq, murdered the family at his first opportunity, thereby eliminating Shi'ite opposition to Khomeini.5

Khomeini's revolutionary movement was known as "Islamic Marxism," a movement begun from within the Russian Bolshevik Party in 1916.6 During the 1970s, the Soviet Union mobilized its resources to organize a revolution in Iran, with Khomeini as its official leader. Khomeini's brother was serving time in prison as a member of the Tudeh Party-the Communist Party of Iran; Khomeini's intimate advisor, Sadegh Ghothzadeh, was an affiliate of the French and Italian Communist Parties. Soon the Soviets were broadcasting pro-Khomeini propaganda into Iran, while they began publishing a well-funded revolutionary magazine entitled Navid, meaning "Good News." KGB agents working among the 4,000 Soviet personnel in Iran coordinated the protests and riots, and the Tudeh Party, acting on Soviet orders, openly backed the "Islamic" revolution and created a broad coalition of the Left to support Khomeini.7

Moscow also mobilized the PLO to back Khomeini. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, led by self-proclaimed Marxist Leninist George Habash, supplied training and weapons to the Feda'iyin-e Khalq, the Iranian Islamic-Marxist terrorist group that began the revolution to overthrow the Shah. Meanwhile, Yasser Arafat's Fatah organization trained and armed the Mujahedin-e Khalq, another main pillar of Khomeini's revolution, and it trained future members of the Revolutionary Guards of Iran, including the Minister of the Guards later appointed by Khomeini.8

Once Khomeini seized power in Iran, Arafat brought a large delegation of PLO officials into the country, where "he was formally given the Israeli consulate building and, raising the Palestinian flag over it, opened the first PLO office, also appointing a PLO 'ambassador' to Iran."9 The Soviet Union and Communist China have since continued to arm Iran with weapons.

Khomeini immediately created Hezballah as an international terrorist wing of the PLO-trained Revolutionary Guards. Inside Iran, Hezballah worked closely with Iranian Communist organizations in consolidating the regime's power. The terrorist training camps in Iran have been supervised by Mostafa Chamran Savehi, a follower of Trotskyite Communism who, as a student in Berkeley, California during the 1960s, founded such Islamic-Marxist groups as Red Shi'ism and the Muslim Students' Association of America. The instructors at the Iranian terrorist camps have been Communist experts from North Korea and Syria, as well as Iranians trained by the PLO and the Communist government of Iraq.10

The organizer of Hezballah in Pakistan and Lebanon, Abbas Zamani, was also trained by the PLO and has been identified as a probable agent of the KGB.11 In Lebanon, Hezballah's terrorist mastermind has been Immad Mugniyeh. For years Mugniyeh was a leading member of Yasser Arafat's Force 17, an arm of Fatah. When the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 forced the PLO to leave, Arafat had Mugniyeh and other members of Force 17 switch over to Hezballah, allowing these terrorists to remain in Lebanon. Mugniyeh quickly became the effective head of Hezballah, and has coordinated Hezballah-PLO terrorism to this day. On Arafat's orders, the PLO transfers weapons, money, and terrorist units to Hezballah, while Hezballah has provided intelligence and other logistical support to the PLO-including helping PLO units infiltrate into Lebanon.12

In short, the "Islamic fundamentlists" are not religious at all, but are Communist fronts adopting a Muslim mask.

The "schism" between the PLO and "Islamic fundamentalists" has been staged as a clever ploy to force Israel into surrender. Now that Israel is indeed yielding to its implacable Communist enemies, it is only natural that terrorist attacks on Israeli and Jewish targets are being accelerated worldwide. By blaming the attacks on "extremists" who allegedly oppose the "peace process," the PLO can disavow the terror acts in which it participates, and can maintain an image of moderation for the West. In the face of this intensified pressure, Israel is likely to make concessions even faster that before. Watch for Prime Minister Ytzhak Rabin to begin placing the remainder of the strategic West Bank, and even Jerusalem itself, on the bargaining table.

On the other hand, the financing and political pressure for the PLO takeover is coming almost entirely from the United States [as discussed more thoroughly in our audiotape, "We Are the Next Target"-Eds.], and President Clinton is now accelerating the process. If Congress chose to stop the President, Israel could take back the West Bank and Gaza, and could soon destroy the PLO and its allies.n

REFERENCES

1 Parks, M., Los Angeles Times, "Rabin links Hezbollah to Argentine blast," SF Chronicle, 7-20-94, p. A10.

2 "Israeli embassry in London bombed," SF Chronicle, 7-27-94, pp. A1, A13.

3 Ibid.

4 Bar-Illan, D., "Israel's New Pollyannas," Commentary, Sept. 1993, p. 30.

5 Taheri, A., Holy Terror, Adler & Adler, Bethesda, MD, 1987, p. 163.

6 Ibid., p. 217.

7 Rees, J., "How Jimmy Carter betrayed the Shah," The Review of the News, 2-21-79, pp. 31-48.

8 Alexander, Y. and Sinai, J., Terrorism: The PLO Connection, Crane Russak, New York, 1989, pp. 72-73.

9 Ibid., p. 73.

10 Taheri, Op cit., pp. 77-79, 88-105.

11 Ibid., p. 177; Laffin, J., Holy War: Islam Fights, Grafton Books, London, 1988, p. 79.

12 Livingstone, N.C. and Halevy, D., Inside the PLO, William Morrow & Co., New York, 1990, pp. 267-275.

Inside Story: World Report
July, 1994

The SHADOW Behind
the Middle East Peace Conference
Copyright (c) 1994 by Inside Story Communications

Since at least 1931, international Communism has sought to conquer the Middle East through the "pan-Arab" movement.1 According to plans, individual Arab nations would be "liberated" from colonial rule, then fused into a united Arab regional government-a precursor to world government. Strategically, the Middle East contains such vital assets as the Suez Canal and oil reserves, and provides access to the Mediterranean Sea as well as to three continents.

Naturally, the formation of the state of Israel in 1948 began interfering with Communist plans. Thus the Communists quickly set about to destroy that Jewish nation. The pro-Soviet Nasser regime of Egypt created the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964, and placed in its leadership such recruits as Yasser Arafat, a veteran of the Com-munist revolution in Algeria.2 The PLO's mission: sponsor revolutions to overthrow the non-Communist governments of Israel, Iran, Turkey, and the Arab nations.

But after five wars and three decades of revolution, the Communists could see by 1989 that the frontal approach would not soon topple Jerusalem. At that point, the Soviet Bloc switched to a new strategy of deception. By faking the death of Communism, Moscow has finally opened the door to its victory. And behind its newly-accelerating drive to eliminate Israel stands its architect, the latest head of the Soviet secret police.

His name is Yevgeniy Primakov.

The shadow is cast...

By the end of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the Soviets could see that Israel would never be defeated through direct conflict. Despite early successes while invading Israel's buffer zones in the Sinai and the Golan Heights, Syrian and Egyptian forces soon found themselves in full retreat. Realizing that Israel would first have to yield its occupied territories before it would become militarily vulnerable, the Soviets chose a new tactic known as the "Phased Plan."

The PLO officially adopted this plan in June, 1974.3 Phase 1 would involve pressuring Israel to withdraw from its territories, upon which the PLO would establish a People's Republic of Palestine. In Phase 2, the heavily-armed Communist state would serve as the launching point for a Soviet-backed invasion of Israel.

How could Israel be induced to surrender strategic land-to the PLO, no less? The Communists decided to call for a "peace conference" between Israel, the Arab states, and the PLO. The catch, moreover, was that the Soviet Union would co-sponsor the talks. Such an international conference would pit Israel against all other participants, heightening pressure for concessions.

Soviet official Andrei Gromyko started the process in 1973, offering to open diplomatic relations with Israel in return for a peace conference. The Israelis first refused, but the damage inflicted by the Yom Kippur War changed their minds. In late 1973, Israel agreed to international talks in Geneva, Switzerland. The Soviets co-sponsored the meeting, though still refusing to recognize Israel diplomatically. Only the PLO was not officially allowed to participate.

Henry Kissinger played the key role in furthering Soviet aims. Israeli journalist Matti Golan reported that, during the first few days of the Yom Kippur War, while the Communist governments of Yugoslavia, Algeria, Libya, Iraq, and the Soviet Union were resupplying Egypt and Syria,4 Kissinger had delayed the emergency shipment of U.S. arms to Israel. Then, once Israel had regained its military balance and scored decisive victories, he went behind the Israelis' backs and negotiated a ceasefire directly with the Soviets. Nor was this difficult for him; as Soviet ambassador Anatoliy Dobrynin later revealed, the Soviets had quietly appointed Kissinger as their representative at the same time that he was representing the United States.5 Kissinger then pressured Israel into accepting the ceasefire, which returned portions of the Sinai peninsula to Egypt.

By 1977 the Soviets were trying to restart the Geneva talks, this time in an expanded format. Yevgeniy Primakov appeared on the scene, albeit secretly, to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. Primakov again dangled the promise of Soviet diplomatic relations, this time in exchange for Israel allowing the PLO into the Geneva talks. Begin refused.6

Later that year, the Soviet timetable was temporarily thrown off by the Camp David peace accords between Egypt and Israel, which were negotiated directly between the two parties. Never-theless, the Soviets moved patiently forward, gradually preparing the noose with which to hang Israel.

Primakov was ascending the ranks of Soviet power, gradually taking control of Middle East policy. By 1983, he had become Vice President of the World Peace Council (WPC), an internationally active front for the Soviet KGB founded in 1950.7 Its president was Romesh Chandra, a Central Committee member of the Communist Party of India. But the real power resided in the hands of the Soviet KGB officer at Chandra's side. The WPC not only organized the disarmament movement in the West, but also served as a center for Soviet coordination of terrorist groups around the world, including the PLO.8 At that same time, Primakov held the post of Deputy Chairman of the Soviet Peace Committee,9 which worked out of the same Moscow office as the Soviet Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee. These groups have operated as conduits through which the KGB sends weapons and other logistical support to the PLO.10

Primakov was busy implementing Soviet policy toward Israel. In September, 1982, the Soviet Union made the first official call for an international Middle East peace conference, to negotiate for a PLO state in the Israeli territories.11 Soviet influence at the United Nations led that organization, unsurprisingly, to endorse the call in 1983. Echoing the Soviets, the U.N. called for "the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people, to participate... in all efforts, deliberations and conferences on the Middle East" for "the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in Palestine."12 Under Primakov's growing power, Communist parties throughout the world soon joined in the chorus.

...and lengthens...

By the time Mikhail Gorbachev was taking over in 1985, the Soviet government was openly boasting that a Middle East peace conference would be one step on the road to "the ultimate triumph of communism everywhere."13 Primakov was quickly moving into the center of Soviet power, close to Gorbachev himself. Working with the Central Committee's International Department, Primakov led an elite group of Communist strategists in redesigning and accelerating the Soviet drive to destroy Israel. Gorbachev did not even participate in its design, according to foreign minister Eduard Shevardnadze.14

To put his newly-formulated theory into practice, Primakov assumed the role of "special envoy" for Gorbachev during the Persian Gulf crisis in late 1990. He used that position to travel the Middle East, drumming up support for a peace conference to negotiate over Israel's territories.15

In fact, he had already been mobilizing every available tool of diplomacy, revolution, and war to intensify the pressure on Israel. In 1987, he told the Lebanese publication Hawadith that Israel would have to attend, and allow the PLO to participate in, an international meeting before the Soviets would restore diplomatic relations. He visited the capitals of Arab states, using every bit of Soviet influence to push the Arabs into joining the call.16

In 1988, he brought Soviet advisors to Syria as part of a massive drive to arm that Communist satellite, preparing it for a state of war and placing an ominous military threat on Israel's northern perimeter.17 Revolutionary action in the West Bank and Gaza Strip was meanwhile instigated by the PLO, the Palestinian Communist Party, and Islamic Jihad starting in December of 1986-a full year before the intifada was officially recognized and named.18

Analyzing the prospects for forcing Israel into peace talks, Yasser Arafat could boldly declare in 1987 that "there is now for the first time an actual international consensus on the question of an international conference on a Middle East settlement" [emphasis in original].19 But despite the growing momentum, Israel itself persistently refused to enter such loaded talks. Primakov needed one more element to complete the push: a war.

The perfect man for the job was Saddam Hussein, longtime dictator of the Communist government in Iraq. Since the Iraqi-Soviet Friendship Treaty of 1972, the Iraqi secret police and military had become mere extensions of their Soviet counterparts.20 The majority of Iraqi weapons were Soviet-supplied, and five to six thousand Soviet "advisors" ran the Iraqi state from within.21 Primakov himself presumably supervised the Soviet arms shipments to Iraq leading up to, and during, the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. After Iraq set in motion the Gulf crisis, Primakov visited Hussein as Gorbachev's representative. According to British intelligence analyst Christopher Story, Primakov told Hussein to demand an international conference between Israel and the PLO as a precondition to leaving Kuwait.22 Hussein obeyed, and after the Persian Gulf War had ended in 1991, Hussein's demand was adopted by the Bush administra-tion. Finally the Israelis could no longer resist the political heat, and attended the conference in Madrid, Spain, that October.

Primakov had completed stage one in the drive to destroy Israel.

...until darkness falls.

The Soviet Union, mainly through its KGB strategist Primakov, had carefully designed and executed the entire Middle East peace conference since 1973. Thus the "death" of Communism in 1989, and especially the "breakup" of the Soviet Union in 1991, should have ended the entire process. The whole edifice of delicately applied pressure, fragile alliances, and Communist deception should have disintegrated, leaving the PLO isolated and impotent. Most importantly, Primakov and his fellow Communist leaders should have had to flee Russia to avoid prosecution, as happened to Nazi criminals after World War II.

In fact, the exact opposite chillingly materialized. Upon seizing power in the new Russia, Boris Yeltsin promptly reorganized and expanded the KGB, making it more powerful and active than ever before. Top Communists retained their positions, and all Soviet policies continued as before-except in a newly accelerated mode. What of Primakov? He was immediately promoted, becoming Director of the Foreign Intelligence Service, the main arm of the new KGB. This places him in charge of an estimated 500,000 agents worldwide, operating in Europe, the United States, the Middle East, and elsewhere.23

Primakov quickly laid to rest any notions that the various Soviet republics or Eastern European nations would be allowed any independence from Moscow. At a December, 1991, press conference, he openly admitted that his agency was exercising its powers "to maintain a common military, economic and central intelligence network among the Republics of the former Soviet Union."24 Tens of thousands of secret police officers from East Germany and other Eastern European nations had already been incorporated into the KGB during the 1989 changes.25

At a press conference in late 1993, Primakov confirmed the warlike attitude of the "former" Soviet Union by warning NATO that he and his fellow Soviets might assume a new military posture toward the West at any time. Polish defector Zdislaw Rurarz described a follow-up question from a reporter:

Primakov was asked whether his presentation of the issue was in any way endorsed by President Boris Yeltsin. Surprisingly enough, he said that there was no need for that!26

Despite Yeltsin's membership in the Soviet Communist Party since 1961, even he serves as a mere figurehead.27 He takes his orders from the likes of Primakov and the rest of the KGB leadership, all of them hardened Communists following long-term strategy.

In the Middle East, this is being translated into a PLO victory over Israel. The alleged collapse of Communism has thrown anti-Communist forces in the West into disarray. No longer recognizing where PLO terrorism or the drive for a peace conference come from, confused anti-Communists in all countries have abandoned political opposition to such Soviet moves-effectively turning over the political arena to the left. Now that the Communists can move rapidly without significant resistance, Israel is finally yielding control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the PLO. And Israeli Prime Minister Ytzhak Rabin has since offered to give away to Golan Heights to Communist Syria.

Unless Americans and Israelis wake up soon, Soviet forces will be dismantling the remains of a neutralized, demoralized Israel.n

references

1 Agwani, M.S., Communism in the Arab East, Asia Publishing House, New York, 1969, p. 15.

2 Rees, J., "Why Americans must oppose the P.L.O.," The Review of the News, Oct. 17, 1979, p. 41.

3 Netanyahu, B., A Place Among the Nations, Bantam Books, New York, 1993, pp. 219-226.

4 Sadat, A., In Search of Identity, publisher unknown, 1978, pp. 253, 255, 264, 267; Bard, M.G. and Himelfarb, J., Myths and Facts, Near East Report, Washington DC, 1992, pp. 77-78.

5 Allen, G., Kissinger: The Secret Side of the Secretary of State, '76 Press, Seal Beach, Calif., 1976, pp. 71, 78.

6 Story, C., "Business as usual in the Middle East," Soviet Analyst, Jan. 1992, p. 15.

7 Ibid., p. 18.

8 Rees, J., Ed., The War Called Peace, Western Goals, Alexandria, VA, 1982, pp. 8-9.

9 Story, Op cit., p. 18.

10 Barron, J., KGB Today: The Hidden Hand, Reader's Digest Press, New York, 1983, pp. 264-265.

11 Davydkov, R., Ed., The Palestine Question, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1984, p. 23.

12 Ibid., pp. 235-248.

13 Petrenko, F. and Popov, V., Soviet Foreign Policy: Objectives and Principles, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1985, pp. 155, 186.

14 Story, C., Op cit., p. 19.

15 The New York Times, Nov. 17, 1990, as cited in Story, C., Op cit., p. 14.

16 Story, C., Op cit., p. 19; Ramati, Y., Global Affairs, Spring 1989, as cited in Story, Op cit., p. 17.

17 Story, C., Op cit., p. 20.

18 "Palestine: Appeal for solidarity," political statement by the Palestinian Communist Party, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Information Bulletin, March 1987, pp. 39-40; Schiff, Z. and Ya'ari, E., Intifada, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1990, chapter 2 and pp. 101-105, 198-202.

19 Arafat, Y., "We are optimistic," World Marxist Review, Sept. 1987, p. 49.

20 al-Khalil, S., Republic of Fear, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1989, pp. 12, 66.

21 Wagman, R., "Did Soviets aid Iraq?", San Gabriel Valley Tribune, Sept. 5, 1990; Lee, R.W., "Our Soviet 'Ally'," The New American, March 12, 1991, pp. 22-23.

22 Story, C., Op cit., p. 15.

23 MacAlvany, D.S., "Russian strategic deception: The 'new' Communist threat," The MacAlvany Intelligence Advisor, Jan., 1994, pp. 20-22.

24 Story, C., Op cit., p. 13.

25 MacAlvany, D.S., Op cit., p. 22.

26 Ibid., p. 22.

27 Ibid., p. 12.

September 20, 2004

No Peter the Great:
Vladimir Putin is in the Andropov mold.

By Ion Mihai Pacepa

Vladimir Putin looks more and more like a heavy-handed imitation of Yuri Andropov — does anyone still remember him? Andropov was that other KGB chairman who rose all the way up to the Kremlin throne, and who was also once my de facto boss. Considering that Putin has inherited upwards of 6,000 suspected strategic nuclear weapons, this is frightening news.

Former KGB officers are now running Russia's government, just as they did during Andropov's reign, and the Kremlin's image — another Andropov specialty — continues to be more important than people's real lives in that still-inscrutable country. The government's recent catastrophic Beslan operation was a reenactment of the effort to "rescue" 2,000 people from Moscow's Dubrovka Theater, where the "new" KGB flooded the hall with fentanyl gas and caused the death of 129 hostages. No wonder Putin ordered Andropov's statue — which had been removed after the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991 — reinstalled at the Lubyanka.

In the West, if Andropov is remembered at all, it is for his brutal suppression of political dissidence at home and for his role in planning the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia. By contrast, the leaders of the former Warsaw Pact intelligence community, when I was one of them, looked up to Andropov as the man who substituted the KGB for the Communist party in governing the Soviet Union, and who was the godfather of Russia's new era of deception operations aimed at improving the badly damaged image of Soviet rulers in the West.

In early 2000, President Putin divided Russia into seven "super" districts, each headed by a "presidential representative," and he gave five of these seven new posts to former KGB officers. Soon, his KGB colleagues occupied nearly 50 percent of the top government positions in Moscow. In a brief interview with Ted Koppel on Nightline, Putin admitted that he had stuffed the Kremlin with former KGB officers, but he said it was because he wanted to root out graft. "I have known them for many years and I trust them. It has nothing to do with ideology. It's simply a matter of their professional qualities and personal relationship."

THE NATIONAL POLITICAL PASTIME
In reality, it's an old Russian tradition to fill the most important governmental positions with undercover intelligence officers. The czarist Okhrana security service planted its agents everywhere: in the central and local government, and in political parties, labor unions, churches, and newspapers. Until 1913, Pravda itself was edited by one of them, Roman Malinovsky, who rose to become Lenin's deputy for Russia and the chairman of the Bolshevik faction in the Duma.

Andropov Sovietized that Russian tradition and extended its application nationwide. It was something similar to militarizing the government in wartime, but it was accomplished by the KGB. In 1972, when he launched this new offensive, KGB Chairman Andropov told me that this would help eliminate the current plague of theft and bureaucratic chaos and would combat the growing sympathy for American jazz, films, and blue jeans obsessing the younger Soviet generation. Andropov's new undercover officers were secretly remunerated with tax-free salary supplements and job promotions. In exchange, Andropov explained, they would secretly have to obey "our" military regulations, practice "our" military discipline and carry out "our" tasks, if they wanted to keep their jobs. Of course, the KGB had long been using diplomatic cover slots for its officers assigned abroad, but Andropov's new approach was designed to influence the Soviet Union itself.

The lines separating the leadership of the country from the intelligence apparatus had blurred in the Soviet satellites as well. After I was granted political asylum in the United States in July 1978, the Western media reported that my defection had unleashed the greatest political purge in the history of Communist Romania. Ceausescu had demoted politburo members, fired one-third of his cabinet, and replaced ambassadors. All were undercover intelligence officers whose military documents and pay vouchers I had regularly signed off on.

THE MAKING OF A DICTATOR
General Aleksandr Sakharovsky, the Soviet gauleiter of Romania who rose to head the Soviet foreign intelligence service for an unprecedented 15 years, used to predict to me that KGB Chairman Andropov would soon have the whole Soviet bloc in his vest pocket, and that he would surely end up in the Kremlin. Andropov would have to wait ten years until Brezhnev died, but on November 12, 1982, he did take up the country's reins. Once settled in the Kremlin, Andropov surrounded himself with KGB officers, who immediately went on a propaganda offensive to introduce him to the West as a "moderate" Communist and a sensitive, warm, Western-oriented man who allegedly enjoyed an occasional drink of Scotch, liked to read English novels, and loved listening to American jazz and the music of Beethoven. In actual fact, Andropov did not drink, as he was already terminally ill from a kidney disorder, and the rest of the portrayal was equally false.

In 1999, when Putin became prime minister, he also surrounded himself with KGB officers, who began describing him as a "Europeanized" leader — capitalizing, ironically, on the fact that he had been a KGB spy abroad. Yet Putin's only foreign experience had been in East Germany, on Moscow's side of the Berlin Wall. Soon after that I visited the Stasi headquarters in Leipzig and Dresden to see where Putin had spent his "Europeanizing" years. Local representatives of the Gauck Commission — a special post-Communism German panel researching the Stasi files — said that the "Soviet-German 'friendship house'" Putin headed for six years was actually a KGB front with operational offices at the Leipzig and Dresden Stasi headquarters. Putin's real task was to recruit East German engineers as KGB agents and send them to the West to steal American technologies.

I visited those offices and found that they looked just like the offices of my own midlevel case officers in regional Securitate directorates in Romania. Yet Moscow claims Putin had held an important job in East Germany and was decorated by the East German government. The Gauck Commission confirmed that Putin was decorated in 1988 "for his KGB work in the East German cities of Dresden and Leipzig." According to the West German magazine Der Spiegel, he received a bronze medal from the East German Stasi as a "typical representative of second-rank agents." There, in those prison-like buildings, cut off even from real East German life by Stasi guards with machine guns and police dogs, Lieutenant Colonel Putin could not possibly have become the modern-day, Western-oriented Peter the Great that the Kremlin's propaganda machine is so energetically spinning.

Indeed, on December 20, 1999, Russia's newly appointed prime minister visited the Lubyanka to deliver a speech on this "memorable day," commemorating Lenin's founding of the first Soviet political police, the Cheka. "Several years ago we fell prey to the illusion that we have no enemies," Putin told a meeting of top security officials. "We have paid dearly for this. Russia has its own national interests, and we have to defend them." The following day, December 21, 1999, another "memorable day" in Soviet history — Stalin's 120th birthday — Putin organized a closed-door reception in his Kremlin office reported as being for the politicians who had won seats in the Duma. There he raised a glass to good old Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili (Stalin, meaning "man of steel," was the dictator's nom de guerre).

Days later, in a 14-page article entitled "Russia on the Threshold of a New Millennium," Putin defined Russia's new "democratic" future: "The state must be where and as needed; freedom must be where and as required." The Chechens' effort to regain their independence was mere "terrorism," and he pledged to eradicate it: "We'll get them anywhere — if we find terrorists sitting in the outhouse, then we will piss on them there. The matter is settled." It is not.

SCAPEGOATING AND CONSOLIDATING
On September 9, 2004, Chechen nationalists announced a $20 million prize on the head of the "war criminal" Vladimir Putin, whom they accuse of "murdering hundreds of thousands of peaceful civilians on the territory of Chechnya, including tens of thousands of children."

For his part, President Putin tried to divert the outrage over the horrific Breslan catastrophe away from his KGB colleagues who had caused it, and to direct public anger toward the KGB's archenemy, the U.S. Citing meetings of mid-level U.S. officials with Chechen leaders, Putin accused Washington of having a double standard when dealing with terrorism. "Why don't you meet Osama bin Laden, invite him to Brussels or to the White House and engage in talks, ask him what he wants and give it to him so he leaves you in peace?" Putin told reporters in Moscow.

Then Putin blamed the collapse of the Soviet Union for what he called a "full scale" terrorist war against Russia and started taking Soviet-style steps to strengthen the Kremlin's power. On September 13, he announced measures to eliminate the election of the country's governors, who should now be appointed by the Kremlin, and to allow only "certified" people — that is, former KGB officers — to run for the parliament.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, its people had a unique opportunity to cast out their political police, a peculiarly Russian instrument of power that has for centuries isolated their country from the real world and in the end left them ill-equipped to deal with the complexities of modern society. Unfortunately, up until then most Russians had never owned property, had never experienced a free-market economy, and had never made decisions for themselves. Under Communism they were taught to despise Western democracy and everything they believed to be connected with capitalism, e.g., free enterprise, decision-making, hard work, risk-taking, and social inequality. Moreover, the Russians had also had minimal experience with real political parties, since their country has been a police state since the 16th century. To them, it seemed easier to continue the tradition of the political police state than to take the risk of starting everything anew.

But the times have changed dramatically. My native country, which borders Russia, is a good example. At first, Romania's post-Communism rulers, for whom managing the country with the help of the political police was the only form of government they had ever known, bent over backwards to preserve the KGB-created Securitate, a criminal organization that became the symbol of Communist tyranny in the West. Article 27 of Romania's 1990 law for organizing the new intelligence services stated that only former Securitate officers "who have been found guilty of crimes against fundamental human rights and against freedom" could not be employed in the "new" intelligence services. In other words, only Ceausescu would not have been eligible for employment there. Today, Romania still has the same president as in 1990, but his country is now a member of NATO and is helping the U.S. to rid the world of Cold War-style dictators and the terrorism they generated.

Russia can also break with its Communist past and join our fight against despots and terrorists. We can help them do it, but first we should have a clear understanding of what is now going on behind the veil of secrecy that still surrounds the Kremlin.

— Ion Mihai Pacepa, a former two-star general, is the highest-ranking intelligence officer to have defected from the Soviet bloc. His book Red Horizons has been republished in 27 countries.

http://nationalreview.com/comment/pacepa200409200814.asp

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.