Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => World War III - Chapter 2 => Topic started by: Stephanos II on March 20, 2014, 01:37:02 PM
-
Start with Cold War Background
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pe1n05f3Ips/UFSnGhAezRI/AAAAAAAAFR4/Hiseiyw0yos/)
1961 Illustration from the Original Mad Magazine Cold War "Comic" Spy versus Spy - a spoof with a meaning - notice the empty negotiation table at the end - that intent on both sides was predetermined. Cold War "diplomats" were only an extension of the Shadow Intelligence Agencies that control all of the so called diplomatic channels. Nothing has changed today. The truth is that at the top level they report to the One Square Mile - London. From there the information goes to Tel Aviv and the Mossad.
Go back to the empty negotiation table - that is from the Biblical Book of Daniel, 11th Chapter, and the deception that the Antichrist will wage against the righteous at the end of the age by false promises of peace, over and over ad nauseam. That is the Zionist Communist dialectic of Kissinger and the rest of the Judaist operatives in governments throughout the world. There is NO peace to the unrighteous. They will bring only havoc upon themselves and the rest of the world.
Spy vs. Spy: The KGB vs. the CIA
Spy vs. Spy: The KGB vs. the CIA by Vladislav M. Zubok Cold War International History Project, CWIHP Bulletin 4 (Fall 1994): 22-33,
The KGB reports to Khrushchev
The Hunt for Allen Dulles
The Crisis in Berlin...and in the KGB
Scorpions in a bottle
Notes
;The crisis years; of 1960-1962 are remembered as a peak of the Cold War, an apogee of the bipolar confrontation. Many consider them even more dangerous than the Korean War, when the military forces of West and East clashed and almost slipped into a global conflict. The early 1960s were all the more frightening since the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, were engaged in a fierce nuclear arms race, and two more states, Great Britain and France, had developed small nuclear arsenals of their own. By the end of the period the edge in this race clearly belonged to the United States such that, at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Washington had at least nine times as many deliverable nuclear warheads as Moscow.1 After the summer of 1961 the Kennedy administration was perfectly aware of that fact, but, nevertheless, sweeping Soviet progress in ICBMs soon eliminated the impregnability of ;fortress America; forever. The loss of strategic invulnerability weighed as heavily on the American psyche as had the loss of the atomic monopoly (and China) in 1949. And, as before, this agitated state of mind offered fertile ground for spy-hysteria. This time, however, it did not reach the proportions of McCarthyism, but remained localized in government offices where cold warriors, especially true believers among them, began to talk again about a ;master plan; of the Kremlin and the KGB to delude and disrupt the Western alliance in preparation for a decisive showdown between the two Cold War blocs. Some of them, most prominently James J. Angleton, head of the CIA's counterintelligence department, tenaciously denied the reality of the Sino-Soviet split as a ;hoax; designed to lull the West into complacency. Angleton, along with a Soviet defector, KGB major Anatoly Golitsyn, also believed that there was a KGB mole inside the CIA's Soviet Division, and that Soviet intelligence was assiduously planting its illegals and agents, primarily displaced persons from Eastern Europe and Russia, in various high-placed positions in the West. They even claimed that former British Labour party leader Hugh Gaitskell had probably been murdered by the KGB, that his successor, Harold Wilson, was probably a KGB asset, and that the famous double agent Oleg Penkovsky, a GRU (Soviet military intelligence) colonel, was also a Soviet plant.2
The seemingly wild surmises of an American counterintelligence officer become more understandable as we learn more about the strange ;behind the mirror; world of spying, double-agents, and deliberate disinformation in which huge and well-funded rival intelligence services clashed with no holds barred. Intelligence at any time is a necessary and valuable instrument of a state's foreign policy. But in the years of Cold War tension the intelligence services were more than just ;eyes,; they were powerful weapons in propaganda warfare between the ideological blocs. Furthermore, in a situation of mutual fear produced by the nuclear deadlock, when mammoth armies confronted each other in Europe and around the world, intelligence networks were the only mobile force in action, the ;light infantry; of the Cold War: conducting reconnaissance, but also trying to influence the situation in the enemy's rear by means sometimes just short of military ones. The plans and instructions related to operational work and intelligence sources, in particular involving planting agents abroad and using double-agents, justifiably belong to the most zealously guarded secrets of intelligence bureaucracies. But recently, thanks to the collapse of the Soviet Union, historians have acquired a rare chance to peek into the mysteries of one of the two intelligence giants of the Cold War--docuмents of the Committee on State Security (KGB). These are not papers of the First Main Directorate (PGU), which was responsible for foreign intelligence and which continues under the new regime in Russia and, of course, preserves its secrecy (although some of its former officers, Oleg Kalugin, Leonid Shebarshin, and Vadim Kirpichenko among them, have recently written memoirs3). The docuмents in question were sent by the KGB to the Secretariat and the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CC CPSU), whose archives, unlike those of the KGB, have in part at least become accessible to scholars and the public.4
For all their fascination, the internal KGB docuмents cited in this article should also be treated with a good deal of caution. They contain references to events, plans, individuals, and explicit or implicit relationships that are uncorroborated and should be carefully investigated and cross-checked with other evidence before their accuracy and significance can be confidently gauged. Many of the assertions contained in the docuмents will require, in particular, collation with relevant materials in the archives of other governments and intelligence agencies, especially the CIA, and analysis by specialists in the history of intelligence. Many names in the docuмents are transliterated from the Russian after being transliterated from other languages, and the spelling may not be accurate. Moreover, in assessing reports by KGB leaders to Khrushchev, readers should recall the tendency of bureaucrats in any government to exaggerate capabilities or accomplishments to a superior, a provoclivity that may be accentuated when, as in this period, there is intense pressure to produce results. Finally, in addition to remembering the lack of systematic access to KGB and CIA archives, those who evaluate the docuмents that do become available must keep in mind that evidence on crucial matters may have been deliberately destroyed, distorted, fabricated, or simply never committed to paper. All of these caveats should simply serve as reminders that however revealing these materials are, much additional research will be needed before a balanced and informed evaluation of the role of intelligence agencies and activities in the Cold War, on all sides, can be attained.
The KGB reports to Khrushchev
On 14 February 1961, Nikita S. Khrushchev received an annual report of the KGB marked ;Top Secret--Highly Sensitive.;5 Only Khrushchev could decide who among the top Soviet leadership might see the report, in which the Collegium of the KGB informed him as the First Secretary of the CC CPSU and as a Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR about the achievements of Soviet foreign intelligence during 1960. In this period, Khrushchev was told, 375 foreign agents were recruited, and 32 officers of the State Security were transferred abroad and legalized. The stations abroad obtained, among others, position and background papers prepared by Western governments for the summit conference in Paris in May 1960, including materials on the German and Berlin questions, disarmament, and other issues. They also provided the Soviet leadership with ;docuмentary evidence about military-political planning of some Western powers and the NATO alliance as whole; [...] on the plan of deployment of armed forces of these countries through 1960-63; evidence on preparation by the USA of an economic blockade of and military intervention against Cuba;--the last a possible allusion to preparations for the forthcoming April 1961 CIA-supported invasion by anti-Castro Cuban exiles at the Bay of Pigs.6
The sheer numbers conveyed the vast extent of information with which the KGB flooded the tiny group of Soviet leaders. During one year alone it prepared and presented 4,144 reports and 68 weekly and monthly informational bulletins to the Party's Central Committee and the USSR Council of Ministers; 4,370 docuмentary materials were sent to Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko; 3,470 materials to Defense Minister Rodion Malinovsky and the Head of the General Staff Alexander Vassilevsky; and 790 materials to other ministries and agencies.7
Soviet foreign intelligence appeared to have been particularly successful in ;sigint; (signals intelligence) operations. The sprawling Service of Radio Interception and Code-Breaking of Diplomatic and Agent-Operational Communications of the Capitalist Countries, the innermost part of the KGB empire (analogous to the U.S. National Security Agency), managed to break many diplomatic and intelligence codes. During 1960 it reported deciphering 209,000 diplomatic cables sent by representatives of 51 states, and the most important among them--133,200--were reported to the CPSU Central Committee. The Kremlin therefore apparently eavesdropped on some of the West's most classified communications. True, there were clouds on the horizon. The enemy became increasingly sophisticated and difficult to penetrate. The Directorate of Counterintelligence confronted, according to the annual report, ;serious difficulties; in 1960. ;The adversary goes to great lengths,; the KGB complained. ;For instance, the Committee noticed cases when the enemy's intelligence officers met their agents on a beach and secretly exchanged materials while swimming. If it happens on a beach, they would lie close by, pretend they do not know each other and dig their materials in the sand, and then cautiously extract them.; There were more serious challenges than the ;beach; method. U.S. intelligence, the KGB found, began to use a new type of heavily-protected codes. They wrote on a very thin (papirosse-type) paper prepared specifically for this purpose. Also a special plane was constructed in the USA to bring illegal agents to the USSR. ;Since this plane is made of rubber-layered tissue,; the report said, ;and can conduct flights at low altitudes, it has practically no chance, according to our experts, of being located by existing radar stations.;8
With the life of KGB officers and agents in the United States becoming increasingly rough due to the effectiveness of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI and harsh restrictions on travel for Soviet journalists and diplomats, the Committee tried to exploit the increasing trickle of Soviet visitors to the United States to include its operatives and agents. Another channel was sending younger KGB officers, Oleg Kalugin among them, as graduate and post-graduate students to Columbia, Harvard, and other American universities. Yet nobody could replace illegals. The KGB in 1960 began to move its ;sleepers; in other countries to the United States ;with the aim of planting them in a job in American intelligence or intelligence schools.; One priority was ;to insert KGB agents as professors of Russian, Latvian, Estonian and Lithuanian languages in the language school of USA military intelligence in Monterey,; California.9
The report distinguished between old and new priorities of Soviet foreign intelligence. An old one was to ferret out, in competition with the GRU (Glavrazvedupr) or military intelligence, Western plans for rearmament and NATO's level of combat readiness. New efforts were targeted, first, at scientific-technical espionage and, second, at elaborate propaganda and disinformation campaigns. The former had proved to be a stupendous success in the 1940s, when the Soviets obtained detailed information on the wartime Anglo-American atomic bomb project, and it continued to be important as Cold War sanctions and barriers cut the Soviets off from Western technologies and industrial machinery. During 1960, the KGB's scientific-technical intelligence service reported that it stole, bought, and smuggled from the West 8,029 classified technologies, blueprints, and schemas, as well as 1,311 different samples of equipment.10 A special target in this regard was, of course, the United States. On 7 April 1960, the Central Committee had directed the KGB to prepare a ;prospective working plan of the intelligence service of the Committee of State Security at the Council of Ministers against the United States of America.;11 The plan, presented on 10 March 1961, postulated a wide array of measures.12 Among them were efforts to insinuate agents into U.S. scientific-technical centers, universities, industrial corporations, and other institutions specializing in missile building, electronics, aircraft, and special chemistry. The KGB planned to use ;third countries; as a springboard for this penetration campaign. Its agents in Great Britain, France, West Germany, and Japan were to worm their way into scientific, industrial, and military research and consulting institutions of these countries with access to American know-how or subcontracting to U.S. military agencies. Agents residing in England, Austria, Belgium, West Germany, and Israel were instructed to move to the United States with the goal of finding jobs in the military-industrial sector. It also planned to organize ;on the basis of a well-screened network of agents; several brokerage firms in order to obtain classified scientific-technical information and ;to create conditions in a number of countries for buying samples of state-of-the-art American equipment.; One such firm was to be opened in the United States, one in England, and two in France. The KGB also prepared to open in a European country a copying center that would specialize copying blueprints and technical docuмentation in the fields of radioelectronics, chemistry, and robotics.13
Some orthodox anti-communists in the CIA, known as the fundamentalists, were tipped off by the Soviet defector Golitsyn about an alleged KGB ;monster plot; to create a strategic web of deception. According to Golitsyn, the KGB's new chairman, Alexander Shelepin, the energetic and imaginative former leader of Young Communist League, revealed this plot in May of 1959 to the KGB establishment. Golitsyn even maintained, contrary to all evidence and logic, that the political and military split between China and the USSR after 1959 was a fake, just a facet of Shelepin's diabolical master plan.14
There was no such ;master plan; in the KGB. But under Shelepin the Committee indeed hatched several schemes of strategic and tactical deception: to conceal Soviet intentions and weak spots from the West, as well as to disrupt consensus in Western societies and alliances on policies, means, and goals for waging the Cold War. In the plan presented to the Central Committee on 10 March 1961, mentioned above, for example, the KGB proposed ;to carry out disinformation measures on the information that American intelligence obtains about the Soviet Union; to pass along the channels of American intelligence disinformation on economic, defense, and scientific-technical issues; to disinform the USA intelligence regarding real intentions of Soviet intelligence services, achieving thereby the dispersion of forces and means of the enemy's intelligence services.;15 The deception went side by side with blunt slander campaigns and forgery. In its 1960 report, the KGB took pride in operations carried out to compromise ;groupings and individuals from the imperialist camps most hostile towards the USSR.; The Committee publicized in the West 10 docuмentary pieces of dis-information, prepared in the name of state institutions and government figures of capitalist countries, and 193 other disinformation materials. The KGB took credit for staging a number of rallies, marches, and pickets in the United States, Japan, England, and other countries. It claimed to be instrumental in engineering 86 inquiries of governments and presentations in parliaments and 105 interviews of leading figures in these countries. In addition it asserted that it had helped organize 442 mass petitions to governments, distributed 3.221 million copies of various leaflets, and published abroad 126 books and brochures ;unmasking aggressive policies of the USA; and its allies, as well as 3,097 articles and pieces in the media. The Committee reported that it had instigated all this through 15 newspapers and magazines on the KGB payroll.16
During the early Cold War and later, both U.S. and Soviet intelligence services used penetration, deception, and propaganda to groom potential allies and neutralize enemies on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Each had a record of successes and failures during the 1950s. The KGB successfully played on French suspicions of West German militarism to frustrate ratification of the European Defense Community (EDC), the Western plan to create a ;European army.; The CIA had its own triumph in Iran by overthrowing Prime Minister Mossadeq and opening the way for conversion of that country into a mainstay of Western defense structures in the Middle East for a generation. But U.S. intelligence failed during the 1950s to establish a network of influence in Eastern Europe, not to mention the Soviet Union itself. The KGB even in 1960 acted under the impression that it could do better in the United States, using the growing fatigue with the Dulles-Eisenhower hard line and growing public support for U.S.-Soviet rapprochement. The Committee pledged, in accord with its April 1960 instruction, to establish closer contacts with liberal Democrats in the U.S. Congress and to encourage them ;to step up their pressure for improvement of relations between the USA and the Soviet Union and for settlement of international problems through negotiations.; The KGB concentrated its propaganda efforts, it reported, on ;left-wing trade unions, Quakers, pacifist, youth and other social organizations,; and was even ready ;to provide those organizations and some trusted individuals with the needed financial assistance in a clandestine way.;17
According to the plan, the KGB proposed to subsidize the ;American progressive publishing house 'Liberty Book Club' in order to publish and disseminate in the USA and other capitalist countries books prepared at our request.;18 The experiment seemed to promise further successes, since the KGB intended to internationalize it by opening club affiliates in England, Italy, and Japan. In a spirit of innovation, demonstrated in those years, the Committee also ;studied the possibility of using a major American public relations agency for the distribution in the USA of truthful information about the Soviet Union.;19 These and similar undertakings required a lot of money, and some KGB operatives like Konon Molody (Gordon Arnold Lonsdale) were encouraged to engage in lucrative businesses in the West and then funnel the profits into KGB foreign accounts.20
A special division of the KGB was busy fabricating disinformation on the production in the United States of chemical and bacteriological weapons and the development of new means of mass destruction. Faked docuмents, innuendo, and gossip were used to undercut U.S. positions and influence among delegations of Afro-Asian and Latin American countries in the United Nations and ;to promote disorganization of the American voting machine in the structures of the UN.; There were even attempts to sidetrack tariff talks among Western countries and ;to use financial difficulties of the United States for strengthening of mistrust in the dollar.; On the KGB's list of targets in the propaganda warfare campaign were all the predictable suspects: U.S.-led regional alliances (NATO, SEATO, and CENTO) and U.S. military bases abroad, all denounced as tools for American meddling into the internal affairs of host countries. The Committee also contemplated a terrorist strike at Radio Liberty and the Soviet Studies Institute in Munich ;to put out of order their equipment and to destroy their card indexes.; Inside the United States this warfare was to be spearheaded against the U.S. Information Agency (USIA), a counterpart of the KGB psychological warfare division, and ;the reactionary militarist group in U.S. ruling circles - [Nelson] ROCKEFELLER, [Lauris] NORSTAD, A. DULLES, E. [J. Edgar] HOOVER, as well as their allies in pushing an aggressive course in other countries.;21
One name on the hit list was that of Allen W. Dulles, experienced in the espionage trade since the late 1930s and since 1953 presiding over the Central Intelligence Agency.22 In 1960-1961, Dulles became the chief target of the KGB's vendetta.
The Hunt for Allen Dulles
The Dulles brothers had long inspired complex feelings inside the Soviet leadership. Time and again Vyacheslav Molotov and then Nikita Khrushchev betrayed an apprehension of them bordering on respectful awe. Khrushchev, in his typical manner, even engaged personally in a semi-public feud with Allen Dulles boasting that he read his briefing papers prepared for President Eisenhower and found them ;boring.; The Soviet leaders had some reasons to believe that their sources of ;humint;--;human intelligence; garnered from agents and illegals--were many times greater than those of their American adversary. After a flurry of defectors following Stalin's death, the political and military intelligence apparatus had been reorganized, and its discipline and morale seemed to be restored. But the lull proved short-lived. From the mid-fifties onward Khrushchev's policies of reducing the KGB empire and curbing its operatives' privileges produced a new spate of treason. The response was ruthless: a new head of the First Main Directorate (PGU), Alexander Sakharovsky, reportedly took draconian measures to root out a plague of ;defecting;; he personally pushed for operations designed to eliminate post-Stalin ;traitors; Aleksandr Orlov, Vladimir Petrov, and Piotr Deriabin who had fled to the West and cooperated with Western counterintelligence.23 (Evidently all three operations failed or were abandoned, since none of the three defectors was αssαssιnαtҽd.) Until the spring of 1960, Soviet foreign intelligence had reasons to believe it had a sound edge over its American counterpart. During 1960, Soviet operatives, together with ;friends; from East European security forces, reportedly penetrated Western embassies in Eastern Europe on 52 occasions. They succeeded in illegally smuggling to the USSR five U.S. intelligence officers. They had a high-placed mole in the British counterintelligence MI5--George Blake--another one in NATO headquarters in Brussels, and many lesser ones. But Allen Dulles had struck back with a new technological breakthrough: U-2 planes and then reconnaissance satellites to overfly and photograph the USSR. Shelepin sounded the alarm and in September 1959, during Khrushchev's visit to the United States, he sent a memo to the Department of Defense Industry of the Central Committee proposing a program to monitor the U.S. satellite ;Discoverer.; He proposed to obtain ;directly and by agents; the data on frequency ranges used by transmitters on these satellites. Ivan Serbin, head of the Department, agreed that the issue was grave enough and sent Shelepin's memo for consideration to the Commission on military-industrial issues at the Council of Ministers.24
In fact, the U.S. space reconnaissance program produced a minor panic among Soviet academics who consulted for the KGB. Two of them, Academician L.I. Sedov and doctor of physics and mathematics G.S. Narimanov, warned in September 1959 that the ;Discoverer; satellites could be successfully used by the Americans for military and intelligence purposes, ;to put out of work our defense installations with electronic equipment over a large territory.; With the help of satellite equipment, Shelepin reported, from a height of 200-300 km it would be possible efficiently to photograph stretches of the Earth of 50-90 km in width and 150,000 km in length.25
In other words, the KGB alerted the Soviet leaders in a timely fashion to the coming intelligence revolution. Khrushchev's reaction to the downing of an American U-2 seven months later, in May 1960, was, therefore, anything but surprise. The political slight, and even humiliation, that Khrushchev saw in this affair to himself and his country provoked his furious response. He disrupted the summit in Paris and irreparably ruined his relations with Eisenhower.26 But in his opinion the U.S. president, though he accepted responsibility for the intelligence flights, merely shielded the real culprit: Allen Dulles. So Khrushchev, his considerable venom concentrated on the debonair socialite spymaster, evidently asked Shelepin to prepare a plan to discredit the CIA chief. Three weeks after Khrushchev's return from Paris, Shelepin's plan was formally approved by the Secretariat of the Central Committee. The docuмent,27 printed below, offers an extraordinary window into the state of mind and the methods of Soviet intelligence at the height of the Cold War confrontation with the United States: [Handwritten note across top: ;To the Secretariat [for signatures] (round the clock28 among the secretaries) [--] M. Suslov, N. Mukhitdinov, O. Kuusinen;29]
USSR Top Secret
Committee of State Security Council of Ministers of the USSR
7 June 1960
CC CPSU30
The failure of the intelligence action prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) with the plane ;Lockheed U-2; caused an aggravation of existing tensions between the CIA and other USA intelligence services and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and also provoked protests by the American public and certain members of the Congress, who are demanding investigation of the CIA activities. The Committee of state security considers it advisable to make use of this newly complex situation and to carry out the following measures targeted at further discrediting CIA activity and compromising its leader Allen DULLES: 1. In order to activate a campaign by DULLES' political and personal opponents: a) to mail to them anonymous letters using the names of CIA officials criticizing its activity and the authoritarian leadership of DULLES; b) to prepare a dossier which will contain publications from the foreign press and declarations of officials who criticized the CIA and DULLES personally, and to send it, using the name of one of members of the Democratic Party, to the Fulbright Committee [the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations] which is conducting an investigation into CIA activities in relation to the failure of the summit; c) to send to some members of Congress, to the Fulbright Committee, and to the FBI specially prepared memos from two or three officials of the State Department with attached private letters, received (allegedly) from now deceased American diplomats, which would demonstrate CIA involvement in domestic decision-making, the persecution of foreign diplomats who took an objective stand, and which also would point out that, for narrow bureaucratic purposes, the CIA puts deliberately false data into information for the State Department; d) to study the possibility and, if the opportunity presents itself, to prepare and disseminate through appropriate channels a docuмent by former USA Secretary of State F. DULLES, which would make it clear that he exploited the resources of A. DULLES as leader of the CIA to fabricate compromising materials on his private and political adversaries; e) to prepare, publish and disseminate abroad a satirical pamphlet on A. DULLES, using the American writer Albert KAHN who currently stays in Moscow to write the pamphlet.31
2. With the aim of further exposing the activities of American intelligence in the eyes of the public and to create preconditions with which the FBI and other USA intelligence services could substantiate their opinion about the CIA's inability to conduct effective intelligence: a) to fabricate the failure of an American agent ;Fyodorov,; dropped in the Soviet Union by plane in 1952 and used by organs of the KGB in an operational game with the adversary. To publish in the Soviet press an announcement about the arrest of ;Fyodorov; as an American agent and, if necessary, to arrange a press-conference about this affair; b) to agree with Polish friends about the exposure of the operational game led by the organs of the KGB along with the MSS PPR [Ministry of State Security of the Polish People's Republic] with a ;conduit; on the payroll of American intelligence of the Organization of Ukrainian nationalists (OUN)- ;Melnikovists.; To this end to bring back to Poland the Polish MSS agent ;Boleslav,; planted in the course of this game on the OUN ;conduit,; and to arrange for him to speak to the press and radio about subversive activity by American intelligence against the USSR and PPR. To arrange, in addition, for public appearances by six American intelligence agents dropped on USSR and PPR territory as couriers of the ;conduit; in the course of the game; c) to suggest to the security bodies of the GDR that they arrange public trials for the recently arrested agents of American intelligence RAUE, KOLZENBURG, GLAND, USCH-INGER and others. To arrange for wide coverage of the trials' materials in the media of the GDR and abroad; d) to disclose the operational game ;Link; that the KGB conducts with the adversary and to organize public statements in the media aimed at foreign audiences by the agent ;Maisky,; a former commander of the ;security service; of the Foreign [Zakordonnikh chastei] OUN (ZCh OUN), who had been transferred to Ukrainian territory in 1951 and used by us for this game. Along with revelations about the anti-people activity of the ZCh OUN, ;Maisky; will reveal American and British intelligence's use of the anti-Soviet organizations of Ukrainian emigration in subversive work in the Soviet Union; e) Since about ten agents of the MSS of the GDR who ;defected-in-place; to American intelligence have accomplished their missions and currently there is no prospect of their being further utilized, it should be suggested to our German friends to stage their return on the basis of disagreement with USA aggressive policies. In particular, this measure should be carried out with the participation of our friends' agent ;Edelhardt; who had been assigned by an affiliate of American intelligence in West Berlin to gather spy information during his tourist trip around the USSR. To organize one or two press-conferences on these affairs with a demonstration of the spy equipment he received from American intelligence; f) to discuss with our Polish and Albanian friends the advisability of bringing to the attention of governmental circles and of the public of the United States the fact that the security agencies of Poland and Albania for a number of years had been deluding American intelligence in the operational games ;Win; and ;John; and had obtained millions of dollars, weapons, equipment, etc. from it. 3. To utilize, provided our Hungarian friends agree, the American intelligence docuмents they obtained in the U.S. mission in Budapest [the underlined words were inserted by hand--ed.] to compromise the CIA and to aggravate the differences between the CIA and other intelligence services by publicizing some of the docuмents or by sending them to the FBI. If necessary, the necessary docuмents should be forged using the existing samples. 4. In order to create mistrust in the USA government toward the CIA and to produce an atmosphere of mutual suspicion within the CIA staff, to work out and implement an operation creating the impression of the presence in the CIA system of KGB agents recruited from among rank-and-file American intelligence officers, who, following their recruitment, admit their guilt, allegedly on the order of Soviet intelligence. To stage for this purpose a relevant conversation within range of a [CIA] listening device, as well as the loss of an address book by a Soviet intelligence officer with the telephone number of a CIA official; to convey specially prepared materials to the adversary's attention through channels exposed to him, etc. 5. To work out and implement measures on blowing the cover of several scientific, commercial and other institutions, used by the CIA for its spy activities. In particular, to carry out such measures with regard to the ;National Aeronautics and Space Administration; [NASA] and the ;Informational Agency; of the USA [U.S. Information Agency (USIA)]. 6. In order to disclose the subversive activities of the CIA against some governments, political parties and public figures in capitalist countries, and to foment mistrust toward Americans in the government circles of these countries, to carry out the following: a) to stage in Indonesia the loss by American intelligence officer PALMER, who is personally acquainted with President SUKARNO and exerts a negative influence on him, a briefcase containing docuмents jointly prepared by the MFA [Ministry of Foreign Affairs] of the USSR which apparently belong to the CIA station in Jakarta and which provide evidence of USA plans to utilize American agents and rebel forces to overthrow the government of SUKARNO;32
b) to carry out measures, with regard to the arrest in February of this year in the UAR [United Arab Republic] of a group of Israeli intelligence agents, to persuade the public in the UAR and Arab countries that American intelligence is linked to the activities of those agents and coordinates its work in the Arab East with Israeli intelligence. To compromise, to this end, American intelligence officers KEMP and CONNOLLY who work under cover of the UN commission observing the armistice in Palestine; c) to prepare and implement measures to make public the fact that American intelligence made use of the Iranian newspapers ;Fahrman; and ;Etelliat,; specifically mentioning the names of their agents (Abbas SHAHENDEH, Jalal NEMATOLLAKHI); d) to publish articles in the foreign press showing the interference of American intelligence in the domestic affairs of other states, using as an example the illegal American police organization in Italy, found and liquidated at the end of 1959, that ;worked on; Italian political parties under the direction of one of the diplomats at the American embassy; e) to prepare and publicize a docuмent by an American intelligence officer in Japan Robert EMMENSE in the form of a report to the USA ambassador [to Japan Douglas] MACARTHUR [II] into which information will be inserted about a decision allegedly taken by American intelligence to relocate ;Lockheed U-2; planes temporarily to Japan, and then, in secrecy from the Japanese government, to return them to their old bases. 7. To work out measures which, upon implementation, would demonstrate the failure of the CIA efforts to actively on a concrete factual basis use various émigré centers for subversive work against countries in the socialist camp. In particular, using the example of the anti-Soviet organization ;The Union of the Struggle for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia; (SBONR), to discredit in the eyes of American taxpayers the activities of American intelligence in funding émigré organizations. To bring to light, along with other measures, real or forged American intelligence docuмents on its finances and guidance of subversive activities of the SBONR. 8. With the means available of the KGB to promote inquiries in the parliaments of England, France and other countries of their governments about their attitude to the hostile actions of USA intelligence intended to aggravate international tension. 9. To arrange public appearances by distinguished public and political figures of the East and West with appropriate declarations denouncing the aggressive activity of American intelligence. 10. To prepare and publish in the bourgeois press, through available means, a number of articles on the activities of the CIA and its leaders on the following questions: a) about how A. DULLES used his position to promote his own enrichment. In particular, to demonstrate that DULLES gets big bribes from the ;Lockheed; corporation for allocating contracts to produce reconnaissance planes. To indicate that the source of this information is the wife of a vice-president of ;Lockheed; corporation and well-known American pilot Jacqueline COCHRAN, who allegedly leaked it in France on her way to the USSR in 1959; b) about the CIA's violation of traditional principles of non-partisanship on the part of the USA intelligence service. To demonstrate that in reality the CIA is the tool of reactionary circles in the Republican Party, that it ignores the Senate, the Congress and public opinion in the country; c) about the unjustifiably large expenditures of the CIA on its staff and its multitudinous agents and about the failure of its efforts to obtain information on the military-economic potential and scientific-technical achievements of the Soviet Union; d) about the unprecedented fact that the American embassy in Budapest is hosting Cardinal MINDSZENTY, furnishing evidence that the Americans are flouting the sovereign rights of the Hungarian People's Republic and demonstrating the sloppy work of American intelligence that damages American prestige in the eyes of world public opinion;33
e) about the CIA's flawed methods of preparing spy cadres in the [training] schools at Fort Jersey (South Carolina) and in Monterey (California). To draw special attention to futility of efforts by the CIA and by DULLES personally to build a reliable intelligence [network] with emigrants from the USSR and the countries of people's democracies. To present a list of names of American intelligence officers and agents who have refused to work for DULLES on political, moral and other grounds; f) about utilization by the CIA leadership of senior officials from the State Department, including ambassadors, for subversive and intelligence operations that cause great harm to USA prestige. In particular, to cite the example of DULLES' use of American ambassador [to South Korea Walter P.] MCCONAUGHY in subversive plans in Cambodia and then in South Korea; g) about the activities of American intelligence in West Berlin in covering officers of West German intelligence services with docuмents of American citizens. 11. To approach the state security leadership in countries of people's democracy requesting that they use available means to discredit the CIA and to compromise A. DULLES. Asking for your agreement to aforementioned measures, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE [signature] (A. Shelepin) The signatures of Mikhail Suslov, Nikolai Mukhitdinov, and Otto Kuusinen showed that the responsible members of the Secretariat had approved the docuмent--a process that could not have taken place without Khrushchev's assent as well. On 3 November 1960, Shelepin reported to the Central Committee on the KGB's progress in carrying out the plan.34 On 25 February 1961, after the Kennedy Administration came to power in Washington, the KGB again returned to the operation against Dulles, an Eisenhower holdover who for the time being remained in his post. The KGB suggested measures ;to foment mistrust towards the leadership of American intelligence on the part of the Kennedy administration and the intelligence services of the allies.; Among other things, the KGB intended ;to create among Americans an opinion that docuмentary information leaks directly from the staff of the CIA.; It also plotted ;to arrange through a 'double' channel, known to the adversary, a transmittal from Washington of a real classified instruction signed by DULLES and obtained by the KGB.; Also proposed were measures ;aimed at discrediting the activities of American intelligence directed at the removal from the political arena of politicians and governments, in particular in India and Turkey, who are not welcomed by the USA.;35
It would be tempting to try to track down all the ;incidents; produced by this elaborate planning. It is obvious, however, that the Kennedy administration was looking for a pretext to replace the old cold warrior atop the CIA, and one presented itself after the April 1961 failure of the CIA-trained expedition against the Castro regime at the Bay of Pigs. Soviet intelligence had known about the preparation and evidently Castro's border troops were all in readiness, tipped off by Moscow (and The New York Times, for that matter) and ready to teach Americans a bloody lesson. Broadly speaking, the KGB in this case won a considerable victory over its overseas enemy. In late September 1961 Dulles announced his retirement, which went into effect two months later. But the battle between the two intelligence giants continued, and between April 1961 and October 1962 Soviet intelligence suffered terrible blows from internal treason: senior GRU officer Oleg Penkovsky served a precious 18 months as a source for the Western intelligence community. In May 1961, KGB officer Yuri Loginov became an agent for U.S. intelligence. In December 1961, Anatoly Golitsyn defected from Helsinki. In June 1962, Yuri Nosenko, deputy head of the KGB Second Chief Directorate, internal security and counterintelligence, began passing classified Soviet docuмents to the CIA (and in February 1964 he, too, would defect). The scale tilted abruptly in the CIA's favor.
The Crisis in Berlin...and in the KGB
The disastrous wave of betrayal and defections in the KGB occurred at a moment of maximum international tension between the Moscow and the West, marked by the Berlin and the Cuban crises. This was not simply a coincidence. In the cases of some double-agents and defectors, among them Penkovsky and Nosenko, psychological and ideological, not material motives, prevailed. As Khrushchev raised the ante, bluffing against Washington, some informed members of the Soviet post-Stalin elites felt acutely uncomfortable. Khrushchev seemed unpredictable, mercurial, reckless, and just plain dangerous--not only to the West but to those Soviets growing accustomed to peaceful coexistence and the relative luxuries it allowed for the chosen members of the nomenklatura. The seemingly permanent state of nerve-wracking crisis, coinciding with a drastic expansion of cultural and human contacts across the Iron Curtain and the weakening of Stalinist fundamentalism in the East, strained loyalty to and belief in the regime and system, and in some cases pushed individuals to switch sides. The KGB's foreign intelligence and other divisions were heavily involved in various ways in the Berlin Crisis. They tested the temperature of U.S. and NATO reactions to Khrushchev's threat to sign a separate treaty with the German Democratic Republic which would give the GDR control over Western access routes to West Berlin. One scoop came when Khrushchev decided to let the East German communists close the sectorial border between the East and West Berlin, a decision resulting in the infamous Wall. On 4-7 August 1961, the foreign ministers of four Western countries (the United States, Great Britain, France and West Germany) held secret consultations in Paris. The only question on the agenda was: how to react to the Soviet provocations in Berlin? In the course of these meetings Western representatives expressed an understanding of the defensive nature of Soviet campaign in Germany, and unwillingness to risk a war.36 In less than three weeks the KGB laid on Khrushchev's desk quite accurate descriptions of the Paris talks, well ahead of its rival, the GRU. The intelligence materials correctly noted that, in contrast to the West Germans, U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk supported talks with the Soviet Union aimed at preservation of the status quo ante. However, the KGB and GRU warned that pressure in the alliance was forcing the Americans to consider economic sanctions against the GDR and other socialist countries, as well as to accelerate plans for conventional and nuclear armament of their West European allies, including the West German Bundeswehr.37
Another line of KGB involvement in the crisis concerned strategic deception. On 29 July 1961, KGB chief Shelepin sent a memorandum to Khrushchev containing a mind-boggling array of proposals to create ;a situation in various areas of the world which would favor dispersion of attention and forces by the USA and their satellites, and would tie them down during the settlement of the question of a German peace treaty and West Berlin.; The multifaceted deception campaign, Shelepin claimed, would ;show to the ruling circles of Western powers that unleashing a military conflict over West Berlin can lead to the loss of their position not only in Europe, but also in a number of countries of Latin America, Asia and Africa.;38 Khrushchev sent the memo with his approval to his deputy Frol Kozlov39 and on August 1 it was, with minor revisions, passed as a Central Committee directive. The KGB and the Ministry of Defense were instructed to work out more ;specific measures and present them for consideration by the CC CPSU.;40
The first part of the deception plan must have pleased Khrushchev, who in January 1961 had pledged, before the communists of the whole world, to assist ;movements of national liberation.; Shelepin advocated measures ;to activate by the means available to the KGB armed uprisings against pro-Western reactionary governments.; The destabilizing activities started in Nicaragua where the KGB plotted an armed mutiny through an ;Internal revolutionary front of resistance; in coordination with Castro's Cubans and with the ;Revolutionary Front Sandino.; Shelepin proposed to ;make appropriations from KGB funds in addition to the previous assistance 10,000 American dollars for purchase of arms.; Shelepin planned also the instigation of an ;armed uprising; in El Salvador, and a rebellion in Guatemala, where guerrilla forces would be given $15,000 to buy weapons. The campaign extended to Africa, to the colonial and semi-colonial possessions of the British and the Portuguese. The KGB promised to help organize anti-colonial mass uprisings of the African population in British Kenya and Rhodesia and Portuguese Guinea, by arming rebels and training military cadres. Nor did Shelepin forget the Far East. An ardent supporter of Sino-Soviet reconciliation, he played this ;Chinese card; once again. He suggested ;to bring to attention of the USA through KGB information channels information about existing agreement among the USSR, the PRC [People's Republic of China], the KPDR [Korean People's Democratic Republic; North Korea] and the DRV [Democratic Republic of Vietnam; North Vietnam] about joint military actions to liberate South Korea, South Vietnam, and Taiwan in case of the eruption of armed conflict in Germany.; The Soviet General Staff, proposed Shelepin, together with the KGB, ;should work out the relevant disinformation materials; and reach agreement ;with Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese friends about demonstration of military preparations in those areas.; Next came the bubbling cauldron of the Middle East. Shelepin planned ;to cause uncertainty in government circles of the USA, England, Turkey, and Iran about the stability of their positions in the Middle and Near East.; He offered to use old KGB connections with the chairman of Democratic party of Kurdistan, Mulla Mustafa Barzani, ;to activate the movement of the Kurdish population of Iraq, Iran, and Turkey for creation of an independent Kurdistan that would include the provinces of aforementioned countries.; Barzani was to be provided with necessary aid in arms and money.41 ;Given propitious developments,; noted Shelepin with foresight, ;it would become advisable to express the solidarity of Soviet people with this movement of the Kurds.; ;The movement for the creation of Kurdistan,; he predicted, ;will evoke serious concern among Western powers and first of all in England regarding [their access to] oil in Iraq and Iran, and in the United States regarding its military bases in Turkey. All that will create also difficulties for [Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abdul Karim] KASSIM who has begun to conduct a pro-Western policy, especially in recent time.;42
The second component of the Shelepin grand plan was directed against NATO installations in Western Europe and aimed ;to create doubts in the ruling circles of Western powers regarding the effectiveness of military bases located on the territory of the FRG and other NATO countries, as well as in the reliability of their personnel.; To provoke the local population against foreign bases, Shelepin contemplated working with the GDR and Czechoslovakia secret services to carry out ;active measures...to demoralize; military servicemen in the FRG (by agents, leaflets, and brochures), and even terrorist attacks on depot and logistics stations in West Germany and France.43
One of the more imaginative strands in the web of Soviet strategic deception concerned the number and even existence of new types of arms and missiles. Along with the General Staff, the KGB long practiced a dubious combination of super-secrecy and bluffing, thereby producing a series of panicky assessments in the West about a ;bomber gap; and then a ;missile gap.; This time Shelepin asked Khrushchev to assign to his organization and the military the task of making the West believe that the Soviets were absolutely prepared to launch an attack in retaliation for Western armed provocations over West Berlin. The disinformation package included the following tasks: -- to convince the West that Soviet land forces were now armed with new types of tanks ;equipped with tactical nuclear weapons;; -- to create a conviction among the enemy ;about a considerable increase of readiness of Rocket Forces and of the increased number of launching pads--produced by the supply of solid liquid ballistic missiles of medium range and by the transfer from stationary positions to mobile launching positions on highways and railroads which secure high maneuverability and survivability;; -- to spread a false story about the considerable increase in the number of nuclear submarines with solid-fuel ;Polaris; missiles; -- to bring to Western attention ;information about the strengthening of anti-aircraft defense;; -- to disorient the enemy regarding the availability in the Soviet Air Forces of ;new types of combat-tactical aircraft with 'air-to-air' and 'air-to-ground' missiles with a large operational range.;44
It is not clear when Shelepin learned about Khrushchev's decision to close the sectoral border between East and West Berlin, but the Wall went up just two weeks after his letter. It seems that the Wall took some heat off the problem. But in October-November 1961, the KGB and the military leadership evidently still believed that the signing of a separate peace treaty with the GDR was possible and designed its ;distraction; measures anticipating that this treaty would be a source of serious tension with the West. Indeed, sharp tension did arise in late October when U.S. tanks confronted two Soviet tank platoons in Berlin near Checkpoint Charlie. On November 10, Soviet Defense Minister Rodion Malinovsky and KGB Deputy Chief Peter Ivashutin asked the Central Committee Secretariat to approve, in addition to the crisis contingency planning by the military forces, deceptive steps ;directed at producing in the adversary's mind a profound conviction that the Soviet Union firmly intends to use force in response to military provocations of Western powers and has at its disposal all necessary combat means.; The KGB took upon itself the task ;to inform Western intelligence through unofficial channels that the Soviet Union has taken necessary measures to strengthen its troops in the GDR and to arm them with more modern tactical missiles, newer tanks, and other armaments sufficient for the delivery of a quick and crushing response strike on the adversary.; Through the same channels KGB intended ;to increase the adversary's belief in the high maneuverability and mobility of Soviet armed forces and their readiness, in case the West unleashes an armed conflict in Germany, to move within a minimal time up to the battle lines of the European theater. To convey as a proof thereof that this summer, during the exercises in the Near-Carpathian and other military districts, some divisions demonstrated an average speed of advancement of about 110-130 km per day.; Along the lines of Shelepin's proposal, the KGB's military-industrial consultants suggested other disinformation steps. Perhaps echoing Khrushchev's boast that his missiles could ;hit a fly in the sky,; the Committee proposed to convey to U.S. intelligence the information that during its recent series of atomic tests--in Sept.-Oct. 1961--the Soviet Union successfully ;tested a superpowerful thermonuclear warhead, along with a system of detecting and eliminating the adversary's missiles in the air.; The KGB laboratories fabricated ;evidence; for U.S. intelligence about ;the solution in the Soviet Union of the problem of constructing simple but powerful and user-convenient atomic engines for submarines which allow in the short run increasing considerably the number of atomic submarines up to fifteen.; (The ever-vigilant Shelepin deleted the number from the text--the super-secretive Soviets excised numbers even in disinformation!) Finally, the KGB received instructions ;to promote a legend about the invention in the Soviet Union of an aircraft with a close-circuited nuclear engine and its successful flight tests which demonstrated the engine's high technical capacities and its safety in exploitation.; ;On the basis of the M-50 'Myasischev' aircraft, with consideration of the results of those flight tests,; according to this disinformation, ;a strategic bomber with nuclear engines and unlimited range has been designed.;45
Even now, reading those docuмents gives one chills down the spine. Determined to deal with their opponent from a position of strength, and possessing the intoxicating capacity to hide or invent information, to deceive and to bluff, Kremlin leaders went too far, to the very brink where the fine line between deterring an attack and preparing for one blurred altogether. To make matters worse, Khrushchev often held his cards so close to his chest that even his closest subordinates could not guess his true intentions. Inside the KGB there were many levels of knowledge, to be sure, but it seems, for instance, that the famous ;Bolshakov channel; and the sensitive information that passed along it to the Kennedy administration during the Berlin crisis were sometimes not reported even to the KGB's highest hierarchy, only to the CPSU General Secretary.46
No wonder that a great number of junior and senior officials in the Soviet military and intelligence elites were scared to death. Some of them were convinced that Khrushchev was crazy and had become a victim of his own ;hare-brained schemes.; This scare still waits to be described by a creative quill. But one of its most tangible traces was a stream of well-positioned defectors. In his June 1960 plan to discredit Allen Dulles and the CIA, quoted earlier, Shelepin had envisioned fostering ;an atmosphere of mutual suspicion within the CIA staff; by fostering fears of KGB penetration within the agency. In fact, as Shelepin hoped, a paranoid ;mole-hunt; in the Western intelligence community did occur, but apparently as a by-product of authentic defections from Soviet intelligence rather than because of Shelepin's deliberate deception campaign. Major Anatoliy Golitsyn became a pivotal figure in this regard. He was the least informed of the new crop of KGB defectors, but the echoes of Shelepin's grandiose plans reached his ear. It has been argued, with some justification, that the harm that this stocky Ukrainian defector caused to careers and environment in the CIA could have been done only by a Soviet double-agent. The alliance between Golitsyn and CIA counterintelligence chief James Angleton was indeed more ruinous for American operatives who fell under suspicion in the frantic ;mole-hunt; than for real KGB agents.47
It is ironic that KGB leadership had no premonition about this at all. There is, indeed, newly available evidence about how painful Golitsyn's defection was to the KGB. On 28 July 1962, a new KGB chief, Vladimir Semichastny, wrote to Shelepin, now promoted to the Party Secretariat: According to reliable evidence American intelligence is preparing a broad campaign of provocation against the Soviet Union that will involve a traitor of Motherland GOLITSYN and other traitors, along with double-agents and provocateurs. ;The Americans count on this provocation,; continued Semichastny while ignoring the irony of his words, ;to dispel to some extent the impression among the public that the USA is an organizer of world espionage, and to demonstrate that the Soviet Union is conducting active intelligence work in all countries.; The Committee proposed ;measures to discredit GOLITSYN; in the eyes of his CIA debriefers by implicating him in a felony. According to the plan, the newspaper Soviet Russia was to publish an article about a trial that allegedly had been held in Leningrad on a case of hard currency smuggling. The KGB would ;let Americans know, without mentioning GOLITSYN's name, that this article has something to so with him.; In case Golitsyn came up ;with slanderous declarations,; the KGB planned to arrange more publications about his invented criminal background and to demand, after that, from the U.S. government through official channels the ;extradition of GOLITSYN as a criminal.; As a last resort, Semichastny asked for Party sanction ;to carry out an operation on his [GOLITSYN'S] removal.;48
Scorpions in a bottle
Glasnost on Soviet intelligence activities has yet to reach the level achieved by the American side during the congressional hearings of the Church and Pike committees in the mid-1970s. But the docuмents found recently in the CC CPSU archives do shed considerable light on KGB operations and indicate, without mincing words, how ambitious, various and extensive were KGB activities, especially against the ;number one enemy,; the United States. There is little doubt that almost any docuмent on the Soviet side has its U.S. counterpart in Langley still hidden from public view.49 The process of mutual emulation started after the defection of Soviet cypher clerk Igor Gouzenko in Ottawa, Canada, in the summer of 1945. Ever since then the American intelligence agencies and the FBI, seconded by Soviet defectors, argued that they needed more discretionary resources and rights to match a well-prepared and ruthless enemy. The KGB docuмents prove that the enemy was, indeed, ingenious, resourceful, and prepared to go very far. The emphasis on disinformation and on the use of various groups and movements in the ;third world; had, of course, been a direct continuation of the OGPU-NKVD tradition in the 1920s-1940s.50 Back then, the Soviet intelligence leaned extensively on the networks of the Comintern and other individuals sympathetic to the Soviet ;experiment.; This network suffered from blows and defections as a result of Khrushchev's de-Stalinization campaign and its spectacular unveiling at the February 1956 CPSU Twentieth Party Congress. But the collapse of colonial empires and the surge of radicalism and nationalism in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East was a bonanza for Soviet intelligence, bent on expanding their contacts in those parts of the world. The KGB, no doubt, fulfilled orders from the top. Khrushchev's support of ;wars of national liberation; was a big step toward the globalization of Soviet foreign policy, and therefore of the Cold War. It is clear from the KGB docuмents, however, that even at that time of escalating covert superpower rivalry in the Third World, the Kremlin leadership retained clear Realpolitik priorities: with the exception of those posted in Cuba, Soviet intelligence agents in Third World countries were used by the Soviet leadership and its external arm, the KGB's First Directorate, as pawns in a geostrategic game centered firmly on Berlin. Yet, the KGB had its own distinctive impact on the Cold War. The docuмents presented in this article challenge the myth that KGB officials (and some American counterparts as well) like to promulgate: that the intelligence services of both sides, by increasing ;transparency; about the adversary's intentions and capabilities, thereby contributed to stability and predictability in a dangerously polarized world. Some intelligence efforts that were genuinely devoted to reconnaissance, and reduced fears of a surprise attack, may well have done so. But the games of deception, disinformation, and distraction designed by the KGB masterminds had a deleterious effect on global stability. They certainly contributed to the perception in Washington of expansive Soviet ambitions. In some cases they even exacerbated the danger of armed conflict. And the elaborate plots to sow the seeds of mistrust between the U.S. leadership and intelligence agencies was dictated by anything but a clear comprehension of how dangerous this kind of conspiracy had become in the nuclear age. The legacy of the covert activities undertaken by the KGB and CIA at this key juncture of the Cold War was ambiguous: besides the function of obtaining and relaying objective information to their respective leaderships, the two rival intelligence organizations behaved, to borrow Oppenheimer's classic description of the nuclear predicament, like two scorpions in a bottle, prepared to sting each other until death. The fact that the Cold War in the 1970s and the late 1980s looked more like a ;long peace; appeared to have limited impact on the mentality of intelligence officials in Washington and Moscow.51 By then, the KGB's First Directorate concentrated even more on technical-scientific espionage, which reflected, on the one hand, a long-standing symbiosis between the Soviet intelligence services and the military-industrial nexus, and, on the other, a distancing from ;cloak and dagger; covert activities. Vladimir Kryuchkov, later a KGB chief and conspirator in the August 1991 hardline coup attempt, was to a large extent a product of this specialization in scientific-technical espionage. The paranoia of Kryuchkov, who to this day believes that the West was nurturing a ;fifth column; to demoralize and subvert Soviet society, as well as that of his CIA counterpart Angleton, was underpinned and ;substantiated; by the shady games and counter-games in which the two intelligence services had engaged all during the Cold War. The alleged existence of American ;agents of influence; inside Soviet society and even government--a key tenet of Kryuchkov's homilies for vigilance--had been, indeed, a matter of pride for the CIA since the 1970s and can now, to a very limited extent, even be docuмented from U.S. government sources. But the paranoia, even when it fed on realities, remained for the most part a self-deception. The KGB's methods and proclivity for Jesuitical twists of imagination distorted the minds of Kryuchkov and many others. While the whole atmosphere of the Cold War existed, this mind-frame was contagious and spread like cancer. There was always a sound and pragmatic side to intelligence: the collection and analysis of information. There were failures and errors in this work, but, in general, the record shows considerable accuracy and consistent objectivity, at least as far as the specific actions and motives were concerned. But the darker side of intelligence activity, linked to the Cold War mentality and actions, always co-existed with the former, sometimes casting a long shadow. The resources spent on intelligence operations related to psychological warfare and deception had a dynamic of diminishing r
-
Neither the CIA nor the KGB-FSB/FSS runs the deepest part of the Intelligence Operations of either the United States nor Russia.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nYJEruT1r1o/TkKjgMEYl7I/AAAAAAAAChs/E2KIMAfvFSg/)
Main Intelligence Directorate, the GRU
Chief of the GRU - Alexander Shlyakhturov
Main Intelligence Directorate, or the GRU in Russian (for Glavnoye Razvedyvatelnoye Upravleniye) is the foreign military intelligence directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. The chief of the GRU is subordinate only to the Chief of the General Staff and the Minister of Defense and has no direct connection to the political leadership of the country.
The GRU was created on October 21, 1918 under the sponsorship of Leon Trotsky, who was then the civilian overseer of the Red Army[4]; it was originally known as the Registration Directorate (Registrupravlenie, or RU). Simon Aralov was its first head. It was given the task of handling all military intelligence, particularly the collection of intelligence of military or political significance from sources outside the Soviet Union.
The GRU gathers human intelligence through military attaches and foreign agents. It also maintains significant signals intelligence and imagery reconnaissance and satellite imagery capabilities.
With the dissolution of the USSR at the start of 1992, the GRU became for a time the principal intelligence body of the Main Command of the Commonwealth of Independent States Armed Forces. Following the April 1992 creation of a Russian Ministry of Defense, however, the GRU became Russia's military-intelligence arm.
In the 1990s, unlike the SVR, the GRU was involved in the conflict in Chechnya. In 1996 Dzhokhar Dudaev, the separatist president of Chechnya was αssαssιnαtҽd, when military intelligence successfully homed in on Dudaev’s cell phone signal and fired a missile in his direction. During the first and the second Chechen war, the GRU was also involded in the conflict through special operations forces spetsnaz units, deployed in Chechnya. Spetsnaz is subordinate to the military intelligence. In the yearly 2000s two Spetsnaz Special forces brigades, termed East and West, were made up of ethnic Chechens. The primary role of both brigades was the liquidation of suspected insurgents and their work is held in high esteem by Moscow. In August 2004 Sergey Ivanov, Russian minister of defense, met with the Spetsnaz commanders to declare his support and supply them with more advanced weapons.
On February 13, 2004, a white Toyota Land Cruiser carrying Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev, a Chechen warlord and vice president of the breakaway republic, and his 13-year-old son was blown up in the Qatari capital of Doha. No one took responsibility for the attack, but soon three Russian secret services' agents were arrested. Two of them were accused of killing, found guilty and then handed over to Russia. It was widely reported that both officers were agents of Russian military intelligence.
-
This below is a long standing scam to over what is really going on.
(http://scd.france24.com/en/files/imagecache/france24_ct_api_bigger_169/article/image/australia%20china%20hacking.jpg)
Geopolitical Realignments: USA-Israel-China versus Russia-Europe-Arabia | Foreign Policy Journal
For references and explanation of what is going on, see below the bottom of this article.
Geopolitical Realignments: USA-Israel-China versus Russia-Europe-Arabia | Foreign Policy Journal
Geopolitical Realignments: USA-Israel-China versus Russia-Europe-Arabia
by Dr. K R Bolton
September 19, 2011
Despite the focus of the mass media on (mostly theoretical) rivalry between the USA and China, and the rapport in recent years between China and Russia through a Central Asian axis, neither of these apparent geopolitical alignments are historically or organically based. They are superficial and in particular obscure the behind-the-scenes diplomacy that takes place above and beyond the public view. I have contended since the 1980s that there will be conflict between Russia and China, and that the USA will eventually adopt a de jurepro-China position, which has continued de facto despite the occasional posturing on the world stage.
Although there has been an ongoing relationship between Israel and China and between China and the USA, Russia, on the other hand, has been regarded as highly dubious by the USA, China, and Israel, regardless of what appears from public rostrums and treaties.
• The US foreign policy and international banking establishments together with the Zionists have been nervous about Russia for over a Century. They have regarded Russians as barbaric pogromists; Russia, the land of the Black Hundreds which has only relented during the brief interregnums of (a) The Bolsheviks up to the rise of Stalin;[1] (b) the regimes of Gorbachev[2] and Yeltsin. The conspicuous presence of Jєωs among the “oligarchs” targeted by Putin for corruption has served to multiply this nervousness towards Russia.
• If there was ever going to be an historically and organically based alliance between China and Russia, one would expect this to have been forged on the basis of “fraternal relations” when Russia was nominally “Communist.” Such was far from the case however. The foundation of Sino-Soviet relations was the cynically named 1950 “Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance,” which reduced China to a vassal state, and was ended by China in 1979 with the invasion of Vietnam as a symbolic gesture of the two-fingered kind.[3]
Causes of Future Conflict
In regard to the relationship that will emerge between Russia and China, it is a matter of “blood is thicker than water,” and for Russians the Chinese are racial enemies. However, in this instance, it is water that is likely to be the factor that will reinforce the bonds and the antagonisms of “blood.”
China’s domination of Tibet provides the probable key to future widespread conflict throughout South and Southeast Asia and extending to Russia. The control of the Himalayan headwaters that feed most of India and Southeast Asia means that China has the potential lever over life and death for tens of millions. Water resources, flooding, pollution, and drought are major, albeit rarely publicized, problems throughout Asia. China has plans that will enable it to turn off the water taps for Asia at will, and the Chinese will not hesitate to do so when they face water resource crises of their own. The plan is for a Great South-North Water Project which will be able to divert river waters from the Tibetan highlands, including the waters of the Brahmaputra which feed India, into the parched Yellow River.[4] With such crises against the background of historic tensions that have still not been resolved between China and India, Japan, and Vietnam, and Russia’s historically sound relations that endure with Vietnam and India, and the Chinese aim of hegemony over Central Asia, the much touted Shanghai Cooperation Organization established in 1996 as the “Shanghai Five,” will be no more enduring than the Hitler-Stalin Pact. Ironically, it was during the “Communist” era that China and the USSR came close to full-scale war, when China caused provocations along the border with Russia. During 1960-1963 there were over nine thousand disputes. The biggest clash in 1969 came when the Chinese killed 32 Russians in an ambush, with Russia responding by bombing China, causing about 800 Chinese deaths.[5]
Such was the adversity between Russia and China during the 1960s that veteran journalist hαɾɾιson E Salisbury wrote a book entitled The Coming War Between Russia and China, in which he referred to the historic enmity starting during the 13th Century.[6] It would be naïve to think that a “Shanghai Cooperation Organization” has fundamentally altered the broad outlines of Salisbury’s thesis.
USA & China
US opposition to Red China is one of the great myths of popular history. Nor was Mao particular antagonistic towards the USA other than when he wanted to posture as the rival leader of World Communism and the Third World against the “running dogs of US imperialism.” His opposition was very much that of a “paper tiger.”
Stalin was never well disposed towards Mao, whereas the USA was. The USA was insistent that Chiang deal with the Communists, while Stalin insisted that the Communists deal with Chiang. It was Chiang whom Stalin recognized as the leader of China, and regarded Mao as a “Trotskyite.”[7] When the Russians prepared to evacuate Manchuria in 1945 they stayed until 1946 to allow Chiang in ahead of Mao. The Soviet Ambassador was only withdrawn from Chiang’s entourage the day before Mao’s announcement of his government in Peking in October 1949. Mao never forgave this. Mao’s attempts to ingratiate himself with the USSR were never successful, and he endured humiliation.[8]
Conversely to the anti-Communist policy pursued by Stalin, the USA did whatever it could to back Mao. Gen. George C Marshall warned that US support for Chiang would end if he did not stop pursuing the Red Army into northern Manchuria at a time when Mao could have been defeated. As Chang and Halliday point out in their definitive biography on Mao, in a chapter aptly entitled “Saved by Washington,” this US betrayal of Chiang was decisive.[9] However, Mao, as the budding co-equal to Stalin as leader of World Communism, was obliged to direct his alliance towards the USSR rather than the USA, a decision that cost China dearly under the terms of the colonialistic “Sino-Soviet Treaty.” Moreover, Mao was never accepted as the leader of World Communism other than by the Communist Party of New Zealand and by Albania.[10] His only option for recognition as a world statesman was to return to the USA, resulting in the Nixon visit of 1972.
However, despite the self-imposed isolation of Mao in his ill-considered attempt to align with the USSR rather than the USA, the US foreign policy establishment and plutocratic interests had never disowned their pro-Mao attitude. These centred on the Rockefeller cabal and more latterly that of George Soros. Despite US recognition for China not being achieved until 1975, the policy that was pursued by the Nixon Administration towards China since 1970 had been formulated a decade previously by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Peter Grose explained this in the official history of the CFR, which he calls America’s “foreign policy establishment”:
The Council turned in earnest to the problem of communist China early in the 1960s. Various Council publications had started developing the idea of a ‘two-China’ policy—recognition of both the Nationalist government of Taiwan and the communist government on the mainland. This, Council authors suggested, might be the least bad policy direction. Professor A. Doak Barnett published a trail-blazing book for the Council in 1960,Communist China and Asia. A major Council study of relations between the United States and China commenced in 1964, the year China exploded its first nuclear bomb; the group met systematically for the next four years. ‘Contentment with the present stalemate in relations with the Chinese is not statesmanship,’ declared Robert Blum of the Asia Society[11], the first director of the project. ‘American impatience and the strong currents of political emotion often make it impossible to plan ahead to manage our policy in a persevering but flexible way.’”[12]
Like the recognition of Bolshevik Russian desired by the international bankers at the earliest stages of the regime, recognition of Red China presented a problem, especially since the USA had given guarantees to Taiwan. A typically duplicitous strategy was therefore required. The USA used the “two-China policy” to secure Red China’s entry into the United Nations, and to sideline Taiwan. The CFR approach was one of gradual promotion of the Mao regime, decrying the so-called “strong currents of emotion” that were holding back the globalist relationship with Red China. Grose explains:
This seemed just the sort of political stalemate that the Council on Foreign Relations, free of electoral and partisan constraints, was endowed to repair. Midway through the project, the Council published an analysis of public opinion called The American People and China by A. T. Steele, who reached the unexpected conclusion that Americans were more willing than many of their elected officeholders to forge new relations with China. This study argued that it was only a steady diet of hostile public statements that had made Americans “disposed to believe the worst of communist China and they [the Chinese] the worst of us.”[13]
It is from this milieu that Rockefeller protégé Henry Kissinger[14] emerged as the public architect of the US policy towards China. Grose states of Kissinger and Cyrus Vance:
Kissinger, acting as Nixon’s national security adviser, embarked on a secret mission to Beijing in 1971[15], to make official, exploratory contact with the communist regime. Nixon himself followed in 1972. The delicate process of normalizing diplomatic relations between the United States and China was completed in 1978 by Kissinger’s successor as secretary of state, Cyrus R. Vance, a leading Council officer before and after his government service.[16]
US Trade with Russia & China: The Imbalance
In 1973 David Rockefeller went to China and came back writing of what he saw of China’s “social experiment” being one of the “most important and successful in human history.”[17] His Standard Oil soon obtained exclusive rights to oil exploration, and his Chase Manhattan Bank quickly followed. When in 1978 Taiwan was formally dumped, America’s first Ambassador to Red China was Leonard Woodstock, an early member of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission. On the heels of Rockefeller went Coca Cola, Boeing, and Mitsui-Petro Chemical, all affiliated with the Trilateral Commission; starting a momentum that has made China the universally recognized juggernaut of world capitalism.[18]
What has developed between the USA and China is a symbiotic economic relationship that exists neither between the USA and Russia nor Russia and China. Niall Ferguson describes what he calls the “growing interdependence” between the USA and China:
Far from being strategic rivals, these two empires have the air of economic partners. The only question is which of the two is more dependent, which, to be precise, stands to lose more in the event of a crisis in their amicable relationship, now over thirty years old.[19]
While China has been heralded as the power that will be co-equal if not surpassing the USA, leaving Russia in a subordinate position, Russia has the upper hand in economic relations with China, and “will continue to sell oil and weapons on Russian terms.”[20] Trade relations, while heralded by both states, are inconsistent. Of particular significance, Stratfor has forecast that, “competition and mutual suspicion would prevent the rejuvenation of a strategic partnership between the two Eurasian powers. Moscow’s determination to economically integrate with Western Europe also is driving a wedge between the two.”[21] The European Union, not China, is Russia’s main trading partner, and the EU is the most important investor in Russia, based on the 1994 “Partnership & Co-Operation Agreement,” with the aim of an integrated market.[22] In terms of US goods trade, Russia stands at 24th; US foreign direct investment (FDI) in Russia (stock) was $21.3 billion in 2009 (latest figures).[23] However, China is the USA’s second largest goods trading partner, and US foreign direct investment (FDI) in China (stock) was $49.4 billion in 2009 (latest data available).[24]
To what extent, then, is there a geopolitical alliance between Russia and China that is genuinely rooted in a common outlook? Who or what are their common “outer enemies”? The fact seems that, despite the occasional verbiage on the world stage about “tensions” between the USA and China, or future possibilities of geopolitical rivalry over oil supply routes, the power distrusted by both is Russia, and Russia in turn deeply distrusts both.
Russia & USA
The rapport between the USA and Russia was very brief: the interregnum of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, followed by a renewed “Cold War” with the rise of Putin. Gorbachev is today feted as a celebrity by the globalist elite for his having dismantled the Soviet bloc, with the prospect of re-colonizing Russia; a project that had been abruptly halted by Stalin. Gorbachev’s 80th birthday celebration at the Royal Albert Hall, March 2011, was billed for “The Man who Changed the World.”[25]
Ynet News, one of the large Israeli media outlets, stated of the Gorbachev festivities that among the attendees were Israeli President Shimon Peres, and unnamed “oligarchs.” Israel’s Shimon Peres was a featured guest of the event,Ynet News reporting: “In his speech, the Israeli president said Gorbachev fought to regain what his country had lost to communism, adding that the former Soviet leader changed history.”[26]
However, despite the flurry of jubilation up until the drunken clown Yeltsin, Russia never could be relied upon to stick to the script, and the Council on Foreign Relations laments that “Russia is heading in the wrong direction.”[27] One of the CFR recommendations is to directly interfere with the Russian political process, urging US Congress to fund opposition movements by increased funding for the Freedom Support Act, in this instance referring specifically to the 2007-2008 presidential elections.[28] Authors of the CFR report include Mark F Brzezinski,[29] who served on the National Security Council as an adviser on Russian and Eurasian affairs under President Clinton; Antonia W Bouis, founding executive director of the Soros Foundations; and James A Harmon, senior advisor to the Rothschild Group, et al.
The high level policy makers of the globalist establishment, far from seeing China and the USA as rivals, see them as the linchpins of the “nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.” A report carried by Forbes states:
The US and China are not in a competition to dominate the world, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said during a meeting in Beijing on Tuesday.
“Such competition is meaningless,” Kissinger was quoted saying in Tuesday’s China Daily. Regarding the South China Sea issue, Kissinger said that freedom of navigation in the area, in which the US has claimed national interests, is a separate issue apart from the territorial disputes between countries in the region.
“The US’ primary interest is a good relationship with China, not provoking difficulties with it, and the US is not stirring up the Philippines and Vietnam,” he said.
…The controversial Kissinger was in China for a series of public and private meetings, and also took time-out to promote his book, On China.
“What I tried to do with my new book is to explain…what the Chinese think about the world,” he told China Daily. “That’s the best I could do in the spirit of building confidence between the two countries,” he said.[30]
The joint Sino-American project is noticed within Russia. Alexander Lukin, Director of the Center for East Asian and SCO Studies at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, stated in a scholarly paper:
Two U.S. foreign-policy pundits, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger, have recently come out with programs for solving global problems in the new situation. In fact, they have proposed to the newly elected U.S. president, Barack Obama, changing the U.S. foreign policy. The positions of the two policymakers do not fully coincide; yet they agree on one thing: a stable future of the world depends on whether or not the United States and China are able to put aside their differences and launch constructive cooperation between themselves.[31]
Lukin also cites an article by Kissinger where he proposes a Sino-US alliance to shape the global system, stating that the USA must be wiling to compromise in order to display its goodwill to China, going so far as to shape China and the USA “into a design for a common destiny, much as was done with trans-Atlantic relations in the postwar period.”[32]
Lukin refers to the anti-Russian motivation that continues to be a primary factor in the thinking of Zbigneiw Brzezinski, as one of the major theorists for US hegemony, Lukin writing:
The two veteran policymakers build their reasoning on different logic. Kissinger follows up on his own geopolitical concepts, while Brzezinski apparently remains committed to the dominating dream of his life – creating a widest possible anti-Russian coalition. Yet, for various reasons, there is much in common in their recommendations.[33]
Lukin believes that there are various scenarios such as protests from human rights activist in regard to China, that make a Sino-US alliance of the type proposed to Brzezkinski unlikely. His reasons for objections seem naïve. However, Lukin does make an interesting comment about the implications of such a shift in alignments, one being a realignment between Russia and Europe, which he states is a desirable project for Russian policy-makers:
Finally, geopolitically, a U.S. shift towards China would create favorable conditions for the fulfillment of a daydream of many politicians in Moscow: the separation of Europe from the U.S., its rapprochement with Russia, and the creation of a Europe from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. Realistically minded policymakers in Washington are unlikely to be delighted by the prospect.[34]
Despite his belief in the “unfeasibity” of a Sino-US pact, Lukin states of high-level relationships that will at least likely bring the two closer:
Nevertheless, a certain shift in Washington from the ideologization of its foreign policy to pragmatism would inevitably lead to closer cooperation with China. Circles close to the administration are actively discussing the idea of establishing a U.S.-Chinese cooperation commission, to be led by Vice President Joseph Biden and Premier Wen Jiabao (similar to the former U.S.-Russian Albert Gore-Victor Chernomyrdin commission). The two countries have agreed to broaden their bilateral strategic dialogue on economic issues and include security issues in it. They have also announced plans to start discussions on global warming. In addition, shortly before Clinton’s visit, they declared the resumption of consultations between their defense ministries, which had been suspended by China last year after the George W. Bush administration announced plans to sell large quantities of armaments to Taiwan.[35]
Both Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski continue to serve US Administrations, and Brzezinski has served as President Obama’s foreign policy adviser. Brzezinski stated when Russia invaded Georgia:
Fundamentally at stake is what kind of role Russia will play in the new international system. Unfortunately, Putin is putting Russia on a course that is ominously similar to Stalin’s and Hitler’s in the late 1930s… Not only the West, but the rest of the international community, must make it clear that this kind of behavior will result in ostracism and economic and financial penalties. Ultimately, if Russia continues on this course, it must face isolation in the international community – a longer range risk to its own well-being… The question is not what obligation the West may have at the moment. The question is about our longer term interest. If a Russia, which misjudges its power and its capacities embarks now on a blatantly nationalistic and imperialistic course, we will all suffer.[36]
It is notable that Brzezinski advocates a new Cold War containment of Russia in its own spheres of interest by the “international community,” and that there is concern about Russia as a nationalistic and imperialistic state that does not fit into the globalist schemes for a “new international system.” Brzezinski rightly sees Eurasia as pivotal in world power politics. Russia’s influence over Eurasia is therefore of primary concern to Brzezinski, and to contain that influence he advocates a Sino-American alliance. He writes of the volatile situation in Eurasia:
In the western periphery of Eurasia, the key players will continue to be France and Germany, and America’s central goal should be to continue to expand the democratic European bridgehead. In the Far East, China is likely to be increasingly pivotal, and the United States will not have a Eurasian strategy unless a Sino-American political consensus is nurtured. In Eurasia’s center, the area between an enlarging Europe and a regionally rising China will remain a political black hole until Russia firmly redefines itself as a post-imperial state. Meanwhile, to the south of Russia, Central Asia threatens to become a cauldron of ethnic conflicts and great-power rivalries.[37]
It can be seen from the above passage that Brzezinski is recommending:
• The further ongoing subversion of the former Soviet bloc states that has been taking place via the so-called “velvet” and “color revolutions” orchestrated by the Soros Open Society networks, Freedom House, National Endowment for Democracy, etc.
• Ensuring that Russia is limited in its relationship with Europe.
• Aligning with China in containing Russia.
While Brzezinski focuses on what he regards as the nationalistic and imperialistic revivals of Russia, he refers to the USA as “the world’s premier power.” Hence, US global hegemony is to be regarded as beneficent, while any challenge is regarded as an “imperialistic” danger to the “new international system.”
No state is likely to match the United States in the four key dimensions of power – military, economic, technological, and cultural – that confer global political clout.… America’s global stewardship will be tested by tension, turbulence, and periodic conflict.… In a volatile Eurasia, the immediate task is to ensure that no state or combination of states gains the ability to expel the United States or even diminish its decisive role.… A benign American hegemony must still discourage others from posing a challenge.…[38]
The “medium-term goal” is to forge a Europe that is subservience to US interests, and to support “a regionally pre-eminent China.” Brzezinski states of these goals that “it will be success or failure in forging broader strategic relationships with Europe and China that shapes Russia’s future role and determines Eurasia’s central power equation.”[39] Hence, US global hegemony can be seen to rest on the containment of Russia through the subordination of Europe and a partnership with China.
Japan is required to place trust in China as the dominant power. “There will be no stable equilibrium of power in Eurasia without a deepening strategic understanding between America and China and a clearer definition of Japan’s emerging role.” China’s rise, which he calls “Greater China,” does not pose a challenge to US hegemony, as Brzezinski regards Chinese regional hegemony as different to that of the Russian.
A de facto sphere of Chinese regional influence is likely to be part of Eurasia’s future. Such a sphere of influence should not be confused with a zone of exclusive political domination, like the Soviet Union had in Eastern Europe. It is more likely to be an area in which weaker states pay special deference to the interests, views, and anticipated reactions of the regionally dominant power. In brief, a Chinese sphere of influence can be defined as one in which the first question in the various capitals is, “What is Beijing’s view on this?”[40]
“Greater China” does not pose a threat to US strategic interests. So far from there being a potential for geopolitical rivalry between China and the USA, there is a commonality of interests:
Greater China’s geopolitical influence is not necessarily incompatible with America’s strategic interest in a stable, pluralistic Eurasia. For example, China’s growing interest in Central Asia constrains Russia’s ability to achieve a political reintegration of the region under Moscow’s control. In this connection and in regard to the Persian Gulf, China’s growing energy needs means it has a common interest with America in maintaining free access to, and political stability in, the oil-producing regions. Similarly, China’s support for Pakistan restrains India’s ambitions to subordinate that country, while offsetting India’s inclination to cooperate with Russia in regard to Afghanistan and Central Asia. Chinese and Japanese involvement in the development of eastern Siberia can also enhance regional stability.
The bottom line is that America and China need each other in Eurasia. Greater China should consider America a natural ally for historical as well as political reasons. Unlike Japan or Russia, the United States has never had any territorial designs on China; compared to Great Britain, it has never humiliated China. Moreover, without a viable strategic relationship with America, China is not likely to continue to attract the enormous foreign investment necessary for regional preeminence.… For America, China’s regional power, co-opted into a wider framework of international cooperation, can become an important strategic asset – equal to Europe, more weighty than Japan – in assuring Eurasia’s stability.[41]
It will be noted that Brzezinski seems to base his perception of states on their relationship to Russia, and in this India, rather than Pakistan, is the problem state that needs containing. Brzezinski therefore sees India as the aggressor vis-à-vis Pakistan, to say nothing of China’s aggressive designs on Indian territory. The various states on whom “Greater China” has territorial ambitions are apparently supposed to ignore those designs, including ongoing provocations. There have been many skirmishes against Vietnam over the Bay of Tonkin, during which fishermen seem to bear the brunt of Chinese aggression.[42] India has faced confrontation with China over Arunachi Pradesh[43]. Late in 2010 there were diplomatic tensions between China and Japan over disputed islands in the East China Sea.[44] Brzezinski’s answer to territorial disputes between Japan and China seems to be that of their jointly “developing” eastern Siberia.
Soros’ attitude towards China parallels Brzezinski’s. Soros bases his perceptions of China as a super-power that has matured and has to accept global responsibilities as being co-leader of the “nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr” along with the USA. Accepting his award as “Globalist of the Year” from the Canadian International Council, the currency speculator who admits to having a messiah complex, stated of China that: “They have now got to accept responsibility for world order and the interests of other people as well.” When Soros was asked about an impending visit to China in 2009 he stated to the London Financial Times:
This would be the time because I think you really need to bring China into the creation of a nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, financial world order. I think you need a nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, that China has to be part of the process of creating it and they have to buy in, they have to own it in the same way as the United States owns … the current order.[45]
China & Israel
Since the establishment of Israel and Red China at around the same time there has been an ongoing, although usually covert, relationship, despite the posturing of China as the friend of the Palestinians and the Arab cause. From 1949 Israel was the only independent state in the Middle East to recognize Red China and support its admittance to the United Nations. During the 1960s and 1970s China adopted a pro-Arab posture in attempting to counter Soviet influence. However, despite an attempt at alignment with the Arab states, in 1971 Zhou told Senator Henry Jackson, who was as opposed to the USSR as he was supportive of Israel, that China supported Israel in its opposition to Soviet expansion in the Middle East.[46]
However, the real significance of Sino-Israeli relations was through the covert arms deals largely arranged by Shaul Eisenberg, “Mossad’s tie-in with China.”[47] In 1979, when China was posing as the friend of the Arab people, Prime Minister Menachem Begin obtained US approval for Eisenberg to undertake a $US10 billion 10 year deal to modernize the Chinese armed forces, the Chinese insisting on “absolute secrecy.”[48] In 1999 The New York Times reported, “Israel has long had a close, secretive military relationship, with China.”[49] The Clinton Administration made some protestations to Israel about the dealings in advanced weapons technologies to placate concerns in the State and Commerce Departments, but allowed US corporations to advance classified technologies for satellite and missile launching, despite the objections of the Pentagon and others, and even while the corporations were being investigated for prior export violations.[50]
Sino-US-Israeli Alignment in Middle East
As the foregoing shows, the relations between the USA, China, and Israel have been duplicitous, and have often been far different in reality, behind-the-scenes, than the posturing on the world stage. All three have had a common anti-Russian motivation. Now, with the so-called “Arab Spring,” contrived by the same interests that brought “velvet revolutions” to the former Soviet bloc states[51] and with the worrying prospect that these new regimes in the Middle East might have unleashed forces that cannot be controlled by their money-masters and advisers in New York and Washington, Israeli sources are urging a joint Sino-American-Israeli intervention.
A Jerusalem Post op-ed by Dr Shalom Wald[52] and Dr Gedaliah Afterman[53] comments on the visit by Chinese Chief of Staff, General Chen Bingde, to Israel in August 2011, that this is an opportunity for China to have a “stabilizing” impact on the region:
Indeed, improved Israel-China ties could have a positive impact not only on Israel but on the whole region. It could signal the Iranians and their Arab followers, Hamas and Hezbollah, that notwithstanding the help that some of them may have received from China in the past, China has no time and no sympathy for wild, genocidal ranting. China’s rapid ascendance and its interest in maintaining regional stability in the Middle East means China may be more ready to play a role in regional affairs and in the Middle East peace process.
The United States’ reaction to growing Israel-China ties will be crucial. All efforts should be made to convince Israel’s closest ally that it is in its own interest to let China lend a helping hand in stabilizing the Middle East.
The Arabs and Iranians listen to China because they have to. China was their great neighbor for thousands of years before the United States was even formed, and before Europe become a power in the Middle East. Today China is their most important Asian energy market, and provides political cover because it does not ask them for political or human-rights concessions.
In his recently published book On China, Henry Kissinger continues his most important struggle – to help avoid the clash between a traditional and a rising great power which has occurred so often in history. He suggests that America can and must cope with China’s peaceful rise, but also asks the Chinese to become more involved in maintaining peace and stability on a global level. Have the Chinese already listened to him on the Middle East? Has the United States?[54]
As has been shown by the “Brzezinski Doctrine,” globalist interests in the USA have already been urging a joint Sino-US role, in the Middle East. An Israeli overture in that direction will give impetus for the Obama Administration to adopt the globalist agenda, especially given the current tumult that globalist interference has unleashed over the Middle East.
Conclusions
Globalist interests, headed up by David Rockefeller and Soros, and articulated by Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, see Russia as the major obstacle to a “nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr,” as they have since the time of Stalin. China long has been seen as the means of containing Russia. Now China is a super-power in her own right, and one that – despite occasional rhetoric from public rostrums about “democracy” and “human rights” – globalist business interests welcome as being privotal to the “nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.”
While internationalist and Israeli aims have occasionally been divergent, both are in confluence in considering China as a means of “stabilizing” Eurasia and the Middle East respectively. The US internationalists have been pursuing a pro-China agenda since before Mao assumed power, and the Israelis have always maintained a (usually covert) relationship with China. The present is the overt culmination of the largely unseen agendas of decades past.
These globalist interests do not need persuading to advocate for a Chinese role in “stabilizing” the Middle East. This role would also be useful in containing Russia in that region, just as China is also seen as the major factor in blocking Russia’s influence over Eurasia. The USA, Israel and China have all seen Russia, both in her Soviet and post-Soviet modes, as the primary adversary. A US-China-Israel alliance is more in accord with historical facts than the current Sino-Russian rapport, which could face crises scenarios over water resources, and the ancient Chinese desire for lebensraum in Russia, which is seen by the “Brzezinski Doctrine” as acceptable for the “development” (sic) of Siberia.
The option for Middle Eastern states that reject a joint Sino-US hegemony could be alignment with Russia. In Europe, the American-appeasing Sarkozy is an aberration of French politics. While Britain is likely to remain the USA’s primary ally in Europe, already there is disquiet from Germany about Europe being dragged into US military adventures that do not serve Europe’s interests. Building upon the relationship Europe is developing with Russia would be desirable, along the lines envisioned by de Gaulle.
The “Brzezinski Doctrine,” if we may call it that, could be the catalyst not for a Sino-US “nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr” but for the emergence of great geopolitical power blocs, and “vectors” of the type foreseen in particular by Russian geopolitical theoreticians who already have significance in Russian political and scholarly circles.[55]
Notes
[1] K R Bolton, “Origins of the Cold War and how Stalin Foiled a nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr,” Foreign Policy Journal, 31 May 2010,http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/05/31/origins-of-the-cold-war-how-stalin-foild-a-new-world-order
[2] K R Bolton, “Mikhail Gorbachev: Globalist Super-Star,” Foreign Policy Journal, April 3, 2011,http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/04/03/mikhail-gorbachev-globalist-super-star/
[3] K R Bolton, “Russia and China: An Approaching Conflict?,” Journal of Social, Political & Economic Studies, Washington DC, Vol. 34, No. 2, Summer 2009.
[4] K R Bolton, “Rivalry Over Water Resources as a Potential Cause of Conflict in Asia,” Journal of Social, Political & Economic Studies, Vol. 35, No. 1, Spring 2010.
[5] J Chang and J Halliday, Mao: The Unknown Story (London: Jonathan Cape, 2005), pp. 570-571.
[6] H J Salisbury, The Coming War Between Russia & China (London: Pan Books, 1969).
[7] H J Salisbury, ibid. See: K R Bolton, “Russia and China: An Approaching Conflict?,” op. cit., p. 156.
[8] K R Bolton ibid., 156.
[9] J Chang and J Halliday, op. cit., pp. 304-311. They confirm a basic contention by Senator Joseph McCarthy et al that the USA was pursuing a pro-Maoist course. See: Joseph R McCarthy (1951), America’s Retreat from Victory: The Story of George Catlett Marshall (Boston: Western Islands, 1965); and John T Flynn (1961), While You Slept: Our Tragedy in Asia & Who Made It (Boston: Western Islands, 1965).
[10] See the chapter “Maoism Falls Flat on the World Stage,” in Chang and Halliday, ibid., pp. 587-600.
[11] It is interesting to note that Robert Blum, head of the CFR China team, was also with the Asia Society, another Rockefeller think tank that had been founded in 1956 by John D Rockefeller III. The by-line of the Society is: “Preparing Asians and Americans for a shared future.”http://www.asiasociety.org/about/mission.html (Accessed 2 March 2010).
Asia Society Trustees currently include: Charles P. Rockefeller, and John D. Rockefeller IV, a member of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission and of the CFR. The chairman of the Asia Society’s Executive Committee is Richard C Holbrooke, former US Ambassador to the UN, a Trilateralist and CFR member.
[12] P Grose, Continuing The Inquiry: The Council on Foreign Relations from 1921 to 1996, “X Leads the Way.” (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2006). The entire book can be read online at: Council on Foreign Relations:http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/index.html
[13] Ibid.
[14] Kissinger started his public policy career as director of the Special Studies Project of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund in 1956-57; had served as chief foreign policy adviser to Governor Nelson Rockefeller, and had been Rockefeller aide at the 1964 and 1968 Republican conventions.
[15] Grose mentions in a Note that: “Accompanying Kissinger on this momentous flight was his personal aide, Winston Lord, a former Foreign Service officer [who] became president of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1977.”
[16] Ibid.
[17] D Rockefeller, “From a China Traveller,” New York Times, August 10, 1973.
[18] For the involvement of Trilateralist Commissioners in formulating policy on China, see: Dr Antony C Sutton and Patrick M Wood, Trilateralists Over Washington Vol. 2 (Arizona: The August Corporation, 1981), pp. 63-72.
[19] N Ferguson, Colossus: The Rise & Fall of the American Empire (London: Allen Lane, 2004), p. 261.
[20] “Moscow Takes Charge of Chinese-Russian Trade Relations,” Stratfor Intelligence Brief, April 29, 2004.
[21] “Moscow Takes Charge,” ibid.
[22] European Commission, “Trade: Russia,” http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/bilateral-relations/countries/russia/
[23] Office of the US Trade Representative, “US-Russia Trade Facts,”http://www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/europe-middle-east/russia-and-eurasia/russia
[24] Office of the US Trade Representative, “US-China Trade Facts,”http://www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/china
[25] K R Bolton, “Mikhail Gorbachev: Globalist Super-Star,” Foreign Policy Journal, April 3, 2011http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/04/03/mikhail-gorbachev-globalist-super-star
[26] K R Bolton, ibid.
[27] Jack Kemp, et al, Russia’s Wrong Direction: What the United States Can and Should Do, Independent Task Force Report no. 57 (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2006) xi. The entire publication can be downloaded at:http://www.cfr.org/publication/9997/
[28] Jack Kemp, et al, ibid., p. 7.
[29] Son of Zbigniew, President Carter’s National Security adviser and founding director of the Trilateral Commission.
[30] K Rapoza, June 28, 2011, “Kissinger: US-China Not Competing for World Domination,” Forbes,http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/06/28/kissinger-us-china-not-competing-for-world-domination/
[31] A Lukin, “Rusia to Reinforce the Asian Vector: Some Priorities of Russian Foreign Policy After the Crisis,” Russia in Global Affairs, Vol. 7, No. 2, April June 2009, p. 86; referring to Z Brzezinski, “The Group of Two that could change the world,” in The Financial Times, January 13, 2009.
[32] H Kissinger, “The World Must Forge a New Order or Retreat to Chaos,”The Independent, January 20, 2009; cited by A Lukin, ibid.
[33] A Lukin, ibid., p. 87.
[34] A Lukin, ibid., p. 92.
[35] A Lukin, ibid., p. 93.
[36] N Gartdel’s interview with Z Brzezinski, August 10, 2008,http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-gardels/brzezinski-russias-invasi_b_118029.html
[37] Z Brzezinski, “A Geostrategy for Eurasia,’ Foreign Affairs, Council on Foreign Relations, New York, Vol. 76, No. 5, September/October 1997http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/9709brzezinski.html
[38] Ibid.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Ibid.
[42] K R Bolton, “Russian and China: an Approaching Conflict?,” op. cit. pp. 164-165.
[43] Ibid., pp. 165-166.
[44] W Pesek, “Pop Group and Pandas – Asian Power Games Descends into Farce,” The Dominion Post, Wellington, New Zealand, B9, October 1, 2010.
[45] R Clabough, “George Soros Touts China as Leader of nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr,”New American, November 17, 2010, http://thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/north-america-mainmenu-36/5226-george-soros-touts-china-as-leader-of-new-world-order
[46] Guang Pan, “China’s Success in the Middle East,” Middle East Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 4, December 1997.
[47] V Ostrovsky, By Way of Deception: The Making & Unmaking of a Mossad Officer (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1990), p. 26.
[48] Uri Dan, New York Post, March 30, 1997.
[49] New York Times, November 11, 1999, p. 1.
[50] M Levin, Washington Times, May 27, 1999, A1.
[51] K R Bolton, “Tunisian Revolt: another Soros/NED Jack-Up?,” Foreign Policy Journal, January 18, 2011, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/01/18/Tunisian-revolt-another-sorosned-jack-up
“What’s Behind the Tumult in Egypt?,” Foreign Policy Journal, February 1, 2011, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/01/whats-behind-the-tumult-in-egypt
“Post-Qaddafi Libya’: on the Globalist Road,” Foreign Policy Journal,February 26, 2011, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/26/post-qaddafi-libya-on-the-globalist-road/
“Egypt and Tunisia: Plutocracy Won,” Foreign Policy Journal, June 28, 2011,http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/06/28/egypt-and-tunisia-plutocracy-won
[52] Senior fellow of the Jєωιѕн People Policy Institute and author of China and the Jєωιѕн People: old civilizations in a new era (JPPI, 2004).
[53] Fellow of the Jєωιѕн People Policy Institute.
[54] S Wald and G Afterman, “China Enters the Middle East,” Jerusalem Post, August 23, 2011, http://new.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=235150
Thanks to Maidhc Ó Cathail, editor of The Passionate Attachment, for bringing this to my attention.http://thepassionateattachment.com/2011/09/15/israel-to-convince-us-to-let-china-play-role-in-stabilizing-middle-east/
[55] K R Bolton, “An ANZAC-Indo-Russian Alliance? Geopolitical Alternatives for New Zealand and Australia,” India Quarterly: A Journal of International Affairs, (New Delhi: Indian Council of World affairs), Vol. 66, No. 2 June 2010, pp. 183-201.
-
I will read that in 25 years, if you were right
-
I will read that in 25 years, if you were right
dia shill
-
In the above "scam to over" should read "scam to cover"
Defense Intelligence Agency
The DIA, Defense Intelligence Agency (formed 1961), is part of the Intelligence Linkups that are part of the infrastructure in which is embedded the answer to the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962). That crisis was staged by the Illuminati nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr and gave the reason (brinksmanship of World War III) for a permanent link up of the Defense Computers of the United States and Russia and Red China and anyone else in the Nuclear Club. There NEVER will be a Nuclear World War Three, unless the powers that be decide to have it happen. Those powers are already in total control of the Triad of the United States of America and Russia and Red China. They control the little Devil puppet Israel. Their high ranking minions are in control of the United Nations. Their center is the Pan European Illuminati. They already control all nuclear proliferation in the world. All the scare tactics about rogue Nuclear Powers and threats are a staged dog and pony show. They use this act of theirs to manipulate the whole world. They are the behind the scenes real movers and “powers behind the throne.”
Iraq was never a Nuclear Threat to anyone. Iran is not one now. For that matter, Israel (which does have 200 Nuclear warheads) isn’t a Nuclear threat, but they use Nuclear Blackmail, just like the big three do, to get their way in things. None of that happens except it is approved ahead of time.
Even the Central Banks don’t have ultimate power, they only have the power delegated to them by those who control these Nuclear National Military Infrastructures.
All Corporations and Industry, as well as the Banks, take their orders from these unseen International Militarist Power Brokers. Even the Intelligence Agencies of various countries, including the Triad, are permeated by these shadow dwellers.
____________________________________________________________________
Defense Intelligence Agency
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the United States agency. For other countries’ agencies, see Defence Intelligence Agency.
Defense Intelligence Agency
Seal of the DIA
Agency overview
Formed
1 October 1961
Headquarters
The Pentagon[1]
Employees
Classified
Estimated Approx. 16,500 (35% military, and 65% civilian)
Annual budget
Classified
Agency executive
Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess, USA, Director
Website
www.dia.mil
The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is a key member of the Intelligence Community of the United States, and is a major producer and manager of military intelligence for the United States Department of Defense, employing over 16,500 military and civilian employees worldwide.[2] The Defense Intelligence Community is headed by the DIA, through its Director (who chairs the Military Intelligence Board), and it coordinates the activities of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force intelligence components. The DIA and Defense Intelligence Community provide military intelligence to warfighters, defense policymakers andforce planners within the Department of Defense and the United States Intelligence Community, in support of U.S. military planning and operations and weapon systems acquisition. The DIA, designated in 1986 as a Defense Department combat support agency, was established in 1961 as a result of a decision by Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, under President John F. Kennedy. The Department of Defense created the DIA with the publication of Directive 5105.21, “Defense Intelligence Agency” on 1 August, effective 1 October 1961. The DIA was preceded by the Counter Intelligence Corps.[3]
Contents
[hide]
1 Overview
1.1 Mission
1.2 Vision
1.3 DIA seal
2 History
3 Organization
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
[edit] Overview
The Defense Intelligence Analysis Center on Bolling Air Force Base
DIA’s Director is a three-star military officer who serves as principal adviser to the Secretary of Defense and to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on matters of military intelligence. The Director also chairs the Military Intelligence Board, which coordinates activities of the defense intelligence community.[2] The exact numbers and specific budget information are not publicly released due to security considerations. DIA has major operational activities at the Pentagon, the Defense Intelligence Analysis Center (DIAC), Bolling Air Force Base in Washington, D.C.38°50′53″N 77°00′43″W / 38.848°N 77.012°W / 38.848; -77.012, the National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI) in Fort Detrick, Maryland, and the Missile and Space Intelligence Center (MSIC) in Huntsville, Alabama. DIA is a member of the United States Intelligence Community, reporting to the Director of National Intelligence.
DIA possesses a diverse workforce skilled in the areas of military history and doctrine, economics, physics, chemistry, world history, political science, bio-sciences, computer sciences, and many other fields of expertise.
The Agency responds to the needs of a variety of customers, from the President of the United States to the soldier in the field. Its work encompasses all aspects of military intelligence requirements – from highly complex missile trajectory data to biographical information on foreign military leaders.
In August 2008, the agency announced that it would subject each of its 5,700 prospective and current employees to a polygraph interrogation at least once annually.[4]
[edit] Mission
The DIA’s mission is to provide timely, objective, and cogent military intelligence to warfighters, defense planners, and defense and national security policymakers.[5]
The DIA is considered to be a member of the Intelligence Community. The director of the DIA is the main adviser to the United States Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on matters related to military intelligence. Under the support of the Military Intelligence Board, the DIA unifies the Defense Intelligence Community on major issues such as the number of deployed forces, assessments, policy, and resources. To help weapon systems planners and the domestic weapons industry, the DIA plays a major role in providing intelligence on foreign weapon systems.
[edit] Vision
DIA’s vision is the integration of highly skilled intelligence professionals with leading edge technology to discover information and create knowledge that provides warning, identifies opportunities, and delivers overwhelming advantage to our warfighters, defense planners, and defense and national security policymakers.[5]
[edit] DIA seal
The gold flaming torch represents knowledge. The earth represents DIA’s global intelligence mission. The red atomic ellipses symbolize the scientific and technical aspects of intelligence today and of the future. The 13 stars and the wreath identify DIA as a Department of Defense organization.[6]
[edit] History
After World War II until the creation of DIA, the three Military Departments collected, produced and distributed their intelligence for individual use. This turned out to be duplicative, costly, and ineffective as each department provided their estimates to the Secretary of Defense or to other governmental agencies.
The Defense Reorganization Act of 1958 wanted to correct these deficiencies by assigning responsibility for Unified and Specified Command intelligence support. However, the intelligence responsibilities remained unclear, the coordination was poor and the first results were short of national reliability and focus. As a result of this poor organization, President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed the Joint Study Group in 1960 to find better ways for organizing the nation’s military intelligence activities.
Acting on the recommendations of the Joint Study Group, Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara advised the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) of his decision to establish the Defense Intelligence Agency in February 1961. He ordered them to develop a concept plan that would integrate all the military intelligence of the DoD. During the spring and summer of 1961, asCold War tensions flared over the Berlin Wall, Air Force Lieutenant General Joseph Carroll (soon to become DIA’s first director) took the lead in planning and organizing this new agency. The JCS published DoD Directive 5105.21, “Defense Intelligence Agency” on 1 August, and DIA began operations with a handful of employees in borrowed office space on 1 October 1961.
DIA reported to the Secretary of Defense through the JCS. The new Agency’s mission was the continuous task of collecting, processing, evaluating, analyzing, integrating, producing, and disseminating military intelligence for the DoD. Other objectives included more efficiently allocating scarce intelligence resources, more effectively managing all DoD intelligence activities, and eliminating redundancies in facilities, organizations, and tasks.
Following DIA’s establishment, the Services transferred intelligence functions and resources to it on a time-phased basis to avoid rapidly degrading the overall effectiveness of defense intelligence. A year after its formation, in October 1962, the Agency faced its first major intelligence test during the superpower confrontation that developed after Soviet missiles were discovered at bases in Cuba by U.S. Air Force spy planes.
In late 1962, DIA established the Defense Intelligence School (now theNational Defense Intelligence College), and on 1 January 1963, it activated a new Production Center. Several Service elements were merged to form this production facility, which occupied the “A” and “B” Buildings at Arlington Hall Station, Virginia.
The Agency also added an Automated Data Processing (ADP) Center on 19 February, a Dissemination Center on 31 March, and a Scientific and Technical Intelligence Directorate on 30 April 1963. DIA assumed the staff support functions of the J-2, Joint Staff, on 1 July 1963. Two years later, on 1 July 1965, DIA accepted responsibility for the Defense Attaché System - the last function the Services transferred to DIA.
During these early years of DIA’s existence, Agency attempts to establish itself as DoD’s central military intelligence organization met with continuing Service opposition. At the same time, the Vietnam War severely tested the fledgling Agency’s ability to produce accurate, timely intelligence. In particular, the war increased defense intelligence’s involvement in efforts to account for American service members missing or captured in Southeast Asia.
During the 1960s, DIA analysts focused on: China’s detonation of an atomic bomb and the launching of its Cultural Revolution; increasing unrest among African nations; fighting in Cyprus and Kashmir; and the missile gap between the US and the Soviets. In the late 1960s, crises that tested intelligence responsiveness included: the Tet Offensive in Vietnam; the Six-Day War between Egypt and Israel; continuing troubles in Africa, particularly Nigeria; North Korea‘s seizure of the USS Pueblo; and the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia.
The early 1970s were transitional years as the Agency shifted its focus from consolidating its functions and establishing itself as a credible producer of national intelligence. This proved difficult at first since sweeping manpower decrements between 1968 and 1975 had reduced Agency manpower by 31 percent and precipitated mission reductions and a broad organizational restructuring. Challenges facing DIA at this time included: the rise of Ostpolitik in Germany; the emergence of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the Mideast; and the U.S. incursion into Cambodia from South Vietnam.
The Agency’s reputation grew considerably by the mid-1970s, as decision makers increasingly recognized the value of its products. Agency analysts in 1972 concentrated on Lebanon, President Richard Nixon‘s visit to China, the formation of Sri Lanka, Salvador Allende‘s regime in Chile, and the prisoners of war being held in Southeast Asia. Subsequent challenges involved: détente; the development of arms control agreements; the Paris peace talks (Vietnam); the Yom Kippur War; and global energy concerns.
Intense Congressional review during 1975-76 created turbulence within the national Intelligence Community. The Murphy and Rockefeller Commission investigations of charges of intelligence abuse ultimately led to an Executive Order that modified many Intelligence Community functions. At the same time, with American involvement in Vietnam ending, defense intelligence faced a significant decline in resources. During this period, DIA conducted numerous studies on ways of improving its intelligence products. Ultimately, the Agency strengthened its support to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), and the Unified & Specified Commands, and also modernized the National Military Intelligence Center (NMIC). Faced with similar resource challenges, DoD also sought to centralize its activities. Despite these and other Community-wide efforts to improve intelligence support, the loss of resources during the 1970s limited the Community’s ability to collect and produce timely intelligence and ultimately contributed to intelligence shortcomings in Iran, Afghanistan, and other strategic areas.
As resources declined, intelligence requirements expanded. By the late 1970s, Agency analysts were focused on Lebanon, China, South Africa, terrorism, and Southeast Asia POW issues. In 1977, a charter revision further clarified DIA’s relationship with the JCS and the Secretary of Defense. Specifically, the Secretary assigned staff supervisory responsibility over DIA in the resource area to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence, while giving the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs supervisory responsibility regarding policy matters. Analytical efforts within the Agency at the time centered on the death of Mao Tse-Tung, aircraft hijacking, the Israeli raid on Entebbe Airport, unrest in South Africa, and continuing Middle East tensions.
Special DIA task forces were set up to monitor crises such as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the overthrow of Iranian monarchy, and the taking of U.S. hostages in the American embassy in Teheran in 1979. Also, of serious concern were the Vietnamese takeover in Phnom Penh, the China-Vietnam border war, the overthrow of Idi Amin in Uganda, the North-South Yemen dispute, troubles in Pakistan, border clashes between Libya and Egypt, the Sandinista takeover in Nicaragua, and the Soviet movement of combat troops to Cuba during the signing of the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty II.
Following the promulgation in 1979 of Executive Order 12036, which restructured the Intelligence Community and better outlined DIA’s national and departmental responsibilities, the Agency was reorganized around five major directorates: production, operations, resources, external affairs, and J-2 support.
DIA came of age in the 1980s by focusing heavily on the intelligence needs of both field commanders and national-level decision makers. DIA’s publication in 1981 of the first in a series of whitepapers on the strengths and capabilities of Soviet military forces titled Soviet Military Power met with wide acclaim. Ten such booklets were published subsequently over roughly the next decade. World crises continued to flare and included the downing of two Libyan Su-22s by American F-14s over the Gulf of Sidra, an Israeli F-16 raid to destroy an Iraqi nuclear reactor, two Iranian hijackings, Iranian air raids on Kuwait, and the release of American hostages in Iran.
Other analysis at this time was focused on the war over the Falkland Islands, Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, and Operation URGENT FURY in Grenada. Other DIA analytical efforts during the mid-1980s centered on the attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the Iran–Iraq War, the conflict in Afghanistan, the Soviet downing of Korean Air Lines Flight 007, the cινιℓ ωαr in Chad, and unrest in the Philippines. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger presented DIA with the Agency’s first Joint Meritorious Unit Award in 1986 for outstanding intelligence support over the previous year during a series of crises—the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 and the cruise ship Achille Lauro, unrest in the Philippines, and counter-terrorist operations against Libya.
Also at this time, the Agency concentrated on the rapidly shifting national security environment, characterized by key issues such as changes within the Soviet Union, counter-narcotics, war fighting capabilities and sustainability, and low-intensity conflict. DoD moved decisively to improve its automated data bases and apply additional resources to the monitoring of terrorist groups, illegal arms shipments, and narcotics trafficking. Arms control monitoring also increased the demand for intelligence support from DIA.
Designated a combat support agency under the Goldwater-Nicholas Defense Reorganization Act, DIA moved quickly to increase cooperation with the Unified & Specified Commands and to begin developing a body of joint intelligence doctrine. Intelligence support to U.S. allies in the Middle East intensified as the Iran–Iraq War spilled into the Persian Gulf. DIA provided significant intelligence support to Operation Earnest Will while closely monitoring incidents such as the Iraqi rocket attack on the USS Stark, the destruction of Iranian oil platforms, and Iranian attacks on Kuwaiti oil tankers. The “Toyota War” between Libya and Chad and the turmoil in Haiti added to DIA’s heavy production workload, as did unrest in other parts of Latin America, Somalia, Ethiopia, Burma, Pakistan, and the Philippines.
Subsequently, the Agency provided threat data on “hot spots” throughout the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, while assessing the impact of changes in the USSR, Eastern Europe, and, to a lesser degree, Asia. In addition, DIA supported decision makers with intelligence concerning the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, events surrounding the downing of several Libyan jets, the cινιℓ ωαr in Liberia, and the investigation of the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Weapons acquisition issues, counter-narcotics, and counter-terrorism, likewise, remained high priority issues.
With the end of the Cold War, defense intelligence began a period of reevaluation following the fall of Communism in many of the East European countries, the reunification of Germany, and ongoing economic reforms in the region. During this phase, DIA emphasized improved management of intelligence production, DoD-wide, as resource reductions once again threatened to negatively impact Agency objectives and manpower. Organizationally, DIA adopted the concept of functional management to better address unified & specified command intelligence issues.
In response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, DIA set up an extensive, 24-hour, crisis management cell designed to tailor national-level intelligence support to the coalition forces assembled to expel Iraq from Kuwait. By the time Operation Desert Storm began, some 2,000 Agency personnel were involved in the intelligence support effort. Most of them associated in some way with the national-level Joint Intelligence Center (JIC), which DIA established in The Pentagon to integrate the intelligence being produced throughout the Community. DIA sent more than 100 employees into the Kuwaiti Theater of Operations to provide intelligence support. This DIA-led effort remains one of the greatest examples of intelligence support to operational forces in modern times.
The Armed Forces Medical Intelligence Center (AFMIC), and the Missile and Space Intelligence Center (MSIC), associated with the Army for over 20 and 50 years respectively, became part of DIA in January 1992. This was part of the continuing effort to consolidate intelligence production and make it more efficient.
Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, DIA has been active in nuclear proliferation intelligence collection and analysis with particular interests in North Korea and Iran as well as counter-terrorism. DIA was also involved with the intelligence build-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and was a subject in the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq. The Defense Intelligence Agency has conflicted with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in collection and analysis on the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and has often represented the Pentagon in the CIA-DoD intelligence rivalry due to DIA’s alleged clandestine HUMINT collection and often overlapping analysis products. Operational military intelligence has also been a focus, particularly in Iraq with insurgency threats and asymmetric warfare. The DIA is responsible for assessing the current and projected national security threats to the United States as well as presenting these assessments to the Senate Armed Services Committee. The DIA still actively maintains its responsibility for conventional strategic and operational military intelligence.
[edit] Organization
DIA is led by a Director, typically a three-star military officer. The current director is Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess, USA, who assumed command in March 2009. Letitia Long was appointed deputy director in May 2006, and Phillip R. Roberts has served as chief of staff since March 2007.
Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess, USA; 17th Director of DIA
DIA is organized into these primary operational directorates:
Directorate for Human Intelligence (DH): This directorate manages DIA’s and the DoD’s human source intelligence collection, including the Defense Attache System, and is the primary interface between the Department of Defense and the National Clandestine Service. DH conducts worldwide strategic HUMINT collection operations in support of DoD, national intelligence requirements, and military operations. It deploys teams of linguists, field analysts, case officers, interrogation experts, technical specialists, and special forces. DH also absorbed the personnel and capabilities of the Counterintelligence Field Activity in 2008.
Directorate for Information Management and Chief Information Officer (DS): This directorate provides a secure, standardized and integrated global Information Technology enterprise that is continuously improved and maintained in response to intelligence customer needs and enables collaborative discovery, synthesis, and delivery of critical intelligence to warfighters, defense planners, national-security policy makers, and international partners.
Directorate for MASINT and Technical Collection (DT): Collects Measurement and Signature Intelligence which is technical intelligence that – when collected, processed, and analyzed by dedicated MASINT systems – results in intelligence that detects, tracks, identifies, or describes the signatures (distinctive characteristics) of fixed or dynamic target sources. This often includes radar intelligence, acoustic intelligence, nuclear intelligence, and chemical and biological intelligence. DIA is the central agency for MASINT collection within the US Intelligence Community.
Directorate for Analysis (DI): Analyzes and disseminates finalized intelligence products for the DIA from all sources as well as from partnerIntelligence Community agencies. Analysts focus on the military issues that may arise from political or economic events in foreign countries and also analyze foreign military capabilities, transportation systems,weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), terrorism, and missile systems and contribute to National Intelligence Estimates and to the President’s Daily Brief. The Directorate of Analysis also manages the National Center for Medical Intelligence, the Missile and Space Intelligence Center, and the Joint Intelligence Task Force for Combating Terrorism. Analysts serve DIA in all of the agency’s facilities as well as in the field.
Directorate for Intelligence Joint Staff (J2): Advises and supports the Joint Chiefs of Staff with foreign military intelligence for defense policy and war planning.
Defense Intelligence Operations Coordination Center (DJ): Fuses tactical, operational, and strategic intelligence assets and serves as the center for coordination of these assets in response to combatant command requirements. The DIOCC is closely integrated with the Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance to provide a unified Department of Defense intelligence command center to combine operations with intelligence and advise the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, warfighters, and the DNI’s National Intelligence Coordination Center.
DIA also runs the National Defense Intelligence College.
[edit] See also
Military of the United States portal
Armed Forces Medical Intelligence Center
Coast Guard Intelligence Center
Defense Attaché System
Defense Intelligence Analysis Center
Defense Intelligence Operations Coordination Center
Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency
Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (US Strategic Command)
Marine Corps Intelligence Activity
Missile and Space Intelligence Center
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
National Defense Intelligence College
National Security Agency
Non-commissioned officer
Office of Naval Intelligence
Strategic Support Branch
United States Director of National Intelligence
US Intelligence Community
US Intelligence Community A-Space
[edit] References
^ Locations
^ a b DIA Public Web Page, This Is DIA
^ DIA Public Web Page, Overview of the Origins of DIA
^ Hess, Pamela, “Pentagon’s Intelligence Arm Steps Up Lie-Detector Efforts”, Arizona Daily Star, August 24, 2008.
^ a b DIA Public Web Page, DIA Mission
^ DIA Public Web Page, DIA FAQs
____________________________________________________________________
The three excerpts below are from the public site for the Defense Intelligence Agency
____________________________________________________________________
Press, National Defense Intelligence College
This publication from the National Defense Intelligence College Press is in the public domain, and may be used for educational and professional purposes.
Title: The Blue Planet: Informal International Police Networks and National Intelligence
Author Michael D. Bayer
Number of Pages 205 pages
Type Book / Paperback
Publisher NDIC PRESS
Published 2010
Download View Online
Executive Summary: Blue Planet
From site:
This publication from the National Defense Intelligence College Press is in the public domain, and may be used for educational and professional purposes.
____________________________________________________________________
The National Defense Intelligence College
College
The National Defense Intelligence College is a dynamic learning community with a professionally diverse student body of over 700, representing a balanced mixture of experience in federal agencies and all branches of the US Armed Services. All students must be employed in the federal government and hold Top Secret security clearances.
The College was chartered by Department of Defense in 1962, and has since served as a leading institution for intelligence education and research. In December 2006, Department of Defense Instruction 3305.01 renamed the College and broadened its mission. The new Charter reflects the deep value attached to the College by the US national security community and the trust given to the College to educate future intelligence leaders in the Armed Services, the US Combatant Commands, and the Departments and agencies of the intelligence and homeland security communities.
The College’s Bachelor of Science in Intelligence and Master of Science of Strategic Intelligence are both authorized in law by Congress. Among the nation’s federally chartered colleges and universities, the College has the unique distinction of annually awarding both graduate and undergraduate degrees in Intelligence.
The College is a member of the Consortium of Universities of the Washington Metropolitan Area.
_______________________________________
-
Putin (http://1law-order-and-justice.blogspot.com/2014/03/palestine-cry-syria-putin-netanyahu.html)
For links and pictures in the below go to above link.
Palestine Cry: Syria Putin Netanyahu - Crime bosses | King of the North King of the South
Europa & Palestine News « Europa & Middle East News New Free Syrian Army Commander Trained in Israel
_______________________________________________
SYRIA PUTIN NETANYAHU - CRIME BOSSES | KING OF THE NORTH KING OF THE SOUTH
The two kings of the North and South respectively, are from the book of Daniel. Syria was involved then as now. Syria in Daniel is represented by the King of the North (today that is Putin) and Israel-Egypt is represented by the King of the South (today that is Netanyahu). They both then and now pretend friendship and alliance but are both looking for a chance to do the other in. Today the entire world is at stake. The United States of Americanαzι ZioCuckcolded Tomfoolery and Mercenary mass murder is only a stupid pawn of both. Russia has anywhere up to 20 times the nuclear arsenal the United States has. China is as violent and hungry and looking to the Middle East for pickings as Russia is. The mobsters that run IsraHell under the cover of their Zionαzι fake Satan worshipping religion think they are invincible and have no conscience about anything and they have the minds of demonically dumbed down sub-animals due to their Rabbinic Babylonian Diabolic superstition masquerading as religion - the Jєωs with any conscience at all realized what a nightmare IsraHell is and left there permanently in the 1980's, or were murdered by their fellow Jєωs like Jack Bernstein was. The Arabs think they can ride this out. That is a big mistake. If ever both the USA and the Arabs needed a Pan Arabist U.S. President like President John F. Kennedy, the time is now - but it just isn't going to happen. A day that lives in infamy November 22. 1963. Dallas TX John F. Kennedy αssαssιnαtҽd by sneak attack act of War by rogue non-state IsraHell on the United States of America - 17 articles, scroll back through articles using Older Post link at bottom right of articles.
ZIOnαzι
click on picture or link and see this also: Shulchan Aruch The most evil docuмent of the entire history of the world.
JєωS' GOD OF REMPHAN (SATURN - SATAN) - ITS WORSHIP IS SNUFF PORN
click on picture - and see snuff porn, its service is 911 Israeli terrorism
ANTICHRIST - KING OF THE NORTH, KING OF THE SOUTH - THREE HORNS CUT OFF - ONE SHALL REIGN OVER ALL
click on picture
Russia - China - Israel then two Russia - Israel then there was one: ISRAEL that is the real reason that Yamantau exists,
Triad,
Palestine Cry: Andy K.
Andy K. - Triad, US-Russia-Red China Caribbean connection
Russian-Canadian Jєω operative of the Triad transnationalist Intelligence service of the KGB, shadow CIA (not regular lawful CIA) and Red Chinese Military Intelligence
Andy K.,
19 Crime Families,
Russian-Lithuanian Mobster Bugsy Milikovski
ANTICHRIST - KING OF THE NORTH
January 2014 Netanyahu warns Putin Israel will go 2 war over S-300 missiles to Syria
YULIA TYMOSHENKO, TURCHYNOV, LINKED TO Jєωιѕн MOB BOSS SEMILON MOGILEVICH
← FBI SAYS UKRANIAN Jєω SEMION MOGILEVICH IS THE “MOST DANGEROUS MOBSTER” IN THE WORLD
YULIA TYMOSHENKO, TURCHYNOV, LINKED TO Jєωιѕн MOB BOSS SEMILON MOGILEVICH
Posted on February 26, 2014 by Indian Gentile
Semion Mogilevich
Yulia Tymoshenko
Oleksandr Turchynov
Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, who headed the spy agency from 2006 to 2010, told the Kyiv Post in an interview that docuмents connecting Mogilevich with the nation’s gas trade had been destroyed by one of his predecessors, Oleksandr Turchynov, in 2005.
Turchynov, who was security service (SBU) chief in 2005, called such claims an “elaborate ruse” to discredit his close ally, former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, who made a fortune in the gas trade in the 1990s. Yulia Tymoshenko, was a practicing economist and academic. She was a businesswoman before entering politics She was the CEO of Yedyni Energosystemy Ukrayiny (United Energy Systems of Ukraine), a monopoly that imported Russian natural gas. She was by some estimates one of the richest Ukranaians. Tymoshenko co-led the Orange Revolution sponsored funded by Soros and his mostly Jєωιѕн PR and Media team Incidentally a little known fact is the almost total control of Jєωs in the PR and Advertising industry see THE Jєω MATRIX ——–PR AND ADVERTISMENT
The controversy over the so-called Mogilevich SBU dossier dates back to the split in a coalition between Tymoshenko and former President Viktor Yushchenko in 2005,largely provoked by arguments over whether to retain gas trader RosUkrEnergo as an intermediary in the lucrative business of importing Russian and Central Asian gas to Ukraine.
U.S. Embassy cables revealed details about the controversy surrounding a secret dossier on Mogilevich compiled by the SBU.The dossier was allegedly destroyed by Turchynov and his deputy Andriy Kozhemyakin, both staunch Tymoshenko allies, about the time she was fired as prime minister during her first stint on Sept. 8, 2005.
In a U.S. diplomatic cable published on the WikiLeaks website on Dec. 5, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst reported that former Interior Minister Yuriy Lutsenko said he had been “ordered” in 2006 by state prosecutors to arrest Turchynov for allegedly destroying hard copies of the Mogilevich dossier. Lutsenko on Nov. 29 confirmed the authenticity of his conversation with Herbst, described in the cable dated April 14, 2006.State prosecutors on Feb. 22, 2006, opened a criminal case against Turchynov and Kozhemyakin for allegedly destroying the Mogilevich files, but Kyiv’s Pechersk District court threw out the case four months later.
Nalyvaichenko, the SBU chief from 2006 to 2010, told the Kyiv Post on Dec. 7 that SBU records about Mogilevich dating back to the early 1990s indeed went missing.He said the docuмents detailed the alleged mobster’s role in the gas trade in the mid-1990s, including ties with top officials close to Tymoshenko, who then headed a lucrative gas trading business called United Energy Systems of Ukraine (UESU).The SBU is a successor of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic‘s Branch of the Soviet KGB, keeping the majority of its 1990s personnel.
“I think the reason why the Mogilevich dossier was destroyed in 2005 is because the files contained information about intermediaries and their role in the gas trade,” Nalyvaichenko said.
Nalyvaichenko identified one alleged link between Mogilevich and top officials then as Igor Fisherman(Jєωιѕн), who is also wanted by the FBI as an associate of Mogilevich.Fisherman, who along with Mogilevich is believed to reside in Russia, worked as an advisor to former Prime Minister Pavlo Lazarenko in the 1990s when Tymoshenko headed UESU.
Tymoshenko and Lazarenko were political allies during the 1998 parliamentary election, when their Hromada Party won 24 seats in parliament. Interestingly Yulia Tymoshenko herself was also accused of having given Pavlo Lazarenko kickbacks in exchange for her company’s stranglehold on the country’s gas supplies Tymoshenko has repeatedly denied wrongdoing and has distanced herself from Lazarenko
Pavlo Lazarenko was in August 2006 was convicted and sentenced to prison in the United States for money laundering, wire fraud and extortion. According to United Nations, approximately $200,000,000 was embezzled by Lazarenko during 1996–1997 from the government of Ukraine.
Speaking to the Kyiv Post by telephone on Dec. 8, Turchynov said there was no specific dossier on Mogilevich that could have been destroyed. But he and Kozhemyakin were evasive in answering specific Kyiv Post questions.
Source Kyiv Post http://archive.is/5bo5
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/new-and-conflicting-details-emerge-over-mogilevich-92521.html
THE ʝʊdɛօ-RUSSIAN MAFIA AND THE BLOODBATH TO COME, by Dr Lasha Darkmoon
Posted on May 11, 2013 by Montecristo
What does the ʝʊdɛօ-Russian mafia got to do with the Boston Marathon bombing and the planned destruction of Syria and Iran? Read on to find out…
Is America being blackmailed into new Middle East wars on behalf of Israel?
The Russian mafia, known also as the Red Mafiya or the “Red Octopus”, is really the Jєωιѕн mafia in disguise.
It has secret links to Mossad, the Rothschild family, the Federal Reserve Bank, and to powerful Jєωιѕн organizations such as AIPAC and the ADL.
The activities of the Russian mafia range from the back streets of Moscow to the sex dens of Budapest and Tel Aviv, from the diamond mines of Sierra Leone to the Jєωelry workshops of Antwerp, from the plush casinos of Vegas and Atlantic City to the multimillion dollar gated mansions of Fisher Island, Miami, from the coke and heroin dives of Odessa and the Black Sea ports to the child porn parlors and underground brothels of Oregon. In the United States, the Russian mafia’s ground zero is Brighton Beach, Brooklyn, right slapbang in the center of America’s most Jєωιѕн community.
“As of 2009,” Wikipedia reports, “Russian mafia groups have been said to reach over 50 countries and, as of 2010, have up to 300,000 members.”
Laura Radanko, herself Jєωιѕн, carried out some important research on the Russian mafia and lifted the lid on some of their most grisly secrets. She writes:
During the detente days of the early 1970s, when Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev had agreed to allow the limited emigration of Soviet Jєωs, thousands of hard-core criminals, many of them released from Soviet Gulags by the KGB, took advantage of their nominal Jєωιѕн status to swarm into the United States….
In the 1970s, more than forty thousand Russian Jєωs settled in Brighton Beach. It was under the shadow of the elevated subway tracks on Brighton Beach Avenue, bustling with Russian meat markets, vegetable pushcarts, and bakeries, that the Russian gangsters resumed their careers as professional killers, thieves, and scoundrels….
— Laura Radanko, “The Superpower of Crime.
Brighton Beach, Brooklyn, also known as “Little Odessa” or “Little Russia by the Sea”, has now become the American headquarters of the Red Mafiya, ranked as the world’s most powerful criminal gang.
♣
Though the “Russian” gangs of the former Soviet Union include Georgians, Armenians, Chechens and various other ethnic groups, the kingpins of the Russian mafia are all Jєωιѕн—in the same way as the leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution were Jєωιѕн, though their underlings were not. All the big guns of the Russian mafia—Semion Mogilevich, Monya Elson, Marat Balagula, Vyacheslav Ivankov, Vladimir Ginsberg, Ludwig Fainberg—are Jєωιѕн.
In Russia’s post-perestroika years (1990s), thousands of Russian thugs slipped into America with the greatest of ease. “The understaffed and ill-equipped Immigration Service,” Robert Friedman reveals, “seemed helpless to stop them.”
Hundreds of former Soviets athletes and Special Forces veterans of the Afghanistan wars, including many retired KGB agents, swarmed into America. (There are now between 500,000 to 750,000 Russian Jєωs here). Many Russian criminals ended up at Brighton Beach, Brooklyn, where they were to join the combat brigades of the Red Mafiya. They were at once put on retainers of $20,000 a month. No jobs as janitors or road sweepers for them! Like ducks to water, they took to sex trafficking, prostitution, pornography, drug running, loan sharking, stock market scams, arson, burglary, bank and Jєωelry frauds, counterfeiting, vote rigging, arms sales, extortion and murder.
The first four rules of the Jєωιѕн Russian mafia are these: never have emotions, reject your parents and closest relatives, screw as many women as possible, never work in a legitimate job.
The merciless cruelty of these psychopathic killers is so extreme that it is often said “they will shoot people just to see if their guns work.”
♣
The investigative reporter Robert I. Friedman (1951-2002) revealed in his book Red Mafiya: How the Russian Mob Has Invaded America that the “Russian” mafia was in fact more Jєωιѕн than Russian.
Dr M. Raphael Johnson is even more specific in his details about the Jєωιѕнness of the Russian mafia. Having established themselves in Tel Aviv after the mass emigration of Russian Jєωs to Israel in the 1990s, the Russian mafia began to call itself the Israeli or Jєωιѕн mafia:
The roots of Jєωιѕн organized crime go far back into tsarist times. Organized crime syndicates assisted Lenin’s gangs in bank robberies and the creation of general mayhem. During the so-called revolution, it was difficult, sometimes impossible, to distinguish between Bolshevik ideologues and Jєωιѕн organized crime syndicates. They acted in nearly an identical manner….
The state of Israel is a major factor in the rise and power of the Jєωιѕн mafia. Jєωιѕн drug dealers, child porn pushers and slave traders are free from prosecution in Israel. Israel does not consider these to be crimes, so long as the victims are non-Jєωs. The Israeli state will not extradite its citizens to non-Jєωιѕн countries, and, therefore, Jєωιѕн murderers can quite easily escape punishment in Israel.
— Dr M. Raphael Johnson, The ʝʊdɛօ-Russian Mafia: From the Gulag to Brooklyn to World Dominion
♣
Described by the CIA as a “grave threat” to global security and by Robert I. Friedman as the “world’s most dangerous man”, step forward Semion Mogilevich, arch-criminal extraordinaire and head honcho of the Red Mafiya— first in line of the rottweiler pack of Russian criminals unleashed on the world by the dissolution of the Soviet Union. With his headquarters in Budapest, the 67-year-old Mogilevich is behind most of the white slave trafficking of Russian and Eastern European girls to Israel.
The power of this Russian Jєω is well-nigh legendary. He is the ideal villain for a James Bond movie. Not only does he own the armaments industry in Hungary, but he is said to control the entire vodka trade in Russia and Central Europe. He possesses his own army, artillery, mechanized infantry, anti-aircraft guns and missiles of all types. Furthermore, he is reported to have his own nuclear weapons, relics left over from the former Warsaw Pact countries. NATO has said he is a “threat to the stability of Europe,” though his name remains little known to the general public in view of the fact that his co-ethnics control the media.
With extensive holdings in Israel, Semion Mogilevich, “single-handedly controls the brothels in Israel, where Ukrainian and Russian girls are forced into sɛҳuąƖ slavery.”
Every year, “hundreds of women from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union are smuggled into Israel. The traffic is linked to the Russian mafia taking root in Israel as a byproduct of mass immigration from the former Soviet Union.” (Sex Trade Flourishing in Holy Land, CBS, February 24, 2003).
♣
With activities in countries ranging from Malaysia to Great Britain, Russian mobsters now operate in more than fifty nations. They smuggle heroin from Southeast Asia with the help and cooperation of the CIA. They traffic in weapons. And they have a special knack for large-scale extortion.
When the ʝʊdɛօ-Russian mafia and the Rothschild-controlled banksters, who are ultimately behind this vast criminal organization, want the American government to do something which the government is hesitant to do—for example, to bomb Iran—it will give the government a sign of its displeasure by staging a terrorist event.
Such as the Boston Marathon massacre.
The government will then get the message: Unless we bomb Iran, these Bolshevik Jєωs will continue to terrorize America. As they once terrorized Tsarist Russia. They will make us look impotent fools, because obviously we can’t control them. So we’d better do as they say—we’d better bomb Iran.
In the case of the Boston Marathon bombing, you will point out correctly, it was the Chechen mafia that was involved. Indirectly. Not the ʝʊdɛօ-Russian mafia. Save your breath. It’s well-known that the Chechen mafia is simply one of the many tributaries of the ʝʊdɛօ-Russian mafia. We know for a fact that Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky gave his financial backing to the Chechen mafia in return for favors. He was the Big Jєω behind the Chechen mafia, secretly pulling its strings and dictating its policies.
Berezovsky’s secret links to the Chechen mafia were first revealed by a Russian-American investigative reporter for Forbes magazine, Paul Klebnikov, in his chilling exposé Godfather of the Kremlin: Boris Berezovsky and the looting of Russia (2000). “No man profited more from Russia’s slide into the abyss,” Klebnikov noted. As a result of his explosive revelations, a contract was taken out on Klebnikov’s life. In 2004, the courageous reporter was gunned down in the streets of Moscow. (See here)
In a recent edition of Forbes magazine (24 March, 2013), we read this:
“Paul [Klebnikov] was gathering string for future articles that linked Nukhayev and other Chechen warlords with Berezovsky….Here’s where it gets even more interesting. Last summer, Berezovsky’s Chechen links came to the surface in a $6.5 billion London lawsuit that he had brought (and lost) against Roman Abramovich, a rival Russian oligarch….
Klebnikov was the first American reporter to be murdered in Russia, and with his silencing the world lost one of its foremost experts on the vast and murky crossroads of Russian organized crime, Kremlin politics, Chechen terrorists, billionaire oligarchs, and the spread of Russian mafia conglomerates around the world.” (See here)
It is through the Chechen mafia that international Jєωry continues its secret war against Putin’s Russia.
Boris Berezovsky, Jєωιѕн Russian oligarch (1946-2013), died in mysterious circuмstances on 23 March this year at his home in Ascot, England, age 67. According to the official version of events, he was suffering from depression, so he locked himself in his bathroom and hanged himself. One of his oldest friends, Nikolai Glushkov, said: “Boris was strangled.” Berezovsky’s close links with the Chechen mafia clearly indicate that Big Jєωry probably had a hand in the Boston Marathon bombing. See Chechnya and the Boston bombing: link, if established, would be unprecedented.
♣
Right now, the Chechen mafia has Moscow within its iron tentacles. But the Chechen mafia is itself controlled, as we now know, by the Jєωιѕн mafia—and by organized Jєωry which helps it to money launder its vast illegal profits through the Jєωιѕн-controlled central banks of the world. This is not rocket science. The Jєωs control everyone by controlling the world’s money supply. Wasn’t it a Rothschild who said that? Sure, it was a Rothschild who said that. “Give me control of a nation’s money,” Mayer Amschel Rothschild famously said, “and I care not who makes its laws.”
So the Jєωs help to money launder the loot of the Chechen mafia: and in this way they control the Chechen mafia, just like they control the American government.
The ʝʊdɛօ-Russian mafia and the Chechen mafia are not competitors in America. They are cronies. They have carved out their separate kingdoms. Like friendly lions, they share the spoils, eating from different sides of the same carcase. The carcase is America.
How much does a contract murder cost? How much would it cost Mossad to outsource the Boston Marathon bombing to the Chechen mafia, assuming it decided to carry out such a terrorist act in the interests of Israel? Is $10 million too little? How about $100 million? That’s peanuts. Israel gets $8.2 million a day from the American taxpayer. It could buy a Chechen mafia massacre by sacrificing its pocket money for two days—or two weeks at the most—depending on the price.
Google the word “Israelification”. You’ll get “Israelification of American airports”. “Israelification of American domestic security”. “Israelification of US police”. “Israelification of America”.
Makes you think, doesn’t it?
Do American cops really need to hop on a plane to Tel Aviv to learn how to taser their fellow citizens?
How come all the airports that failed so suspiciously to stop alleged Al Qaeda terrorists from carrying out the 9/11 attack—how come all these airports were policed by ONE private security company, ICTS, owned by Israeli Jєω Ezra Harel? “One company had automatic inside access to all of the airports from which hijacked planes departed on 9-11,” one reads with eyepopping incredulity. “An Israeli company. One that Mossad agents could easily find employment with.” (See “All 9/11 Airports Serviced by One Israeli Owned Company.”)
It looks like the Jєωιѕн mafia in America is not only running a protection racket called “Israeli Security”, it’s running a protection racket that doesn’t even work.
It is naïve to assume that all these terrorist attacks upon America are being carried out by amateurish Muslim organizations armed with little more than box cutters and pressure cooker bombs filled with nails and shrapnel. It is equally naïve to believe that the government is itself invariably complicit in these attacks and is orchestrating them for no other reason than that it needs an excuse to confiscate guns and usher in a spooky Orwellian police state.
No, it is far more plausible to regard these attacks upon America as Jєωιѕн mafia strong-arm tactics to coerce America into doing the will of Israel and in fighting its wars for it. If the administration refuses to do the dirty work of bombing Iran for Israel, then it will have to be taught a lesson. If American politicians cannot be persuaded by all the carrots provided by AIPAC, then maybe it is time to give them a taste of Mossad’s big stick.
The carrot and the stick. That’s how it works. This is how Jєωιѕн influence is exerted. AIPAC offers the carrots, Mossad wields the big stick.
The ʝʊdɛօ-Russian mafia or Red Mafiya—call it the “Jєωιѕн mafia” if you prefer— is now Mossad’s secret army in America. This is not a conspiracy theory, it’s an intellectually defensible thesis for which there is now more than enough evidence. He that has eyes to see, let him see.
♣
This is what I read today in an authoritative source, and it chills my blood when I read it:
US intelligence officials worry that Russian gangsters will acquire weapons of mass destruction such as fissionable material or deadly, easily concealed pathogens such as the smallpox virus—all too readily available from poorly guarded military bases or scientific labs—and sell these deadly wares to any number of terrorist groups or renegade states.
In North America alone, there are now thirty Russian crime syndicates operating in at least seventeen US cities, most notably New York, Miami, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Denver.
Mafiya groups that have flourished in post-perestroika Russia, they have something La Cosa Nostra can only dream about: their own country. The Russian mob virtually controls their nuclear-tipped former superpower, which provides them with vast financial assets and a truly global reach. Russian President Boris Yeltsin wasn’t exaggerating when he described Russia as “the biggest Mafia state in the world”.
In 1993, a high-ranking Russian immigration official in Moscow told US investigators that there were five million dangerous criminals in the former USSR who would be allowed to emigrate to the West.
Laura Radanko, The Russian Mafia in America
Guess what? They’re here! Right now.
Five million dangerous Russian criminals, former inhabitants of the gulags. Mossad’s American army. Five million Bolshevik terrorists, come to batten on America like bloodsucking vampires.
These guys aren’t listed in official statistics. Many of them are Israelis, part of the Israeli mafia, free to fly in and out of America without visas. Like they did around 9/11, casing the joint, clicking their cameras, doing high fives, and dancing as the Twin Towers came toppling down.
Never forget the Bolshevik Revolution. Sixty-six million dead Russian Christians put to death by cheka Jєωs. The descendants of these Bolshevik revolutionaries are now here! Like a pack of ravenous wolves moving in for the kill…
THE BOSTON MARATHON BOMBING
BOSTON TODAY . . . TEHRAN TOMORROW?
IS AMERICA BEING BLACKMAILED INTO ATTACKING IRAN?
♣
Adolf Hitler once described America as the Jєωs’ “new hunting grounds”. With remarkable prescience, he saw that the state of Israel would one day develop into organized Jєωry’s international crime base from which it would plunder other countries, including America, with impunity:
It doesn’t even enter their heads to build up a Jєωιѕн state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organization for their international world swindle, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks.” — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter 11
Never forget what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Jonathan Pollard on exiting the spy’s prison cell after a friendly visit in 2002: “Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States it can dry up and blow away.”
America lies bleeding.
The carrion are feeding on its corpse right now.
_________________________________________________________
Dr Lasha Darkmoon
http://unityofnobility.com/tag/russian-Jєωιѕн-godfathers/feed/
Unity of Nobility » Russian Jєωιѕн Godfathers
De-Kosherized News and Research Material
Mayor Bloomberg gets $1,000,000 award from Jєωιѕн Russian Mob
10/22/2013 06:45 PM
October 20, 2013 - Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg will be honored on Monday as the first recipient of a $1 million award that organizers are calling the “Jєωιѕн Nobel Prize.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel will present the award, named the Genesis Prize, to Mr. Bloomberg at a ceremony in Jerusalem in May. The award, established by a charity founded by Russian Jєωιѕн billionaires, aims to honor “exceptional people whose values and achievements will inspire the next generations of Jєωs.” Introduction of the Jєωιѕн Russian and American Mob The announcement of the inaugural award will be made at a news conference in New York on Monday. The charity, the Genesis Philanthropy Group, has financed an endowment of $100 million to pay for the prize for years to come. While New Yorkers are more focused on the race to replace Mr. Bloomberg and have mixed feelings about his legacy, the award is a reminder of his role on the international stage, one that will continue after he leaves office. Since he is hardly in need of the $1 million prize, Mr. Bloomberg plans to donate the money to a philanthropic cause to be named next year. Mr. Bloomberg was chosen [...]
Jєωιѕн Ex-Con Yevgeny Roizman elected Mayor in Russia’s fourth largest city
09/19/2013 02:47 AM
A Jєωιѕн anti-drugs campaigner defeated the party of Russian President Vladimir Putin with his election to mayor of Russia’s fourth-largest city. Yevgeny Roizman, 50, beat the ruling United Russia Party candidate in a mayoral election last week in Yekaterinburg, a city of 1.4 million people in the industrial belt of the Ural Mountains which is a venue for the 2018 World Cup soccer finals. Yevgeny Roizman United Russia won the vast majority of the 7,000 local elections held across the country on Sept. 9, Reuters reported. Roizman won 33.3 percent of the vote, compared to 29.7 percent garnered by Yakov Silin, the candidate for United Russia and deputy governor of the region. Yekaterinburg’s new mayor began his involvement in social causes after his release from prison, where a judge sent him during the Soviet era for robbery, extortion and weapons charges that later were voided, according to Reuters. More than a decade ago Roizman founded City Without Drugs, whose vigilante-style raids on alleged peddlers and tough-love rehabilitation centers for addicts turned him into a local celebrity but also drew criminal investigations. A member of parliament from 2003 to 2007, Roizman led a grassroots mayoral campaign that relied heavily on social media. http://www.jta.org/2013/09/18/news-opinion/world/Jєωιѕн-ex-con-defeats-putins-man-in-yekaterinburg-mayoral-race#ixzz2fJnuG0cC
Semion Mogilevich, Jєωιѕн Red Mafia boss and Mob Mastermind
08/26/2013 08:00 AM
Mogilevich was born in Kiev’s Podol neighborhood to a Jєωιѕн family. Tony Soprano he isn’t. Alleged Red Mafia boss Semion Mogilevich is a new kind of mobster. Semion Moglievich, fbi.gov He doesn’t bloody his hands with street crimes or swagger around like some two-bit thug. He’s a world-class executive. He plans. He organizes. He delegates. He manages an army of Slavic criminals, many of them veterans of the Soviet War in Afghanistan, but his real strength is in a network of companies big and small, and his own financial brilliance. “The Brainy Don” uses not mere force, but business skills and economic insight to orchestrate his crimes, and with that he influences the fate of nations and the global economy. It’s a calculated, distant brand of crime, almost too cerebral to be scary. But Slate says this big business man is “twice the villain Whitey Bulger ever was.” The Village Voice called him “the most dangerous mobster in the world.” CNN deemed him “more powerful than Gotti.” His ruthless business acuмen has put the 67-year-old Ukrainian on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted list—but Mogilevich is unlikely to ever face trial in the United States. ‘The Brainy Don” Semion Mogilevich earned an economics [...]
Russian Jєωιѕн Godfathers The Fugitive
03/28/2013 07:00 PM
The Fugitive: This BBC docuмentary series examines the relationship between Russia’s richest men (“the oligarchs”) and Putin’s administration in the Kremlin. Broadcast a year before the Litvinenko murder, this fascinating series lifted the lid on the struggle that still continues between Putin, and his adversaries, the Russian Oligarchs. The series follows each one in turn to find out what they were up to in the years leading up to 2005, and the crew is granted intimate access. Two of the five are now in exile, wanted on criminal charges, and planning their own anti-Putin campaigns with their wealth and influence. http://unityofnobility.com/videos/docs/Russian-Jєωιѕн-Godfathers-The-Fugitive.mp4
Media files
Russian-Jєωιѕн-Godfathers-The-Fugitive.mp4 (MPEG-4 video, 119 MB)
Russia 911 (http://1amendmentcont.blogspot.com/2012/07/russias-911-connection.html)
-
Triple Cross of 911 (http://technischeredaktion.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-triple-cross-of-911.html)
See above link for pictures and links.
The triple cross of 911
Gulf War I was part of a very long range plan involving a triple cross of astounding proportions.
Peter the Great
At the basis are the Russian Secret Services. Their lineage begins with the Tsarist secret intelligence and continues through the NKVD/CHEKA and GPU and KGB - core and central to it is the GRU. The FSB/FSS is just another continuation of it. These intelligence apparatuses are not controlled by just the Zio-Communist Juden-Kahal nor by the very Western Peter the Great's importation from the French and English milieu of the DragunHausen into the base for Russian Socio-Politico rule into the centuries beginning with Peter and following.
The Triad's espionage system (Originally ensconced in New York, Tel Aviv, Moscow in the 19th century), with its outliers in London and Washington/Langley, has as its goal, along the way the submission of the United States first and foremost, the submission to the Illuminati nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr of all of the world. This is the real meaning of the Red Menace of the twentieth century. One half billion people died then as a result of that.
According to their plan, when London, Washington, New York, Paris etc. are done away with, there will be Moscow and Tel Aviv. Moscow has for a very long time believed that it is the Third Rome destined to rule the world - the hardcore Zionists vie for Jerusalem as that capital (Netanyahu is a hardcore Zionist).
Hence the always murderous antagonism of co-conspirators between the Communists and Zionists. Make no mistake, Putin is a hardcore Communist. This is examplar of their machinations.
The Justice of God: The Houses of the Dragon control the Military Industrial Espionage Complex and their Illuminati servants and their Banker clerks to enslave the World
The core now of the Houses of the Dragon are the Zionist Haburah with their plan to rule the World from Antichrist Israel. The final Triad: Zionist Communist Russia (1917) - the King of the North, China (1947) the Kings from the East, from the Rising of the Sun, and Israel (1948) the Nation of the Antichrist, ad Dajjal, in that order.
The triple cross of 911 is this. Evil Mountain Yamantau was constructed as core to the first strike capability of Russia (replete today with 100 megaton thermonuclear tipped ICBMs) against the United States and China managed by the Kremlin as an unwilling client state for one reason. Putin is the point man for all of it. Netanyahu's Judenαzι Israel is the wild card. Yamantau is the link. 911 was the planned result of "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall..." Reagan's falling for Gorbachev's Glasnost - Perestroika. The wall landed on Reagan and all of us and was rebuilt in Occupied Palestine in 2002 (and declared illegal in 2004). 911 was the beachhead of the Zio-Communist strike to destroy the free world and set the United States up as a patsy for all Muslim hatred and give Likkudnic Israel its Oded Yinon's regional empire (first planned by Kissinger some years earlier). There were the planned similarities to the Northwoods Project and huge complicity with any number of government officials and infrastructure, but 911 was a plot hatched in the Kremlin in the years preceding Gorbachev's infamous speech to the Duma in 1984 - Communist World Government: Global Politician - Gorbachev Number Two: Dmitry Medvedev
" Perhaps, most importantly, Gorbachev gave a speech in December 1984, i.e. before becoming General Secretary, in which he outlined much of what he would start doing two years later when he had more or less consolidated his position on the top of the CPSU, and launched perestroika."
What is not generally related about this speech is the vehement declaration of Gorbachev that he is and was and always will be a hardline total Communist. This was only a ploy to deceive the West and most unfortunately it worked. This was within the same time frame that Oded Yinon rehatched Kissinger's plan for Israeli domination and empire in the Middle East. They are related. The clownish and violent and ineffectual resistance of the PLO to Israel is due in great part to the agenda that Russian Intelligence set for the PLO and related Palestinian organizations. The divide and conquer strategy that pitifully the United States is enforcing on the part of hardline Likkudnics and their party apparatus PNAC and others in the United States was actually concocted in the Kremlin including using the United States as the instrument thereof and patsy. This is all only a continuation of the Russian versus the Turkish empires in the Crimean War and in 1915. The first part of the Triple Cross is Gorbachev - Putin betraying the United States into World War and economic ruin. The second part is the destruction of the Middle East by hand of their own involvement via the so called resistance there to Zionism actually the Arabs and all Muslims being drawn into ongoing conflict with the United States and the planned third part is Russia versus Israel after the planed destruction of the United States and the co-opting of NATO by Russia takes place.
-
Putin's speech to the Duma on Monday
http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/6889
Interesting reading. In English.
Full speech
-
In February 2002, Donald McAlvany reported: "The plan for a joint military campaign against America, waged by Russia and China was drawn up many years ago, and was told to me in 1999 by the highest ranking defector of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Russian General Staff, Col. Stanislav Lunev. Lunev stated that on his last visit to Moscow, prior to his 1992 defection, the Russian General Staff was still committed to fighting and winning a future nuclear war against America. ‘The nuclear war plan is still on,’ they told him. But there would be some changes. No longer would Russian troops be responsible for a follow-up invasion of the lower 48 states (U.S. mainland). Russian forces would be responsible for occupying ‘Alaska and parts of Canada.’ The Chinese would be given responsibility for occupying the lower"
The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, February 2002, p. 7.
".... there would be the détente; that an agreement would be reached between the capitalist West and the Marxist East.
Then, the communists would overcome the West, by firing their missiles — they would fire their missiles (and the word “missiles” was used in the 1840s!) They would fire their missiles on the coasts of North America — from the direction of Russia and China — and the Western world would be brought into bondage, after which “the firstborn of hell will rule the world.”
From "The Day of Wrath: The Hand of God Upon An Empire." The revelations were made to an Armenian Jєω, one Zachary, who was later baptized a Catholic. (1850's) Compiled by a French Priest Fattecelli.
Sister Rose Asdente of Taggia (d 1847 RIP): "There shall be great confusion of people against people, and nations against nations." The Russians, she explains, "shall come to make war on Italy ... Priests and religious shall be butchered and the earth, especially in Italy, shall be watered with their blood."