0 obserwujących
5 notek
3236 odsłon
  245   0

Codename “Winter Revolution” – International aspects

Source and Copyright:

In the Soviet Russia (both old as well as the new kind) internal affairs are tightly intertwined with foreign affairs. We may say that the internal affairs policy is a derivative of its foreign affairs counterpart, one designed to spread disinformation on the international scene.

The Policy of disinformation – strategic weapon of the Empire

Politics of “liberalization” involving an accredited opposition which for a variety of reasons is easily controllable has already a disinformative dimension.

The main objectives of this policy are:
1.     To lend credibility to the belief that Soviets are evolving towards some form of democratic liberalism.
2.     To weaken the international political structures in the Western World, or to deepen the existing divisions.
3.     To distract attention from the expansionist foreign policy, ongoing armament etc.
4.     Finally, (in particular after 1991), to deepen economic and trade relations with the West, to facilitate a virtual westward expansion of the KGB and the Soviet mafia in a semi-parasitic exploitation of the West.
Practically, from the time of the announcement that Mr. Putin would become the new “President of Russia”, the behaviour of the KGB dominated group holding the power has been strangely contradictory. On the one hand there has been a marked political thaw: limited tolerance of large public demonstrations, grants of certain concessions for the opposition, establishing “democratic” and “liberal” governmental think-tanks for the dissidents and acceptance of anti-corruption campaigns.
On the other hand, we see concurrent combat of the opposition, administrative and legal repressions (some mild, as those after the genocide in the Caucasus region or when handling murders where the perpetrator is “unknown”), reversal of democratic changes and indifference to the resurgence of despotism of Chekist hardliners. We see increased powers of the apparatus of repressions, breaking up opposition demonstrations;  let's bring up the recent “coronation” of the “new” President when Moscow had been turned into a fortress and even the sovocs [soviet admirers] could not wave their flags along the route of Putin’s Mercedes while the state security agents carried random checks throughout the crowds.
It appears however, that this policy is deliberate. Firstly, at the international level, the operation “Elections 2012” (the core of which is a “controlled loss” of Putin and a temporary democratic thaw) is a kind of a smokescreen under cover of which the power holding KGB group consistently pursues its agenda.
The intention is to create an impression of “democratization”, “liberalization” and “transformation” as well as an impression of internal chaos, while holding a full control over the situation. This has been anyway the usual character of the Soviet policy (especially the Neo-Soviet): on the one hand, full control and pursuit of the objectives and on the other – tactical flexibility under the disguise of confusion and chaos.
In order to attempt to answer the question: what are the specific directions of the operational game “Elections 2012”? - first we need to take a look at the most important objectives of the Soviet policy, especially those carried out since the beginning of the so called “Putin era”.
Construction of the “Continental Block”
Within the inner dimension, we see the reconstruction and reconsolidation of the Soviet power structures, both in the Russian Federation (RF) itself, as well as in the post-Communist countries.
From the global perspective, we see the realization of the geo-strategic objective, which can be loosely defined as the “Eurasian project”. This concept comprises a network of alliances centered on the Soviet Russia and consists of the axes: Moscow-Berlin-Paris, Moscow-Beijing (forming the Shanghai Cooperation Organization SCO), Moscow-Tehran (adding other pro-Russian countries and Islamic organizations), Moscow-Phenian, Moscow-Latin America (includes countries where pro-Moscow, pro-Beijing, National Socialists or Communists and other left wing groups came to power at the turn of the 20-th and 21-st century).
This policy is coupled with the displacement of the U.S.A. from its zone of influence. As a consequence, world hegemony of the Communist China and Soviet Russia may become a reality - an intention that both these countries declare openly. Examples of this are official statements of the two brains of the contemporary Soviet strategy: Alexander Dugin and Sergei Karaganov. Dugin writes about “World domination by a Universal Eurasian Empire”, while Karaganov postulates the creation of the “World Directorate” consisting of the Union of Europe and Russia as well as Red China and the USA.
The core of this Eurasian geopolitical project is the axis Moscow-Beijing. The Sino-Soviet geo-strategic symbiosis (where Beijing is the stronger part for obvious reasons) includes both political and military alliance as well as commercial cooperation. For Russia, China is the supplier of modern technologies and investments, whereas from the Beijing perspective, the KGB run State serves as a store of raw materials (and at the same time, perfectly secure land distribution route of commodities), an investment area and a deep geo-strategic depot.
This project has several organizational forms, the most important of which and the most threatening to the World is the most often ignored in analytical reviews – the Shanghai Cooperative Organization (SCO). It is both political and military organization meant to become the Eurasian counterpart of the EU and NATO. The other are: the military CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization, merged with SCO in 2007), the economic EurAsEC and the planned Eurasian Union. At the global level there is BRICS (short for Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) which following the Soviet optics shall “overcome the economic hegemony of the West”.
A key event was the hushed visit of Putin in the PRC, during which he signed a number of agreements both military and economic, which also included mutual coordination of military policies (Moscow and Beijing to inform each other about troop movements in the East and about ballistic missile launches). Further, supply of the natural gas to the PRC, the construction of the transmission and transport infrastructure in Siberia by the PRC and loans by the Chinese banks. These agreements formalize the role of the Soviet Russia as a strategic “deep depot” for the Red China. In the direction of the West, Moscow’s target is the creation of a united, pro-Soviet oriented Europe.
The issue here is to turn the Western Europe into a reservoir of funds and technologies for the Soviet Russia, sever the Euro-Atlantic political unity (neutralization of the NATO and displacement of the U.S.), a more or less formal access to the Western political structures or adapting the existing structures to realize its own agenda. In the long perspective, as drafted by the Kremlin’s strategic planners the goal is to obtain a wide access to the ice-free Atlantic Ocean.
This policy is implemented in two ways:
1.     Firstly, by a takeover of the project of the European Union, with its ideology of political correctness
2.     Secondly, by the establishment of the axis Moscow-Berlin-Paris. Germany longing to reactivate their old imperial position would play the role of Moscow’s administrator of Europe representing Soviet interests.
The process of re-integration of the former Soviet Empire taking place from 2008 (note that the links between the heir of the USSR and its subdued states have never in the principle been cast off) is a function of that policy. Besides, in the coming years Kremlin plans to formalize and finalize their agenda concerning the establishment of the Eurasian Union.

“Reset”- The hidden invasion of the West
In July 2010, Sergei Karaganov (an important shadowy figure of the Soviet politics over the last three decades) presented in the “Rossiyskaia Gazette” the project of the “European Alliance” as a merger of the German dominated EU with the Soviet Russia. This alliance would be based on one main alliance founding treaty and four minor ones, which would establish and regulate various levels of cooperation (read: Soviet domination) - the energy contract, the common area of foreign policy, the common economical and technological area and the agreement regulating common labour market.
What is especially significant in the context discussed here, Karaganov presented this vision as a “last chance”, both to save Europe from its civilizational crisis and for the “necessary changes in the corrupt and developmentally delayed Russia”, here and there using a handy demo-liberal phraseology.
Karaganov’s concepts were widely interpreted as a postulate; however, if you look closely at the political situation in Europe and in the World over the past four years, they present actual facts. We could say that during the years 2008-2012 yet another prediction of Anatoly Golitsyn, published in 1984, was fulfilled. A “neutral” (in a particular way) “socialist” Europe has been formed, non-antagonistic towards the Soviets. Conclusion of the expansion of Gazprom – the economic arm of the neo-Soviets remains basically a technical matter.
Construction of the western part of the “Continental Block” (axis Moscow-Berlin-Paris) is coupled with the policy aimed to wreck the unity of NATO, and ultimately to neutralize both the Treaty and the U.S. Christopher Story, the British Sovietologist who died in June 2010, described this as the entry of Soviets into the enemy camp. Yet NATO is neither oriented for a confrontation with-, nor even defence from Moscow.
Although the bone of contention is the construction of the missile defence shield, however, despite the arrogant and aggressive Soviet diplomacy, Western leaders (including the NATO Command Center) are racing to calm the Soviet rednecks assuring that “the shield is not aimed against Russia” and suggest cooperation plans with Moscow.
By the way, why such a turn in the American and NATO politics? A plausible answer might be that some military and intelligence circles regard Moscow (and Beijing) as a real military threat and persistently apply pressure on their ruling demo-liberal half-wits and the Bureau.
If we are dealing with the latter group then, to gain credibility and to maintain its potential for further action they must give up at least in part on the issue of unilateral disarmament. Transfer of the western technologies to the Soviet Russia continues unabated. France has sold their “Mistral-class” landing ships, equipment for the infantry, avionics systems “Sagem” and “Safran” as well as thermal imagers for tanks. Germany trains the Soviet army in Mulino and supplies the Soviet highland troops operating in the Caucasus. Italians have sold the Soviets their light IFV and SUV “Iveco” along with the manufacturing technology.
In the fall of 2011, Soviet Russia became a member of the World Trade Organization, applauded by an entire choir of vocal commentators forecasting that the “invisible hand of free market” and “capitalism” will, over time “civilize” and democratize” the KGB neo- Bolshevik rabble.
Leftist or even Communist inclined administration of the current President of the U.S.A. duly withdraws from their position of an external empire in Europe (including the Central and Eastern Europe) by the reduction of non-conventional weapons armament and the recognition of the Soviet investiture in the area, simultaneously focusing on the Middle East (while gradually moving some forces to the West Pacific where a confrontation with the PRC is expected).
Soviet corporations in mineral mining and marketing industry also enter Anglo-Saxon business area: in 2011 Rosneft and Exxon Mobil signed an agreement which – in addition to profits for the latter one – will enable the transfer of mining technology of the currently inaccessible deposits to the Soviets and in April this year Britain joined the Nord Stream. The benchmark for the above-described process may be the Obama’s conversation with Medvedev concerning the missile defence shield, which resembled a dialogue of an agent with his case officer, or even the head of the Soviet intelligence residency in the West.

“Democratic” deception
If the recent electoral maneuvers are put in a broader historical and political context, especially of the last two decades of perestroika alias neo-communism, they appear to be more comprehensible. Since the time of the perestroika, glasnost and the faked “fall” of the communism, the transformed Soviet state attempts to give an impression in the West that it evolves towards democratic-liberalism or some other form of “independent democracy”; that it does not pose any threat to anyone, that they should do business with it and even associate in one way or another.
There was an attempt at “democratization” and “westernization” of the “post-Soviet Russia” during Yeltsin’s presidency and after he “wore out”, he has been replaced by an equally or even more democratic Putin and his Chekists. In 2008 Medvedev came to power, who apparently in contrast to Putin was supposed to represent “democratic”, “liberal” and “pro-Western” face of the Chekist democracy. The political structure in turn, imitates the Western “model”: there is a ruling party and parties of licensed opposition.
Now, the time has come for the “snowy revolution” and a seasonal “thaw”, which in this context are a simple continuation and a modification of the current course of disinformation. Although it sounds strange and paradoxical, the existence of the so-called extraneous anti-Putin opposition (weak, with a “built-in” susceptibility for control) is advantageous for the neo-Soviet regime, if imitating democracy (more or less grotesque, but that is another story) is in his interest.
Agents of influence (the orchestra), useful idiots (resonant chambers), and also the wishful thinking commentators in the West may therefore (and must) uphold the proposition that the neo-Soviets are so called "democratic" perhaps even "normal" and "nearly democratic" state, which is "implementing democracy after the Tatar yoke, centuries of Tsarist rule, 70 years of communism and 20 years of post-communism" and that it is "not that much totalitarian at all" as painted by some right-wing lunatics.
Do we have a political party pluralism?
Yes we do!
 In addition to "Jedinoj Rossii" we have "social democracy", KPRF the Zhirinovsky’s party and a plethora of the “extraneous opposition".
Can they - despite the Putin's threats and intervention of the State Security - demonstrate in the streets, organize happenings and flash-mobs?
Yes they can!
 Dozens of thousands of people demand “Russia without Putin"? But the same numbers declare the streets of support for the comrade Colonel.
Can one negotiate with the post-KGB rulers concessions for the opposition?
It turns out that one can, in spite of the arrogance and brutality of the State Security. In this case, the Kremlin post-KGB rulers (conductors, using Volkov’s terminology) with S. Ivanov, N. Patrushev and even Putin himself – may present themselves (of course only verbally) for the sake of spreading propaganda abroad, as model democrats and reformers who "recognize positive aspects of the Russian citizens activity", or define the protests as ... "heated discussions" and "democratic standard" (Putin, after the second "March of Millions").
On the other hand, the Establishment in the West (e.g. Mrs. Hillary Clinton) may appeal to the political "sense" of Putin.
The gradual tightening of the screws (breaking up demonstrations, arresting the opposition activists, draconian fines for rally participation, intimidation of journalists), we can see from the day of the "enthronement" of the "new" president. Unfortunately, if you look through the lens of real policy mechanisms and not a liberal greed – it is a natural reaction of the state security.
A political "thaw" was needed to deceive the international establishment; withdrawing from it, is a message dropped by the Chekists identifying them as those holding the power.
Here, they contrast "reformists", "modernizers" and "westerners" from the Soviet State Security as opposed to the "lunatics": the "nationalist" and "crypto-fascist" Alexey Navalny or the "hardliner communist" and "leftist" Sergei Udaltsov. "Patriotic" Putin is also favorably compared to the opposition -allegedly supported from abroad, which in turn is a part of information war against the United States.
Kremlin can blackmail the world with the ghost of "recidivist communism", "an extreme right-wing nationalist threat" or a broad "instability" that would be a consequence of democratization (otherwise imaginary). Putin (along with the whole Chekist establishment) is therefore presented as a guarantor of stability (regardless of how cruel and criminal would it be) and the most optimal "choice", while the opposition as a threat to this stability.
Not long ago an "independent" (the quotation marks are explained below) Moscow Center for Strategic Studies, published an analysis, predicting for the next term of Putin an escalation of confrontations between authorities and the opposition, reluctance of the government to establish a dialogue and a blow of the global crisis at the Soviet Russia (collapse of the Eurozone). Consequently, radical opposition to become vocal with protests throughout the Country, leading to an early election and to a "radical transformation of the political system".
This Center has formulated Putin’s electoral program in 2000. One may therefore argue, that it serves the role of a liberal fig tree leave of the neo-Bolshevik authorities; and that such "independent Russian sources" one should treat with reservation because they are used by the Soviets to convey to the World whatever they intend to communicate.
This forecast is part of the disinformation described here - you can read there between the lines that:
- Firstly, the establishment is prepared for any scenario, including the need to replace the direct ruling with an indirect one (that really would be the "democratization" and "radical transformation")
- Secondly, the analysis of such pronouncements shows that dissemination of an impression of weakness and instability is in the current interest of the Soviets.
How, then – with the international situation in the background – one should see the events of recent months in the Soviet Russia? The recent "thaw" was needed, even necessary for the Soviets in order to continue the above-described "reset" with the United States and Western Europe and to distract the attention from the introduced and implemented expansive political projects.
In addition to that, the creation of the appearance of "liberalization" and "change", simultaneously showing an apparent weakness and incoherence is needed by Moscow at a time when western demo-liberalism is in crisis, which may result in severe consequences for the West, both at the internal and external levels.
Simultaneously it aids the creation of the “Eurasian Union” as a de facto "Soviet Union-bis": Moscow headquarters may paradoxically present itself as the most "free" or the "least totalitarian" State of the block as opposed to "evil Bolsheviks" such as Yanukovych, Lukashenka or satraps of Central Asia.
Other contexts, which shall be discussed further on, are: the most likely war of the U.S. and Israel with Iran and the transfer of the "hub" of the world geopolitics to the region of East Asia and Western Pacific.
Moscow's deceptive narrative about the "democratization" and "change", "chaos" and "weaknesses" goes hand in hand with the unashamed shows of their own objectives and their implementation. Declarations of peaceful intentions (after all, the Soviets always "defend the peace"!), alternating with threats, blackmail, and a local use of terror (support of Islamic terrorism, genocide in the Caucasus region, the invasion of Georgia, Smolensk, last year's coup in Norway and nuclear threats with respect to the missile shield) are combined with an equally destructive ideological war. Periodic "thaws" are then always followed by the tightening of the course. Such a policy causes confusion amid the Western elite, operating according to the liberal paradigm, assuming first of all "doing business" as a "political" goal and lack of the concept of the enemy.
Another effect is that the majority of the Western establishment wants to believe that "Russia is becoming democratic" (despite evidence to the contrary), or else (if only due to internal instabilities) too weak and unruly for taking any action of a strategic nature (and yet strong enough to strike a "susceptible point").
Simultaneously, the same Western elite accepts or at least tolerates Soviet totalitarianism, however as to the question of "why" and its potential answers, it is a subject for a completely distinct discussion.

Iran. The possibility of another "proxy war" in the Middle East

Playing the terrorism card, orchestrated by the so-called "Rogue states" (the Bush doctrine would not include in this group the principal players - Moscow and Beijing) is a function of Moscow’s Western front – for it anticipates the involvement of the West (led by the USA) in the "war on terror", of which the next frontline is meant to be Iran and its allies in the region (headed by Syria).

Lubię to! Skomentuj1 Napisz notkę Zgłoś nadużycie

Więcej na ten temat


Inne tematy w dziale