In late 1982, Israeli intelligence sources reported to EIR that then-Defense Minister Ariel Sharon made a secret trip to Greek Cyprus to meet with two ranking officials of the Soviet GRU, the military intelligence service. The subject of those secret discussions was an Israeli-Soviet quid pro quo to drive the United States out of the Middle East. In exchange for Israeli complicity in a series of anti-American covert diplomatic and low-intensity military operations, the Soviet Union would “guarantee” Israeli control over an expanded piece of eastern Mediterranean turf, fulfilling the “Greater Israel” designs of the faction associated with Sharon; and would gradually allow for the emigration of a large number of Russian and Eastern European Jews to colonize the West Bank of the Jordan River, thus de facto consolidating Israelis 1967 land grab.

This “Greater Israel” scheme prefigures a parallel emergence of a “Greater Syria,” constituting the second satrap of the future Soviet domination of the eastern Mediterranean. The dismantling of Lebanon and the virtual extermination of the Palestinian population in successive genocidal campaigns by the Israeli Defense Force, the Syrian Army, the Syrian-backed Abu Musa radical Palestinian front, and the Amal Shi’ites of Lebanon—also agents of the Alawite Brotherhood ruling Syria—demonstrated on the field of battle the potential for Hobbesian coexistence between “Greater” Syria and “Greater” Israel.

While no published sources have corroborated the particulars of the reported Sharon-GRU session and the strategic deal consolidated there, subsequent events have clearly demonstrated that Israel is no longer America’s “leading ally” in the Middle East, despite continuing howls to this effect from U.S. State Department, Eastern Establishment, and Zionist Lobby voices.

Three factors, representing a dramatic change in the direction and control over Israeli politico-military policy, provide the backdrop to the emerging Tel Aviv-Moscow-Damascus pact:

1. The demographic shift within the Israeli population. Over 50 per cent of the Israeli population is now Sephardic, Middle Eastern-born. The shift from a Western European, Judeo-Christian cultural matrix to an Oriental Semitic cultural matrix has been identified by recent Israeli writers as a repudiation of Western values and a re-emergence of a Jewish “kabbalistic” brand of fundamentalism. This shift has been aggravated by the fact that over one-third of the Israeli citizenry, predominantly Ashkenazi pre- and postwar European émigrés, have left Israel and returned to the United States of Western Europe, thus drawing out of Israel some of the leading scientific and technological strata of the population. A radical, fundamentalist peasant caste has thus emerged in recent years as a prominent political force, providing the social base for Ariel Sharon’s drive for power under the slogan “Arik, Arik, King of Israel.”

This “Oriental” shift has been augmented by the emergence of a Russian-Jewish dominated New Right movement in Israel, heavily penetrated by the KGB. This New Right movement is in a prominent position within the Jewish Underground, or, Temple Mount movement [Chabad], which has revived a Khomeiniite brand of Judaism preaching the rebuilding of the Third Temple of Solomon. The other predominant grouping within the Temple Mount conspiracy is a powerful and wealthy community of Syrian-born Jews from the Turkish border region of Aleppo, who reportedly maintain deep but quiet ties to the Alawite Assad leadership of Syria, also Aleppo-based.

2. The collapse of the Israeli economy. Whereas, Israel’s inflation rate was 20 per cent in 1975, it is now an astounding 180 per cent, with interest rates on certain categories of loans over 210 per cent. While exports of citrus and other real economic products have collapsed and overall exports stagnated, official Israeli arms exports have increased sixteenfold over the last decade. Official exports of arms and diamonds in 1983 accounted for 60-70 per cent of Israel’s total exports. The unrecorded smuggling of drugs, diamonds, and weapons has massively increased, placing Israel in a leading position within the overall worldwide “unofficial economy”—i.e., the arms-for-drugs black market.

Within this arms-for-dope bazaar, Israel has entered into documented barter dealings with Khomeini’s Iran, providing spare parts for U.S. equipment originally sold to Iran during the reign of the late Shah, in clear and brazen violating of U.S. law. Through Lebanese channels centered around the Chouf Mountains-based Chamoun clan, the Sharon faction additionally entered into co-operative business ventures, including massive West Bank land scams, with Bulgarian foreign trade bank Litex. The latter arrangement was consummated in an October 1982 meeting at the Chamoun family Chouf mountain retreat at approximately the same time that Sharon was cavorting with the GRU on Cyprus.

The singular focus on building Israel’s arms industry was expressed in clear anti-American terms in the 1981 Meridor Memorandum, drafted by Ya-acov Meridor, a member of the former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s cabinet. The memorandum was ostensibly part of the U.S.-Israeli letters of understanding: “We shall say to the Americans: ‘Don’t compete with us in Taiwan…South Africa…or the Caribbean, or in other areas where we can sell weapons directly…. Let us do it. Sell the ammunition using a proxy, Israel will be your proxy.'”

From its current status as the world’s seventh-largest arms exporter, Israel’s defense sector has mapped out an ambitious program to place Israel in the number three spot over the next several years. At the heart of this drive has been an extensive lobbying effort into the Reagan administration and the U.S. Congress, to force the release of previously classified stealth and other technologies to Israel for the production of the Lavie jet, a joint Israel-Republic of South Africa production venture. This would give Israel the additional delivery system capabilities, as well, for the rapid development of an independent intermediate-range nuclear capability.

On repeated occasions, this particular Israel-South Africa connection has been caught funneling state-of-the-art U.S. computer technologies to the Soviet Union. [Operation Talpiot].

3. The Lebanon invasion of 1982 and its aftermath. In June 1982, Ariel Sharon launched the Israeli Defense Force invasion of Lebanon on the pretext of assaulting Palestinian terrorist bases behind the attempted assassination of the Israeli ambassador in London, Shlomo Argov. The action marked a decisive breach in U.S.-Israeli relations that accelerated Sharon’s openings in Moscow and Damascus. Sharon launched the operation on the basis of personal assurances from the Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, that the United States would fully support the Israeli invasion. When the United States—already at that moment caught in the ringer of the Malvinas War—harshly rebuked the Israeli move and President Reagan took the unprecedented step of firing Hail, Sharon wrote off the United States as an “unreliable ally,” and took his business to Moscow and Damascus, where more “practical” minds supposedly prevailed.

When every effort from inside Israel to dislodge the butcher Sharon from power failed, a deep cultural pessimism took hold in the country that merely accelerated the radical fundamentalist drive to impose a Sharon dictatorship.

Beginning in 1984, a more open phase of diplomatic dealings with Moscow began, through the personal “shuttle diplomacy” of Edgar Bronfman and Armand Hammer. Both men made a series of trips to Moscow during the Andropov and Chernenko periods, to negotiate a broad-based Moscow-Tel Aviv re-approchment involving Jewish emigration and anticipated official recognition of Israel by the Soviet Union. According to Canadian sources, this was paralleled by an increasingly public role of the Bronfman family, particularly Charles Bronfman, as the semi-official channel between the Canadian and East German governments. Privately, Canadian intelligence sources have told EIR that this Bronfman-East Germany channel is directly into Gen. Marcus (“Misha”) Wolf, the number two man in the East German Ministry of State Security (MfS). The son of a German-Jewish Communist Party official who fled to Russia during the Hitler period, Wolf has been identified as the single most powerful figure in the MfS and a close personal associate and protégé of Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov.

The Sharon Plan to destroy Lebanon, and divide the spoils between Syria and Israel, slaughter the Palestinian population there, transfer the dirty-money operations previously based in Beirut into the Israeli banking system, and convert the West Bank into a Russian émigré-populated real estate boondoggle, was, in fact, a corollary to the Kissinger Doctrine elaborated by the former Secretary of State at a July 23-24, 1982 secret meeting at the Bohemian Grove in California. In that address, Kissinger called for the United States to strategically withdraw from 75 per cent of its global commitments and assume a more modest role within a concordat of Western nations modeled on the Holy Roman Empire of the post Treaty of Vienna period.

Convinced by the Reagan administration’s failure to fully support the invasion of Lebanon, that the United States must be punished by humiliating setbacks within the eastern Mediterranean, the Sharon group in Israel provided consistent aid and comfort to the Shi’ite terrorist offensive against the United States, beginning with the February 1983 bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut that wiped out the entire U.S. CIA station for Lebanon.

The Tel Aviv-Damascus Hobbesian deal with Moscow’s blessing was consummated during April-June 1985 through the following sequence of events that culminated in the TWA 847 hijacking.

• In early April 1985, Israeli forces entered Southern Lebanon and rounded up over 700 Shi-ites, trucking them across the Israeli border into a detention camp. The mass hostage-taking was aimed by the Sharon group, now strongly allied with Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin, at forcing Amal leader Nabih Berri to reach a security pact with Israel assuring the permanent elimination of Palestinians from southern Lebanon. On April 5, the Reagan administration denounced the Israeli move as a violation of the Geneva Convention and demanded the unconditional release of the “hostages”.
• On May 14, a top Israeli intelligence official met with the head of Amal intelligence, a known Syrian intelligence asset, in southern Lebanon, soliciting a negotiating package that would lead to the relase of the Shi’ite hostages inside Israel. The terms proposed by the Israeli official reportedly called for an Amal action against the United States that would provide Israel with an “excuse” for releasing the 700 Lebanese Shi’ites.
• On May 17, the Mossad leaked a story in the Washington Post blaming the CIA for a March 8 car bombing in Beirut that killed 80 Shi’ites. Despite the fact that the Lebanese secret unit that carried out the car bomb attack was acting under direct Mossad orders, Israel’s “proxy” status for U.S. actions inside Lebanon, in effect since the humiliating American withdrawal from Lebanese territory in 1984, served as blackmail leverage against the Reagan administration’s revealing the facts of the case. The Washington Post story was widely circulated in the Shi’ite press inside Lebanon, building a revenge climate against “CIA terrorists”.
• On May 20, a second secret meeting in southern Lebanon between the Mossad official and other ranking members of the Amal military command took place. Allegedly, this meeting spelled out a detailed arrangement between the Amal and the Israelis, involving policing responsibilities for the border zone with Israel, the release of the Shi’ites, and the staging of the TWA hijacking. The secret accord was ratified first by the head of Syrian intelligence in Lebanon before the plan went operational in early June with the Athens hijacking.

The conclusion: The TWA hostage incident marked the consolidation of a process begun with the 1982 Lebanon invasion, which fundamentally realigned the eastern Mediterranean into a Damascus-Tel Aviv-Moscow controlled zone, in which, barring a dramatic shift in policy from Washington, the United States is no longer a prominent player.

Count Bennigsen and the ‘Islamic Card’

When terror by Islamic fundamentalist groups, against innocent citizens from the United States and other countries, escalates with new hijackings and murders, one would hardly expect to hear the old argument of the 1970s voiced in Washington, that Islamic fundamentalism should be welcomed as a counterthrust to communism in Central Asia.

But professor Alexandre Bennigsen, late of the University of Chicago and now based at the Sorbonne in Paris, is still in action. He makes the rounds on Capitol Hill. He gets a forum in the U.S. Information Agency’s Problems of Communism to vent his enthusiastic hope for the spread of Islamic revolt (“Mullahs, Mujahidin, and Soviet Muslims,” Problems of Communism, Nov.-Dec. 1984). This scheme, that the spread of Islamic fundamentalism in West Asia would inspire turmoil in Soviet Central Asia and trepidation in the Kremlin, was the stuff of Bennigsen’s frequent congressional testimony and academic dissertations, which fueled the doomed “arc of crisis” policy under the Carter administration. The continuing popularity of Bennigsen, the author of The Islamic Threat to the Soviet Union, demonstrates the dangerous persistence in Washington—among professed conservatives as well as around the State Department—of fascination with the “crumbling of the Soviet Empire,” even as the Russians count their gains in areas near and far from their borders.

In the 1970s, Carter’s national security chief Zbigniew Brzezinski proclaimed that Islamic fundamentalism would be a bulwark against Communist insurgencies [Brzezinski’s controlled opposition narrative that helps Soviet aims] along an “arc of crisis,” stretching from the southern borders of the Soviet Union, through the Near East and into North Africa. In Iran, the keystone of the arc, the Carter administration abetted the overthrow of the Shah by the mullarchy of the insane Ayatollah Khomeini. The Islamic revolution, the hope was voiced, would ultimately sweep into Soviet Central Asia, whose inhabitants would rise against their Russian overlords simultaneously with the peoples of Eastern Europe. The USSR would crack open like a walnut.

The results in the late 1970s, when this view was policy, were somewhat different. The Soviet Union achieved such a striking increase of power in the region, that Brzezinski subsequently suggested, in a June 1983 speech at Harvard University, that the United States might as well abandon the Middle East, along with Western Europe, and search for allies in the Pacific Basin.

The so-called Rejection Front of radical Arab states under Soviet tutelage, was consolidated out of the rage engendered by the Camp David pact. In this alignment, Libya and Syria were joined by Iran—after the Khomeini revolution brought down the Shah. Khomeini sits astride the Persian Gulf oil routes, scarcely veiling his threats to call in Satan Number 2 (the USSR), if Satan Number 1 crosses him; and the Soviets have invested heavily in both infrastructure and political assets in Iran. Syria is armed to the teeth with Soviet weapons. What is left of Lebanon teeters on the bring of becoming an “Islamic state” under the domination of Soviet-armed Syria, with added benefit of Khomeini’s “moral guidance” for the one million Shi’ite Lebanese. Saudi Arabia is being told by Moscow that the time has come for a Soviet-Saudi diplomatic thaw, under the threat of a Khomeini-proclaimed “holy war” to be triggered by terrorist assaults on the Islamic holy places in Saudi Arabia. Between 100,000 and 200,000 Soviet troops are in Afghanistan. Soviet-backed ethnic and religious insurgencies threaten to break Pakistan into pieces.

The national security of the United States and of the targeted nations of the Middle East, North Africa, and the Indian Ocean littoral demands, that the widely shared fantasies of the Jesuit-trained Brzezinski [he’s not a Catholic] and ideologues like Bennigsen be put aside, and the truth admitted: Moscow has mastered the “Muslim card”, and turned the arc of crisis into a Soviet arc of opportunity.

The Soviets have their own program for “Islamic culture” and, through East Germany, an alliance with Hitler’s old Nazi networks in the Middle East to spread terrorism. In an August 1980 article, the Moscow Institute of Orientology director, Academician Yevgenii Primakov, gloated that policy-makers in the West had no grasp of religious factors in the Middle East, since they mistakenly viewed Islamic uprisings as a short-lived “explosion of fanaticism”, while underestimating the “anti-imperialist direction of the growing movement for Islamic solidarity”—that is, the Soviet ability to turn it to advantage.

Geidar Aliyev and the Tashkent nexus

The master of the Soviets’ “Islamic card” is Geidar Ali-Reza ogly Aliyev, the career KGB officer of Shi’ite Muslim origin, promoted in 1982 to be First Deputy Prime Minister of the Soviet Union and a full member of the Politburo. Before coming to Moscow at that time, Aliyev operated for 15 years out of Soviet Azerbaijan, first as its KGB chief and then as First Secretary of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan.

He was located in Baku, the Caspian Sea oil town that is the capital of Soviet Azerbaijan. It is second only to Tashkent, Soviet Uzbekistan, as a military command centre for the USSR’s southern flank—what now comes under High Command South, commanded by General of the Army Yuri Maksimov, a member of the Politburo of the Uzbekistan Communist Party since 1981. In both the Transcaucasus and Central Asia, the two foci of the Soviet Muslim population, the local party machine and the Islamic establishment are integrated under the political-military command.

In wartime, their special capabilities come into play. For instance, before the December 1970 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, thousands of Soviet Izbek and Tajik cadre were infiltrated across the border into the areas of Afghanistan where the population is Uzbek and Tajik, to carry out spetsnaz sabotage activities in advance of the invasion. More recently, Iranian sources have observed the transit of persons from Iran’s northeastern province of Turkmenistan, on Iran’s border with Afghanistan, into the Soviet Union; after military training in the USSR, they slip back into Iran.

Soviet and COMINTERN officials, from the early 1920s on, conceived of Tashkent as a jumping-off point for power throughout south Asia, just as certain Slavophile-linked geopoliticians—like the Buryat Mongol mystic, arms merchant and court intriguer Badmayev—had counseled the late nineteenth century Tsars to seize the Himalayas, thence to take British India. Leon Trotsky, in August 1919, declared that “the road to Paris and London lies via the towns of Afghanistan, the Punjab, and Bengal”. In May 1919, the newspaper Zhyzn natsionalnostei (Life of the Nationalities), published by the Central Bureau of the Communist Organizations of the Peoples of the East, editorialized, “Without active assistance from the outside by the fresh untapped forces of Russia’s Muslims, it (the revolution in Asia) can once again fall into a lethargic sleep of spineless inertness and apathy. Let Britain, which has always been afraid of the spectre of a Cossack lance on the peaks of the Himalayas, now see this historical lance in the hands of Russia’s Muslim-proletarian coming to the aid of his brothers in Persia, India, and Afghanistan”.

Such extreme—or rather, frank—statements are today termed by oh-so-scholarly Soviet specialists, evidence of “leftist, adventuristic tendencies.” The Tashkent-based Communist University for Toilers of the East was repeatedly purged. But the views of the “Islamo-Marxists” forged Soviet policy and capabilities in the region. By the late 1920s, the COMINTERN’s Third World operations were reshaped to emphasize the building of individual communist parties, but the role of the Azerbaijani Communist Party, with its heritage from the Islamo-Marxist Nariman Narimanov, stayed strong. The party’s approach, later perfected by Aliyev, was to exploit indigenous belief structures, but to tame them away from disruptive excesses and tool them into a means for the outward expansion of influence. Azerbaijan supplied organizers and administrators to Soviet Central Asia proper, making Baku a point from which Soviet influence radiated into the Islamic world. The Turkish, Iranian, Iraqi communist parties were organized from Baku; the Communist Party of Indian, from Tashkent.

The Soviet state and cultural establishment, meanwhile, built up the image of Tashkent as a developing-sector boomtown and crossroads of Asia, by staging major events there. The late Uzbek party chief, Sharaf Rashidov, hosted many events like the 1983 Seventh Conference of the Afro-Asian Writers Association. In 1966, Soviet Prime Minister Aleksei Kosygin propelled Tashkent into world headlines when he invited the prime ministers of India and Pakistan to come there for reconciliation talks after the Indo-Pakistan war of 1965. Not long after that, the Soviets readied another diplomatic coup for Tashkent, but did not succeed in bringing it off. The late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat revealed that the Soviets had invited him to come negotiate with Israel after the 1967 war, and asked, “I wonder what would be the position of the Soviet Union if the accord we signed at Camp David had been signed at Tashkent?”

The Islamic establishment

Alongside the overt and covert activities of the state, the four Spiritual Boards of the Soviet Muslim establishment, revived during World War II on the base of a hierarchy first set up by Catherine the Great in the eighteenth century, have developed diplomatic prowess paralleling that of the Russian Orthodox Church/Moscow Patirarchate.

The organization of Soviet Islam today proceeds from the 1943 concordat signed after discussions between Stalin and the Mufti of Ufa, Abdurrahman Rasulayev, which revived the Central Muslim Spiritual Board that first functioned in the eighteenth century. There are four boards, or Spiritual Administrations, each headed by a Mufti or Sheikh, which cover: 1. Central Asia and Kazakhstan (Tashkent); 2. Transcaucasus (Baku, Azerbaijan(; 3. European USSR and Siberia (Ufa, Bashkir ASSR); and 4, North Caucasus (Makhachkla, Daghestan ASSR).

The Muslim boards were encouraged to expand in the 1960s, when the Soviets upgraded the social sciences and all manner of cultivation of what they call “cultural factors”.

In 1968, the Tashkent board began to publish the quarterly Muslims of the Soviet East in English, French, Persian, Arabic, and Uzbek, to propagandize to Mideast readers what a great life their Muslim brothers in the Soviet Union enjoy. The same year, Soviet Muslims first went abroad, and a Soviet, and a Soviet mullah on the annual Hajj to Mecca became an established custom. These travels allow propaganda interchange with Muslim leaders from all over the world.

Soviet mullahs are trained at one of two schools in Central Asia. Primary is the Bukhara madrasah, to which Soviet Muslims come from all over the USSR. Bukhara has a “work-study” program so that the budding of mullahs can teach at nearby mosques while getting their degrees. The best students go on to the Imam al-Bukhari Islamic Institute of Tashkent, or take further training in Damascus or Cairo.

The propaganda thrust from Tashkent, Baku, Ufa, and the Caucasus is by no means limited to showcasing the material advantages of Soviet Muslims. Muslims of the Soviet East participates in some very precisely targeted operations, such as the Jerusalem Temple Mount scenario for sparking religious war by a Jewish and Christian fundamentalist threat to the holy shrines of Islam in Jerusalem. On April 16, 1982, mullahs throughout the USSR preached on the threat to these Islamic holy places, arising from “brigands’ attempts to undermine the scared mosque which is being allegedly perpetrated with a view to finding Solomon’s temple.”

The fraud of Bennigsen

Before Zbigniew Brzezinski ever heard about Soviet Muslims, Alexandre Bennigsen was the authority on them. He shaped the field of Soviet Central Asia studies, training dozens of specialists at the Sorbonne and at Chicago. One Central Asia specialist, who has followed the spread of Bennigsen’s gospel on the potential for Soviet Muslim revolt, observes: “Bennigsen has had an absolutely horrendous effect on American strategic estimates (in that area of the world). I can’t tell you how many times he has traveled to Washington to testify before Senate committees and meet with people.”

The Muslim population of upwards of 44 million, living within the USSR, makes it the first largest Islamic country in the world. Contrary to Bennigsen’s myths, the interesting question is not whether at some point in 40 or 50 years those Muslims will threaten Russian rule. An overriding strategic question will be answered, in this decade, long before Muslims demography transforms the Soviet Union: Will Moscow destroy U.S. power worldwide and preside over its ultimate empire? As for Soviet Muslims, will they or won’t they serve Soviet imperial aims during this crisis?

Bennigsen systematically blacks out this strategic reality. At a March 1983 conference on Soviet Central Asia, the professor expounded his fixed theme in typical fashion: “The question of ‘identity’ among Soviet Muslims is of critical importance. Without trying to be overly dramatic, the ultimate cohesion of the USSR could be at stake.”

Bennigsen does acknowledge that Soviet Muslims have served as a foreign policy asset, stating that Soviet Islam’s goal of appearing as part of world Islam desirous of contacts abroad—for the sake of “its own survival and protection—conveniently parallels Moscow’s desire to appear to the Third World Muslim nations as ‘one of them’.” But in a 1983 book co-authored with his daughter, Marie Broxup, Bennigsen asserted that Soviet Muslims had become drastically less effective in foreign operations since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. “The period of co-operation between the Soviet Islamic establishment and Moscow…seems to have come to an end with the invasion of Afghanistan.” After EIR exposed this as a systematic cover-up of the deployments by the Soviet Muslim Boards, Bennigsen attempted to clean up his record. “Without doubt,” he said in the recent Problems of Communism article, “the official Soviet Islamic establishment is once again entrusted with an important high-level diplomatic mission. Moscow’s aim in sponsoring the official Islamic establishment is both transparent and highly successful…. The message they bring to their co-religionists abroad may not be very different from official Soviet propaganda…but it is accepted with a certain sympathy because it is presented by authentic Islamic scholars…. Thanks to the activity of these representatives, Moscow managed to neutralize to a certain degree the disastrous propaganda image of the Afghan genocide.”

Bennigsen admits all that but refuses to abandon his main line: “One might well ask how long the Soviets can play the sophisticated but dangerous game of supporting Islam abroad, while trying to destroy it at home.” The answer may be: As long as anybody in the United States is foolish enough to follow the advice of Bennigsen, who hails the “Islamic Revolution” of the fanatics in Iran, even as they commit more atrocities.

Related:

New York—Moscow—Tel Aviv Triangle

Soviet Islam

How Israel and Russia forged unlikely partnership in Syria

World Jewish Congress confirmed New York-Moscow-Tel Aviv triangle in 1978

By Compromat.group
May 25, 2020 Anno Domini
Translated from the Russian

The current billionaire and one of the most influential near-government Moscow businessmen, Mountain Jew God Nisanov was one of the loyal members of Telman Ismailov’s (Jewish) ethnic circle, who launched the medieval market trade, thanks to his close corrupt interaction with the then mayor of the capital, Yuri Luzhkov. Ismailov is on the international wanted list for a number of murders. The “flag” of the chief merchant at the Moscow Court was picked up by the Year of Nisanov. The story of success in conquering the food market of Moscow by the Year of Nisanov in the editorial investigation.

The territory of the Russian University of Physical Culture was turned into the Cherkizovsky market—a monstrous hotbed of all types of common and economic crime. Almost all organized crime groups of those times converged on the battlefields for a place in the sun. The Golyanovskys, led by karate fighter Igor Vugin, who are now honouring business laurels, and his authorities, the Shenkov brothers, more than once converged in hand-to-hand and machine-gun firefights with Chechens and Kuntsevo bandits. The Izmailovskaya gang with its representative Sergei Tsurkov (“Chest”) under the leadership of the thief-in-law Sergei Aksenov (Aksen) and the authority of Konstantin Maslov (Maslik) firmly held their zones of criminal influence, having acquired a whole shopping centre near the Cherkizovskaya metro station. The Cherkizovsky market was filled with smuggling from all over the world; there were “thimble” and “lottery” scammers on the territory who paid tribute to Colonels Melnikov and Merkulov from the Izmailovo police station, who were subsequently employed by the market owners in their security services. The manager of the Tat markets named Yakub was appointed by Ismailov to be the supervisor of all criminal business processes on the market. He also closely interacted with all the chiefs of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs Directorate of the Eastern District: Kulikov, Chemesov, Smirnov, and Dubensky. Kulikov later held a leading position on security issues in the Moscow mayor’s office, was one of the confidants of mayor Luzhkov. The market was actually divided into two zones of influence, one of which was run by Telman Ismailov, but the other was “ruled” together with partners by God Nisanov.

God Nisanov began to take his first individual steps by opening the Ponarama shopping centers in Cheryomushki and Electronic Paradise in Chertanovo. Generals Zakharov and Velichkin from the respective Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs Directorates of the South-Western and Southern Administrative Districts provided cover through the law enforcement agencies. According to the editorial staff, the main and serious business breakthrough was made by Year Nisanov after the appointment of a native of the Kursk region, General Vladimir Pronin, as the head of the Moscow GUVD (city police).

Initially, an invitation to Moscow for the post of head of the Department of Internal Affairs of the South-Eastern Administrative District was lobbied by Pronin’s fellow countryman, the head of the Kursk diaspora in Moscow, Deputy Mayor of the capital, Pyotr Pavlovich Biryukov.

He also introduced General Pronin to Luzhkov’s inner circle. At the same time, the construction of one of the very first large shopping centres of the capital, “Evropeyskiy”, was carried out. At the same time, Nisanov faced the problems of lack of permits for the facility and the legality of obtaining his citizenship in the Russian Federation. These issues were successfully resolved in the course of corrupt interactions with Luzhkov and Pronin. As a result of these manipulations, Pronin’s son entered the Evropeyskiy shopping centre as a co-owner, where he is still being cared for. The successful experience of mutually beneficial co-operation with law enforcement agencies and the authorities gave Nisanov an understanding of the correctness of the chosen path.

During the Cherkizovsky showdown, he had a chance to meet Maxim Kotov, a soldier of the Rus special-purpose unit (Spetsnaz).

The entire power unit for ensuring the security of Nisanov himself, members of his large family, and family ties involved in control over trade facilities is currently under the jurisdiction of Kotov. The block consists of active fighters of special forces who carry out illegal “part-time work”, as well as officially registered private security companies. Their tasks include daily escort of Nisanov and the nearest circle. The cortege usually consists of a luxury car Mercedes or BMW with numbers according to the first letter of the owner’s surname Н НН and two minivans crammed to capacity by guards armed with automatic weapons. A separate place in the security system is occupied by veterans of the operational divisions of the Organized Crime Control Department and the Moscow Criminal Investigation Department, who are responsible for intelligence activities and solving various minor-level problems with law enforcement agencies. Often this is lobbying for the initiation of criminal cases against the offenders, someone from Nisanov’s close or distant circle.

The leadership of this part of the power block of Nisanov is headed by Mikhail Grigorievich Vasiliev, a retired police colonel, assistant to the former head of the Moscow Main Internal Affairs Directorate Pronin. This interaction was debugged back in the early 2000s.

Vasiliev, in fact, receiving wages in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, was a consigliere under General Pronin.

By Avigdor Eskin
Date Unknown
Translated from the Russian

Shortly after leaving the post of Chief of the General Staff of Israel in 1983, Refael Eitan gave an interview to Israeli radio and spoke about his musical tastes. “Most of all I love listening to the marches of the Red Army ensemble,” the hero of all Israel’s wars shared with the audience. – I tried to instill in our army the fighting spirit of the Russians. It always helped in battle. ”

After leaving the service, Eitan created the movement for the revival of Zionism, Tsomet, which managed to win eight seats in the Knesset in the 1991 elections. The retired general was a staunch opponent of any concessions to the Arabs, advocated the refusal of American aid and fought against the introduction of the mondialist culture into Israeli society. In this regard, the origin of Eitan is interesting. His parents, the Orlovs, are Russian people who came to the Holy Land at the beginning of the century. Neither they themselves nor their son ever converted to Judaism and considered themselves Russian. This did not stop Eitan from feeling like an Israeli, fighting for the revival of Zionism and rising to the highest post in the Israel Defense Forces.

Russian-Jewish symbiosis permeates the entire history of the Zionist movement and the State of Israel. The Zionist movement, created at the end of the 19th century, was initially led by liberal nationalists from Germany. This category includes Herzel, Wolfson and Nordau. They were carriers of the European spirit, cut off from their Jewish roots. Their arrival in the Zionist movement was a reaction to the Dreyfus trial and other manifestations of anti-Semitism in Europe at the time. “Since Europe doesn’t want us, we need to create our own state,” they thought so.

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, the Zionist movement has increasingly smelled of the Russian spirit. The overwhelming majority of immigrants to the then Palestine were Jews of the Russian Empire, who quickly took leading positions in the management of the Zionist organization.

It should be noted that already at the beginning of the XIX century. a movement began among the Jews for the return to the Land of Israel and the revival of their state there.

All the forerunners of Zionism were religious ascetics with a messianic bias. They advocated a conciliar existence within the framework of the idea of ​​translating into life the words of the prophets about deliverance at the end of days. The pioneers were the students of the legendary Vilna Gaon. They were followed by groups of Russian Hasidim, starting with Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk. By the end of the 19th century, even before the formation of the Zionist movement, large religious centers existed in the land of Israel in Jerusalem, Hebron and Safed. Dozens of agricultural communes became the forerunners of the kibbutzim. The foundations of future cities were laid – Petah Tikva, Rishon LeTsiyon, Rehovot. All this was done by the natives of the Russian Empire.

In the early 1920s, the Russian factor became dominant in the Zionist movement, which was divided into a secular majority and a religious minority. The latter based their worldview solely on traditional Jewish sources and showed no interest in the great revolutionary achievements of the early twentieth century. Their comrades-in-arms, estranged from ritualism, were clearly divided into red and white.

The socialist wing of the Zionist movement was headed by the future first prime minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion. He welcomed the ideas of the Bolsheviks and the October Revolution. Later, Ben-Gurion and his followers took a neutral position in relation to the USSR, which eventually grew into rejection of the Stalinist regime. (Among the Zionist socialists, the HaShomer Ha-Tsair-Mapai movement, which opposed Ben-Gurion within the socialist wing of the movement, continued to defend the pro-Soviet line until 1956.)

Belykh was headed by an outstanding writer and orator from Odessa, Vladimir Evgenievich Zhabotinsky. An opponent of Bolshevism and a nationalist, he enjoyed fantastic popularity among the Jews of Eastern Europe, but lost to the calculating and power-hungry Ben-Gurion in the struggle for supremacy in the Zionist movement. In the 30s. in the most British-occupied Palestine, Jabotinsky’s comrade-in-arms Aba Ahimeir, an intellectual and adorer of Russian culture, had great authority. He led the toughest and most radical wing of the white Jewish passionaries, advocating the expulsion of the British from the Holy Land, but they managed to drown out his voice, laying slander against him. Akhimeir was acquitted in court on charges of complicity in the murder of the prominent socialist Arlozorov, but his fighting spirit did not return. Since the end of the 30s, he limited himself to publicistic activities and weekly meetings of lovers of Russian culture.

By the end of the 30s, the Zionist movement was predominantly focused on the red and white passionaries of the Russian orientation, but even then the influence of Chaim Weizmann, who relied entirely on the British, was noticeable. From year to year he will incline his colleagues to obedient policy in relation to the interests of the sea power. Weizmann was in the minority, but his influence was reinforced by connections with the British elite and with the big businessmen of the empire.

The thirties were marked by Britain’s anti-Jewish policies, which restricted Jewish immigrants to Palestine to a minimum. Hundreds of thousands, or even more, could then find refuge in the land of Israel and avoid extermination in the gas chambers, if it were not for the White Book issued by the British. Contrary to the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the 1922 League of Nations decision, the British decided to prevent the creation of an independent Jewish state. Imperial interests persuaded them to side with the Arabs, who declared war on the Jewish movement to return their ancestors to their homeland.

In the mid-1930s, the “white Zionists” created two paramilitary groups to resist the Arab pogroms and drive out the British occupiers. The ideologist of ETZEL Vladimir Zhabotinsky was declared a criminal by the British and until his death in 1940 could not enter Palestine, to the delight of his socialist opponents. From the depths of Etzel emerged the fighting movement of Lekhi, in the ranks of which the “whites” represented by Israel Eldad and his group coexisted with the “reds” represented by Nathan Elin-Mor and the future Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. In the early years, the legendary Abraham Stern was at the head of LYOKHI – religious and white at the same time, who wrote poetry in Russian until the end of his days. He was captured and killed by the British in 1940. His followers fought against the British occupation uncompromisingly and did not lay down their arms even during the Second World War.

The victory of the USSR over Germany strengthened the position of the “Reds” in the Zionist movement. The supplies of weapons by the countries of the communist bloc were carried out not only to the main combat detachments of the Jewish settlers (Haganah Ben-Gurion and PALMAKH), ​​but also to the militant LEKHI, who did not shy away from reprisals against the invaders by partisan methods. It so happened that Israel was created despite the efforts of the British and without support from the United States (America imposed an embargo on arms supplies to Palestine), but with the active participation of the USSR.

However, the honeymoon between the Zionists and the countries of the communist bloc did not last long. Beginning in 1948, Stalin introduced a policy of official anti-Semitism and destroyed all centers of Jewish culture. It is planned to deport all Jews to Birobidzhan immediately after the completion of the “doctors’ case”. Emigration to Israel is not allowed. A consequence of this policy of suppression of Jews in the USSR is a cooling in relations with Israel, which did not remain indifferent to the ongoing terror in the USSR at the declarative and diplomatic level. It was then that Ben-Gurion decides not to rely on relations with the communist countries anymore, but to seek allies in the West. America has long maintained a hostile neutrality towards Israel.

The main ally from the 1950s to the 1967 Six Day War was Gaullist France, which was firmly opposed to the United States. It was France that helped Israel become one of the first nuclear powers in the world.

After Nasser’s victory in Egypt, Moscow is totally focusing on relations with the Arabs. Diplomatic relations with Israel continue, but nothing more. Nasser is awarded a gold star in Moscow. The USSR embarks on a policy of “fraternal aid” that resulted in tens of billions thrown out and culminated in the expulsion of Soviet advisers from Egypt in 1973 (pragmatic Arabs are guided only by whoever pays the most – in this the United States has no competitors).

The active involvement of the United States in Middle East affairs began after the Six Day War, when the USSR broke off diplomatic relations with Israel and increased support for Arab regimes and Palestinian terrorists. In response, Israel began to strengthen its strategic partnership with the United States, which continues to this day. An additional factor that influenced the rapprochement between Jerusalem and Washington was the campaign for the freedom of Soviet Jews to leave for Israel. The Kremlin responded to the awakening of the traditionalist and national spirit among Soviet Jews with persecution, which made them hostages of the United States and the policy of detente between the two superpowers in the early 70s.

All attempts by Israel to restore dialogue and diplomatic relations with Moscow ended in failure. The confrontation between the USSR and the United States has become the dominant factor in the Middle East plexus of contradictions. Israel has become the most reliable partner of the United States, ahead of all other Washington partners in terms of the “pro-American” vote in the UN. Following this course, Israel laid an ideological time bomb under its Zionist foundations, but not of its own free will – the logic of geopolitics and the ill-conceived strategy of the USSR in the Middle East pushed it to this.

But since the late 1980s, tension between Moscow and Jerusalem has developed into mutually supportive relations. However, Israel remains in the US sphere of influence, and Russia does not even claim a serious role in the Middle East. Thus, relations between Israel and Russia continue to be dual in nature.

Understanding and sympathy for Israel has sharply increased against the background of the events in Chechnya, but the cooling of relations between Russia and the United States may lead to a worsening of the climate between Moscow and Jerusalem. The similarity of interests in many areas does not change the dominant factor of Israel’s strategic alliance with America, which is in many ways detrimental to the Jewish state in its struggle for survival.

In Russia they know and appreciate the fact that the Israelis were the first to provide effective assistance to Vojislav Karadzic in Yugoslavia, ahead of even the Russians. Serbian television continued to broadcast during the most stringent sanctions period via Israel’s Amos satellite. Natural Jewish solidarity with the Serbs is evident at all stages of the conflict in the Balkans. Even several volunteers from Israel, immigrants from the USSR, fought on the side of the Serbs.

It is also important to note the fact that even official Jerusalem refused to condemn Russia for military actions against Chechen bandits, contrary to the position of the United States and all other Western countries. (In this regard, the disappointment of many Israelis with the pro-Palestinian position of the Russian Foreign Ministry is understandable.)

It should be noted that for more than ten years the Jews in Russia have enjoyed full rights and the trace of state anti-Semitism is gone. Interestingly, recent events in the Middle East, which have awakened an unprecedented wave of anti-Semism in the West – the most powerful since the Second World War, have not led to a single anti-Jewish uprising in Russia. The similarities between Basayev’s and Khattab’s militants and the rebellious Palestinian apostles of the sword of Mohammed are all too obvious.

An attempt to predict the future of relations between Russia and Israel largely depends on the understanding of the American factor. More than twenty percent of Israel’s five million Jews were born in the USSR, and many of them have the warmest feelings for Russia. Americanization of Israel abhorrent to them in essence. The number of immigrants from the United States in Israel does not even reach the hundred thousandth level. Moreover, most of the arrivals are religious traditionalists seeking refuge in the Holy Land from the spiritual enslavement of “Erev Ravu – Great confusion”.

The well-known New York-born Rabbi Meir Kahane focused on completely ending Israel’s dependence on the United States and rejecting American culture, in which he saw the main enemy destroying the nation from within.

American penetration into Israel was carried out gradually. To understand the Israeli mentality in the past, it is worth considering the significance of the refusal to issue entry visas to the Beatles in 1964. The country was dominated by the passionate spirit of the Red and White Zionists. Half of the population was made up of traditionalists from Arab countries. American culture and the American way of life were completely alien to Israel until the early seventies.

The strategic partnership with the United States was not limited to military and political cooperation. American culture began to be brought into the land of Zionism and traditionalism. Instead of Russian and French, English with an American accent became the second language. Americans are good at turning their economic aid into a method of spiritual enslavement. Gradually, the Israelis began to think in American terms. It can be said that almost the entire ruling elite of the country, together with the press, the judiciary and the university elite, have turned into American liberals. Hence the strange policy of concessions to the Arabs, which has been going on for many years. The main argument of the Israeli land sellers was and remains the threat of a break with America in case of intransigence.

For the last ten years, Israeli liberals have been preaching the idea of ​​”post-Zionism” – an adapted version of the new world order and the “end of ideology” – made in the USA. Liberals bury the devotion of the first settlers along with the past. Defeatism is being introduced under the slogan “there is no military solution to the conflict.” Israel’s military successes, which amazed the whole world, are declared to be the lot of the past, and the world in its American interpretation is a window to the future. This has already led to a weakening of Israel from within, which can be compared with the entropy of Russian society in the 90s. Americanization versus Zionism. This is the essence of the struggle for the future of the Jewish state.

However, the process of subordinating the national will to American interests has recently met with an ever more decisive rebuff. Jewish residents of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, facing forcible deportation if the “peace process” under the auspices of Washington continues, are increasingly voicing their rights. This peculiar Jewish Cossacks consists mainly of traditionalists who despise the American way of life and thought. For them, the “new world order” is not just a streamlined slogan, but a direct threat to the continuation of life in their homes and villages. Today they are supported by most of the people.

Over the past ten years, a yawning chasm has formed in Israel between the liberal American elite and the people themselves. All candidates from major parties promise their fellow citizens before the elections a tough and independent policy in the spirit of traditional Zionism. Likud nominee Netanyahu promised to refuse handouts from Washington. But a couple of months pass after the election, and a boa constrictor in the form of the need to continue the “process” forces to follow the lead of the United States. In fact, Israel’s leaders fear American economic sanctions and mistakenly believe that the people would rather tolerate humiliation and abandonment of the Zionist ideals of settling the country than agree to lower their standard of living. Eternal choice – spirit or matter, national identity or humanitarian aid.

We can safely talk about the abyss and misunderstanding between the authorities and the people, relying on the facts of recent years. Yitzhak Rabin’s revolutionary steps towards the Americanization of the region through concessions to Arafat’s gangs led to a deadly assassination attempt on Rabin and the defeat of his colleague Shimon Peres in the 1996 elections. The Likud leader Netanyahu, who continued the line of his predecessors, was forced to go to early elections after an agreement in Wye Plantation on further concessions. The right-wing factions deprived him of the majority in the Knesset and once again proved the “impassability” of the policy of concessions to globalism. A similar fate has already befell Ehud Barak, who defeated Netanyahu. He is likely to face defeat in the upcoming elections.

These dramatic collisions prove the fragility of the positions of supporters of Washington’s line in Israel. The unwillingness to endure the ongoing process of the country’s disintegration has not yet reached a revolutionary point, but the conflict between the people and the top is evident. This is due in no small part to the structure of Israeli society. More than a million immigrants from the USSR are in their majority opposed to the peace process under the auspices of Washington. Half of the country’s Jewish population is made up of immigrants from Eastern countries, predominantly traditionalist-minded. A quarter of the Jewish population are strict traditionalists who oppose mondialism at a very internal level.

They are opposed by a minority of secular liberal-minded Israelis. But it is precisely this minority that constitutes the ruling elite. Thus, government policy is being adjusted by the elite, which does not reflect the wishes of the overwhelming majority. An electoral victory for the right never meant a fundamental change in politics. The Washington-controlled press and bureaucratic elite have always pushed political leaders in the right direction.

Change in Israel is approaching. Popular fatigue from the daily Palestinian terror will inevitably spill out – against the entire ruling elite, if they do not realize the need to change course. The rise to power of the anti-Israel Bush administration will inevitably spur and accelerate the process of distance from America. Already today, some experts are talking about the possibility of a strategic rapprochement between Israel and Russia.

On December 21, 2000, in Moscow, Russian President Vladimir Putin took part in the celebration of the Jewish holiday of liberation from the dominion of the Roman Empire (which is also the embodiment of modern mondialism in Judaism) during the existence of the Second Temple. The President himself lit the menorah in the Jewish center and in his speech noted the closeness of the Hanukkah ideas to the Russians. Putin was well aware of the significance of his action. The non-coincidental choice of Hanukkah to visit the Jewish community looked like a wish to those present to win again in the struggle against the destructive tendencies of modern mondialism.

The topic of the prospects for relations between Russia and Israel in the light of Bush Jr.’s coming to power in the United States was discussed at a meeting between the leading Israeli opposition politician Benjamin Netanyahu and the Russian President immediately after the festive evening in the Jewish center. Interesting was Putin’s reaction to Netanyahu’s speech, in which the former prime minister assessed the Islamist terror and drew a parallel between Chechen militants and Palestinian bandits. The President of Russia said in response that he would like to add a lot to the words of the guest, but the position does not allow. By this he said more than he could express in direct speech.

The growing signs of climate change between Moscow and Jerusalem and the beginning of a real dialogue between Russian sovereigns and passionary Zionists have not yet brought about changes in the geopolitical orientations of both countries. The Israeli government continues the policy of a “new Middle East” in the framework of the American concept of a “New World Order”. Submission to the will of Washington and the abandonment of Zionism in favor of globalism run like a red thread through all of Israel’s recent decisions. Of course, while the top of the Jewish state is looking for salvation in the help of the country of “Erev Rav – Great Confusion”, it is difficult to imagine a quick rapprochement with Putin’s increasingly consciously Eurasian Russia.

But there is another aspect of the problem that will be decisive. Russia has not yet made a strong-willed decision to regain its superpower status. There is reason to believe that President Putin intends to embark on this difficult path of gaining world greatness, and this will result in a different foreign policy doctrine. Then the time will come to reconsider the role of Russia in the Middle East. This hour is approaching.

The day is also approaching when the discrepancy between the anti-Zionist and pro-American policies of the Israeli elite and the aspirations of the people will develop into an open conflict between the government as a whole and the people. In Israel, this is unlikely to turn into bloody riots, but the “velvet coup” is not far off there. The leaders will not be able to continue for long the line of transferring the management of the country to the “international community” and international capital. In the forefront will be immigrants from the USSR, who will not lose much, from a purely economic point of view, in the event of US sanctions against Israel. This is where the moment will come, which can be used to establish strong ties between the emerging power of Russia and the highly developed Israel – a nuclear power, which is now one of the five strongest.

A superficial look at what is happening will not stop at the many signs of the possibility of such a development of events, but the logic of Russia’s ascent to greatness will dictate the acquisition of traditionalist allies as opposed to mondialism. The strengthening of Zionist and religious foundations in Israel could change the attitude towards the Jewish state of many skeptics and enemies, like India and Iran, for example. Israel’s military potential is attractive to any major geopolitical alliance. All of these factors can allow the Jewish state to quickly find new friends after its break with Washington.

You can describe in detail, in the most rosy colors, the onset of a new era for Israel and world Jewry in its majority. However, all this is premature. There should be a signal from Russia that the rules of the game are changing. Natives of the USSR in Israel and other countries should feel that Russia will be placing bets on them in the near future. This should have concrete expressions already now, such as, for example, the initiative of the Russian Foreign Ministry on a duty-free procedure for the return of Russian citizenship to everyone who left the USSR and expresses readiness from now on to be loyal citizens of the Russian state. It is difficult to overestimate the significance of such a step.

While the top officials confer and hesitate, the ideologists and developers of the neo-Eurasian project (for example, A.G. Dugin) could immediately begin building a conceptual geopolitical scheme for Israel’s participation in the strategy of changing the world balance in favor of Land and creating a new atmosphere that rejects the commitment dead-end liberal mondialist attachments of the past (both in Russia and in Israel).

All fateful achievements in history began with the initiative of the intellectual elites – and only then it becomes the property of the masses and peoples.

It seems that events are developing so quickly that we run the risk of being unprepared in the face of essentially new schemes of the world order. Therefore, it is necessary to start working immediately in the field of re-evaluating the Russian-Jewish symbiosis. This will include a fundamental change in the status of Jewish oligarchs within Russia. The new configuration will allow them to solidify with Israel, thus indirectly protecting Russian interests. In this case, an orientation toward the United States, as was the case with Gusinsky, will not only meet with resistance from Russian power structures, but will automatically be viewed by Israel as undermining its own interests. Russian-speaking Jews around the world, locked in an alliance between Russia and Israel, will become an ideal conductor of friendship between our two countries and peoples.

This will completely resolve what remains of the Jewish question in Russia, and this factor is seen as important in view of the noticeable participation of Russian Jews in media affairs, in culture and in political structures. The envisaged changes will leave no room for them to remain committed to Atlanticist values ​​when Russia and Israel jointly find themselves in the world vanguard of the traditionalist and patriotic idea.

The influential Jewish community in the United States will also face difficult choices. Among these people, undoubtedly, there will be many adherents of American mondialism, contrary to their own national interests. But even here we can confidently talk about the most important intellectual and financial potential for promoting the Eurasian project. Recall that back in the 40s, the greatest achievements of the USSR in lobbying and even in intelligence in the United States were associated with Jews. Today, Zionist and religious Jewish circles in America are increasingly uncomfortable with the position of the Washington administration on resolving the conflict in the Middle East. A cry from Israel will be effective for many of them.

So, having listed the main vectors of the development of Russian-Jewish relations in the light of rapid changes, we will look forward to the identification of a new trend on a global scale, when the universal idea of ​​the Great Russians will find an ally in the person of the ascetics of the centuries-old idea of ​​saving Israel and through Israel. One can envy those who will give this a real impetus. Their names will be inscribed in the history of mankind in golden letters.

By Compromat.group
March 3, 2021 Anno Domini
Translated from the Russian

Lately too much attention has been riveted on the Black Sea coast. After investigating the dacha of Vladimir Putin, journalists found several more interesting houses of the country’s top officials, located not far from each other. We were especially interested in the complex of the Russian Orthodox Moscow Patriarchate hidden in the woods, which magically turned into the personal dacha of Patriarch Kirill.

The editors figured out how the local authorities allowed, in fact, an illegal construction near Divnomorskoye, and why local environmentalists suffered.

The house that the patriarch built

A small house is lost among the forests in an array of unique Pitsunda pine trees and mountains. Its owner has been known for a long time—Patriarch Kirill. In fact, it is difficult to call ownership a “house”, because they amaze with their scale, high cost, and privacy. True, the residence is officially called a “spiritual center” where journalists and other invited persons can visit. But in reality, there is practically nothing spiritual in it: the building has turned into a personal dacha of the patriarch for 22 billion rubles, where he comes to rest several times a year.

The beginning of the construction of the “house” was discussed back in 2004. At the same time, an agreement was signed with the general contractor, Stroy Engineering SU-848. At the same time, representatives of Patriarch Alexy came to the locals, saying that he was planning to build a small dacha for himself. Sizes within 1.8 ha were discussed. Moreover, they also designated the construction conditions, according to which it was impossible to block the road along the coast and touch the land where medicinal pine grows. The Russian Orthodox Church assured that the tourist sites would remain intact.

Literally five years later, when Patriarch Kirill replaced Alexy, metamorphoses began to take place with a tidbit for a summer residence. Now it was planned to build a “Spiritual Center” of the Moscow Patriarchate there. Meetings with the heads of other Orthodox churches were to take place here. Even the local pro-government newspaper announced the solemn opening of the center by the Patriarch himself. They say that this is not a dacha, but an operating center that contains administrative and protocol buildings.

The chosen location turned out to be inconvenient for the locals. But for the patriarch himself, it was fortunate to have Oleg Deripaska, Gennady Timchenko and even Arkady Rotenberg himself as neighbors. Vladimir Putin was also the closest neighbor. There is even a path between the dachas of Patriarch Kirill and the President, which the locals call the “road of death”. Indeed, it is very easy to die, disappear or go to prison while in the vicinity of the patriarch’s palace. The territories themselves are guarded by FSO officers and do not allow anyone close to the property of the Holiness. Because of this, the locals have to bypass the palace along a busy road – for example, in 2013, a 5th year student, Vitaly, died under the wheels of a car.

Only now, instead of the promised “calmness”, Patriarch Kirill, who replaced him, began to gradually expand the borders ten times—up to 21 hectares. Moreover, they began to include the forbidden lands of the forest fund, a tourist trail and part of the local cemetery.

“The palace of Patriarch Kirill and the palace of Putin are two inseparable things. All the unique trees between these houses are now being cut. This is a story not only about their palaces, but also about the corruption of power. It’s just that all the phenomenal natural heritage of the country has been appropriated by a group of top officials of the country, ”says ecologist Sergei Menzheritsky to the editorial office.”

Despite the fame of the unofficial owner of the future house, the client of the project was the presidential administration. Therefore, the new general contractor was chosen from among the friendly and “proven” companies. According to the documents, which are at the disposal of the editorial board, they appointed “Putevi”. The work began almost immediately.

Outwardly, the patriarch’s house resembles a temple. Icons hang outside, and some parts of the roof look like church domes. And despite all the preaching of the patriarch about the dangers of wealth, he himself does not hesitate to once again surround himself with luxury. For example, among the purchased hectares, there are also vineyards, which were insolently “squeezed” from a local family.

“Earlier there was also a vineyard planted there by the road. The total area was small – 1 ha. It belonged to one family. But they took it away from them by involving the local administration and the courts, ”human rights activist Valeriy Semergei said in a conversation with Readovka.

Valery Semergey on how the local vineyards were taken away:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZr1nbwBdKo

The most expensive, according to the plan of the territory at the disposal of Readovka, turned out to be the “House of the Patriarchy”. It cost almost 402 million rubles. Next, for the price, was the “Service House”, intended for staff and guests. Almost 80 million rubles were invested in it. The installation of fences flew into a lump sum, it cost the patriarch a “penny” 50 million rubles. The drainage system for the site cost several times less—9 million rubles.

Fight and blessing
The locals began to oppose the construction of the luxurious mansion of Patriarch Kirill in 2009. At the same time, at the request of residents, the leadership of the Gelendzhik Human Rights Center joined in. For several years, Vladimir Ivanov, Zufar Achilov, Gagik Avanesyan and Valery Semergey tried to fight against development on the Black Sea coast, until in 2012 criminal cases were opened against them. Local authorities accused human rights defenders of fraud and sentenced them to imprisonment for terms ranging from 9 to 13 years.

Among such active ecologists was Sergey Menzheritsky. He fought to reopen the historic Dzhanhot tourist trail *, which was blocked by a three-meter patriarchal fence. The question of the integrity of the road was raised back in 2004, but then the locals were assured that they would not touch it.

The Dzhankhot road was built 120 years ago by the local Cossack politician Fyodor Shcherbina. With its help, the townspeople traveled from Divnomorskoe to the old cemetery, enjoying the views of the Black Sea coast. But it was closed in the early 2000s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GenhuW7Tug

It was Menzheritsky who responded to the local request for the restoration of justice. The ecologist first filed an application with Rospotrebnadzor in order to establish the fact of illegal blocking of the road, to which the department replied: “Yes, it is blocked.” True, the prosecutor’s office did not appreciate the zeal of colleagues and ruled that there “is a fence made of easily removable structures with a permanently open wicket for the purpose of free access of citizens to the water body.”

“Violations were established, but nothing was done. I sent a request to the prosecutor’s office, to which the department replied that there was an easily removable fence. I went with this paper to the house of the patriarch, but the guards stopped me and said that the blessing of the patriarch was in effect on this territory, and not the decree of the prosecutor’s office, ”ecologist Sergei Menzheritsky said in a conversation with the editorial office.

Moreover, once the ecologist tried to organize a hike for the locals along the historical tourist routes. He was intimidated by police officers and threatened with prison. As a result, the event took place, only in the security company, which was walking behind his back and referred to the fact that he did not have a blessing from Kirill.

Before the construction of the patriarch’s summer cottage, a road ran along the picturesque coast, which was “safely” blocked. Together with ecologists, the locals wrote in order to safely move along the coastal strip (according to the Water Code, this is 20 meters). The department said that the coastal strip in this case is a steep cliff slope. When Menzheritsky asked how to walk on it, he was advised to use climbing equipment.

Visitors to the local cemetery did not receive the same blessing. His patriarch also blocked and forced the locals to bypass the highway. Some even complained that they were forbidden to hold a loud funeral during Gundyaev’s arrival.

Others were even less fortunate. By an unfortunate accident, next to the dacha of Patriarch Kirill there is a sanatorium “Golubaya Dal”. It is used for disabled children with cerebral palsy. Places there are fertile. For example, on the Black Sea coast there is a pine forest of Pitsunda. All such trees in the world are about 1200 hectares, and 1000 of them are in Russia. The sea is close by, so children are often brought to those places for recovery. But with the arrival of Kirill, everything changes—the pine trees begin to be cut down, and the part of the sanatorium, overlooking his dacha, is closed and resettled.

“When Patriarch Kirill came there, it created gigantic problems for local residents and vacationers at the Golubaya Dal sanatorium. There was also an order to evict all rooms that overlook the patriarch’s residence. They also bypassed all the cafes on the embankment so that the music would be turned off there, ”Sergei Menzheritskiy is indignant.

Kirill’s lordship
74-year-old Patriarch Kirill (aka Vladimir Gundyaev) has always loved to live a luxurious and beautiful life. Only now I never wanted to admit it. For example, not so long ago, he said that all the news about his wealth published in the media is a lie.

“When you read the most terrible things about the patriarch, about bishops, about priests, remember that there is usually not even a drop of truth, but all this is aimed at discrediting those who proclaim the truth of God so that the people stop listening to them. and trust,” Kirill replies with displeasure.

But this is not the case. According to unofficial data, the property of the “golden” patriarch exceeded almost 740 million rubles. The list of his assets includes not only expensive cars, gifts from wealthy visitors, but also houses of different beauty and high cost. For example, the patriarch owns a five-room apartment on Serafimovich Street right in the very center of Moscow. It is noteworthy that the house is located right on the waterfront near the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. Apparently, in this way our patriarch saves the time he spends getting to work. Only with the price of the apartment itself it was not possible to save money—its estimated cost is 90 million rubles. This apartment, according to the documents, belongs to the patriarch himself. Everything else is the property of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Patriarch Kirill also has several houses on the embankment, Rublevka, in Trinity-Lykovo, and even in the center of the pilgrimage Solovki. Moreover, he managed to acquire chambers in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra and a residence in the Danilov Monastery and Valaam.

The patriarch’s vehicle fleet is also impressive. He not only does not limit himself to one car, buying up various elite SUVs, but also does it on a special scale. For example, he owns a Mercedes-Benz S-Class Pullman worth over $500,000. Also in his fleet, there is a more modest Toyota Land Cruiser (cost over 4 million rubles) and a Cadillac Escalade in the same price category. The patriarch also owns a limousine and a Soviet car “Pobeda” worth almost 2 million rubles.

The construction of the palace of Patriarch Kirill became not only a problem for the locals, but also a major environmental disaster. To build another palace on the Black Sea coast, they cut down several hectares of Pitsunda pine and blocked the passage to the local cemetery. In fact, the center functions for one person and delivers a huge amount of inconvenience when the patriarch himself visits it. Everyone suffers: “Golubaya Dal”, disabled children, fishermen, cafe owners, locals who cannot get to the cemetery, tourists.

By Natalie Grant

Moscow State Manager

A major Moscow-directed hoax of the 1950s was the “Peace Movement”. The Moscow regime, expert in political deception, following attentively Western opinion, which it then uses as a foundation to spread disinformation. Concern by some people in the free world over any particular development which might threaten their well being—fo example, nuclear weapons—is seized upon by Moscow disinformation strategists. By means of selected, slanted, and deceptive data, concerns are gradually transformed into fear. Scared and under considerable stress, the victims of this Moscow game can thus be influenced into accepting policies and taking steps harmful to their own interests—like “disarmament”.

The Soviets took advantage of anti-war sentiments that had developed in the West. They were interested, of course, in promoting peace for their own protection to make Soviet policies more receptive to the public. The main purpose of the “Peace Movement”, stage managed from Moscow since its inception, however, was to spread communist influence throughout the world.

The urge of the Soviet leadership to expand in the West was confirmed by D. Volkogonov, a prominent Soviet official, archivist, and historian. In a speech at The National Archives in Washington, D.C., shortly before his death, Volkogonov admitted that the objective of the men in power in the Soviet Union had always been to gain greater influence in the world at large. Expansion of influence is, therefore, one of the principal purposes of every major Moscow disinformation hoax. Moscow’s methods have not changed.

The environment has replaced peace, as an astute journalist recently remarked. Although “peace” still remains a prominent item on the list of deceitful operations of Soviet leaders, protection of the environment has become the principal took for attack against the West and all it stands for. Protection of the environment may be used as a pretext to adopt a series of measures designed to undermine the industrial base of developed nations. It may also serve to introduce malaise by lower their standard of living and implanting communist “values”.

The modus operandi in organizing the attack against the West via the environment is similar in many respects to methods employed by the organization of the “Peace Movement”. True facts are exaggerated to the extreme with the intention of terrifying rank-and-file citizens, while doubtful evidence is presented as scientifically proven fact.

The set up of the environmental operation, however, is more complex. Instead of one world council representing the entire “Peace Movement”, the environmental extremists (also known as professional environmentalists) fall into two groups. One, a non-governmental organization, is the so-called Earth Council, chaired by Maurice F. Strong, a top-level official of the United Nations. The other group, also an NGO, is linked with Moscow through the Green Cross International, or GCI. Mikhail S. Gorbachev is its chairman and founder.

An early definition of Green Cross International depicts GCI as an American non-governmental organization, a private foundation created in April 1993. It was formed through a merger with another environmental group, known as World Cross International, which existed in Switzerland. The Swiss group had been formed for months prior to the merger. This raises the question as to whether the creation of WCI and its merger with GCI were moves to facilitate the establishment of GCI headquarters in Geneva.

The early description of Green Cross International as American was false. Even while GCI now has a chapter in the United States, GCI is not and was never an American movement.

Global Forum

Green Cross International traces its origin to a group that started out under the somewhat clumsy appelation of “Global Forum for Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders of Human Survival”, which it abbreviated to Global Forum, using the full name only in official documents. It was formed upon the initiative of Aiko Matsumura, a Japanese activist and now executive co-ordinator of the organization.

Global Forum’s purpose was to establish a dialogue with C. Nobel, founder of Earth Aid Society. It is difficult to determine whether the idea of a dialogue came to Mr. Matsumura from Moscow, which favours dialogues as a tool for infiltration. Mr. Nobel recruited the Rev. James Park Morton, Dean of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York, who arranged to have the first meeting of the group in June 1985 in the Cathedral. Among other things, they discussed a solution to “critical issues”, such as degradation of the environment and the depletion of the Earth’s resources. There were only about a dozen participants. They included, however, prominent figures Angier Biddle Duke, the former chief of protocol in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, and Congressman James H. Scheuer of New York.

The meeting at the Cathedral was soon followed by a conference in Tarrytown, New York. The Tarrytown meeting had a more numerous audience. In Tarrytown, the question was raised and the motion was approved of holding an international conference in Oxford, England.

Sometime later, Congressman Scheuer visited Moscow. He took along invitations to the conference and handed a few to the office of the President of the Supreme Soviet for transmissions to parliamentarians. Several Soviet officials accepted the invitation and attended the conference. The Soviet delegation was led by Yevgeniy Velikhov, Vice Chairman of the Soviet Academy of Sciences.

The Oxford Conference was well attended, mostly by leaders of non-Christian faiths and indigenous personalities. In addition, there were representatives from Britain (including the Archbishop of Canterbury) and the Netherlands. Among the delegates were Chief Oren R. Lyons and Mother Teresa. There were elections to the Council of Global Forum. Nominated to the Council were a number of religious leaders form non-Christian faiths, as well as Yevgeniy Velikhov.

During the proceedings, the GF leadership announced that their next international conference would take place in Moscow, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Under the circumstances, one wonders whether the Global Forum received assistance from some powerful ally. The international conference in Oxford was a clever move on the part of a practically unknown and questionable group. With the Oxford Conference of 1987, the Global Forum entered the international arena.

The Big Even—The Moscow Conference

The Moscow conference met in January 1990. Cosponsored by the Supreme Soviet of the (then) USSR, the conference had the active support of the Academy of Sciences. All Soviet religious communities were called upon to ensure co-operation of various religious communities. The speakers included the Secretary General of the United Nations and the President of the USSR. Senator Al Gore was also among the speakers. He had by then become a member of the Global Forum Council and had even contributed an article to Shared Vision, the official publication of the Gobal Forum. (1)

The key event was the speech by Mikhail S. Gorbachev, President of the Soviet Union. As it was summarized in Shared Vision, (2) Gorbachev’s speech presented Soviet suggestions on how to respond to an “ecological imperative”. The Soviet recommendations comprised the demand for a nuclear test ban, the establishment of an international environmental monitoring system, the signing of a covenant to protect unique ecological zones, the support of United Nations environmental programs and of the international conference on the environment and development, which was scheduled to meet in June 1992 in Brazil. Gorbachev noted that environmental tragedy could be averted only through international effort.

You should remember that at the time of his speech, Gorbachev was still the President of the Soviet Union and he was expressing the “views” and “suggestions” of the Communist Party Soviet Union, of which he was the leader.

These “suggestions” did not fall on deaf ears. Before long, the activities of Global Forum began to reflect the communist “recommendations”. Indeed, had there been any doubts as to the political stand by certain leaders of Global Forum or Moscow’s attitude toward this barely known group, they were dispelled by events at the Moscow Conference. Intention Soviet interest in the proceedings was obvious.

By 1990, certain leaders of the Global Forum had transformed their group into a communist front and were ready to act upon Soviet “suggestions”. The services they began rendering to international communism were important. In its appeal, Global Forum played on hostility toward certain aspects of Western civilization. Global Forum recruited non-communist environmentalists and placed them under the direct, controlling influence of communists. Naive indigenous peoples, non-Christian religious figures, and a few government officials were the main target. Senator Al Gore may serve as an example. (3)

The First Earth Summit

Meanwhile, the United Nations was embarking on its own program to protect the environment. Leading among the environmentalists at the U.N. was Maurice F. Strong, a multimillionaire with top-level business contacts. In 1972, Maurice Strong acted as Secretary General at the Stockholm Conference (4), which was convented to put the environment on the world agenda.

In 1987, the U.N. World Commission on Environment and Development called for the establishment of a code which would prescribe principal norms for behaviour of states and individuals in matters relating to the Earth. And in June 1992, the U.N. held an international conference in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, which discussed to a large extent matters connected with “protection” of the environment. Maurice Strong was one of the organizers. In environmental circles, this conference was known as The Earth Summit.

All was not smooth sailing at the first Earth Summit. Heads of state refused to accept some proposals, and arguments were often bitter. Insults were exchanged, and President Bush, who attended the meeting, got his share of comment. Timothy Wirth, a former senator from Colorado, accused him of engaging in “adolescent politics” and looking “silly” for not signing a treaty on biodiversity. (5) Global Forum, for some reason, held a simultaneous conference of environmental parliamentarians in another section of the city. The presence of two similar meetings in Rio de Janeiro led to confusion. Resolutions passed by Global Forum were attributed at times by observers to the United Nations Earth Summit.

The conference of parliamentarians served Global Forum as an opportunity to put into effect Soviet President Gorbachev’s “suggestion” to establish an international monitoring institution to protect the environment. This was accomplished by having the parliamentarians pass unanimously a resolution creating an organization, named International Green Cross, later changed to Green Cross International. According to a GCI press release, Mikhail Gorbachev’s Moscow speech was at the root of Green Cross International’s foundation. He was, therefore, invited to accept the position of founder and chairman of GCI. The formal launching of GCI could not take place at Rio and had to be postponed to a future international conference. That took place in 1993 in Kyoto, Japan. Gorbachev attended the Kyoto conference and accepted the nomination.

Although environmentalist circles were disappointed by the results of the 1992 Earth Summit, it actually proved to be a step forward in their campaign for global “protection” for the environment. The U.N. conference, thus, adopted a program for the coming century. The course of action based off “sustainable development” was set down in a document known as Agenda 21, which was further amplified by meetings in Copenhagen, Cairo, and Beijing.

Agenda 21 is viewed by environmental extremists as a blueprint in “sustainable development”. It was circulated among world leaders who are expected by environmental extremists to implement its provisions. The document is divided into forty chapters, some of which contain, on their face, what appear to be reasonable demands, until those demands are juxtaposed with other chapters (i.e., the chapter on “social justice”) that reflect adherence to blatantly communist doctrines.

The Earth Council

The Earth Council, an international non-governmental organization, also arose as a direct result of the Earth Summit. The probable creator of the Earth Council is its chairman Maurice F. Strong. It states its mission to be the support and “empowerment” of “people” in building a more “secure”, “equitable”, and “sustainable” future. The Council, therefore, aims at strengthening the participation of “equal rights” groups, particularly women, indigenous peoples, and “youth”, in its work. (6) The special focus on the Earth Council is to ensure the “operationalization” of indigenous people, women, and “youth”.

Canadian born, in his sixties, Mr. Strong is a self-made man and has innumerable contacts in highly placed and wealth business circles where he seems to enjoy a good reputation. He admits to holding a “socialist ideology” and has been described by a former UN Deputy Ambassador as a “very dangerous ideologue, way over the Left”. (7) Mr. Strong’s immediate assistance is the Executive Director of the Earth Council, Maximo T. Kalaw. He is said to be an “activist” from the Philippines. Mr Kalaw, who also heads the Earth Council Institute and is the Chairman of the Green Forum of the Philippines, holds some rather bizarre views. For instance, according to Mr. Kalaw, economic society, although the main engine for economic development, does not hold “public interest” as its primary concern and, therefore, its members should not be allowed to be part of public governance. Moscow is represented on the board of the Earth Council by Yevgeniy Velikhov, vice chairman of the Soviet Academy of Sciences.

Since its establishment, the Earth Council has been in close collaboration with Green Cross International. In April, 1994, Maurice Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev met at the Hague and launched an “initiative” for an earth charter. They proposed the signing of the charter, which would, according to its promoters, provide a “new mode of life” based upon radical “principles for the whole of humanity”. Both Strong and Gorbachev viewed The Earth Charter as a priority. In this respect, they seemed to be following the precepts of the UN World Commission on Environment and Development (UNCED). Indeed, in 1987 UNCED had called for the formation of a charter which would prescribe “norms” for states and individuals to maintain life on earth.

In order to produce an “ethical and moral” set of “imperatives”, environmental extremists supported the idea of an earth charter plan to precede its acceptance by a worldwide consultation involving all sectors of society. To reach consensus in a world inhabited by people of totally opposite views is an impossible undertaking. Therefore, “consensus” will be achieved by limiting consultation to individuals and NGOs already favouring the Earth Charter.

Green Cross International

The political line adopted by Green Cross International is that of Mikhail Gorbachev, founder and chairman of GCI, who, appropriately, is its mouthpiece. Of course, as a communist, Gorbachev and the Green Cross will want to install communist “values”. In its pronouncements, Green Cross usually calls for action by leaves untold the action it plans to take. Generalities permeate the statements of GCI—and Gorbachev as well—relating to doctrine and activities. In discussing the aims of his enterprise, Gorbachev calls for a “new civilization”, asserting that neither democracy nor prayers to God can solve the alleged “world crisis”. What is a “new civilization”? He does not explain. Because civilization is usually understood to be cultural and technological development, the qualifying “new” requires interpretation that is (conveniently) not supplied. Gorbachev constantly demands a “change of values” but never specified the values he wants changed, or what should replace them.

In its analysis of the Earth Charter, GCI also follows Gorbachev’s lead. GCI laments that despite repeated efforts, the “international community” has not yet been able to agree on an effective international treaty that would guarantee the “rights of the earth. (8) With the creation of international law, a “slow and tedious process”, GCI suggests greater focusing on “soft law”. (9) Soft law refers to non-binding documents drawn up by special interest groups, that as GCI or The Earth Council, that establish “norms”, hoping they will take on the force of “law” through customary practice. Majority rule and dissent are thereby circumvented. (10) Green Cross International hopes, however, to persuade the government of each country to ratify the Earth Charter in time for its proclamation on 01 January 2000.

The administrative director of Green Cross International is Andreas Eggenberg. He advocates integration of all sectors of society at every level in order to achieve “constructive” overall prevention of and response to disasters. In his opinion, this approach will stabilize the ecological and political “situation” of humanity. (11)

The top figure in Green Cross International remains Mikhail Gorbachev, admitted community by training and conviction. The vice president of GCI is Daniel Goeudevert, a Frenchman, self-made businessman, who occupied prominent positions in the automotive world. He is a member of the Club of Rome and an advisor to the Director General of UNESCO. He also presides over the Economic Council of the Gorbachev Foundation.

The United States chapter of Green Cross International was officially opened by Mikhail Gorbachev during his visit in October 1994. Named “Global Green USA”, it maintains offices in several cities, including New York and Cleveland, Ohio. It also has an office in Washington, D.C., where it is represented by one Paul Walker. The president of the American chapter is one Diane Meyer Simons, whose slogan is “one world, one people”. She apparently intends to use this motto to rally public and political leaders for action and support of Global Green USA. Global Green USA is directed by Hugh Locke, who in his first year of activity concentrated on a campaign against “toxic military waste”. Locke also seems interested in the production of documentary films devoted to leaders of the environmental movement. As are most of his colleagues, Locke is vague in his comments. It is, therefore, difficult to understand what he means when he too calls for the creation of a “new civilization”.

Expansion

Green Cross and Crescent International is now in its fourth year. (Sometimes “Crescent” is addted to the GCI name.) At first glance, it does not seem to have performed any spectacular feat. Its name has never been mentioned during volcanic eruptions, nor does GCI seem to have intervened in saving the victims of extensive floods, nor has it received publicity at the time of oil spills. GCI has been silent on the Three Gorges Dam Project in China, scheduled for completion in 2009, although the project is expected to have a profound ecological, environmental, cultural, archaeological, and historical impact. Yet, rescuing the victims of disasters and protecting ecological zones are in the GCI program. In fact, skeptics argue that so far, GCI has been long on rhetoric and short on action. (12)

Green Cross International, however, has not been idle. It has actively collaborated with UN environmental extremists at numerous meetings and conferences and has taken a leading role in launching the Earth Charter. Gorbachev and his staff have further been seeking and finding support in government circles, particularly in Holland, and have been engaged in expanding GCI into a truly international organization. Barely one year after its establishment, Green Cross and Crescent International had already formed five national chapters. The GCI operates two centres. One is in the Hague, where GCI maintains its programs on “values” education, as well as matters related to the media and communications. The other centre is in Geneva, Switzerland, where GCI handles emergency operations. In addition, the group has chapters in a  number of countries, including Estonia, France, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands (where government circles have donated at least $75,000 to GCI), Sweden, Switzerland, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America.

The Second Earth Summit

In March 1997, five years after the Earth Summit, a conference on environment met in Rio de Janeiro with an attendance of some 500 people. It has been named Rio+5. The participants met in order to review the progress in “sustainable development” made since the Earth Summit and apparently to prepare for the Second Earth Summit.

Rio+5 issued a set of recommendations dealing with the necessity to focus attention on The Earth Charter and to reach a consensus on “values”. The meeting parties stressed the need to strengthen the participation of “equal rights” groups, i.e., women, indigenous peoples, and youth in councils for sustainable development. The emphasis placed by environmental extremists upon “sustainability” raises questions.

Supporters of “sustainability” often disregard the fact that nature is their most dangerous opponent. With one sweep, nature can destroy the most carefully laid plans. The volcano at Montserrat, which transformed a flourishing community into a desert of ash, may serve as an example. The U.N. Second Earth Summit opened its doors in June 1997. Dignitaries from over 160 countries flocked to the meeting in New York City. President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore also attended. The summit reportedly began with “recriminations between Europe and the United States and by Third World countries condemning developed countries for broken promises.” (13) The main points in the discussion concerned aid to developing countries by the West—or rather, by the United States. Another point dealt with the signing of a pact reducing “greenhouse gases” and their emission; a pact specifically designed to cripple what’s left of American industry. This was presented to the conference in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997. Environmental extremists proclaimed their disappointment with the results of The Second Earth Summit. They failed to note, however, as did herbalist Charles K. Hanley (14) that the environmental movement made progress by “slow bits” over the last four decades.

Conclusion

Information available at the present time seems to show that the environmental extremists maintain contact with and are supported by Moscow. The “movement” has all the traits of a Soviet disinformation operation. Facts are exaggerated into a “nightmarish” picture of floods, scorched earth, disease, and death. The target, the industrialized West—scared and confused by Moscow’s sympathizers in “science”, academe, and the slavishly obedient Establishment media—is influenced to accept measures and regulations harmful to the Western world.

These are not the only consequences of the action of the environmental extremist movement. It is promoting conflict, domestically and internationally. We can only marvel at the skill with which the two top leaders have proven able to introduce dissent and conflict into usually pacific circles.

These two leaders, Maurice Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev, are men of considerable experience. They understand economics and politics. They are, therefore, fully aware of what they are doing. Strong has the power of the United Nations at his disposal. Gorbachev, and able public relations men, gained considerable influence in the period following his retirement from president of the USSR. They are consciously harming the United States.

Who profits from the activities of these two men?

NOTES:

By MKRU
Sept. 17, 2019
Translated from the Russian

The richest Jews in the world gathered in Moscow for the International Leadership Reunion (ILR) conference, the purpose of which is to raise funds for the benefit of the State of Israel.

The three-day program of the event will end with a donation ceremony called the Caucus—with a set minimum of $250,000 USD. On Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin arrived to welcome the elite gathering at the fashionable Four Seasons Hotel, located literally under the windows of the Kremlin.

LR is a key event of the Keren Hayesod International Charitable Foundation, established at the World Zionist Congress in 1920. Today, various projects in education, culture, spiritual, and charitable spheres are financed from its funds. Among the members of the elite club are the richest families on the planet: the Rothschilds, the Brazilian Safra family, South African Kaplanov, Canadian – Bronfmanov (Bronfman).

There are also businessmen of European origin from Russia. Their names were not disclosed in the explanatory note, but, for example, Mr. Vekselberg was noticed at the Russian Congress. As the aide to the President of the Russian Federation, Yuri Ushakov explained, this powerful organization has branches in 45 countries. “In fact, this is the main source of funding for programs in various countries that are associated with supporting world Jewry,” Ushakov noted.

The organization’s congresses are held in world capitals. Usually, these events are attended not only by the world business elite, but also by politicians of the highest rank (they were attended by Obama, Berlusconi, and Juan Carlos). This, of course, is not the only reason why Vladimir Putin visited the former Moscow hotel yesterday. It is known that the Russian leader prefers to live with Jews in peace. And there are also many Jews among his friends.

The conference started back on Sunday. During these days, representatives of the foundation visited key sights of Moscow with excursions, read a prayer for the dead Jewish soldiers at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in the Alexander Garden, listened to the performance of the Red Army choir, saw the dances of Russian ballerinas and Don Cossacks, had lunch and dinner at the best gastronomic venues in the capital.

The program was very busy. For a meeting with the Russian president, immediately after which the ceremony of awarding the prize of the Prophet Isaiah was planned, a window was allocated from 13 to 14 hours on September 17. And although the main office of the Russian president was literally a couple of minutes walk away, Vladimir Putin was decently late for a meeting with the richest Jews in the world.

In anticipation of the Russian president, the guests excitedly chatted in the hall, sparkling with diamonds and glasses in platinum frames, emitting the smell of selection perfumes and whiling away the time watching videos on screens. From time to time, a girl would run out onto the stage and say: “Don’t worry, Vladimir Putin is on the road, he will definitely come!”

At a quarter past three, when, according to the program, the conference participants were to follow to the Museum of the Patriotic War of 1812, the guests were invited to take their places. This was a signal that the Russian president was about to arrive. And he arrived. The Jewish elite rose from their seats as if on command to capture the first Russian face on smartphones.

Putin’s speech lasted ten minutes and contained a lot of curtsies towards the Jewish side. The President expressed gratitude to the foundation, which supports so many useful projects.

Putin called relations with Israel “partnership and constructive.” And after the words that there was never such a level of relations as now, the audience burst into applause. The Russian president also spoke about the importance of strengthening the trade turnover between Russia and Israel, which is still rather modest. The situation should be corrected by the free trade agreement between the EurAsEC countries and Israel, as well as the green corridor, which will be provided for Israeli vegetables that will go to the Russian market.

“Our citizens are linked by family, friendly ties. This is a network family, I say without exaggeration,” said Putin. And then he unexpectedly added: “We consider Israel to be a Russian-speaking state.” After that, some of the guests in the hall tensed, but the rest still laughed.

Then, under the clicks of smartphones, the Russian president left the hall to meet with some VIPs behind closed doors. The rest of the conference participants were informed that the visit to the museum was canceled, but a gourmet lunch was waiting for them. No one remembered the award of the Prophet Isaiah.

By Lord Dreadnought
Translated from the Russian
May 27, 2016 Anno Domini

The start of the business of V.M. Gundyaev (Patriarch Kirill) was appointed in 1992-1994. The most extensive dossier on this business was compiled by Doctor of Historical Sciences Sergei Bychkov, who published more than a dozen articles, mainly on the tobacco business of the future patriarch. None of his publications was officially refuted. In many respects Kirill admitted that the facts collected by Bychkov were true.

In addition to the villa in Switzerland, the Tobacco Skiing Patriarch has palaces in Peredelkino, in the Danilov Monastery, in Gelendzhik, next to Putin’s palace, and a penthouse with a terrace in the House on the Embankment—overlooking the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour.

About how the High Priest of the Putin Reich, Patriarch Kirill (he is already a KGB agent Mikhailov) amassed his billions of dollars in speculation in tobacco, alcohol, and oil (exempted from taxes and excise taxes) in the dashing 1990s, how he, the head of the bandit empire of the Russian Orthodox Church, eliminated its competitors, many have already written.

Cigarettes

In 1993, with the participation of the Moscow Patriarchate (Russian Orthodox Church), the Nika financial and trade group emerged, and Archpriest Vladimir Veriga, the commercial director of the Department for External Church Relations (DECR MP), headed by Kirill, became its vice-president. A year later, under the Government of the Russian Federation and at the DECR MP, two “parallel” commissions on humanitarian aid appeared: the first one decided what kind of aid could be exempted from taxes and excise taxes, and the second one imported this aid through the church line and sold it to commercial structures. Thus, most of the tax-exempt aid was distributed through the regular distribution network, at normal market prices. Through this channel, in 1996 alone, the DECR MP imported about 8 billion cigarettes into the country (data from the government commission on humanitarian aid).

This caused serious damage to the “tobacco kings” of that time, who had to pay duties and excise taxes and therefore lost in the competition with the DECR MP—it is believed that they “ordered” an information campaign to expose Kirill’s business. According to Bychkov, when Kirill decided to leave this business, more than $50 million worth of “church” cigarettes remained in customs warehouses. In the course of the criminal war for these cigarettes, in particular, the assistant to the deputy Zhirinovsky, a certain Zen, was killed.

And here is a letter from the State Customs Committee of the Russian Federation to the Moscow Customs Administration dated February 8, 1997, concerning “church” cigarettes:

“In connection with the appeal of the Commission on International Humanitarian and Technical Assistance under the Government of the Russian Federation and the decision of the Prime Minister of January 29, 1997, No. VCh-P22 / 38 I authorize the production of customs clearance of tobacco products in accordance with the established procedure with payment of only the excise duty received in the customs territory before 01.01.97, in accordance with the decision of the above-mentioned Commission. “

So, in fact, since then a new title has been assigned to Metropolitan Kirill—”Tobacco” (however, now he is no longer titled like that). Now it is customary to call him “Skiing” – with the light hand of Orthodox bloggers who drew attention to the enormous importance in the life and work of Kirill of his hobby for skiing (this hobby is served by a villa in Switzerland and a private jet, and on Krasnaya Polyana it helps to consolidate informal relations with strong of this world).

The piquancy of Kirill’s tobacco business is given by the fact that in Orthodoxy, smoking is considered a sin: it is actually detrimental to human health and life. Cyril himself tried to justify his participation in this business: “The people who were doing this did not know what to do: burn these cigarettes or send them back? We turned to the government, and it made a decision: to recognize this as a humanitarian cargo and provide an opportunity to implement it.” Government representatives categorically denied this information, after which Patriarch Alexy II liquidated the DECR MP commission and created a new ROC MP Commission on humanitarian aid, headed by Bishop Alexy (Frolov).

Oil

But let us return to the “dashing years”, when “the curvature of our history” arose. In addition to the aforementioned Nika fund, DECR MP was then the founder of the commercial bank Peresvet, JSC International Economic Cooperation (MES), JSC Free People’s Television (SNT), and a number of other structures. After 1996, Kirill’s most profitable business was the export of oil through the MES, which was exempted from customs duties at the request of Alexy II. Kirill was represented at MES by Bishop Victor (Pyankov), who now lives as a private citizen in the United States. The company’s annual turnover was about $2 billion in 1997.

Due to the closed nature of this information, it is now difficult to understand whether Kirill continues to participate in the oil business, but there is one very eloquent fact. A few days before the start of the U.S. military operation against Saddam Hussein, Kirill’s deputy, Bishop Feofan (Ashurkov), flew to Iraq.

Seafood

According to Portal-Credo.Ru, in 2000, information was made public about Metropolitan Kirill’s attempts to enter the market of marine biological resources (caviar, crabs, seafood) – the relevant government structures allocated to the company established by the hierarch (Region JSC) quotas for catching Kamchatka crab and shrimp (total volume – more than 4 thousand tons). According to Kaliningrad journalists, Metropolitan Kirill, as the ruling bishop of the Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate in the Kaliningrad region, participated in an automobile joint venture in Kaliningrad. It is characteristic that, even after becoming patriarch, Cyril did not appoint a diocesan bishop to the Kaliningrad see, leaving it under his direct control.

Luxury

In 2004, Nikolai Mitrokhin, a research fellow at the Center for Shadow Economy Research at the Russian State Humanitarian University, published a monograph on the shadow economic activity of the ROC MP. The value of the assets controlled by Metropolitan Kirill was estimated in this work at $ 1.5 billion. Two years later, the journalists of Moskovskiye Novosti tried to count the assets of the head of the Church Foreign Ministry and came to the conclusion that they already amount to $ 4 billion.

And according to The New Times, in 2002, Metropolitan Kirill bought a penthouse in the “House on the Embankment” overlooking the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. Incidentally, this is “the only apartment in Moscow, registered specifically to the metropolitan by his secular surname Gundyaev, about which there is a corresponding entry in the cadastral register.”

Another attribute of this life, which has become the subject of widespread discussion, is a Breguet watch worth about 30 thousand euros, which Ukrainian journalists filmed on the left hand of the patriarch next to the monastic rosary. It happened the day after Kirill pompously broadcast live on the main Ukrainian TV channels: “It is very important to learn Christian asceticism … Asceticism is the ability to regulate one’s consumption … This is a person’s victory over lust, over passions, over instinct. And it is important that both rich and poor possess this quality.”

Both the luxurious corteges of Patriarch Kirill and the security services from the FSO, which he uses, have become the talk of the town. In Moscow, when the patriarch rides, all the streets along his route are blocked, which naturally causes massive indignation of car owners. In Ukraine, Cyril’s half-kilometer motorcade completely shocked local residents: even the president travels much more modestly in a neighboring country.

True, we must pay tribute to Kirill: for official visits he charters the planes of the “Transaero” company, and uses his personal fleet only for personal purposes.

A separate and almost inexhaustible topic is the palaces and residences of the patriarch. Kirill seeks to keep up with the top officials of the state in this matter. His permanent residence was a newly-built palace in Peredelkino, for the sake of which several houses of local residents were demolished. From the windows of electric trains in the Kiev direction, it looks like a large Russian tower – like the Terem Palace in the Kremlin. Cyril does not like living there: he is worried about the nearby railway. Therefore, the current patriarch ordered to redecorate the palace in the Danilov Monastery, which did not look poor before. The construction of the Patriarchal Palace in Gelendzhik, next to the legendary “Putin’s palace” in Praskoveevka, was not without scandals. As in the case with Putin, the patriarch’s palace caused the indignation of local ecologists in the first place: it was built on the territory of the reserve, many trees listed in the Red Book were cut down during construction, and the territory of the palace blocked access to the sea for local residents. There are also patriarchal residences in all more or less large monasteries in Russia.

Capital outflow is blessed

But back to the Danilov Monastery. After the head of Putin’s headquarters, Govorukhin, uttered wonderful, highly spiritual words that under Putin, corruption in Russia has finally acquired civilized forms, it no longer seems strange that Patriarch Kirill welcomes the outflow of capital from Russia (after all, his own savings are by no means stored at home) … “The fact,” said Kirill to Putin, “that today in Spain, when it is one of the most prosperous countries, is being massively sold by the Spaniards and bought by Russians in large quantities, is a very good signal to the whole world. A country that is poor, that is in crisis, cannot afford what rich countries do not allow today. ”

The phrase, albeit confusing, is understandable that, from a Christian point of view, we must identify the “beautiful life” of the nouveau riche abroad with the glory and wealth of our country.

As Kirill prophesies, “Sergianism” (the policy of complete subordination of the Church to power), about which the Chekist Putin spoke so warmly in his speech, again demonstrates its advantages over Christian confession and martyrdom. To which the patriarch can hardly strive so much, whose earthly life is protected by the FSO officers.

(Editor’s note: We believe the Jewish/Israeli leadership, in tandem with the Soviets, was involved in the creation of the PLO and the Palestinian people (as suggested in the Oded Yinon Plan) and is involved in their ongoing Marxist class struggle against the West (via Israel). The Jewish leadership is not a victim of the Palestinian invention, as the following paper suggests at times. However, the average Israeli is considered cannon fodder by its own leadership and certainly would be victimized by this cruel Balkanization scheme. Lastly, Brand concludes that Israel is the West’s first line of defense, an extremely naive statement if not a deliberate lie. Israel and Russia are working hand in hand for the demise of the West and the crowing of world communism as its replacement. For further analysis, see: Pacepa’s misreading of Operation SIG)

How Soviet Russia created the “peace process” and incited the Muslim world against the U.S.

By Wallace Edward Brand
July 11, 2020 Anno Domini

The “peace process” is now, after some 20 years after OSLO, is known to be no more than a charade. The revelations of the highest ranking Soviet bloc defector, Major General Ion Mihai Pacepa, show that the peace process is, and has from the outset, been nothing but a charade.

It all started with the creation of a fictitious “Palestinian People” who allegedly demand political self determination. This collective noun was created by the Soviet disinformation masters in 1964 when they created the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the “PLO”. The term “Palestinian People” as a descriptive of Arabs in Palestine appeared for the first time in the preamble of the 1964 PLO Charter, drafted in Moscow. The facts in the preamble to the Charter were affirmed onlyh by the first 422 members of the Palestinian National Council, handpicked by the KGB.

Why in Moscow? The 1960s and 1970s were the years the Soviets were in the business of creating “liberation organizations”: for Palestine and Bolivia in 1964, Columbia 1965, in the 70s “The Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia” that bombed US airline offices in Europe, and “The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine that bombed Israelis.” But the PLO, was by far its most enduring success.

Major-General Ion Mihai Pacepa is the highest ranking defector from the Soviet bloc during the Cold War. He has written that for nearly four decades, the PLO has been the largest, wealthiest, and most politically connected terrorist organization in the world. For most of that time, it was held in the firm grip of Yasser Arafat’s iron fist. But Arafat was not the fierce, independent actor he posed as; he was completely dependent on the Soviet KGB and its surrogate Warsaw Pact intelligence services for arms, training, logistical support, funds, and direction.

According to Pacepa his KGB handlers included Vasali Samoylenko, Vladimir Buljakov, and Soviet “Ambassador” Alexander Soldatov. Arafat’s closest friend and head of PLO intelligence, Hani Hassan, was actually an agent of the DIE, the Romanian subsidiary of the KGB. Pacepa was its head. He speaks not from opinion but from his personal knowledge.

In the PLO Charter preamble they actually had to use the phrase “Palestinian Arab People” to exclude those Jews who had retained a presence in Palestine since Biblical times and had been a majority population in Jerusalem as early as 1845. Romanian Communist dictator Ceausescu, at Soviet urging, persuaded Arafat to abandon his claim of wanting to annihilate the Jews in Israel in favor of “liberating the Palestinian People” in Israel.

Why? A brilliant strategy. That was the first step in reframing the conflict between the Arabs and the Jews from religious jihad to secular nationalism in a quest for political self determination, a posture far less offensive to the West. By focusing on political liberation for a small group of Arabs, it ignored the fact that Israel is a small state whose existence is threatened by the surrounding Arab states. These are states that outnumber its population many fold with Muslims who are commanded by an extreme form of their religion to kill infidels to take back land formerly controlled by Muslims.

It creates Jews in Israel, ignoring they are a relatively small group in comparison with the Arabs surrounding them, as oppressors of an even smaller discrete group of Arabs, described in the Charter as Palestinian Arabs excluding those in Jordan, Judea, Samaria and Gaza. (After the 1967 war, and the Isreali conquest of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, the exclusions for Arabs in those areas were removed the Charter. To enter into the pretended peace negotionations it pretended to excluse the Palestinian Arabs within the Green Line but has never taken steps to carry out its promise to amend the PLO Charter). It transforms the Jews from victims to oppressors. It worked.

The Arabs in Palestine had been engaged in religious jihad at least since 1929 when they massacred 69 Jews in Hebron and more elsewhere, egged on by Haj Amin al Husseini, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. He had imported the Brotherhood’s vicious jihadist doctrines into Palestine from Egypt. Now, mirabile dictu, jihad became “liberation”. The religiously motivated attacks on Jews were turned into “resistance” from oppression motivated by secular nationalism. This will explain to you why, whenever the Arabs attacked the Jews thereafter, they said they were “resisting”.

In his book, History Upside Down,[2] David Meir Levi puts it this way:

“Arafat was particularly struck by Ho Chi Minh’s success in mobilizing left-wing sympathizers in Europe and the United States, where activists on American campuses, enthusiastically following the [propaganda] line of North Vietnamese operatives, had succeeded in reframing the Vietnam war from a Communist assault on the south to a struggle for national liberation. Ho’s chief strategist, General Giap, made it clear to Arafat and his lieutenants that in order to succeed, they too needed to redefine the terms of their struggle. Giap’s counsel was simple but profound: the PLO needed to work in a way that concealed its real goals, permitted strategic deception, and gave the appearance of moderation: “Stop talking about annihilating Israel and instead turn your terror war into a struggle for human rights. Then you will have the American people eating out of your hand.”

At the same time that he was getting advice from General Giap, Arafat was also being tutored by Muhammad Yazid, who had been minister of information in two Algerian wartime governments (1958-1962): wipe out the argument that Israel is a small state whose existence is threatened by the Arab states, or the reduction of the Palestinian problem to a question of refugees; instead, present the Palestinian struggle as a struggle for liberation like the others. Wipe out the impression that in the struggle between the Palestinians and the Zionists, the Zionist is the underdog. Now it is the Arab who is oppressed and victimized in his existence because he is not only facing the Zionists but also world imperialism.

To make sure that they followed this advice, the KGB put Arafat and his adjutants into the hands of a master of propaganda: Nicolai Ceausescu, president-for-life of Romania.

For the next few years, Ceausescu hosted Arafat frequently and gave him lessons on how to apply the advice of Giap, Yazid, and others in the Soviet orbit. Arafat’s personal “handler,” Ion Mihai Pacepa, the head of the Romanian military intelligence, had to work hard on his sometimes unruly protege. Pacepa later recorded a number of sessions during which Arafat railed against Ceausescu’s injunctions that the PLO should present itself as a people’s revolutionary army striving to right wrongs and free the oppressed: he wanted only to obliterate Israel. Gradually, though, Ceausescu’s lessons in Machiavellian statecraft sank in. During his early Lebanon years, Arafat developed propaganda tactics that would allow him to create the image of a homeless people oppressed by a colonial power. This makeover would serve him well in the west for decades to come.”

Brezhnev, according to Pacepa, carried it one step farther when Carter came into office. He suggested to Pacepa that Carter might fall for Yassir Arafat PRETENDING to renounce violence and pretending to seek peace negotiations. He persuaded Arafat to do this by telling him that the West would shower him with gold and glory. It did. Billions of dollars and a Nobel prize. Ceausescu warned Arafat he would have to pretend over and over again. Abbas is still pretending. James Woolsey, former CIA director has been reported as stating that Pacepa is credible. Pacepa’s account is also corroborated by Zahir Muhsein, a member of the PLO executive board. In an interview by the Dutch newspaper Trouw in 1977, he stated that there is no such thing as the “Palestinian People”, that the term’s use is a political ploy, and there is no quest for political self-determination — that as soon as the Jews have been wiped out, sovereignty would be turned over to Jordan.

Hafez Assad also has stated there was no “Palestinian People”; that prior to 1964 the Arabs in Palestine called themselves “citizens of Greater Syria”.

During WWI the British offered the local Arabs self determination if they helped in the war against the Ottoman Empire but the local Arabs fought on the side of the Ottomans to the eternal gratitude of the Turks.

This is from Pacepa’s article “Russian Footprints” in National Review Online:

“In 1972, the Kremlin decided to turn the whole Islamic world against Israel and the U.S. As KGB chairman Yury Andropov told me [Pacepa], a billion adversaries could inflict far greater damage on America than could a few millions. We needed to instill a Nazi-style hatred for the Jews throughout the Islamic world, and to turn this weapon of the emotions into a terrorist bloodbath against Israel and its main supporter, the United States. No one within the American/Zionist sphere of influence should any longer feel safe.

“According to Andropov, the Islamic world was a waiting petri dish in which we could nurture a virulent strain of America-hatred, grown from the bacterium of Marxist-Leninist thought. Islamic anti-Semitism ran deep. The Muslims had a taste for nationalism, jingoism, and victimology. Their illiterate, oppressed mobs could be whipped up to a fever pitch.”

Again from the National Review Online article, Pacepa writes:

“In the mid 1970s, the KGB ordered my [Rumanian intelligence] service, the DIE — along with other East European sister services — to scour the country for trusted party activists belonging to various Islamic ethnic groups, train them in disinformation and terrorist operations, and infiltrate them into the countries of our ‘sphere of influence.’ Their task was to export a rabid, demented hatred for American Zionism by manipulating the ancestral abhorrence for Jews felt by the people in that part of the world. Before I left Romania for good, in 1978, my DIE had dispatched around 500 such undercover agents to Islamic countries. According to a rough estimate received from Moscow, by 1978 the whole Soviet-bloc intelligence community had sent some 4,000 such agents of influence into the Islamic world.

In the mid-1970s we also started showering the Islamic world with an Arabic translation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a tsarist Russian forgery that had been used by Hitler as the foundation for his anti-Semitic philosophy. We also disseminated a KGB-fabricated “documentary” paper in Arabic alleging that Israel and its main supporter, the United States, were Zionist countries dedicated to converting the Islamic world into a Jewish colony.

We in the Soviet bloc tried to conquer minds, because we knew we could not win any military battles. It is hard to say what exactly are the lasting effects of operation SIG. But the cumulative effect of disseminating hundreds of thousands of Protocols in the Islamic world and portraying Israel and the United States as Islam’s deadly enemies was surely not constructive.”

You can find additional revelations in Pacepa’s biography, Red Horizons and in a Front Page magazine interview with him:[4].

The foregoing gives much insight into the invention of the Palestinian Arab People, however the strongest clue on the motivation of inventing a “Palestinian People” can be found from a reading of Professor Eugene Rostow’s 1980 article Palestinian Self-Determination: Possible Futures for the Unallocated Territories in the Yale Studies on World Public Order.

“Slowly and reluctantly, Europe and the United States are coming to realize that the pattern of events in the Middle East reflects more than random turbulence in the aftermath of the British and French Empires. For nearly thirty turbulent years, the Soviet Union has sought control of this geo-political nerve center in order to bring Western Europe into its sphere. Even if Soviet ambitions were confined to Europe, Soviet hegemony in the Middle East would profoundly change the world balance of power. But Soviet control of the Middle East would lead inevitably to further accretions of Soviet power if China, Japan, and many smaller and more vulnerable countries should conclude that the United States had lost the will or the capacity to defend its vital interests * * * The exploitation of Arab hostility to the Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and the existence of Israel has been a major weapon in the Soviet campaign to dominate the Middle East. * * * * The attack on the legitimacy of Israel has been the strongest and most effective tool of Soviet strategy in the Middle East* * * The anti-Israel card is not the only asset in the Soviet Union’s Middle East hand, but among the Middle Eastern masses it has been trumps. * * *After the 1973 War, when there was some danger that Egypt and other countries might make peace with Israel, the Soviet Union invited Arafat to Moscow, supported his appearance before the United Nations in November, 1974, and increased its pressure for General Assembly resolutions supporting claims of self- determination for the Palestinian Arabs and denouncing Zionism as ‘racism’ [emphasis added]”

Professor Rostow again addressed the question of the political rights of the Arab and Jewish Peoples and the rights of the so called “Palestinian People” in a paper he wrote just after the OSLO agreement was signed, in November 1993 entitled The Future of Palestine:

“The mandate implicitly denies Arab claims to national political rights in the area in favour of the Jews; the mandated territory was in effect reserved to the Jewish people for their self-determination and political development, in acknowledgment of the historic connection of the Jewish people to the land. Lord Curzon, who was then the British Foreign Minister, made this reading of the mandate explicit. There remains simply the theory that the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have an inherent “natural law” claim to the area. Neither customary international law nor the United Nations Charter acknowledges that every group of people claiming to be a nation has the right to a state of its own.” [emphasis added]

It was Woodrow Wilson in his Fourteen Points Speech in 1918 who was the first to put forward the right of self-determination, focusing on these rights for Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine although foreshadowed by the work of John Locke. And in 1941 its was again mentioned by Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in their “Atlantic Charter” in 1941 created aboard a battleship in the Atlantic Ocean. These were both mentioned as matters of “natural law” with the rights of self-determination as a natural or God given right. But they slowly evolved from natural law into International Law.

The first UN adoption of the right of self-determination was in its Charter, in 1945 just after the end of WWII. Self-determination is clearly mentioned in the 1945 UN Charter (Art. 1(2)) but only as a “principle”. States’ sovereignty and territorial integrity are reserved in Art. 2:

“The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.”

Among the General Assembly Resolutions not long after WWII was Resolution 1514, the decolonization resolution, adopted some 15 years later in December, 1960 and then two more that were not expressly addressed to decolonization arrived in the middle 60’s, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Each of these provided as a matter not only of “natural law” but also of International Law that “All peoples have the right to self determination. But they also required respect for territorial integrity by insisting they “respect that right [of self-determination] in conformance with the conditions of the Charter of the United Nations”. As of this date, International Law supported the right of self-determination in decolonizations where no secession was involved that would impinge on territorial integrity of a sovereign state.

Was the Soviet Union’s pressure on the UN General Assembly to support the “Palestinian” claims for self determination promoted by the dezinformatsia to help the attack on the legitimacy of Israel by promoting the cause of the Arabs? These resolutions for two international covenants were adopted in 1966, two years after the preamble of the first charter of the PLO invented the Palestinian People to be put into effect in 1976. A major factor in the early 1970s was the after- shock of the oil embargo, and the rising influence of the OIC Organization of the Islamic Conference (now “Cooperation”), which included the Arab Bloc and many other countries. The influence of the Soviet Union was primarily channeled through the NAM (Non-Aligned Movement) which included the Third World countries, and were pretty much “aligned” with the Left in spite of their name.

If they wanted to help the Arabs in Palestine by supporting a state for them to be carved out of the Jewish Peoples state, the Russians had three barriers to overcome. First, the Palestinians were undifferentiated members of the Arab people located in Palestine. They were not and never had been a nation or a people. They had never ruled Palestine from a capital in Palestine.

Second, they had never sought the right of self determination.

Third, the right under International Law had been limited to decolonizations where there was a tension between such a right and the right of sovereign states to territorial integrity. Only decolonizations would not affect the boundary of an existing sovereign state. Secessions would.

With the Soviet invention of the Palestinian Arab People in 1964, and their quest for self-determination assumed in the preamble of the PLO Charter, (Brand, Was there a Palestinian Arab National Movement at the End of the Ottoman Period) the first two barriers could be overcome

The same people may still working now on overcoming the third barrier. Territorial integrity of sovereign states has been the mainstay of world order since the 1648 Peace of Westphalia. International Lawyers had always given territorial integrity a priority over the right of self determination. There is some evidence that the right to self-determination was considered for the charter of the League of Nations in 1919, but at the time, the authors could not resolve the cases where there was tension with the territorial integrity of sovereign states.

Currently there is a movement among ethical philosophers and International Law commentators for an exception to the existing rule of International Law that the right of self determination only supports decolonization and not secession that would change the boundary of a state. They argue for it as a last resort where a people or nation is much oppressed by the majority population of the state. You don’t have to look far to hear, created by PW or psychological warfare, the Narrative of Perpetual Palestinian Victimhood at the hands of the Jews, now accepted around the world as a poetic truth; one that can’t be dented with facts, logic or reason even though the evidence showing the far greater benefits the Jews brought to the Arab People establishes the relative insignificance of any burden placed on them. To what extent these are prompted by the desinformatsiya we won’t know until the defection of another member of the former Soviet bloc closely associated with the KGB’s successors.

According to Major General Ion Pacepa in his recently published book Disinformation, the dezinformatsiya has not ended its work following Gorbychev. It still remains the largest division of the Russian agency that is the successor of the KGB.

The current violence both in Israel and around the rest of the world is a third wave of Islamic Jihad or Holy War, with the violence in Israel disguised by the Soviets as secular nationalism in a quest for political self determination. As a consequence, Israel is the West’s first line of defense.

Russia is still the enemy of Israel and the United States.

By Criton Zoakos and Mark Burdman
January 24, 1986 Anno Domini
EIR Feature

A powerful faction inside the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence organization, has deployed, in coordination with the Russian KGB, a formidable terror and assas­sination capability against the United States. The “Jonathan Pollard Espionage Affair” of “Dirty Rafi” Raphael Eytan, Ariel Sharon’s cohort, is merely the tip of the iceberg. As the accompanying report details, both Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and Lyndon H. LaRouche are among, the known largets of this Mossad operation-of that component of the Mossad which draws its inspiration from the old Irgun, and receives its orders from the Ariel Sharon-David Kimche-Rafi Eytan cabal.

The credulous among our readers may find this Russian KGB-Irgunist Mossad alignment something of a surprise. But it is no surprise either to students of Russian grand strategy, or to those who know their history of Zionism.

Not only the historian, but also the average contemporary intelligence officer is well aware of this Russian influence over the Irgun’s offspring in the Mossad. For example, the current issue of the London-published Middle East International magazine carried a story, inspired by the scandal of “false flag” Israeli-Soviet spy Pollard, recounting how the present President of,lsrael, Chaim Herzog, was once expelled from the United States for espionage. ,The item is noteworthy for the discussions it provoked among intelligence professionals. One of them remarked: “In return-ror the Soviet Union’s release of Soviet Jews for emigration, the Israelis have been passing on intelligence materials to Moscow on a quid-pro-quo basis. This has been going on for decades, and it certainly began well before the 1967 war. . . . There has been a pattern of release of Soviet Jews coinciding with the Soviets’ acquisition of militarily sensitive Western technologies.”

However, trading manpower for technology, is the least interesting area of coopera.tion between the Mossad Irgunists and the Russian KGB. The respective strategic perspectives of each of the two partners, which draw them into this collaboration against the United States, is of much greater significance.

The specifics for the present Russian-Israeli collaboration were hammered out in August 1981, during a top-secret meeting in Limassol, Cyprus, between then-Defense Minis­ter Ariel Sharon and senior officers of the Russian secret services. The talks involved general understandings respect­ ing the two governments’ longer-term strategic roles in world affairs.

In the present World strategic crisis, Russia, in its drive to establish itself as a “Third and Final Rome,” a sole world imperial arbiter by 1988, is willing to permit Israel to play the role of arbiter in Mediterranean affairs once played by Venice, provided that such a role facilitates Russian ambi­tions. By the same token, the leading Israeli strategists, Ariel Sharon, David Kimche, and the “considerable interests” be­ hind them, are willing to accommodate Russia’s “Third and Final Rome” ambitions, provided that they facilitate their own prospects of transforming Israel into the “New Venice.”

These mutual accommodations have often been dis­cussed, since at least August of 1981, between Ariel Sharon and his representatives, and senior representatives of the Russian intelligence services. More important than the de­tails of the Sharon-Russian understandings, are those ill­ concealed “considerable interests” which, over the decades, have sponsored both Sharon’s career and the network of influence which has promoted him, the old lrgun apparatus.

These “considerable interests” could, for convenience, be dubbed “The Odessa Complex,” named after the Russian port-city which originally gave birth to the darker side of the Zionist movement during the latter ‘part of the 19th century, when it was the self-assigned task of the Imperial Okhrana to create Zionism. At the top of the “Odessa Complex,” one finds the leading Jewish financial families of the Ottoman Empire, the Dwecks of Aleppo and the Recanati of Salonica, operating under the supervision of the Luzzattos of Venice. No major established financial family of Odessa itself is identified since the city of Odessa had been founded a mere one century earlier, on advice given to Empress Catherine the Great from her Venetian advisers.

From the 1881 Russian pogroms onward, these families organized a large-scale emigration of Russian Jews to Pal­estine, which was then under the control of the Ottoman Empire. The first large-scale settlement of Jews in Palestine, the first “Aliyah,” was organized, at the Russian port-city of Odessa, by these above-named Jewish financial families in the Ottoman Empire and Venice, running the famous “Odes­sa Committee,” the Zionist travel bureau. Over 90 per cent of the Jews who then settled in Ottoman Palestine were from Rus­sia, traveling through Odessa. In fact, the Ottoman govern­ment authorities of the period considered Zionism to be just another pseudo-nationalist movement, organized by Russian imperialists toward the purpose of subverting and disman­tling the Ottoman Empire. This evaluation of the Ottoman authorities of the time was not too wide of the mark.

The simple facts of the case at the time were three: First, as the Ottoman authorities saw it, virtually all of the Jewish settlers into Palestine were Russian, boarding ships from Odessa; second, virtually all of the visible leaders of the young Zionist movement were Russian Jews, most of them born and raised in Odessa; third, the leadership of the Russian secret service, the Okhrana-whose founder, Count Nicho­las Ignatiev, once served as Russian ambassador to Istan­bul—was actively and visibly supporting, promoting, and financing ZionisIp.The Ottoman administration’s immedi­ately prior experience of Russian Middle East strategic ob­jectives, that is, immediately prior to the first great upsurge of Zionist “Aliyah” of 1880-1900, was the Crimean War of 1854-56, which had grown out of Russia’s claim to protect all Orthodox Christians living in the Ottoman Empire. Istanbul, from its standpoint, had every reason to believe that “Zionism” was just another Russian imperial ploy to subvert the Ottoman Empire. However, since the defense and national security of that Empire had been transferred, by means of the Berlin Treaty of 1878, to Great Britain, and specifically to the Luzzatto-influenced British prime minister of Venetian ancestry Benjamin Disraeli (Lord Beaconsfield), Istanbul had no choice but acquiesce in the settlement in Palestine of the, Russian Jews of ‘the first “Aliyah.”

It happens to be the case that the founder of Russian Zionism, Leo Pinsker, spent all his life in Odessa. Later, many other Zionist leaders, including Vladimir Jabotinskii, the founder of the Irgun, were born and raised in Odessa. In general, Zionism, as one of the nationalist movements of the 19th century, was created exclusively in Russia and had appeal only among Russian Jews, who, contrary to their co­ religionists in Western Europe, could see no possibility of assimilating themselves in the surrounding brutality of Rus­sian Orthodoxy. When Count Nicholas Ignatiev, the legend­ ary political organizer of the Pan-Slavist movement, became Russia’s interior minister and founded the Okhrana, he con­sidered it his first priority to unleash the dreaded pogroms of 1881-82, which became the driving force for the growth of Zionism as a popular movement. Only after these pogroms did Russian Jews begin to heed the call of the handful of Okhrana-financed Odessa Zionist organizers to go and emigrate to Palestine.

Later Russian interior ministers and Okhrana chiefs con­tinued Ignatiev’s Jewish policies, which eventually became the engrained habit of the Russian state.These policies were cynically expressed by Konstantin Pobedonostsev in the fol­lowing epigrammatic way: “One-third of the Jews will die out, one-third will leave the country, one-third will be assim­ilated and melt into the surrounding population.”

Pobedonostsev, of course, was the great official popular­izer and promoter of Fyodor Dostoevskii, the father of Russian anti-Semitism and, as documents show, of official Nazi anti-Semitism as well.

Another interior minister of the turn of the century, von Plehve, once said to Theodore Herzl, the great theoretician of Zionism: “You are preaching to a convert….we would very much like to see the creation of an independent Jewish state capable of absorbing several millions Jews.”

When the aforementioned von Plehve was interior min­ister, the chief of the Okhrana was the notorious Sergei Vas­ ilievich Zubatov.This Zubatov is known for organizing the world’s most famous secret-service-controlled labor movement, which has come dowrt in history as “Zubatov Trade Unionism.” He should become equally famous for founding “Zubatov Zionism.” In this respect, it should be noted that the first Zionist organization Which the fire-eating founder of the Irgun, VladimirJabotinsky, ever joined, was controlled, and financed by Sergei Zubatov.

The story in summary is as follows: From 1900 on, Zubatov began to systematically encourage Zionism and do all in his power ot ensure the success of the first legal Zionist congress to take place in Russia, the 1902 Minsk Congres. He said, at the time: “Inside Jewry, such a great internal ferment is taking place, a reformation (for us not only harmless, but, owing to the circumstances of the time, also advantageous)…. It is necessary to support Zionism and, in general, to play upon nationalistic aspirations.” He hired one Manya Velbushevuch, a Jewish women who had earlier been arrested for subversive activities, as his agent. In 1900, she sent a message to Zubatov: “Congratulate me with a great victory I did not expect so soon. Now all the Zionists are our assistants. It only remains to discover how to make use of their services.” She received praise for her work from Minister of the Interior von Plehve. Vilbushevich, ca.1905, went to Paris, after having made a trip to Palestine, and raised money there from various people, including Edmond de Rothschild, for Jewish “self-defense” groups. Ultimately, Vladimir Jabotinskii, the founder of the Irgun, whom David Ben-Gurion called “Vladimir Hitler,” joined one of these Zionist groups, controlled and financed by the Okhrana’s Sergei Zubatov and his agents.

Today: Odessa and ‘The Trust’
Libya’s economy, now subject to economic warfare by the Reagan administration, is, to a large extent, in the hands of the “founding families” of Zionism, Luzzatto, Recanati, Dweck, and the junior partners whom they co-opted, at the tum of the century, in Odessa.The umbrella “management committee ” for Libya’s finances is a shady, quasi-formal grouping which has existed for the best part of this century, under the nickname “The Trust.” Three Odessa-born individ­ uals played a prominent role in shaping it in its modem form: Julius Hammer, the father of Occidental Petroleum’s Ar­mand Hammer; Alexander Helphand (Parvus); and Sidney Reilly.All played a prominent role in the 1917 Russian Revolution and in the reorganization of the Russian economy from the time of Lenin’s “New Economic Policy ” to the conclusion of Stalin’s First Five-Year-Plan-but this is an­ other story.

Most of Libya’s oil—which is the Libyan economy—is managed by three well-known heirs of “The Trust,” namely Armand Hammer, Max Fisher, and Edgar Bronfman (see accompanying article). Two of the three, Hammer and Bronfman, are playing a very prominent role, almost contin­uously since the August 1981 secret meetings between Shar­on and the KGB/GRU in Cyprus, in arranging and managing the new Russian-Israeli relationship. In the deep background, behind the names ‘Hammer, Fischer, and Bronfman, hide discretely and securely the old Venetian/Ottoman banking families: Luzzatto of Venice, Recanati of Salonica. Dweck of. Aleppo. whose role in the founding of the Zionist move­ment—and the state of Israel—is more important, though less glamorous, than that of Baron de Rothschild.

One example: Israel has bought petroleum from’Libya for many years now. The transaction is, reportedly, managed by the Venetian Luzzattos, through the mediation of a Re­canati front-man, with the oil produced by Hammer. The Recanati agent in question is a Greek shipowner by the name of John, or Giovanni, Latsis, whose corporate headquarters are in New York and who spends half his time in Italy.The chairman of the board of Latsis’s New York company is a Greek Orthodox priest, Father Basil, who is also a member of the board of directors of the Recanati family bank, the Israel Discount Bank, founded by Leon Recanati, who emi­ grated toPalestine in 1935 from his native Salonica. ‘

This is only a tiny example of what ”The Trust” is en­ gaged in, in terins of international economic and financial transactions. Hammer’s larger role, including the activities of his “Golden Mercury” organization in Luzzatto’s Venice, is perhaps slightly more indicative of the broader role of “The Trust,” inclusive of its dominant Anglo-American compo­nent, in managing a significant part of the world’s great affairs, especially in the domain of what is called “East-West relations.”

To stick narrowly to the subject at hand, the present Russian-Israeli relationship, we can simply observe that there is an unbroken continuity in the interrelationship between Great Russian Imperial grand strategy and Zionist grand strategy, in large part mediated by the broader-based “Trust,” a continuity which pre-dates the Russian Revolution, the two world wars, and the founding of the state of Israel. That continuity goes back to the coordinated way in which the 18th-century Venetian Luzzattos persuaded the 18th-centu­ry, Venice-educated Orloff brothers, to found the city of Odessa; how the 19th-century Luzzattos, Recanatis, and Dwecks persuaded the 19th-century Ignatievs, Plehves, and Zubatovs to force Russian Jews out by means of terror and pogroms—and thus to launch the Zionist movement.

Grand strategies
When Israel was founded, in 1948, it was hardly Ameri­ca’s “staunchest ally” in the Middle East.The young Andrei Gromyko’s vote at the United Nations played a decisive role in overcoming British objections to Israeli nationhood. The Haganah, which secured Israeli independence by combatting Arab opposition, was primarily dependent on Soviet and Czechoslovak weapons shipments. It was also the Odessa­-originating Irgun, which organized Arab opposition and the panicked flight of the Palestinians, by means of the Deir Yassin massacre, carried out with Soviet and Czechoslovak weapons.

The “pro-Western” character of the state of Israel began taking shape under very peculiar circumstances, yet to be clarified, during the Suez crisis of 1956. It will be recalled that that crisis began when Israeli paratroopers were dropped at the MitIa Pass in the Sinai, in order to give occasion to nearby British and French naval forces to intervene and try to recapture the Suez Canal from tHe Egyptians. The opera­tion had been timed to divert world attention from the fact that, at that same time, Ambassador Yuri Andropov was crushing the anti-Russian revolution in Hungary.

It will also be recalled that this titning of the Suez crisis­—so convenient for the Russians—took place shortly after the famous “de-Stalinization” congress of the Soviet Communist Party, at which the Israeli Mossad graciously circulated to the West copies of Nikita Khrushchev’s historic “secret speech,” which indeed remained secret for several months afterward, only in the Soviet Union. The fact that the Mos­sad, or someone inside the Mossad, had access to Khrush­chev’s secret de-Stalinization speech, is important. With it, the post-Stalin Russian leadership bad signaled to the world that it was now ready, after Stalin’s demise, to resume its old business with “The Trust.”

None of this, of course, is to argue that Zionist leaders view themselves as Russian assets, though many of them certainly are, and though Ariel Shaton and Armand Hammer most especially are. The point is that the much-touted “sur­vivor” mentality so much valued among militant Zionists, has been, historically, grafted onto them by official Russian state imperial policy for over a century now, long before the “Bettelheim syndrome” was studied by Great Britain’s Tav­istock Clinic.

To better understand Arid Sharon’s and his braintruster David Kimche’s current pro-Russian, anti-American policy, one must proceed from the fact that Soviet grand strategy is seen, in Moscow, as the concluding chapter of a longstanding Russian chauvinist imperial commitment to establish Mos­cow as the “Third and Final Rome,” the center of a sole, ecumenical empire, modeled after the Byzantine Empire and its predecessor, Imperial Rome. Most of 19th-century Rus­sian policy, from the Crimean War onward, was determined by this growing impulse of the “Third Rome” perspective, which, among its features, included the “drive for warm­ water ports,” which stands as a euphemism for taking over the Middle East, and the brutal, cynical inducement to force East European Jews to embrace Zionism as their only re­maining choice for survival and self-respect.

During 1986, General Secretary Gorbachov’s govern­ment intends to remove all U.S. military presence from the Mediterranean Sea and, as a result, turn this vital artery which carries 75 per cent of Western Europe’s trade, into a Russian lake, from the standpoint of preponderate naval power. Also dur­ing 1986, Moscow intends, by means of military blackmail and appropriate arms-control proposals, to decouple the de­fense of Western Europe from that of the United States. Toward these two objectives, Moscow has assigned Israel one very important role: Israel is to ensure that no political forces friendly to the United States remain in positions of power and influence either in the Arab world, or anywhere else in the Mediterranean basin. This is the significance of last winter’s aerial bombardment of Tunisia, of the Achille Lauro crisis and its aftermath, and of the current, Mossad- triggered Libyan crisis.

From their perspective, Sharon’s Irgunist friends, ga­memaster David Kimche (the secret author of Sharon’s “Mediterranean strategy”), and the old “Trust” interests in the Zionist orbit, Recanati, Dwecks, Luzzattos, see in this vast redistribution of power in the Mediterranean and the Near East, their golden opportunity to establish themselves as the “New Venice.” Their game, in large part, depends on rapidly eliminating the last remnants of pro-U.S.A. loyalists in the region, so as to present Israel as the “sole” asset the United States will depend upon. For the weeks ahead, there is an additional twist in Sharon’s perspective: Sharon and his friends are now committed to accelerating this process of knocking the United States out of the picture before the Rus­sian gameplan has consolidated its positions, so as to make Moscow also depend, at least in part, on Israeli policies. Defense Secretary Weinberger’s continuing refusal to in­volve the United States in a set-up, losing military adventure against Qaddafi, is, at this time, the principal obstacle to Sharon’s present, accelerated gameplan.