*I wrote and published this article as installment number forty-three of my Red Alert Newsletter. Because I deem it of higher-than-usual importance, I have decided to share it here as well. I encourage you to visit Red Alert and consider subscribing. Wait until January, however, when I will be lowering the subscription price and changing up the format. Until then, please share this article and thank you for your support!*
You may call this article a rebuttal to the Russophiles out there and to the misguided pundits in our camp. Specifically, two weeks ago, I heard Alex Jones in one instance, and Jeff Rense and Mitchell Henderson in the other instance, say that Russia is the victim in the Ukraine debacle and that NATO is the one pushing us to war. This is sheer insanity and an inversion of reality!
To all those who see Russia as the picked-on, besieged, blameless little victim, please understand three facts: 1) The “collapse” of the Soviet Union was a strategic ruse, world communism is stronger than ever and is pursuing its age-old goal of world domination, and Russia and China are still spearheading the agenda on the ground; 2) Russia is not “surrounded” and hemmed in by NATO; and 3) Russia, not NATO, is the aggressor in Ukraine and started that conflict.
1. The Contrived Collapse of Communism
In 1989, the Berlin Wall was allowed to “fall.” The Kremlin gave orders to its agents in East Germany to open the borders and not stop people from crossing. They simply stood down. It was all on purpose; a stage production.
In 1991, the Soviet regime once again stood down its forces, lowered the Soviet flag, and allowed the Soviet Union to change its name. It even faked a weak military coup in which we’re supposed to believe that the Soviet military and intelligence services were so inept that they couldn’t arrest Gorbachev or even Yeltsin, the latter standing up on a tank in public in a dramatic moment to denounce the “hardliners.” It was good acting in a well-crafted ruse.
It was a contrived “collapse” – a psyop with few rivals in human history. It was precisely the type of big lie the West wanted to hear and which they eagerly gobbled up. Yet, political theater is not reality and wishful thinking doesn’t change the truth on the ground. And the truth is that the Soviets, which are part of a larger and ongoing conspiracy against mankind, pre-planned this “collapse” years in advance as part of a mass deception to lull the West into complacency in preparation for the final death blow.
For more details and analysis of the fake “fall” of the Soviet Union, see the relevant chapters in my books A Century of Red and Red Gadiantons. Here, I want to touch upon just several of the compelling points against the “collapse” narrative.
First, think of human nature and history. Where in the annals of history has a mighty, tyrannical regime ever given up its power without a struggle? Where have people who were entirely stripped of their Liberty ever regained their Freedom without bloodshed or an uprising? Cite me one example except for the Soviet “collapse” in 1991. You can’t do it. It’s never happened before and it will never happen. This is because of human nature and the near universal lust to dominate and control other people, wealth, and power.
Yet, the controlled press, and the communist world, want us to believe that the impossible happened in 1991 – that the greatest mass-murdering oppressors in world history suddenly had a change of heart, relinquished their design of world domination, folded their sprawling system of psychological, espionage, and subversion operations, gave up their power and control over the world’s most fearsome stockpile of weapons, and restored Freedom and sovereignty to the Soviet peoples. If you believe that, I have a bridge on Jupiter to sell you!
Why should we even be tempted to believe the communists suddenly changed their minds and beat their swords into ploughshares? Hadn’t the mass-murdering Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev said on September 17, 1955: “[I]f anyone believes that our smiles involve abandonment of the teaching of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, he deceives himself poorly. Those who wait for that must wait until a shrimp learns to whistle”? And hadn’t the early Soviet leaders foretold of a day when they’d stage a deception and show of peace in order to trick the West before the final victory?
In 1930, Soviet bureaucrat Dmitri Z. Manuilsky told the students at the Lenin School of Political Warfare:
“War to the hilt between communism and capitalism is inevitable. Today, of course, we are not strong enough to attack. Our time will come in 20 to 30 years. To win, we shall need the element of surprise. The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. So we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard-of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends. As soon as their guard is down, we shall smash them with our clenched fist.”
Here you have a Soviet leaders openly speaking of a generational plan to simulate peace and make “unheard-of concessions,” all while preparing to deal the final death blow to the West. Lenin and others also spoke openly about the need to hoodwink the West into accepting, funding, and befriending Soviet Russia by pretending to be peace-loving and democratic. It’s all a lie, ladies and gentlemen! If you think the Soviet masterminds discarded their plan to fake “the most spectacular peace movement on record,” you’re a sucker and don’t know anything about how the world truly works.
Feigning weakness while preparing to strike is an ageless tactic which the Soviets adopted and perfected. The Reds in both Russia and China have used the method to throw the off West, regroup, gain concessions (usually in the form of financing and trade), and prepare for further aggression. This is what the period of “Détente” during the Cold War was all about. This is what Mao did whenever his Chinese bandits began to lose ground to Chiang Kai-shek. While pretending to desire peace and sending envoys to engage in vain peace talks and sign agreements that he knew he would later break, he was busy regrouping, repositioning, rearming, and preparing for new offensives. Communists have used this stratagem ad nauseum.
The Soviet defector, Anatoliy Golitsyn, an intelligence operative, warned the West that the Soviets used Détente as a ruse and that they were preparing an even greater performance to fool us – the “fall” of the Soviet Union. That’s right, Soviet intelligence agents like Golitsyn warned us years in advance of the fake “fall” of the Soviet Union. This is the second great evidence against its veracity.
If Golitsyn was full of it, how did most of what he predicted on a range of topics come true? Why, if he was really as crazy as some say, did his prediction about the fraudulent “collapse” of the USSR come true? He wasn’t a dreamer; he was a truth-teller. And the truth is that the West has been conned again by the masters of deceit who have tricked us repeatedly.
In his book New Lies for Old, Golitsyn essentially said the Soviet conspirators would deceive us by rebranding the Soviet Union the same way that Coke redesigns its cans and commercials yet still serves you the same disgusting poison purporting to be soda. The book must be read as a whole and quoting parts of it is insufficient. However, I’ve drawn out a several segments to give the flavor of his observations regarding Soviet strategic deception. Remember, you’re reading the personal witness of a former Soviet intelligence officer who knew whereof he spoke:
“The launching of a strategic disinformation program in 1958 invalidated the conventional methodology of Western students of communist affairs. A carefully controlled flood of information was released through the whole range of sources under communist control. As in the NEP period in the 1920s, this flood of information confused and distorted Western views on the situation in the communist world. Western analysts, lacking the ability to acquire inside information on communist strategic thinking, planning, and methods of operation, gratefully accepted the new stream of information at face value. Without their knowing it, their conventional methods of analysis were invalidated and turned back on them by the communist strategists. Because of the deliberate projection by these strategists of a false image of the dissolution of communist unity, the noncommunist world ignored or undervalued open and significant evidence pointing to bloc cooperation from 1957 onward on a new footing of equality and commitment to fundamental ideological principles and long-term policy objectives. The new dispensation allows for variation in domestic and international tactics and provides unlimited opportunities for joint efforts between bloc countries to misrepresent the true state of relations between them whenever this should be to their mutual advantage. Unnoticed by the West, communist ideology was freed from its Stalinist straitjacket and revived on Leninist lines. The change was successfully misrepresented as the spontaneous replacement of ideology by nationalism as the driving force behind the communist world.
“Noncommunist studies came increasingly to be based on information emanating from communist sources. While observers in the noncommunist world sometimes showed some awareness that information was reaching them through channels under communist control, there was virtually no recognition of the fact that the information had been specially prepared behind the Iron Curtain for their benefit. The political role of the intelligence services was ignored, and since the evidence of planning and coordination in the activities of the bloc was also overlooked, the growth of internal opposition movements and the eruption of disputes between communist states and parties were wrongly seen as spontaneous developments.
“. . . The evidence of evolution and splits in the communist world was so overwhelming in volume and so convincing in character that none could continue to question its validity. Acceptance in particular of the Sino-Soviet split as a reality became the common basis for all noncommunist attempts to analyze present and future policies and trends in the communist world. As a result Western perception of offensive communist intentions was blunted and the evidence of coordination in the execution of worldwide communist strategies was discounted.
“Because strategic disinformation was not recognized as such, Western views on internal developments in the communist world came increasingly to be shaped and determined by the communist strategists in the interests of their own long-range policy. In the Soviet Union the dropping of the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” and the introduction of market-orientated enterprises and other measures of economic reform seemed to presage a reversion toward capitalism. The gradual rise in living standards seemed to be taking the edge off the Soviet appetite for revolutionary change, generating new pressures on the regime to allow greater freedom and improve the supply of consumer goods. Apparent differences in the Soviet leadership between the liberal reformers and conservative ideologists on how to grapple with these pressures and reconcile the need for progress with lip service to ideology confirmed Western belief in the recurrence of power struggles, mainly behind the scenes but sometimes in the open, as in the case of Khrushchev’s dismissal. When the liberals appeared to have the upper hand, expectations were aroused of increasing cooperation between the Soviet Union and the West. Moderation in Soviet propaganda and expressions of interest in peaceful coexistence and businesslike negotiations seemed genuine, especially when compared with the implacable hostility of the Chinese. Occasional aggressive Soviet actions were attributable to the survival within the leadership of a group of die-hard Stalinists who had to be appeased from time to time by the liberal reformers. If the Stalinists were once more to regain control, detente would be reversed and there might be a Sino-Soviet reconciliation. The West therefore had an interest in strengthening the hand of liberal reformers. Provided they survived, there were prospects of an improvement in relations owing to the existence of common interests between the Soviets and the West in avoiding nuclear conflict and confronting Chinese militancy. In the long run the technological revolution offered prospects of a gradual narrowing of the gulf between the communist and non-communist systems.
“Such were the arguments of the 1960s. Despite the revival of neo-Stalinism toward the end of the decade, the arguments survived and gained weight until the later 1970s.
“The apparent opening up of cracks between the communist states was assessed as an encouraging development. The emergence of a range of different brands of communism seemed to show how ideology had lost its binding force. The rivalries between the communist states appeared rooted in traditional national sentiment. . . .
“To sum up, the apparent loss of revolutionary ardor, the apparent disunity in the bloc and movement, the apparent preoccupation of the communist states with fratricidal struggles, and the advent of détente all pointed to the same conclusion: The Cold War was over. The new situation seemed to demand accommodation and a positive response to communism rather than the old forms of resistance and containment. . . .
“The abandonment by the West of concerted policies toward the communist world led to changes in Western diplomatic practice. Personal contacts—including confidential talks—negotiations, and understandings between leading communist and noncommunist statesmen, even if initiated by the communist side, were welcomed in the West. A unilateral approach to relations with communist countries became the norm. General de Gaulle’s visit to Moscow in 1966 revived talk of the Franco-Russian alliance of the 1890s and the Franco-Soviet pact of the 1930s. The United States agreed to conducting the SALT negotiations with the Soviet Union on a bilateral basis. Regular bilateral political consultations between the Soviets and the French and Italian governments became accepted practice. In West Germany the argument for an opening to the East gathered strength and found expression in Chancellor Brandt’s Ost politik in the early 1970s. The Western response to China’s détente diplomacy appeared not to be concerted. There were conspicuous examples of failure to consult; for example, the Japanese were not warned by the Americans of the Nixon-Kissinger initiative in China in 1971; President Giscard d’Estaing gave his allies little or no notice of his meeting with Brezhnev in Warsaw in May 1980.
“The widening of the range of the contacts between communist diplomats and politicians in the noncommunist world was as warmly greeted as the widening of Western contacts with the communist world.
“With the advent of detente Western business interests pressed for the expansion of trade with communist countries. . . .
“Detente and disinformation on communist “evolution” provided grounds for socialist parties to view with greater favor the formation of united fronts with communist parties. Apart from improving the chances of socialists’ gaining power, united fronts looked like a promising device for influencing communist parties to move closer to social democracy and further from the Soviet Union. . . .
“Opposition to communism in principle became unfashionable. The basic differences between democracy and communism were lost from sight. It was considered more rewarding to seek out common interests through increasing East-West scientific, cultural, and sporting exchanges that, it was thought, would contribute to the liberalization of communist regimes. In the 1960s anticommunist writers virtually lost their admission tickets to the communications media; their attitude was deemed inimical to détente. . . .
“The success of the communist disinformation program has engendered a state of crisis in Western assessments of communist affairs and therefore a crisis in Western policy toward the communist world. The meaning of developments in the communist bloc is misunderstood and the intentions behind communist actions are misinterpreted. Enemies are accepted and treated as though they were allies of the West. The Soviet military threat is recognized, but the strategic political threat is not comprehended and is therefore underestimated. Communist political offensives, in the form of détente diplomacy and disarmament negotiations, are seen as indications of communist moderation. Communist strategy, instead of being blocked, is unwittingly assisted by Western policies. . . .
“. . . the communist strategists are now poised to enter into the final, offensive phase of the long-range policy, entailing a joint struggle for the complete triumph of communism. Given the multiplicity of parties in power, the close links between them, and the opportunities they have had to broaden their bases and build up experienced cadres, the communist strategists are equipped, in pursuing their policy, to engage in maneuvers and strategems beyond the imagination of Marx or the practical reach of Lenin and unthinkable to Stalin. Among such previously unthinkable strategems are the introduction of false liberalization in Eastern Europe and, probably, in the Soviet Union and the exhibition of spurious independence on the part of the regimes in Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. . . .
“If in a reasonable time “liberalization” can be successfully achieved in Poland and elsewhere, it will serve to revitalize the communist regimes concerned. The activities of the false opposition will further confuse and undermine the genuine opposition in the communist world. Externally, the role of dissidents will be to persuade the West that the “liberalization” is spontaneous and not controlled. “Liberalization” will create conditions for establishing solidarity between trade unions and intellectuals in the communist and noncommunist worlds. In time such alliances will generate new forms of pressure against Western “militarism,” “racism,” and “military-industrial complexes” and in favor of disarmament and the kind of structural changes in the West predicted in Sakharov’s writings. . . .
“The promotion of the former KGB chief [Andropov], who was responsible for the preparation of the false liberalization strategy in the USSR, indicates that this factor was decisive in his selection and further points to the imminent advent of such “liberalization” in the near future.
“The rise of Andropov fits into a familiar pattern whereby the former security chief becomes the party leader in order to secure the important shift in the realization of the strategy. Kadar, who introduced the so-called “liberalization” in Hungary; Hua Kuo-feng, under whom China shifted to “capitalist pragmatism”; and Kania, who initiated the Polish “renewal” and recognized Solidarity—all had been former security chiefs. This pattern reflects the crucial role of the security services in the “liberalization” of communist regimes. . . .
“. . . the “liberalization” will not be limited to the USSR, but will be expanded to Eastern Europe and particularly to Poland. . . .
“The coming offensive of the communist strategists will pursue the following objectives:
“• The establishment of a model government for Western Europe, which will facilitate the inclusion of the so-called Eurocommunist parties into government coalitions with socialists and the trade unions.
“• The dissolution of NATO and the Warsaw Pacts, the neutralization of Western Europe, and the Finlandization of Western Europe in general, through the advocacy of European collective security.
“• The provision of a broader basis and impetus for expansion of the antimilitary movement by a more active involvement of Catholics and other believers in the West, thereby forcing the United States into a disadvantageous disarmament.
“• Influencing the 1984 United States presidential election in favor of candidates who are more likely to deal with the leaders of the “liberalized” regimes in the USSR and East Europe and are more inclined to sacrifice the US military posture.
“The dialectic of this offensive consists of a calculated shift from the old, discredited Soviet practice to a new, “liberalized” model, with a social democratic facade, to realize the communist planners’ strategy for establishing a United Europe. At the beginning they introduced a variation of the 1968 Czechoslovakian “democratization.” At a later phase they will shift to a variation of the Czechoslovakian takeover of 1948.
“Developments have accurately confirmed the prediction that the communist strategists would undertake the political initiative on disarmament, particularly against West Germany. The trip of Gro-myko to Bonn, the invitation of social democratic opposition leaders to Moscow, and the statements of Andropov on missile concessions (made to influence the West German elections) are all clear indications of such a political initiative. As expected, the communist initiative revealed that its main target was the socialist parties. It also showed that there are elements in their leadership who are vulnerable to such an initiative, especially those in the West German social democratic party who have anti-NATO and anti US views, or who like Brandt and Sweden’s social democrat Palme are ready to embrace Rapacki’s idea of a nuclear-free zone in Central Europe. The initiative increased also the pressure on the US for concessions to the USSR. In the opinion of the author, however, the communist initiative has not yet reached its peak. How will the Western German social democrats respond when the communist regimes begin their “liberalization” by making concessions on human rights, such as easing emigration, granting amnesty for the dissidents, or removing the Berlin wall? One can expect that Soviet agents of influence in Western Europe, drawing on these developments, will become active. It is more than likely that these cosmetic steps will be taken as genuine by the West and will trigger a reunification and neutralization of West Germany and further the collapse of NATO. The pressure on the United States for concessions on disarmament and accommodation with the Soviets will increase. During this period there might be an extensive display of the fictional struggle for power in the Soviet leadership. One cannot exclude that at the next party congress or earlier, Andropov will be replaced by a younger leader with a more liberal image who will continue the so-called “liberalization” more intensively.”
Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear knows this is the truth. You can see the various predictions that have come true. And you can see, without me needing to explain it, how it ties into the present situation.
Lastly, the communist leaders have admitted their deception – we just haven’t paid attention. Mikhail Gorbachev, who presided over Glasnost (reeopening) and Perestroika (restructuring), for instance, wrote at length about the deception. He laughed at the West’s ignorance in assuming these programs meant the end of communism. In his book Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World, he wrote exactly what this Soviet-engineered “new thinking” is all about:
“The life-giving impetus of our great Revolution was too powerful for the Party and people to reconcile themselves to phenomena that were threatening to squander its gains. The works of Lenin and his ideals of socialism remained for us an inexhaustible source of dialectical creative thought, theoretical wealth and political sagacity. His very image is an undying example of lofty moral strength, all-round spiritual culture and selfless devotion to the cause of the people and to socialism. Lenin lives on in the minds and hearts of millions of people. Breaking down all the barriers erected by scholastics and dogmatists, an interest in Lenin’s legacy and a thirst to know him more extensively in the original grew as negative phenomena in society accumulated.
“Turning to Lenin has greatly stimulated the Party and society in their search to find explanations and answers to the questions that have arisen. . . .
“The concept of restructuring with all the problems involved had been evolving gradually. Way back before the April Plenary Meeting a group of Party and state leaders had begun a comprehensive analysis of the state of the economy. Their analysis then became the basis for the documents of perestroika. Using the recommendations of scientists and experts, our entire potential, all the best that social thought had created, we elaborated the basic ideas and drafted a policy which we subsequently began to implement. . . .
“I have long appreciated a remarkable formula advanced by Lenin: socialism is the living creativity of the masses. Socialism is not an a priori theoretical scheme, in keeping with which society is divided into two groups: those who give instructions and those who follow them. I am very much against such a simplified and mechanical understanding of socialism.
“People, human beings with all their creative diversity, are the makers of history. So the initial task of restructuring—an indispensable condition, necessary if it is to be successful—is to “wake up” those people who have “fallen asleep” and make them truly active and concerned, to ensure that everyone feels as the is the master of the country, of his enterprise, office, or institute. This is the main thing. . . .
“In the West, Lenin is often portrayed as an advocate of authoritarian methods of administration. This is a sign of total ignorance of Lenin’s ideas and, not infrequently, of their deliberate distortion. In effect, according to Lenin, socialism and democracy are indivisible. By gaining democratic freedoms the working masses come to power. It is also only in conditions of expanding democracy that they can consolidate and realize that power. There is another remarkably true idea of Lenin’s: the broader the scope of the work and the deeper the reform, the greater the need to increase the interest in it and convince millions and millions of people of its necessity. This means that if we have set out for a radical and all-round restructuring, we must also unfold the entire potential of democracy. . . .
“Perestroika means overcoming the stagnation process, breaking down the braking mechanism, creating a dependable and effective mechanism for the acceleration of social and economic progress and giving it greater dynamism.
“Perestroika means mass initiative. It is the comprehensive development of democracy, socialist self-government, encouragement of initiative and creative endeavor, improved order and discipline, more glasnost, criticism and self-criticism in all spheres of our society. It is utmost respect for the individual and consideration for personal dignity.
“Perestroika is the all-round intensification of the Soviet economy, the revival and development of the principles of democratic centralism in running the national economy, the universal introduction of economic methods, the renunciation of management by injunction and by administrative methods, and the overall encouragement of innovation and socialist enterprise.
“Perestroika means a resolute shift to scientific methods, an ability to provide a solid scientific basis for every new initiative. It means the combination of the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution with a planned economy.
“Perestroika means priority development of the social sphere aimed at ever better satisfaction of the Soviet people’s requirements for good living and working conditions, for good rest and recreation, education and health care. It means unceasing concern for cultural and spiritual wealth, for the culture of every individual and society as a whole.
“Perestroika means the elimination from society of the distortions of socialist ethics, the consistent implementation of the principles of social justice. It means the unity of words and deeds, rights and duties. It is the elevation of honest, highly-qualified labor, the overcoming of leveling tendencies in pay and consumerism.
“This is how we see perestroika today. . . .
“. . . The essence of perestroika lies in the fact that it unites socialism with democracy and revives the Leninist concept of socialist construction both in theory and in practice. Such is the essence of perestroika, which accounts for its genuine revolutionary spirit and its all-embracing scope. . . .
“Perestroika is closely connected with socialism as a system. That side of the matter is being widely discussed, especially abroad, and our talk about perestroika won’t be entirely clear if we don’t touch upon that aspect.
“Does perestroika mean that we are giving up socialism or at least some of its foundations? Some ask this question with hope, others with misgiving. . . .
“To put an end to all the rumors and speculations that abound in the West about this, I would like to point out once again that we are conducting all our reforms in accordance with the socialist choice. We are looking within socialism, rather than outside it, for the answers to all the questions that arise. We assess our successes and errors alike by socialist standards. Those who hope that we shall move away from the socialist path will be greatly disappointed. Every part of our program of perestroika—and the program as a whole, for that matter—is fully based on the principle of more socialism and more democracy. . . .
“More socialism means more democracy, openness and collectivism in everyday life, more culture and humanism in production, social and personal relations among people, more dignity and self-respect for the individual.”
After reading this, only a fool can believe the Soviets’ “restructuring” and “openness” were anything other than ploys to trick the easily-deceived ignoramuses in the West – those who don’t know a single thing about what communism is, what it wants, and how it operates.
I remind you that this admission of strategic deception was written in 1987, showing how pre-planned and contrived this Soviet-engineered Leninist revival really is. It should make people step back and reconsider the media lies they were fed when the Soviet dictator who presided over and instituted “Perestroika” and the Soviet “collapse” admits in writing that the entire purpose was to have “more socialism” in the world, “more collectivism in everyday life,” and to revitalize Leninism! Remind me again how “communism is dead. . .”
The Soviets have always self-evaluated and have changed tactics when necessary. They’re pragmatists. For these Satanic conspirators, the ends justify the means. They’ll present any false face, wear any outward disguise, make any high-minded promise, and do any underhanded and wicked act to achieve their goal. And what is their goal? The crest of the USSR tells us plainer than words can – a hammer and sickle over the globe.
As noted earlier, this “collapse” was pre-planned. Early on, the Soviets planned to launch “the most spectacular peace movement on record” and give “unheard-of concessions” to the “stupid and decadent” West. This was always in the cards. Gorbachev was simply the one installed to make it happen. And who told him to make it happen? That’s the real kicker.
It may surprise many to know that Mikhail Gorbachev did not concoct this plan. Neither did his political predecessors. Rather, all of these were operating on orders from a higher source. The source? Satan. You can choose to roll your eyes or discount the Devil’s existence or the extent of his influence, but I testify that Satan actively governs the nations and is very hands-on in the work of global oppression. But Satan is cunning – he doesn’t come in his own name, nor does he appear in a ball of fire with a gleaming pitchfork. Rather, he appears as an angel of light, the light-bearer, and a friend of humanity and progress.
The name Lord Maitreya is not known to many people, but it is known to the world Elite. Lord Maitreya is the leader of a group of disembodied evil spirits known as the Hierarchy or Brotherhood. Their followers are occultists. They’re found at the United Nations, in governments, in militaries, in private organizations, etc.
I call forth merely one corroborating account from a former U.S. diplomat named Wayne S. Peterson. He says that one of the Ascended Masters of Wisdom, which is what the members of the Hierarchy are called, appeared to him and he was instructed by him and was taught of Lord Maitreya. On one particular diplomatic trip, Peterson spoke of being introduced to a large group of world leaders whom, he was told, all knew of Lord Maitreya. His account reads:
“The monarch then explained that everyone in the room knew Maitreya and was cooperating with his mission, although their identities must be kept secret until Maitreya himself comes forward and speaks openly to the world.
“There was one individual, however, who made it clear he had no problem with the public knowing he had met the Christ. His name was Mikhail Gorbachev. . . .
“I was not surprised to learn this about Mr. Gorbachev, since I had heard much earlier of his involvement with Maitreya from a Pentagon official. I had also heard, from people I place much confidence in, that Mrs. Gorbachev had been to India several times to see the Avatar Sai Baba . . . From the freedom and openness [Gorbachev] introduced to the Soviet Union, it appeared obvious to me that he was being influenced by the Christ. Eventually, we will hear more of this story and how the Soviet empire collapsed.
“What I appreciate about this story is story is the sure knowledge that the Masters have already undertaken the task of offering important world leaders a role in the coming global changes and of preparing them for the Day of Declaration. These leaders, who are undoubtedly disciples of the Masters, will be working to promote the goals of the Spiritual Hierarchy” (Wayne S. Peterson, Extraordinary Times, Extraordinary Beings: Experiences of an American Diplomat with Maitreya and the Masters of Wisdom, 99-100).
Mass-murdering Soviet dictator Gorbachev was a follower of Lord Maitreya and was operating on his orders when he “collapsed” the Soviet Union! Numerous other household names could be placed on the list of Maitreya’s followers. Satan, parading as an angel of light, actively appears to the world Elite, giving them instructions for how to usher in a one-world government and one-world occult religion. The Apostle John wasn’t lying when he said the Dragon, Satan, is the one who empowers the beast system that is to seize control of the world and overcome the saints (Revelation 13).
Dear reader, communism is not dead. The Soviet Union did not fall. It’s planned “collapse” was political theater choreographed by demons and acted out by skilled conmen. Russia today is every bit as much on the dark side as the USSR was. It pretends to be a bastion of traditionalism and Christianity, but, having lived there, I can put that myth to rest with zero hesitation.
Vladimir Putin, a KGB operative and one of the conmen mentioned, has cleverly played his part, deceiving the nations. Putin openly lamented the dissolution of the Soviet Union as the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the last century, has invaded multiple nations, tampers in American society and politics, threatens NATO with nuclear war as a matter of habit, holds Europe hostage through their dependence on Russia’s natural gas, is allied with Iran, Turkey, China, and other tyrannical regimes, oppresses his own people, kills or imprisons his political opposition, and is a fake “Christian” who targets real Christian churches and leads gullible conservatives by the nose with polished rhetoric about his supposed faith and principles.
Those who believe Russia is an innocent victim, the democratic defender of picked-on peoples, or think Russia gets a bad rap, don’t have any clue and are blind to reality. They want Russia to be one of the good guys. They want Putin to be a true opponent to the New World Order. They want Russia to be a revivalist nation and a safe haven for Western values. But all of this is wishful thinking unsupported by facts. If only people would finally admit that the Soviet Union did not “collapse,” but faked its “fall” in order to fool the West and lull us to sleep in preparation for the final battle for communist world domination, the long-awaited “World October,” perhaps the scales would fall from their eyes and the truth would have a chance to enter their minds.
2. Russia is NOT Surrounded by NATO
One of the most prevalent and poppycock deceptions I see floating around is that poor ol’ Russia is surrounded by a threatening and hostile NATO. Have the people who repeat this stupidity looked at a map recently? Have they bothered to count Russia’s allies? Have they studied geopolitics for five minutes? I know geography isn’t most people’s strongest area, but I hope I can convince you that it’s an important factor in correctly analyzing world events.
When you look at a map, you realize that Russia is by far the largest nation on earth and is bordered by the following:
Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, China, and North Korea. Russia also shares sea “borders” with Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Iran, Turkmenistan, Japan, and the United States. The part of Russia that borders Poland is a small parcel called Kaliningrad and is not attached to Russia proper.
Let’s look at these countries more closely. Japan, North Korea, China, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Iran, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Finland are not NATO members. By my count, that’s eleven –the majority. Of the other ten that are NATO members, four of them – the United States, Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey – only share water “borders,” and one, Poland, doesn’t touch Russia proper. That’s hardly “surrounded” by NATO.
“But, but, but,” people splutter, “look at a map – NATO is hemming Russia in on its western flank!” Really? Hemming them in how? And from what? If Russia has no ambitions to expand westward, what is everyone so worried about? A major portion of the western border is the Ukraine – a country which Russia invaded in 2014 and is gradually consuming and turning into Russia proper. The other major part of the border is the extremely close ally Belarus.
Let’s talk about Belarus. Russia routinely conducts military war games in Belarus and in November conducted a snap combat drill there with its paratroopers. Unless I’m mistaken, isn’t that a provocation to NATO? But we must ask, why has Belarus been in the news lately? That’s right, because Russia has been using it to conduct hybrid-warfare operations against Poland and Western Europe. The specific action is to allow illegal immigrants to flood across Belarus’s border in an attempt to overload Europe and create humanitarian crises. Interestingly, the capital of Belarus is Minsk where the Minsk Accords were signed regarding Ukraine. Perhaps Russia’s and Belarus’s duplicity towards Poland should cast a shadow of doubt over their constant cries that NATO is violating the Minsk Accords in Ukraine (a falsehood we’ll discuss below).
Russia could easily use Belarus and Ukraine as buffer states, but, instead, they invade the one and use the other to stage operations against Poland and to house their soldiers. So, who is really provoking whom?
Not counting Poland, which only touches tiny Kaliningrad and doesn’t border traditional Russian territory, Russia only borders the small Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and the Scandinavian nations of Finland and Norway. Finland isn’t in NATO, but the others are. Let’s ask: Is Norway a threat? Hardly. Are the Baltic nations going to invade Russia anytime soon? Nope. Yes, Estonia does have NATO troops – which were invited in after Russia conducted sabotage operations against the nation and tried to orchestrate a coup. Again, how can anyone with honesty say NATO surrounds Russia or that Russia lives in fear of NATO aggression?
Let’s talk about Turkey and Iran. Turkey, though a member of NATO, is a de facto ally of Russia. Yes, Turkey is nationalistic and would love to return to its Ottoman glory days and generally plays to gain its own advantages, but it knows the realities on the ground and has curried favor with Russia. Ankara is also heavily dependent upon Russian oil and natural gas, importing approximately 50% of its gas from its northern neighbor. When push comes to shove, I highly doubt Turkey will be in NATO’s camp. They have too much to lose by ticking off Russia and too little to gain by standing should-to-shoulder with NATO during a conflict.
Additionally, in 2018, Russia, Turkey, and Iran held a joint summit, cementing their friendship and strengthening ties and pulling Turkey farther away from NATO. The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies observed at the time:
“Several threats have brought Iran, Turkey, and Russia together: the war in Syria; terrorism and extremism; and, to an extent, Kurdish separatism (Russia shares Ankara’s and Tehran’s concerns about this). Crucially, US pressure of varying degrees on each of the three powers serves as glue to promote their cooperation in resisting the liberal world order. The three seek to remake the world order as they no longer benefit sufficiently from post-Cold War arrangements. Each wants new space for balancing. . . .
“Significantly, the Russian, Turkish, and Iranian peoples all have a similar historical experience of anti-imperialist struggle. They believe “Eurasia” can provide an alternative to the West’s cultural, historical, political, and economic dominance.
“More importantly for smaller countries, the three also advance the concept of “regional ownership,” which prioritizes bilateral cooperation in regional problems without the involvement of third parties. In this way, Turkey and Russia pursued a shared vision in the Black Sea and cooperated in the South Caucasus following the Second Karabakh War. Efforts were made in Libya as well, and similar ideas were expressed (at least rhetorically) about the recent crisis between Israel and the Hamas organization.
“Iran has similar aspirations to Russia when it comes to the Caspian Sea. No foreign powers are allowed into the region, and smaller states with access to the Sea have to acknowledge Tehran’s and Moscow’s vital energy and security interests.
“The trio’s aspiration to sideline the West is visible in concrete initiatives. The Astana Talks are nothing but an attempt to advance an alternative vision to the Syrian problem. Similar attempts were made in the South Caucasus, when Turkey and Iran proposed and supported the idea of creating a regional pact on security and cooperation that has no place for the West.
“Russia has long aspired to better ties with Turkey and Iran. Even in the Soviet period, Moscow periodically attempted to advance a form of cooperation with those two countries that would exclude the West. Both states gradually emerged as pillars of Russia’s post-Soviet aspirations to construct a more active foreign policy in the Middle East and remold the existing world order. . . .
“This trend of finding common ground without formal obligations is characteristic of the post-unipolar world. Russia and China officially refuse to have an alliance—indeed, they claim an alliance would undermine their purportedly benevolent intentions toward one another. While much of this is just rhetoric to conceal the absence of any common cultural or otherwise important features necessary for a geopolitical alliance, this behavior is part of an emerging trend in which Eurasian states prefer maneuverability to the shackles of formal obligations.
“For Russia, intensive cooperation with Turkey and Iran is beneficial inasmuch as it provides leverage over the West and allows Moscow to solve critical problems in the Black Sea, Caucasus, and Caspian regions, as well as Syria. With that said, it is doubtful how much Russia wants Turkey to completely sever its ties with NATO. In a way, Turkey’s position as a member of the alliance—one that generates continuous intra-alliance tensions—benefits Russia more than an unshackled Turkey would. The latter scenario would ease NATO’s internal problems and perhaps even diminish Turkey’s importance in Russia’s geopolitical calculus.
“As far as Iran is concerned, Russia seeks to render the Islamic Republic dependent on its diplomatic clout. A long-term solution to Iran’s nuclear stalemate is the Kremlin’s least desired scenario. While it would allow Russian companies to penetrate Iran’s market, that market would also be opened up to more competitive Western enterprises. A closer interaction beyond the partnership is also not an option for Russia.”
In this analysis, Ankara plays for itself and is opportunistic. Be that as it may, the analysis also acknowledged that Turkey’s ties with Russia and Iran help “sideline” NATO’s agenda. Additionally, if we think of opportunism, then what I noted earlier about Turkey’s reliance on Russian energy is valid. However you slice it, Turkey isn’t a threat to Russia.
Indeed, since 2018, the three-way relationship has grown stronger. Even as Turkey and Iran both rise in respective power, they gravitate towards Russia, which is also reasserting itself. Like moons in the solar system, they find larger bodies to orbit. Russia doesn’t need to worry about its Turkish and Iranian borders in the slightest (as a fun side note, the Iranian Ayatollah was trained by the KGB and is little more than a Russian puppet).
What about the Baltic states? When the Soviets faked their “collapse,” they left behind members of the nomenklatura – the Soviet elite class – to take over. Sometimes, these agents feigned to be members of opposition or nationalist parties. In all cases, however, “former” communist members of the Kremlin-beholden nomenklatura came to power in the Soviet satellites. This includes Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
That said, the people in these three states largely hate Russia and remember being conquered and oppressed by the Soviet regime. Estonia particularly is staunchly anti-Russia. Of the trio, Lithuania is the weakest link. Russia, in fact, operates a railway that runs through Belarus, through Lithuania’s capital Vilnius (which I visited and is a nice city), and on to Kaliningrad. Russia also holds Lithuania’s economic fate in its hands by holding the threat of banning its exports or cutting of its gas supplies if it does not comply with its policies. This is not an idle threat; it’s happened before.
As a result of the legitimate, grassroots opposition to its schemes, Russia plans to forcibly conquer the Baltics again. In January, the Center for European Policy Analysis wrote about Russia’s hybrid-warfare campaign against Estonia:
“Russia uses considerably different weapons in its hybrid war against Estonia than against Ukraine or Belarus. The Kremlin’s efforts against Estonia are focused primarily on the country’s less-integrated Russian speakers and Estonia’s highly digitalized society. Russia backs these up with a steady military buildup and show of force in its Western Military District, which includes the Kaliningrad exclave to the west and borders Estonia to the east. Other tactics, such as massive money laundering through Nordic banks based in Estonia, are part of a much wider Russian pattern of using the West’s weaknesses to its own advantage. Massive flows of Russian money to European and off-shore banks – most of which are likely laundered considering the obscurity of the schemes and actors – serve not only the purpose of fulfilling the financial and personal interests of Russia’s leaders and oligarchs, but also of feeding corruption and manipulating Western countries.
“Russia’s non-conventional actions against Estonia have a long history, stretching back at least as far as a failed coup d’état attempt in Tallinn organized by the Soviet Union on December 1, 1924. Fifteen years later, the Soviet occupation and annexation of the Baltic countries in 1939-1940 finds echoes in Russia’s seizure of Crimea in 2014.
“The restoration of Estonia’s independence in August 1991 began a new battle in the Kremlin’s hybrid warfare against the country. Despite then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin’s generally democratic sympathies, Russia tried mightily to thwart the Baltics’ natural ambition to reunite with Europe and the trans-Atlantic community. The Kremlin repeatedly and falsely accused Estonia, since the early 1990s, on totally false grounds, of ethnic cleansing, “apartheid in white gloves” and the glorification of fascism. . . .
“While Russia is bulking up its military muscle on all fronts, its Western Military District has once again become, as in the Cold War, a clear priority. Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave is increasingly militarized, including weapons of blackmail such as Iskander missile systems and likely tactical nuclear weapons, meant to put its unfriendly neighbors on notice. The Baltic states are virtually doubly covered by Russian A2/AD (Anti-Access and Area Denial) protective domes from Kaliningrad, as well as the Leningrad and Pskov oblasts. The Russian navy (Baltic fleet) and air force are very active in or above the Baltic Sea, often violating the maritime boundaries and air space of other countries, including Estonia, and bedeviling ships and aircraft of NATO countries.
“Russia has recently conducted large snap exercises to gauge its combat readiness close to NATO territory. It also holds regular strategic-level exercises in its western reaches, including some with Belarus. The next large exercise will be Zapad 2021, probably in September.
“As opposition protests continue in Belarus, formally an ally of Russia, President Aliaksandr Lukashenka may soon have no choice but to submit to certain demands from the Kremlin in order to maintain his grip on power, even including deployment of Russian forces to and use of air bases in Belarus. That would set alarm bells ringing for NATO and the Baltics, because the roughly 65-mile (105-kilometer) distance from southeastern Kaliningrad to northwestern Belarus happens to be the Lithuanian-Polish border across the Suwalki Gap.
“With Russian troops at both ends, they would need only to cover a small stretch to meet in the middle and cut the Baltics off from their NATO and EU neighbors. Far from de-escalating, the Kremlin considers such military threats an effective political and psychological weapon against the West. The logic of a possible Russian aggression against the Baltic states is not necessarily, if at all, linked to them or the security situation in the Baltic and Nordic regions. It is about Russia willing to weaken and undermine NATO, and eventually use the opportunity to attack the weakest point in the Alliance’s posture. . . .
“. . . Russia’s willingness to sow strife among Estonia’s ethnic and linguistic groups, helps explain the Estonian government’s decision in 2007 to move a “liberator” statue of a Red Army soldier from the city center of Tallinn to a nearby cemetery. It also helps explain the protests, riots, and Russian cyberattacks that followed the decision.
“The events of the spring of 2007 revealed some truths about Estonian society, including that its Russian speakers were far from integrated into society, that official Russian propaganda could influence Estonia’s Russian minority, and that Russia would not hesitate to meddle in Estonia’s internal affairs given a chance. . . .
“The result was shows of support from Estonia’s allies and the international community while Russia refused to cooperate in the investigation and denied vehemently any state-level involvement. This practice of ‘plausible deniability’ is by now very well established – Russia continues to deny its direct role in e.g. the Ukrainian Donbas.
“The Russian government pretended that it retaliated against Estonia by severely cutting the oil and other goods it sent through Estonian ports, mainly Muuga and Tallinn, ostensibly in retaliation for moving the soldier memorial. Later, it became clear that the redirection of much of Russia’s maritime exports to the Russian ports of Ust-Luga and Primorsk, in the Gulf of Finland, was related not to the “Bronze Soldier” but to the business interests of members of President Putin’s inner circle.
“The spring 2007 cyberattacks were a kind of turning point. Russia showed that it was willing and able to wage hybrid warfare, while Estonia became the first country to mount a successful cyber defense despite facing a massive, surprise attack and lacking much experience in the field. Estonia soon became home to NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (CCD CoE), which had been planned before the 2007 attacks but gained some urgency because of them. . . .
“Russia’s principal tools of hybrid warfare against Estonia are undoubtedly its state-owned and specialized propaganda and disinformation channels. These include, as in the case of most other Western countries, the RT (formerly Russia Today) TV channel and the Sputnik news agency, news website, and radio broadcast (formerly Voice of Russia and RIA Novosti). These two Kremlin “news” brands, with nearly global reach and budgets that exceed the BBC’s, are Russia’s inverted versions of CNN and Voice of America/Radio Liberty. Just as the Moscow-led Eurasian Economic Union and the Collective Security Treaty Organization pretend to be analogs of and responses to the European Union and NATO.
“Estonia has a fairly large non-ethnic Estonian, mainly Russian-speaking minority, who make up about 27% of the population. That, together with its history and its border with Russia, makes Estonia an attractive target especially for other Russian state-owned TV channels. . . .
“The fight against Russian hybrid warfare, including propaganda and disinformation, is inherently asymmetric because Western governments cannot adopt Russia’s behavior and tactics, and the openness of Western democratic societies makes them more hospitable to bad-faith actors and more vulnerable to misinformation than Russia’s controlled information space. Western countries have to help their citizens become more aware of Russia’s aims and hybrid tools, including its subversive propaganda and disinformation.
“Finally, Russia’s money laundering and export of corruption undermine Western countries and societies. It makes little sense or impact to counter only Russia’s efforts in cyberspace and the media, or to try to limit European dependence on Russian energy without rooting out Russian money laundering and corruption.”
Russia gripes about the NATO “threat” in the Baltics, yet remains silent about its own subversion operations against the Baltic states! Whenever you hear someone say that NATO’s troops in Estonia threaten Russia, ask them about Russia’s 2007 operations that precipitated Estonia begging for a NATO presence.
Finally, I quote from a NATO document titled “Russia’s top five myths about NATO.” Number 1 on the list is the proposition that “NATO is trying to encircle Russia.” The document offers this rebuttal:
“Fact: This claim ignores the facts of geography. Russia’s land border is just over 20,000 kilometres long. Of that, 1,215 kilometres, or less than one-sixteenth, face current NATO members.
“Claims that NATO is building bases around Russia are similarly groundless. Outside the territory of NATO nations, NATO only maintains a significant military presence in three places: Kosovo, Afghanistan, and at sea off the Horn of Africa. All three operations are carried out under United Nations mandate, and thus carry the approval of Russia, along with all other Security Council members. Before Russia’s aggressive actions against Ukraine began, Russia provided logistical support to the Afghan mission, and cooperated directly with the counter-piracy operation, showing clearly that Russia viewed them as a benefit, not a threat.
“NATO has partnership relationships with many countries in Europe and Asia, as can be seen from this interactive map. Such partnerships, which are requested by the partners in question, focus exclusively on issues agreed with them, such as disaster preparedness and relief, transparency, armed forces reform, and counter-terrorism. These partnerships cannot legitimately be considered a threat to Russia, or to any other country in the region, let alone an attempt at encirclement.”
As I began, geography is important. A simple look at the map is enough to convince any right-thinking person that Moscow is lying – as usual. Even when Moscow tells the truth, it still lies, because it only tells the truth to further its agenda and harm the West. Communists are the master deceivers. Don’t buy their lie about NATO encirclement.
3. Russia is the Aggressor in Ukraine
In the not-too-distant past, Soviet Russia invaded and occupied Ukraine. Stalin’s henchmen later perpetrated a mass genocide against the Ukrainian people known as the Holodomor. Perhaps as many as 12 million perished due to forced famine and Satanic savagery. It was a real holocaust.
From the days of the Soviet occupation and the Holodomor, Russia has variously waged open or covert war against Ukrainians. Contrary to polls which claim that Ukrainians love Russia, most of the Ukrainians I met when I lived in Russia (I lived with two Ukrainians for half a year during my two-year stay) and when I twice visited Ukraine, weren’t terribly fond of Russia. Of course, Ukrainians in Eastern Ukraine hold a more favorable view, but Western Ukrainians are fiercely nationalistic and despise Russian aggression.
When the Soviet Union faked its “collapse” and withdrew from Ukraine, it fully intended to reclaim the state at a future date. They left behind caches of weapons and a significant population. Russia has at times dictated Ukrainian policy by influencing its governmental leaders. In 2014, it all boiled over into the current conflict. Just what happened in 2014?
Perhaps we’d better jump backward to 2013. In late 2013 to early 2014, Russia manipulated legitimately rising dissent among Ukrainians towards their government (I saw protestors camped in tents outside the presidential residence during my visits in 2007 and 2008). They used the situation to carry out a fake coup and install a new regime – similar to the fake “fall” of the Soviet government. Just like in the latter instance, Ukrainian security forces and intelligence services stood down and allowed the scripted event to play out on international TV.
When this scam was underway, Alex Jones and many of the biggest names in the conspiracy world alleged, based on a fake story that was never verified on the ground, that the United States or its proxies gave $5 Billion to foment war and bring about regime change in Ukraine. It was a rumor with no legs from the beginning. Thankfully, at least a few credible researchers, such as Joel Skousen, debunked the notion.
Credit where credit is due: Joel Skousen was one of the only analysts to correctly say at the time that Russia, not NATO, was behind the phony coup. Before Skousen published his analysis pegging Russia as the guilty party, I had been online telling folks that Russia was behind it and that Ukraine is Russia’s sphere of influence and NATO has virtually no power there. It was refreshing to be vindicated by one whose name carries some weight. Since then, I’ve had some disagreements with Mr. Skousen, but I’ll address those at a later date.
The bottom line is that Russia manipulated genuine dissent and carried out regime change. In the confusion, Putin marched into Crimea and annexed it. In a 2020 National Security Report by Jonathan Cosgrove titled “The Russian Invasion of the Crimean Peninsula 2014-2015,” we get this excellent summary of the Crimean invasion and annexation:
“In early 2014, the Russian Federation responded to the culminating Euromaidan movement in Ukraine by invading, occupying, and annexing Crimea. Acting without markings and accompanied by official denials from the Kremlin, Russian forces isolated and occupied Ukrainian political and military sites on the peninsula. Russia’s actions sparked a crisis much larger than that in Ukraine, with US leaders considering military responses, including “increasing military exercises, forward deploying additional military equipment and personnel, and increasing [US] naval, air, and ground presence,”1 all amid aggressive nuclear posturing from Moscow. Viewing Ukraine as a stage for its confrontation with the United States and Europe, Russia, in addition to the invasion, advanced nuclear messaging and threats meant to deter any intervention on behalf of Ukraine. . . .
“Even before Euromaidan, the autonomous Verkhovna Rada of Crimea (Supreme Council of Crimea) expressed opposition to association with the EU, and Russian NGOs in Crimea began advocating for the peninsula to hold a revised legal status relative to Ukraine and Russia. In response to Euromaidan, the Supreme Council expressed its support for the Yanukovych government, urging him to declare a state of emergency, and pro-Russian groups staged rallies in Simferopol supporting Ukrainian entry into the Eurasian Customs Union.61 However, Crimean support for Russia was not unanimous. The Muslim Crimean Tatar population and leadership opposed Russian activities on the peninsula, favored continued unity with Ukraine and association with the EU, and persistently protested and warned that Russia would annex the region—opposition that would later see the Crimean Tatar community oppressed under Russian occupation.
“As Euromaidan progressed, signals and measures around Crimea increased. These included public discussion of separatism and secession by local officials and Russian television broadcasts, meetings between local and Russian officials, the distribution of Russian passports, the spread of claims that a new government in Kyiv would threaten ethnic-Russian populations and restrict use of the Russian language (some Russian NGOs even citing the threat of “genocide”), the mobilization of “self-defense units” and Cossacks to patrol streets and erect checkpoints, and official deliberation and actions of local officials toward separatism and appeals to Russia.
“Although Russia clearly made preparations for a potential invasion and annexation, its decision to invade Crimea was directly responsive to the fall of the Yanukovych government. Recounting the events in a 2015 propaganda film, Putin said that on February 23 (one day after Yanukovych was officially removed from office) he “was speaking with colleagues and said, ‘Frankly, this is our historical territory and Russian people live there, they were in danger, and we cannot abandon them.’ . . . We never thought about severing Crimea from Ukraine until the moment that these events began, the government overthrow.”64 However, the Kremlin has alternatively said that the course of action was broached in December 2013, when the head of the Supreme Council of Crimea visited Moscow and said that, should Yanukovych fall, Crimea would be prepared “to join Russia.”
“On February 22, the same day Yanukovych was officially removed from office, Spetsnaz of the Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) were sent to Crimea to secure strategic Russian facilities. The next day, Russia announced new embargoes against food from Ukraine, but the military apparatus was also put in motion. Convoys of Russian military vehicles began approaching Crimea through the Russian city of Novorossiysk, the Russian 45th Airborne Special Forces and six Mi-8 helicopters were airlifted into Anapa near Crimea, and additional strategic airlift Il-76 aircraft were redeployed to the city. Russian armored personnel carriers also moved out from the base into the city, and pro-Russian protests in Sevastopol asserted that they had elected a new city leader—Russian citizen Aleksei Chaly. Russian members of parliament later arrived to offer Russian citizenship and passports, promising that should Crimea ask to join Russia, it would be addressed swiftly. On February 25, the Black Sea Fleet was put on alert, Russian troops arrived in the Crimean city of Yalta, and Gazprom announced it might increase gas prices for Ukraine.
“On February 26, while Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov reiterated a position of “principled non-intervention” in Ukraine,67 Putin ordered snap military exercises in western Russia, and a landing ship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet arrived in Sevastopol carrying two hundred special operations forces. On February 27, the border between mainland Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula was blocked by checkpoints, and fifty Russian special operators disguised as local self-defense forces took control of the Supreme Council of Crimea and other administrative buildings in Simferopol, erecting Russian flags above the buildings. Under armed occupation, the Crimean regional government was dissolved and reformed and passed a measure approving a referendum on the status of Crimea seeking greater autonomy from Ukraine. The ports in Sevastopol were blockaded, with Ukrainian Navy and Coast Guard vessels surrounded. Russian fighter jets were put on standby. Later that night, unmarked special operators surrounded Belbek air base, and convoys of Russian transport and attack helicopters moved into Ukrainian airspace over Crimea the next morning. The new Ukrainian government officially summonsed Russia’s diplomatic representation to explain the military movements, but responses were delayed. Major troop landings and movements between Sevastopol and Simferopol continued through February 28, including the seizure of Simferopol Airport), which in turn facilitated the insertion of more Russian forces. . . .
“On March 1, the Federal Assembly of Russia approved Putin’s request to use force in Ukraine to protect Russian interests, allowing for Russian forces to be utilized until the political situation in Ukraine normalized. That same day, Russian forces erected roadblocks and began digging trenches at the border with mainland Ukraine near Armyansk, secured control of the Kerch ferry port on the Ukrainian side of the Kerch Strait, and in Feodosiya besieged a Ukrainian base and blockaded the port with a Russian warship. On March 2, more Russian forces and vehicles traveled from Sevastopol to Simferopol, and Russian forces posted guards at the gates of a Ukrainian army base in Perevalne. Meanwhile the Federal Assembly began debating a law that would oblige the government to consider the annexation of any adjacent and predominantly Russian region that votes to join the country, and in a phone call with President Obama, Putin denied that Russia had used any force in Ukraine but said that if force were used, it would be a response to provocations by Ukraine.
“On March 3 the blockade and besieging of Ukrainian army and naval forces on the Crimean Peninsula escalated as Russian forces presented an ultimatum: denounce the new government in Kyiv and swear allegiance to the new Crimean government or be forced to submit. Russia denied the reports, and the Russian envoy to the United Nations (UN) claimed that Yanukovych (at the time still recognized by Russia as president of Ukraine) asked Putin in writing for the use of force in Ukraine. Russian ships and flagged tugboats continued to box in Ukrainian naval forces on the peninsula, and armed Russian troops took up posts outside Ukrainian bases in Sevastopol and Simferopol. The influx of Russian military hardware into the peninsula continued with the arrival of ten combat helicopters and ten strategic lift aircraft. Meanwhile pro-Russian demonstrators in eastern mainland Ukraine began occupying government buildings in protest of the new pro-Western administration in Kyiv, and Putin announced that he had allegedly ordered Russian forces exercising near the Ukrainian border to return to base.
“As the immobilization of Ukrainian forces continued and mobile phone service in areas of the country was disrupted, Putin denied on March 4 that the forces besieging Ukrainian troops in Crimea were Russian, instead identifying them as local self-defense forces. Russia’s ambassador to the UN displayed a photocopied letter allegedly signed by former president Yanukovych the same day, telling reporters it justified the movement of Russian forces into the peninsula. On March 6, the Supreme Council of Crimea, under new leadership, accelerated the time frame for the referendum on the status of Crimea and changed the question: rather than voting on greater autonomy from Ukraine, residents of Crimea would vote on accession to the Russian Federation, despite members of the body being barred from entering to participate in the vote. Russian lawmakers responded to the vote with promises to receive Crimea if the peninsula voted to leave in the referendum, as Russian military hardware continued to flow into the region and the first public ceremony swore in once-Ukrainian military personnel as members of the “Military Forces of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.” The sealing off of Ukrainian forces also continued, including the mixed use of soldiers and civilians armed with sticks and clubs to set up machine gun posts along a Ukrainian army landing strip in Saki, and the last military airstrip on the peninsula was under Russian control soon after, on March 9. That same day, Russian forces crossed into portions of mainland Ukraine adjacent to Crimea to set up minefields across the narrow corridor connecting the peninsula to the mainland. Ukrainian anti-aircraft forces in Yevpatoria were surrounded and ordered to surrender or face attack, and Russian troops captured a missile depot in Chornomorske.
“The Supreme Council of Crimea declared the peninsula’s independence from Ukraine on March 11, as the Russian Foreign Ministry pointed to the secession of Kosovo from Serbia as legitimizing precedent for the impending referendum. . . .
“The day after the referendum, Russia recognized Crimea as a sovereign state, and Crimean officials issued an appeal to be admitted into the Russian Federation with the status of a republic. An initial reunification treaty was signed the next day on March 18. Soldiers and demonstrators then stormed Ukrainian military bases across Crimea, including Ukraine’s naval headquarters in Sevastopol, killing an officer and arresting a Ukrainian admiral. Ukraine authorized soldiers to use their weapons defensively in response but later announced the withdrawal of its troops from the peninsula and the country’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth of Independent States.”
When you consult these facts, you understand that Russia’s entire narrative about Ukraine is a pack of lies, distortions, and more lies. Russia initiated the conflict, plain and simple. Russian military forces entered Ukraine; Ukrainian military did not enter Russia. Ukrainian territory was stolen and gained by Russia; Ukraine took no land from its northern neighbor nor attempted to. Ukraine’s government was overthrown; Russia’s was strengthened. Ukraine was put on a defensive footing in its own nation, with hostile foreign mercenaries lurking about and snipers shooting at people; Russia doesn’t have to worry about Ukrainian troops, mercenaries, or snipers snooping around southern Russia. Some 100,000 Russian troops and hardware are amassed on the Ukrainian border; Ukraine has no predatory buildup of troops on Russia’s border. We could go on like this for a while.
When a crisis happens, it’s good to ask “Cui bono?” or, in other words, “Who benefited?” Not always, but often, you will arrive at the proper conclusion by asking this simple question. And when we apply it to the Ukraine situation, we find only one actor that benefited – Russia. I think any intelligent person must admit that Russia began the conflict in 2013-2014 – not NATO.
Some compare Putin’s annexation of Ukraine to Hitler’s so-called annexation of Austria or Czechoslovakia or his liberation of Danzig. There are, however, only superficial similarities. In Austria, the local government called for a national vote on joining Germany. In a legitimate vote, 98% of the Austrian people elected to do so. Nothing comparable happened in Crimea. In fact, the vaunted referendum was, as you’ve just seen described above, quite underhanded and contrived. There’s almost no comparison between Hitler’s anti-Marxist Germany and Putin’s KGB-controlled Russia. But I digress.
What of the Minsk Accords that briefly brought about a cessation of fighting? Russia, ever pretending to be the white knight, claims that it has abided by the ceasefire (even while claiming it has no fighting men there – a clear contradiction) and that Ukraine – backed by NATO – has violated it, thus escalating the situation and portending war. Naturally, this is another Russian lie that their lapdogs in the West lap up.
Writing for CEPA, Kurt Volker debunked Russia’s bunkum about the Minsk Accords. It’s hard not to quote the entire article, it’s so good. But here are a few paragraphs and snippets covering Voker’s nine points:
“1. There are two Minsk Agreements, not just one. The first “Minsk Protocol” was signed on September 5, 2014. It mainly consists of a commitment to a ceasefire along the existing line of contact, which Russia never respected. By February 2015, fighting had intensified to a level that led to renewed calls for a ceasefire, and ultimately led to the second Minsk Agreement, signed on February 12, 2015. Even after this agreement, Russian-led forces kept fighting and took the town of Debaltseve six days later. The two agreements are cumulative, building on each other, rather than the second replacing the first. This is important in understanding the importance, reflected in the first agreement, of an immediate ceasefire and full monitoring by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), including on the Ukraine-Russia border, as fundamental to the subsequent package of agreements.
“2. Russia is a Party to the Minsk Agreements. The original Minsk signatories are Russia, Ukraine, and the OSCE. Russia is a protagonist in the war in Ukraine and is fully obliged to follow the deal’s terms. Despite that, however, Russia untruthfully claims not to be a party and only a facilitator — and that the real agreements are between Ukraine and the so-called “separatists,” who call themselves the Luhansk and Donetsk Peoples’ Republics (LPR and DPR), but are in fact Russian supplied and directed.
“3. The LPR and DPR are not recognized as legitimate entities under the Minsk Agreements. The signatures of the leaders of the so-called Luhansk and Donetsk Peoples’ Republics were added after they had already been signed by Ukraine, Russia, and the OSCE. They were not among the original signatories, and indeed Ukraine would not have signed had their signatures been part of the deal. There is nothing in the content or format of the Agreement that legitimizes these entities and they should not be treated as negotiating partners in any sense. Russia alone controls the forces occupying parts of eastern Ukraine.
“4. Russia is in violation of the Minsk Agreements. The deals require a ceasefire, withdrawal of foreign military forces, disbanding of illegal armed groups, and returning control of the Ukrainian side of the international border with Russia to Ukraine, all of this under OSCE supervision. Russia has done none of this. . . .
“5. Russian-led forces prevent the OSCE from accomplishing its mission in Donbas as spelled out in the Minsk Agreements. It is an unstated irony in Vienna — understood by every single diplomatic mission and member of the international staff — that Russia approves the mandate of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) in Ukraine when it votes in Vienna, but then blocks implementation of that same mission on the ground in Ukraine. . . .
“6. Ukraine has implemented as much of Minsk as can reasonably be done while Russia still occupies its territory . . . The Minsk Agreements do not require Ukraine to grant autonomy to Donbas, or to become a federalized state. It is Russia’s unique interpretation that the measures passed by Ukraine are somehow insufficient, even though the agreements do not specify what details should be included, and Ukraine has already complied with what is actually specified to the degree it can.
“What is lacking in Ukraine’s passage of these political measures is not the legislation per se, but implementation — which Russia itself prevents by continuing to occupy the territory. For example, international legal norms would never recognize the results of elections held under conditions of occupation, yet that is exactly what Russia seeks by demanding local elections before it relinquishes control. . . .
“7. Some form of neutral peacekeeping or policing force could help bridge between Russian control and Ukrainian control of the occupied territory – but Russia has rejected such proposals. Because of the impossibility of Ukraine implementing political measures while Russia still occupies its territory, the United States — as well as Ukraine, with support from others —proposed deployment of an UN-mandated peacekeeping force to Donbas, so that Russian forces could withdraw, and an UN-backed force could deploy, without an immediate hand-over to Ukrainian control . . . Russia, however, has consistently rejected such proposals, even labeling an UN-supported peacekeeping force a “military takeover” of the region, when of course it is Russia that has actually taken over the region militarily and unilaterally.
“8. The US diplomatic role is essential. . . .
“9. The only way to end the war is to change Russia’s calculations. Whether it is peacekeeping or police forces to provide local security; elections under international supervision; creating humanitarian corridors respected by all sides; unfettered freedom of movement for the OSCE’s SMM; or other ideas still to be explored, there is nothing preventing implementation of the Minsk Agreements other than Russia’s continued occupation. As soon as Russia chooses to end the war, the rest follows in swift order.”
I implore you, dear reader, to stop believing Russia’s lies! As the aggressor, Russia spins everything to justify its behavior as defensive or noble or humanitarian. In fact, what they’re doing is invading and taking over a sovereign nation – a nation it has oppressed for a century. Ironically, it is Russia that most frequently brings up the Minsk Accords. I say we indulge them and take them to task about their repeated violations of the Accords.
Furthermore, in December 2015, after the Minsk Accords were signed, Russia conducted cyberattacks against Ukraine, causing mass power outages affecting 230,0000 Ukrainians. It was the first time that cyberattacks had been used to take down a power grid – the very scenario the world Elite are currently warning about/threatening. They say it will be a cyber “pandemic” dwarfing the Coronahoax.
An article gives us the scoop on the 2015 cyberattacks on Ukraine:
“The attackers were especially clever and thought of everything, even launching a telephone denial-of-service attack against customer call centers to prevent customers from calling in to report the outage.
“A cybersecurity expert from Dragos Security quoted in this 2016 Wired article, said the hack “was brilliant” and that “in terms of sophistication…what makes sophistication is logistics and planning and operations and…what’s going on during the length of it. And this was highly sophisticated.” He added: “What sophisticated actors do is they put concerted effort into even unlikely scenarios to make sure they’re covering all aspects of what could go wrong,” he says.
“Per Kaspersky, BlackEnergy – the Trojan used in the Ukraine attack – began circulating in 2014. It was deployed specifically to conduct DDoS attacks, cyber espionage and information destruction attacks – and especially companies in the energy industry and those that use SCADA systems.
“The attack on the Ukranian power grid is still considered one of the worst intrusions ever. And the case may not be closed just yet…
“As stated upfront, almost immediately following the attack the Ukrainian government blamed Russia. Until very recently, no one has been officially accused.
“On October 15, 2020, a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh (PA) returned an indictment charging six hackers, all of whom were residents and nationals of the Russian Federation (Russia) and officers in Unit 74455 of the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU), a military intelligence agency of the General Staff of the Armed Forces, also known as “Sandworm”.
“The very same group may also be responsible for another massive attack, NotPetya, which caused nearly $1 billion in losses.
“Sandworm may also be responsible for a series of cyber attacks intended to impact the now delayed 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo.”
Russia, China, Iran, and their allies, run extensive cyberattack and cyberhacking operations against the West and against anyone who gets in their way. You can be sure that Russia and China will strike the United States before or at the outset of any future war, eviscerating our grid. In fact, Army Secretary Christine Warmouth recently warned that any war in Taiwan would lead to cyberattacks here at home that will specifically target critical infrastructure, transportation, and the power grid.
An EMP strike would do similar damage to a massive cyberattack and would blast us back to the 1800s. The world Elite may also perpetrate a false-flag grid attack or terrorist attack, blaming it on Iran or another actor and justifying a war. Regardless, this incestuous, Satanic global cabal is the one responsible for the fractious fissures in society, is the one playing the nations off each other, and is the impetus behind the misery, wars, depressions, and plagues we’re forced to endure.
Comparing our own fragile U.S. grid to Ukraine’s, a 2016 Wired article informed us:
“The power wasn’t out long in Ukraine: just one to six hours for all the areas hit. But more than two months after the attack, the control centers are still not fully operational, according to a recent US report. Ukrainian and US computer security experts involved in the investigation say the attackers overwrote firmware on critical devices at 16 of the substations, leaving them unresponsive to any remote commands from operators. The power is on, but workers still have to control the breakers manually.
“That’s actually a better outcome than what might occur in the US, experts say, since many power grid control systems here don’t have manual backup functionality, which means that if attackers were to sabotage automated systems here, it could be much harder for workers to restore power.”
Brace yourself for a coming grid-down event. It’s coming. It’s going to be deliberate. And it’s going to rock society to its foundations. I again digress, but recommend you read two articles I’ve written on survival and preparedness, found here and here.
Finally, setting aside Russia’s myriad violations of the Minsk Accords, I want to make one final point regarding Russian aggression. People are making a big hoopla about Republican Senator Roger Wicker’s comment saying a nuclear preemptive strike against Russia is on the table. Specifically, the Mississippi senator said:
“Military action could mean that we stand off with our ships in the Black Sea, and we rain destruction on Russian military capability. It could mean that. It could mean that we participate, and I would not rule that out, I would not rule out American troops on the ground. We don’t rule out first use nuclear action.”
While I admit it was a rash comment – and a strategically idiotic thing to say since no intelligent person telegraphs his plans to the enemy – this is the same exact thing Russia does constantly. Where is the ire from the pundits when Russia insanely threatens nuclear war on a routine basis? In every year of my life since I began studying communist Russia, Russia has threatened NATO or the United States with nuclear war. Russian generals, politicians both retired and current, and even KGB dictator Putin himself, have all incessantly threatened us with nuclear war. In 2015, Russia threatened little ol’ Denmark with nuclear war! Russia’s nuclear warnings are so frequent that Pentagon weapons expert Mark Schneider has said: “Threatening people with nuclear weapons is Russia’s national sport.”
Russia isn’t the only one that dishes out nuclear threats like insults in a rap battle. China does as well. In January of 2021, China threatened Taiwan and the United States with “war” and “annihilation.” In June, Red China again threatened the U.S. Army and U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) with “total annihilation” if they dared defend Taiwan from their planned invasion. In August, China threatened “all-out war” against the United States and to “wipe out” U.S. forces if U.S. troops were confirmed to be stationed on Taiwan, which they now are in limited numbers. In September, the regime threatened Australia with nuclear war for joining the AUKUS alliance. And so on.
The only reason most people don’t know about these maniacal threats from Russia and China is because the complicit, turncoat media doesn’t report on them. Yet, they exist and are the ultimate provocations from nations pretending to be innocent of aggression. Not two weeks ago, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov warned that Russia may deploy tactical nuclear weapons to Europe if NATO didn’t end its alleged eastward expansion – i.e. in Ukraine. Russia says it won’t deploy them, however, if NATO stops its so-called “aggression.” This psychotic, criminal behavior is like the mob threatening to burn down your store if you don’t pay them a percentage of your profits. They are the aggressors and no one can deny that.
As I close this point and wrap up my article, I feel that a bleak warning from a Soviet bio-chemical weapons expert turned is in order. Igor Shaffid converted to Christianity from communism and wrote an intriguing book called Inside the Red Zone. He talked about the demonic nature of communism and how Satan is using Russia and China as weapons in his war against humanity. Heed his warning:
“Anti-Christian regimes know that faith can protect a free will and a sound mind. That is why Lenin feared religious belief. Religion was not an opposition to his communist ideology; locking up a church door was effective enough, but faith rooted in the heart spread like wildfire, and that worried him. How could he get a society to worship him if they loved God more? This is why he called them “believers” and strove hard to stop those who preached the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. Religion is never a threat, but relationship is. Lenin knew that people’s minds founded in faith and dedicated to Christ Jesus would be hard to conquer. . . . “Mind control is a great terror weapon bludgeoning today’s churches . . . Phony religious leaders use similar tactics to control assemblages within churches, as did . . . Stalin. “The worst mistake a Christian can make is in believing that all churches are safe zones. Not so. In Soviet Russia the government used churches to validate their constitution’s “freedom of religion,” using pastors hired by the KGB as a guise to fool the people. True believers were beaten and imprisoned, and few citizens were made aware of this. “The numerous false doctrines spreading across the world, and the extra-biblical, esoteric experiences that are introduced with these “new” revelations are a great preparatory tool for mass mind manipulation. This kind of seduction works well because feelings are involved. Forming an anti-christ government cannot be accomplished without mind control, and the church is the first to be targeted. . . .
“. . . When the nations fight against the antichrist army, they won’t be reverting to outdated sabers and cannons. Nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare are the advanced weapons of this age, and it would not seem plausible that these weapons would be ignored during the great tribulation time. . . .
“We should never become complacent. There are enough WMDs developed now to destroy this world, but Satan has not yet succeeded in his mission. There is unfinished business between him and God, and he plans on taking as many onto his side as he can.
“How can he effectively get humankind to bow before him? Force and bullying hasn’t worked too well in the past, but he knows his most ingenious plan will work, and he has been perfecting it and bringing it to completion for hundreds of years. Deceptive love, false promises of peace, and mind control are his greatest tools in this plan. How does he accomplish this deception? By fooling people, of course, into thinking they can live in a good and peaceful world without wars or famine or terrorism. His devoted followers have pushed his deceptive agenda by participating in elite societies, clubs and orders – all of these different groups united secretly to bring about this socialistic new world order. . . .
“When Satan’s real mask is removed at the end of time, then he will be exposed for what he is, the father of lies. Many nations will become confused and start fighting against him during the Battle of Armageddon. Satan’s evil that prompted humankind to develop the WMD will come in handy for him to destroy God’s creation. He knows that an ungodly nation that harbors nuclear/biological/chemical weapons, such as Russia, China, and North Korea, are excellent candidates for using this weaponry as a “power” to horsewhip other nations under their submission. I remember all too well in the Soviet army how I reveled in the fact that my country had so much power over all the other nations. Let us not be naïve; those thoughts are still alive in the Russian Federation. That is why the Russian military recently started refreshing its new generation of ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles), which have been lying in stockpiles for years, and have been placing them inside strategic controlled areas. Those that fight to do away with weapons of mass destruction will not succeed, because no one nation will give up its place for power – and the Day of Wrath will come, and nuclear war will be inevitable” (Igor V. Shafhid, Inside the Red Zone: Physical and Spiritual Preparedness Against Weapons of Mass Destruction, 83-85, 160-163).
Yes, nuclear war is inevitable. I doubt it will happen as a result of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, which I believe will happen some time before the final nuclear struggle. I believe that struggle will break out in Asia, either as a result of war in Taiwan or on the Korean Peninsula. At any rate, the world is a powder keg and your insane not to quickly prepare for world war and societal collapse. It’s coming, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow.
In summation, Russia is engaged in an epic propaganda campaign to justify its hostility against Ukraine and NATO. In the first place, we must acknowledge that the “fall” of the Soviet Union was a ruse and that the communist conspiracy still rules in Moscow and throughout the world and that Russia and China will be used to expand this evil empire across the entire globe. Second, we must dismiss the lie that NATO surrounds Russia and is hemming them in, causing them to react to us. It’s the other way around – NATO’s moves are in reaction to Russian aggression and hybrid warfare against the Baltics states and Ukraine. Third, we must never lose sight of the fact that it was Russia which invaded Crimea, occupied it, and annexed it. It was Russian mercenaries who initiated war against Ukraine. And it is Russian forces which are now amassed on Ukraine’s border which have again brought Ukraine to the front of the news cycle. When war comes, it won’t be NATO’s fault – it will be KGB dictator Vladimir Putin’s fault.
December 29, 2021