Showing posts with label Stratfor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stratfor. Show all posts

Friday, 13 March 2015

America's plan for Russia revealed

Stratfor report indicates America is working on a scenario of partitioning of Russia

Запад начал разработку сценария раздела России под выборы 2018


Запад начал разработку сценария раздела России под выборы 2018
Fort Russ,
12 March, 2015

Translated by Kristina Rus


A man like Putin: by 2018, each region will need their own Vladimir Vladimirovich.

On February 28 Stratfor posted a very interesting document - Decade Forecast:2015-2025.


"Stratfor" is "Strategic Forecasting Inc.", also known as the "shadow" or "private CIA" engaged in a highly profitable business of collecting, evaluating and forecasting information. "Statfor" was founded in 1996 in Austin, Texas, by George Friedman, a former professor of political science, who is now the director of the organization. Today the audience of the company is 300 thousand paid subscribers and over two million free subscribers.


Among them - Coca-Cola, which gets advice about the stability of the situation in China on the eve of the Olympic games in Beijing; the corporation "Northrup Grumman" interested about the possibility of Japan obtaining nuclear weapons; "Intel", asking about the presence of Hezbollah in Latin America and their likelihood to carry out terrorist acts, the owner of hotel chain "Radisson"; looking for the end date of the offensive of militant Islamist groups. Also the services of Stratfor are used by "Goldman Sachs", "Merrill Lynch", US marine corps and Georgetown University. Each pays 20 thousand dollars a year to get their hands on a tailored confidential information.


However, Friedman has more serious clients, namely the U.S. State Department, Pentagon, and the large global financial oligarchy standing behind them.


It is easy to figure out, connecting Stratfor's predictions with the subsequent actions of the government and the U.S. army.


Thus, on March 27 (2014- SMR), George Friedman published an article titled "American strategyafter Ukraine: from Estonia to Azerbaijan". There, among other points, particular focus was on the military strategy of the United States against Russia after the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis. In particular, Friedman rightly argued that at this point in time, NATO is not able to wage war against the Russian Federation due to the long stretch of its Western front line and the length of communications for the supply of food, fuel and ammunition for the battle units.


The solution for this problem Friedman proposed by moving military bases directly to the Russian border at several points, as the only possible condition for full deployment of a punitive campaign against Russia, which is rapidly getting out of control of the United States.


And, by the end of the year, this process took place in reality.


So, in mid-December of last year for several days the skies were closed over Zaporozhye, Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk, and witnesses reported that a large number of transport aircraft, the type of "Hercules" and others landed in Ukrainian airports, bringing the equipment, vehicles and troops, consisting mainly of soldiers of private military companies. The numbers mentioned were about the size of a division from 10 to 15 thousand people, mostly mercenaries from PMC "Academi" (until 2009 it was called Blackwater, owned by Eric Prince, executing orders from the Pentagon).


Previously they were already seen in Donetsk, later in Mariupol. A secret NATO base was set up in Kharkov oblast: already much has been transported by land, the masks were off and airplanes were involved. Military experts pointed out that some of the equipment and troops was moved from a military base in Hungary near Debretsen. Previously on the territory of Ukraine trains were seen with American armored vehicles, among which were BMPs Bradley, BTRs Stryker and Hummers.


Therefore, the publications of "Stratfor" should be taken seriously.


The document before us is a geopolitical forecast for the next ten years, describing the future of all continents. I will not go into all the details - it has already been done by many analysts.


I will focus on key phrases and what I read between the lines. The article clearly articulates the strategic objective of establishing administrative control over Russia by way of its fragmentation - federalization. Here is a quote:


"To the West from Russia, Poland, Hungary and Romania will try to return the regions once lost in the battle with the Russians. They will attempt to annex Ukraine and Belarus. In the South, Russia will lose the ability to control the North Caucasus; Central Asia will begin to destabilize. In the North-West, Karelia will try to return to Finland. In the Far East the coastal regions will start to conduct an independent policy, more associated with Japan, China and the United States, than with Moscow. Other regions will not necessarily seek autonomy, but may get it against their will. Main idea: there will not be a revolt against Moscow, on the contrary, the weakening Moscow will leave a vacuum. In this vacuum the separate fragments of the former Russian Federation will exist.


[Wait, is he talking about Ukraine!? - KR]


This will lead to a major crisis in the next decade. Russia possesses a vast nuclear arsenal, scattered across the country. The decline of the Moscow power will raise the question of control over these missiles and about how to guarantee restraint from their application. This will be a huge challenge for the United States. Washington is the only power, that can solve this problem..."


[So, America throws all its might to destabilize Russia, the end result of which will be loose nukes - Bravo! - KR]


Next, "Stratfor" talks about a necessity to create a stable and economically sustainable government in the nuclear regions, in order to neutralize the missiles by non-military means.


[Only America, the policeman of the world, can be a responsible owner of nuclear weapons - KR]


In the final part of the study the private intelligence agents laid down the fundamental principle of the American doctrine in relation to Russia:


"The US has entered the Cold war early, and (at least in Europe) did not suffer any losses. This is the guiding principle of the American foreign policy, brought almost to perfection: if a hegemon emerges in Europe [I can tell they are fans of Brzezinsky - KR], the US intervenes as early as possible, as during the Cold war, building alliances and positioning troops on the main defensive positions. Now this is done in relation to Russia. <...> The Americans will try to build a system of alliances, parallel to NATO, from the Baltic States to Bulgaria, and engage as many countries as possible. They will try to lure Turkey into the union and stretch it to Azerbaijan. The troops will be send to these countries in proportion to threats."


[Imagine if Russia tried to enter into military unions with Canada and Mexico? - KR]


The State Department is well aware that under Vladimir Putin the task of federalization is not feasible, as all rehearsals and attempts of Maidan were ineffective and did not find support in society. In addition, the effectiveness of security forces that provide physical order in the capital is undeniable.


Therefore the main task now is to implement technologies of soft power, which include attempts to undermine the economy, the formation of anti-government public opinion through mass media, organizing round tables and conferences, work at universities and nudging the authorities in the provinces to gain more independence from Moscow.


"Stratfor" writes about this: "Given the structure of the Federation, in which profits from exports go first to Moscow, and only then are redirected to local governments, the regions receive a very different amount of this profit. This will lead to the repetition of the Soviet experience in the 1980's and the 1990's, when Moscow has lost the ability to maintain state infrastructure. All this will cause the regions to seek solutions independently, forming formal and informal autonomous associations. Economic ties between Moscow and the periphery will weaken."


Now let us remember that the first public statement after the accession to the post of mayor of Yekaterinburg, Yevgeny Roizman, concerned "injustice that the money goes first to Moscow and then is distributed", and subsequently a group of people close to Roizman held protests under the slogan "Stop feeding Moscow". Among the protesters great activity was shown by young people from a foreign agent-NGO "Golos" ("Voice"), headed by the famous "color revolution technologist" Marko Ivkovich from Serbia, who was banned from entering Russia by FSB in 2012.


The fact is, in Russia the vertical of power now ends at the post of a governor, which allows municipalities to implement policies, different from the state, to form their own budgets controlling a city, using large funds to protect their business with security forces and mass media. At the start of the reform of local self-government, which should continue the vertical of power to the cities, the described system will be broken, and the American diplomats will capitalize on the resistance of local "princelings".


[Not always will a region flourish if it is given more authority from the center. Instead the inherent culture of corruption in Russia may flourish under such arrangement, which will please Russia's enemies. But of course local authorities will always demand more power and more control over financial flows - KR]


A key objective of the US is to beat Vladimir Putin at 2018 election, for which the entire arsenal of available technologies will be engaged - marches, lowering of oil prices, political killings - we may likely see, for example, the general director and owner of the anti-Russian TV channel "Dozhd" ("Rain"), Natalia Sindeeva, shot with a bullet with minted initials of Vladimir Putin. History teaches us that often after a strong ruler comes a weak one, and Americans are well aware of it!


An important role, as conceived by the US, is given to the young generation born in 2000, who will turn 18 in 2018, and who had never lived without Putin. Who will they vote for? They did not, as the author of these lines and most of their readers, witness the bloody shoot-outs and cars exploding on the streets in the 90's, total racketeering of business, pervasive corruption, deliberate destruction of industry, agriculture, army, non-payment of salaries for several months. Today in universities they are told romantic stories about the "real freedom" of that era, although it is appropriate to call it a time of chaos and anarchy. However, in certain ways they are synonymous with the concept of freedom.


In case US looses the next election for the President of Russian Federation, a special tool is prepared: actions of disobedience will take place across the regions, and their exit from the Russian Federation will begin, writes "Stratfor". Rostislav Ishchenko, president of the Center for System Analysis and Forecasting, in his article "It rips at the weakest spot" rightly notes: the revolutionaries in Yekaterinburg don't even have to storm anything. The municipal authorities already are infiltrated with American collaborators, and the government of the region will not be able to immediately react - it is extremely passive and does not have the political will, and its staff consists of the officials who are keen to outlive one governor after another.


What should be our next steps?


First, we need absolute unification of the country, all the people - around the President and commander-in-chief. I am convinced, that the course taken by Vladimir Putin is completely justified. It assumes full sovereignty in all spheres of life, the priority of the interests of Russia as a determinant of state strategy, productive, mutually beneficial cooperation with countries in Latin America and Asia, uniting them around Russia as a new pole of power on Earth. This course is implemented competently, firmly and consistently, and also accurately. We must strongly support it, thwarting any attempts to split the society from the President by the liberals from the fifth column.


Secondly, the authority of the FSB, whose job is to defend the constitutional rights of citizens and territorial integrity of the state, containing anti-Russian activity, today is clearly lagging behind the demands of the time and the situation in the state, as well as the laws that ensure their authority.


I am talking about such precedents as activities of the notorious member of the Ekaterinburg City Duma and a friend of Yevgeny Roizman - Konstantin Kiselev. Professor of the Institute of Philosophy and Law of the Ural State University visited the U.S. and Kiev, lectured on "the utility of" Maidan and positively noting the "contribution" of Yarosh and Turchinov into "the building of the Ukrainian nation", and even prepared an online conference with the leader of the "Right Sector" in Yekaterinburg.


In this situation, the power structures of Ekaterinburg looked completely toothless: formally no existing article of the criminal code of the Russian Federation applied to the activities of the "political scientist". If Professor Kiselev called for direct appeals to overthrow the government and seize government buildings or promoted fascism - he could be subjected to the article for extremism, but smart and cautious MP never allowed himself to go that far. Each student, whom the liberal teacher pushed to the "right" frame of thinking, had to make the last step on his own and arrive at the desired conclusion. And the unauthorized contacts with foreign diplomats and agents of Western intelligence, positive coverage of color revolutions, is not a reason to start investigation under the current laws.


Numerous conductors of implementation in Russia of Western values continue their work - "RPR-Parnas", "Progress Party", "Civic platform", "Yabloko", non-profit organizations "Memorial", "Voice", "The Sakharov's Center", which this way or another are involved in the preparation of anti-government marches and destabilization of the population, undermining the image of the government, and numerous liberal media supporting them, distorting reality, causing panic. Their activities should be stopped.


If we take the example, as demanded by the liberals, from the United States of America, there after the September 11 terrorist attacks the authority of security structures was expanded. May be it's our turn? Vladimir Putin has long been waiting for the public opinion to ripen. We already have a full "set" - preparation of color revolutions, assassinations, corruption and the coalition with Americans at local levels. Enough signals to act.


In reality, if we are to withstand the destructive forces, then at a minimum, we should not be weaker. If our special agencies will concede, we will lose in the struggle, and the CIA has historically always been stronger, almost unlimited in their scope of work and generously funded.


We need new legislative initiatives, including the introduction into the criminal code of definitions of activities of the fifth column. Together with public institutions, it is necessary to define appropriate measures of deterrence and punishment.


And the third and main conclusion, we need to start thinking about how to form a new generation of patriotic politicians at all levels of government. Already the US is trying to install their people at key positions. They need to be pushed out, but we need the human resources, and they need to be selected and educated.


To bet the political success only on Vladimir Putin, first of all, puts an enormous strain on him, and secondly, poses a security threat to him personally. We need to appoint its own Putin to each region and municipality, and then any attempts to overthrow the President will lose sense - because his course will be clearly planned and steadily continued at each level.


Our main motto should be: "Today we are all Putin".

Запад начал разработку сценария раздела России под выборы 2018

Запад начал разработку сценария раздела России под выборы 2018
Такого, ка


http://politrussia.com/control/takogo-kak-putin-960/



Такого, как Путин: к 2018 году каждому региону нужен будет свой Владимир Владимирович.


28 февраля на сайте rstratfor.com был выложен весьма интересный документ - Decade Forecast: 2015-2025

"Стратфор" - это компания «Strategic Forecasting Inc», также известная как "теневое" или "частное ЦРУ" и занимающаяся весьма прибыльным бизнесом по сбору, оценке информации и прогнозированию. "Статфор" был основан в 1996 году в Остине, штат Техас, Джорджом Фридманом, бывшим профессором политических наук, который и сейчас является директором организации. Сегодня аудитория компании - это 300 тысяч платных абонентов и свыше двух миллионов бесплатных подписчиков.

Среди них - «Coca-Cola», которой они дают консультацию о стабильности ситуации в Китае в преддверии Олимпийских игр в Пекине, корпорация «Northrup Grumman», интересующаяся о возможности получения Японией ядерного оружия, «Intel», спрашивающая о присутствии представителей движения «Хизбалла» в Латинской Америке и их склонности к проведению террористических актов, владелец сети отелей Radisson, выведывающий дату завершения выступлений воинствующих исламистских групп. Кроме них услугами Stratfor пользуются «Goldman Sachs», «Merrill Lynch», корпус морской пехоты США, Джорджтаунский университет. Они платят от 20 тысяч долларов в год, чтобы получить в свои руки индивидуально подобранную конфиденциальную информацию.

Однако, судя по всему, есть у Фридмана клиенты и посерьезней, а именно американский Госдепартамент, Пентагон, и стоящий за ними крупный мировой финансовый олигарха.

Понять это несложно, лишь уложив в единую картину связь их прогнозов с последующими действиями правительства и армии США.
Так, 27 марта Джордж Фридман опубликовал статью под названием "Американская стратегия после Украины: от Эстонии до Азербайджана" -https://www.stratfor.com/…/estonia-azerbaijan-american-stra…. В ней среди других тезисов особо ярко звучал тот, который определял военную стратегию США против России после начала украинского кризиса. В частности, Фридман совершенно справедливо утверждал, что в данный момент времени НАТО не способно вести войну против Российской Федерации в силу большой растянутости её западной линии фронта и длины коммуникаций для поставки продовольствия, ГСМ и боеприпасов воюющим соединениям.

Решением этого вопроса Фридман называл перемещение военных баз непосредственно к российским границам в нескольких точках как единственно возможное условие для развёртывания полноценной карательной кампании для стремительно сбрасывающей с себя подконтрольность Штатам России.

И действительно - к концу года процесс пошёл.

Так, в середине декабря прошлого года в течение нескольких дней над Запорожьем, Харьковом и Днепропетровском небо было закрыто, и очевидцы свидетельствовали о том, что в аэропортах Украины было посажено большое количество грузовых транспортных самолетов типа "Геркулес" и прочих, которые привезли туда оборудование, технику и войска, состоявшие в основном из бойцов частных военных компаний. Численность указывалось примерно в размере дивизии - от 10 до 15 тысяч человек, в основном наемники ЧВК "Academi" (до 2009 года называлась Blackwater, принадлежит Эрику Принсу, выполняет заказы Пентагона). Ранее они уже были замечены в Донецке, позднее - в Мариуполе. Формировалась негласная база НАТО в Харьковской области: ранее уже многое было перевезено наземным путем, теперь была отброшена маскировка, и пошли самолеты. Военные эксперты указывали, что часть оборудования и войск была перемещена с военной базы в Венгрии под Дебреценом. Ранее на территории Украины были замечены железнодорожные составы с американской бронетехникой, среди которых были идентифицированы БМП "Брэдли", БТР "Страйкер", "Хаммер".

Поэтому к публикациям "Стратфор" стоит отнестись со всей серьёзностью и пристально их отслеживать.

Итак, рассматриваемый нами документ является геополитическим прогнозом на ближайшие десять лет, описывающим будущее всех континентов. Подробно весь его я освещать не буду - это сделали уже многие аналитики и средства массой информации.

Остановлюсь на ключевых для нас фразах и на том, что прочитал между строк. В статье чётко формулируется стратегическая задача установления административного контроля над Россией путем её раздробления - федерализации.

Вот цитата: "К западу от России Польша, Венгрия и Румыния попробуют вернуть регионы, потерянные когда-то в борьбе с русскими. Они попытаются присоединить Украину и Белоруссию. На юге РФ утратит способность контролировать Северный Кавказ, в Средней Азии начнется дестабилизация. На северо-западе Карелия попытается вернуться в состав Финляндии. На Дальнем Востоке начнут вести независимую политику приморские регионы, больше связанные с Японией, Китаем и США, чем с Москвой. Прочие регионы не обязательно будут искать автономии, но могут получить ее помимо своей воли. Основная идея: восстания против Москвы не будет, наоборот, слабеющая Москва оставит после себя вакуум. В этом вакууме будут существовать отдельные фрагменты бывшей Российской Федерации.

Это приведет к крупнейшему кризису следующего десятилетия. Россия обладает огромным ядерным арсеналом, разбросанным по стране. Упадок московской власти поставит вопрос о контроле за этими ракетами и о том, каким образом можно гарантировать отказ от их применения. Для Соединенных Штатов это станет громадным испытанием. Вашингтон — единственная сила, способная решить такую проблему..." 

Далее "Стратфор" говорит о необходимости "создать в ядерных регионах стабильное и экономически устойчивое правительство, чтобы затем со временем нейтрализовать ракеты невоенным путем.

В заключительной части исследования частные разведчики закрепляют основополагающий принцип американской доктрины в отношении России:
"В Холодную войну США вступили рано, и по крайней мере в Европе не понесли потерь совсем. На этом основан направляющий принцип американской внешней политики, доведенный почти до автоматизма: если в Европе начинает возникать гегемон, США вмешиваются как можно раньше, как во времена Холодной войны, выстраивая союзы и располагая войска на основных оборонительных позициях.

Сейчас это делается в отношении России. <...> Американцы попытаются выстроить систему союзов, параллельную НАТО, от Прибалтики до Болгарии, и вовлечь в нее как можно больше стран. В союз попробуют завлечь Турцию и распространить его на Азербайджан. В эти страны пропорционально угрозам будут направлены войска."

Госдепартамент прекрасно понимает, что при Владимире Путине задачи по федерализации неосуществимы, а все репетиции и прогонки майданов оказались неэффективны и не нашли поддержки в обществе. Кроме того, неоспорима эффективность силовых структур, обеспечивающих физический порядок в столице.

Поэтому сейчас основной задачей является реализация технологий мягкой силы, в которую входят попытки подрыва экономики, формирование антиправительственного общественного мнения через масс-медиа, организация различных круглых столов и конференций, работа в ВУЗах и подталкивание властей в провинциях к обретению самостоятельности от Москвы.

Об этом тоже пишет "Стратфор": "Учитывая структуру федерации, в которой прибыль от экспорта сначала идет в Москву, и только потом перенаправляется местным правительствам, регионам будет доставаться очень разное количество этой прибыли. Это приведет к повторению советского опыта 1980-x и 1990-x, когда Москва утратила способность поддерживать государственную инфраструктуру. Все это заставит регионы спасаться от проблем самостоятельно, образуя формальные и неформальные автономные объединения. Экономические связи между Москвой и периферией ослабнут."

А теперь вспомним, что первое же громкое публичное высказывание после вступления на пост мэра Екатеринбурга Евгения Ройзмана касалось "несправедливости того, что деньги уходят в Москву и потом распределяются", а по городу впоследствии группа граждан, близких к Ройзману, провела в пикеты под лозунгам "Хватит кормить Москву". Среди митингующих большую активность проявляли молодые люди из иностранного агента-НКО "Голос", руководимой известным "цветным технологом" Марко Ивковичем из Сербии, въезд которому в Россию ФСБ закрыли в 2012 году.

Дело в том, что в России вертикаль власти сейчас заканчивается на институте губернаторства, что и позволяет муниципалитетам проводить политику, отличную от государственной, формировать собственные бюджеты за счёт контроля над городом, благодаря наличию крупных средств выстраивать защиту своего бизнеса силовыми структурами и масс-медиа. При запуске реформы местного самоуправления, которая должна продолжить вертикаль до городов, описанная система ломается, и на сопротивлении местных "князьков" нововведению умело играют американские дипломаты.

Ключевой задачей США видят переиграть Владимира Путина на выборах в 2018 году, для чего будет задействован весь арсенал имеющихся технологий - и марши, и игра на понижение цен на нефть, и политические убийства - вполне вероятно будет увидеть, например, генерального директора и собственника антироссийского "ТВ Дождь" Наталью Синдееву, застреленную пулей с отчеканенными на ней инициалами Владимира Путина. История учит нас: чаще всего после сильного правителя приходит слабый, и об этом хорошо осведомлены американцы!

Важная роль, по замыслу США, отводится молодому поколению 2000 года рождения, которому в 2018 году исполнится 18 лет, и которое до Путина вообще не жило. За кого они будут голосовать? Они не были, как автор этих строк и большинство их читающих, свидетелями кровавых перестрелок и взрывов автомобилей на улицах в 90-е годы, тотального рэкета всего бизнеса, всепроникающей коррупции, сознательного разрушения промышленности, сельского хозяйства, армии, свидетелями невыплат зарплат бюджетникам по несколько месяцев. Сегодня в ВУЗах им рассказывают романтические истории о "настоящей свободе" той эпохи, хотя правильно назвать её временем хаоса и анархии. Впрочем, с понятием свободы в определенных смыслах это синонимы.

На случай проигрыша США на выборах следующего президента РФ заготовлен специальный инструмент: по регионам пройдут акции неповиновения, и начнётся выход их из состава Российской Федерации, о чём и пишет "Стратфор". Ростислав Ищенко, президент Центра системного анализа и прогнозирования, в своей статье "Где тонко, там и рвётся" справедливо отмечает: путчистам в Екатеринбурге даже не надо ничего штурмовать. В муниципальных органах власти уже сидят американские коллаборационисты, а правительство области не сможет молниеносно среагировать - оно чрезвычайно пассивно и не обладает политической волей, а его аппарат составляют чиновники, которые "заточены" пересиживать одного губернатора за другим.

Каковы же должны быть наши дальнейшие действия?

Во-первых, - нам нужно беспрекословное объединение страны, всего народа вокруг команды Президента и Верховного главнокомандующего. Уверен, курс, взятый Владимиром Путиным совершенно оправдан. Он предполагает полный суверенитет во всех сферах жизни страны, первоочерёдность интересов России как определяющий фактор государственных стратегий, продуктивное обоюдовыгодное сотрудничество со странами Латинской Америки и Азии, объединение их вокруг России как нового полюса силы на Земле. Реализуется этот курс грамотно, твёрдо и последовательно, и при этом аккуратно. Нам необходимо его всецело поддерживать, решительно пресекая любые действия пытающихся отколоть общество от Президента либералов из пятой колонны.

Во-вторых, силовые возможности ФСБ, в чью задачу входит обеспечение соблюдения конституционных прав граждан и территориальной целостности государства, сдерживание антироссийской деятельности, сегодня уже явно отстают от запросов времени и обстановки в государстве, как отстают и законы, обеспечивающие их полномочия.

Я имею в виду такие прецеденты, как деятельность того же печально известного депутата Екатеринбургской городской Думы и друга Евгения Ройзмана - Константина Киселева. Профессор Института философии и права и УрГУ посещал США и Киев, читал студентам лекции о "пользе" Майдана и положительно отмечал "вклад" Яроша и Турчинова в "строительство украинской нации", и даже готовил он-лайн конференцию с предводителем "Правого Сектора" в Екатеринбурге.

В этой ситуации силовые структуры Екатеринбурга выглядели совершенно беззубо: формально ни к одной действующей статье Уголовного кодекса Российской Федерации действия "политолога" не подходили в виде состава преступления. Если бы профессор Киселев осуществлял прямые призывы к свержению власти и захвату правительственных зданий, пропагандировал бы фашизм - был бы привлечён по статье за экстремизм, но умный и осторожный депутат такого себе ни разу не позволял. Каждому студенту, которого либеральный преподаватель подталкивал к "нужным" размышлениям, оставалось самому сделать последний шаг и прийти к требуемому выводу. А несанкционированные контакты с иностранными дипломатами и сотрудниками западных разведок, положительное освещение цветных революций, при нынешних законах не повод для начала следственных действий.

Продолжают свою работу и многочисленные проводники внедрения в Россию "западных ценностей" - партии "РПР-Парнас", "Партия прогресса", "Гражданская платформа", "Яблоко", некоммерческие организации "Мемориал", "Голос", "Центр Сахарова", которые так или иначе участвуют в подготовке антиправительственных маршей и дестабилизации населения, подрывают имидж правительства, а многочисленные либеральные СМИ их поддерживают, искажают действительность, сеют панику. Деятельность их надо прекратить.

Если уж и брать в пример, как того требуют либералы, с Соединённых Штатов Америки, то там после терактов 11 сентября были расширены полномочия органов. Может, и у нас тоже пора? Владимир Путин давно ждёт, когда общественное мнение созреет. У нас уже налицо полный "набор" - подготовка цветных революций, политические убийства, коррупция и коалиция с американцами на местных уровнях. Вполне достаточно сигналов к действию.

На самом деле, если мы хотим успешно противостоять, деструктивным силам, то, как минимум, мы должны быть не слабее. Если наши спецслужбы будут уступать, мы проиграем в борьбе, а ЦРУ исторически всегда было сильнее, практически ничем не ограниченное в своей работе и щедро финансируемое.

Необходимы новые законодательные инициативы, в том числе о введении в УК определений деятельности пятой колонны. Совместно с общественными институтами необходимо определять адекватные меры сдерживания и наказания.

Ну и третий и главный на сегодня вывод, - нужно уже сейчас думать о том, чтобы сформировать новое поколение политиков-патриотов на всех уровнях власти. США пытается, напротив, уже сейчас поставить в ключевых точках своих людей. Их нужно вытеснить, но нужны кадры, и их нужно отобрать и обучить.

Ставка политического успеха только на Владимира Путина, во-первых, взваливает огромную нагрузку на него самого, а во-вторых, создаёт угрозу безопасности ему лично. Необходимо поставить на каждый регион и муниципалитет своего Путина, и тогда любые попытки свержения Президента потеряют смысл - потому что его курс на каждом уровне будет чётко спланирован и неуклонно продолжен.

Наш главный девиз должен звучать так: "Сегодня мы все Путин".

Thursday, 5 March 2015

The Wikileaks diplomatic cables leak from Stratfor

In trying to find material to back up the story about the Russian liberal opposition's relationship with the US embassy I have been able to dig up the following which all relate to the leak of diplomatic cables from Stratfor

These stories run a risk of being lost, so here they are.

WikiLeaks cable exposes NATO war plan against Russia
US State Department cables released by WikiLeaks have unveiled secret NATO plans for a US-led war against Russia over the Baltic states.


2 December, 2010

The cables, first reported by the Guardian newspaper Tuesday and posted on the WikiLeaks site, underscore the growing geo-strategic tensions between the US and Russia even as the Obama administration has emphasized a “reset” in relations that was supposed to overcome the conflicts left over from the Bush administration.

The secret plans spell out preparations for a full-scale war with Russia that would see the immediate deployment of nine divisions of US, British, German and Polish troops in the event of any Russian incursion into the former Soviet Baltic republics.

The plans also specify German and Polish ports that would be used to receive naval assault units and US and British warships destined for battle with Russian forces.

Despite these details, there is no indication in the cables of the potentially catastrophic implications of such an armed clash between the world’s two largest nuclear powers.

While some analysts in Moscow insisted that Russian intelligence was well aware of the contingency plans, their public exposure by WikiLeaks prompted statements of protest by Russian officials and demands for an explanation from NATO.

The contingency plans that would send US troops into combat against Russian forces were developed in the wake of the Russian-Georgian clash of August 2008 that followed Georgia’s unsuccessful attempt to overrun the breakaway territory of South Ossetia.

As the cables spell out, the governments of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, which were brought into the NATO alliance in 2004, began to lobby US officials for the development of a NATO strategy for the defense of their territories against a Russian attack.

The US embassy in Latvia began by informing Washington about the concerns of the government in Riga even as the fighting was going on in South Ossetia. An August 15, 2008 message cited discussions with Latvian leaders who expressed the sentiment that “this could easily be them” and reported “Latvians are beginning to worry if membership in (NATO) provides them the assurances of their security that they had hoped for.”

The documents, marked secret and classified, trace the evolution of US policy from these first demands by the Baltic states in the wake of the Russian-Georgian conflict through to the actual elaboration of a contingency plan for a military confrontation with Russia that was secretly adopted in January 2010.

The cables indicate that US officials were anxious not to publicly antagonize Moscow, even as they sought to put into place the war plans demanded by the Baltic states. A report classified as secret from the US ambassador to NATO, recounting a meeting with the three Baltic state ambassadors, asserts, “We are not returning to the cold war.”

NATO and Russia had established formal relations in 1997 based on an agreement that explicitly stated, “NATO and Russia do not consider each other as adversaries.” The problem confronting US officials was how to draft a policy that clearly cast Russia as an enemy without upending ties with Moscow.

In a cable drafted in October 2009, US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder spelled out the problem. “Leaders in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are pressing hard for NATO Article 5 (which compels all NATO states to come to the defense of any other member state under attack) contingency planning for the Baltic states,” he began, noting that President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had already stated their support for such plans.

The problem, Daalder pointed out, was that such plans “would require specifying Russia as a potential threat,” something which Germany and other NATO member states opposed. He wrote: “As we saw during the debates over the Russia-Georgia war, many Allies will take great pains to avoid even the suggestion that the Alliance and Russia are on a course toward a new Cold War.”

He suggested that Washington could get around the evident contradiction by expanding an existing contingency plan for the defense of Poland to include the Baltic states or by adopting “generic plans” for a NATO response to aggression that would not name the states involved but would be applicable to the Baltic countries.

Among the concerns expressed by Daalder was that in the absence of a contingency plan, the Baltic states would not trust NATO for their defense and “will have to consider developing a force structure focused on territorial defense rather than on expeditionary capabilities.” The specific “expeditionary” role that the US ambassador had in mind was the deployment of Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian troops in the US-led war in Afghanistan.

The cable indicates that it was Germany that first raised the suggestion that the contingency plan for Poland—codenamed “Eagle Guardian”—could be widened to include the Baltic states. This was the path that Washington ultimately backed. NATO approved the plan on January 22, 2010 but made no public announcement.
A January 26 cable signed by Hillary Clinton from the State Department to US diplomats in NATO countries and to the American embassy in Moscow spelled out the need to maintain strict secrecy in relation to the agreement.

“The United States believes strongly that such planning should not be discussed publicly. These military plans are classified at the NATO SECRET level,” the cable states. “Public discussion of contingency plans undermines their military value, giving insight into NATO’s planning processes. This weakens the security of all Allies.”

The document adds: “A public discussion of contingency planning would also likely lead to an unnecessary increase in NATO-Russia tensions, something we should try to avoid as we work to improve practical cooperation in areas of common NATO-Russia interest.”

The cable concludes with recommendations for dealing with any media inquiries on the contingency plans. Such non-answers as “NATO does not discuss specific plans” and “NATO is constantly reviewing and revising its plans” are suggested. The diplomats are instructed to stress that NATO planning “is not ’aimed’ at any other country,” which in this case it most definitely was—at Russia.

Russia’s ambassador to NATO said Tuesday that Moscow would demand that the Western alliance abrogate the Baltic contingency plan, saying that the plan stood in direct contradiction to assurances given at the recent NATO summit in Lisbon.
“We must get some assurances that such plans will be dropped, and that Russia is not an enemy for NATO,” said the Russian envoy, Dmitry Rogozin. “I expect my colleagues from the NATO-Russia Council to confirm that Lisbon has made all the difference.”

Rogozin dismissed NATO’s claims that the contingency plan was not aimed at any one country. “Against whom else could such a defense be intended?” he asked. “Against Sweden, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, against polar bears, or against the Russian bear?”

Meanwhile, the Guardian quoted an unnamed official at the Russian foreign ministry as saying that the documents had provoked “a lot of questions and bewilderment.”

“Russia has repeatedly raised the question about the need to ensure that there is no military planning aimed against one another,” the source said.

The revelations have surfaced under conditions of mounting tensions between Washington and Moscow over the US Senate’s failure to ratify a new START treaty on nuclear arms reduction and differences over Washington’s drive to set up an anti-missile network in Europe.

Cooperation between Moscow and Washington notwithstanding, the US war in Afghanistan and the strategic drive by US imperialism to assert its hegemony in Central Asia are an inevitable source of conflict.

Underscoring these growing tensions, the Russian navy reported Wednesday that US and Japanese forces suspended war games in the Sea of Japan after two Russian Ilyushin-38 anti-submarine aircraft flew over the area.
“The area is our zone of responsibility,” said Roman Markov, a spokesman for the Russian navy. “The airplanes carried out a planned flight in an area of the Russian Pacific Fleet’s regular activity. Our pilots did not violate any rules of international air space.”

The military exercise involves some 34,000 Japanese and more than 10,000 US military personnel along with scores of warships and hundreds of aircraft. They were suspended out of concern that the Russian aircraft could gather secret data on US and Japanese capabilities.

Relations between Moscow and Tokyo have soured in recent weeks over the dispute between the two governments over the control of a string of islands stretching south of Russia’s Kamchatka peninsula. Known in Russia as the Southern Kuriles and in Japan as the Northern Territories, they were seized by Soviet forces in World War II.

Last month, Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev made a brief surprise trip to one of the islands, provoking angry protests from Japan. Last weekend, in an apparent response, Japan’s Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara flew past the islands on a Japanese coast guard plane. An unnamed Russian official responded to the fly-by: “No one, Japan included, is banned from admiring the beauties of Russian nature.”

Other dispatches released by WikiLeaks point to the tensions within the NATO alliance over relations with Russia. In particular, a February 2010 cable from the US embassy in Paris records a clash between US Secretary of State Robert Gates and France’s Foreign Minister Herve Morin over French plans for arms sales to Moscow.

Gates, the cable reports, “raised US concerns over sales of a Mistral-class helicopter carrier to Russia as sending a mixed signal to both Russia and our Central and Eastern European allies.” The Pentagon chief went on to recall that while French President Nicolas Sarkozy had negotiated the ceasefire agreement that ended the fighting between Russia and Georgia in 2008, Moscow had not lived up to the agreement.

Morin replied, according to the cable, by asking “rhetorically how we can tell Russia we desire a partnership but then not trust them.”

The cable also quotes Morin expressing the view that “a European Missile Defense system is both unwise and unnecessary,” adding that Gates “refuted Morin’s contention.”

An appended note indicating back-channel discussions between US and French officials states: “Following the meetings, Morin’s critical comments on Missile Defense were disavowed by senior officials at the MoD and the MFA, who said that his views were his own and that the U.S. should essentially ‘erase’ what he had just said.”

John Laughland, director of studies at the Institute of Democracy and Cooperation, believes that the parliamentary opposition in Russia does not have enough support in the country and that is why they are seeking help elsewhere.
Some of the video material which accompanies this article are no longer available

US snubbed Russian opposition pleas for help


Boris Nemtsov (Reuters/Sergei Karpukhin)


RT,
22 January, 2011

Russian opposition leaders and human rights activists pleaded with top US officials to support their plans for political and social change, but the request was apparently given short-shrift by Washington.

Russia's Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper, which obtained fresh files from WikiLeaks, reports that the group was consistently critical of the Kremlin and wanted American help for reform.

The members of the opposition accused the US leadership of turning a blind eye to observance of human rights in Russia while at the same time seeking financial aid from America and even demanding US ideological involvement in their activities.

Those demands were voiced on a visit to Moscow by Michael McFaul, Special Assistant to The President for National Security Affairs and senior director of Russian and Eurasian Affairs at the United States National Security Council. He met with opposition leaders at the residence of the American envoy to Russia in Moscow.

The opposition asked the US to be more critical of civil rights violations taking place in Russia, but not “Bush-like critical”.

Those who were present at such meetings at the US embassy in Moscow also showed some evolution of their opinions over the years. Previously, during George W. Bush’s presidency, they asked the US for softer criticism towards Russia, but these days it is a different story. They seem to believe that there is a lack of harsh critics of Russian policies on America’s part. They even proposed discussing Russia’s internal affairs in the format of representatives from the Russian and American governments and Russian NGOs, but Michael McFaul rejected the idea.

According to the reports, the opposition said: “Washington should pay more attention to significant incidents related to freedom of assembly in Russia. To solve problems in Russia's civic society, parties should sit down at the negotiation table – both Russian and US governments, and representatives from NGOs.”

The US’ response was, “It is up to Russian activists to build up their relations with their administration, without relying on America.”

Leaders of the Russian opposition also believe that the recent reset of Russia-US relations has had a negative influence on human rights in Russia. Activists, especially in the North Caucasus, have been saying that after the murder of Natalya Estemirova in 2009 the head of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov, was given a “carte-blanche for other murders” and should be recognized as a persona non-grata by the US. Michael McFaul answered that he does not see that happening and said the US would never turn a blind eye on human rights violations in domestic issues in Russia and would express its concerns out loud.

The report prepared by John Beyrle, the American ambassador to Russia, concluded that the opposition in Russia is unsustainable and immature. He also reported that some members of the opposition asked for American help in registering new political parties. The ambassador also reported that the opposition sees the possibility of Vladimir Putin once again running for presidency as the biggest threat to Russia-US relations and that America should be involved to prevent that from happening. Michael McFaul rejected the idea of American involvement in such activities altogether.

Oppostion: “To further improve relations between Russia and the US, the Obama administration has ostensibly refrained from vocal support for democratic reform.”

US: “Civil society activists in Russia are unaware of the contours of the US approach to human rights and its record of public statements and speeches. Russia's 'democrats' remain in near-terminal disarray – constant personality disputes, disagreements with the Kremlin, differences over the viability of political activity.”

In his report to Washington, ambassador John Beyrle proposed that the US should make its position on human rights issues and democracy in Russia more clear to the members of the Russian opposition and explain to what extent the US is willing to be involved in Russia’s domestic issues.

Michel Chossudovsky from the Center for Research on Globalization said it is no surprise that Russian opposition parties come knocking on the door of the US embassy.

“The involvement of US officials with opposition parties against the Russian government should come as no surprise. The Russian government is a government which states its point of view. If the United States doesn’t like this point of view, it will attempt to weaken or destabilize the existing government – or [push for] regime change as it has in countries around the world. And how does it undertake regime change?

They establish links with opposition political parties, and of course these opposition groups are often financed directly by US foundations, including the National Endowment for Democracy and Freedom House. The National Endowment for Democracy is really an outgrowth of the CIA.”

John Laughland, director of studies at the Institute of Democracy and Cooperation, believes that the parliamentary opposition in Russia does not have enough support in the country and that is why they are seeking help elsewhere.

“[WikiLeaks] documents show frustration on the part of these groups with the new Obama foreign policy – the “reset,” he said. “These opposition leaders and NGO leaders are going to the Americans and saying that they don’t feel the denunciation is active enough. They are the ones asking for more and the Americans, in these documents at least, are being slightly reserved and saying that in fact they are already doing as much as they can.”


Investigative journalist Webster Tarpley believes that the Russian opposition needs to retool, to get some actual positive ideas, and not simply be the “long arm” of a foreign power.


“You look at that opposition and you seem to think, ‘what do they stand for?’ They seem to be a group of people who are only united by their hatred of Prime Minister Putin. ‘De-Putinization’ is the only thing they have to offer. They seem to wait around for murders to occur and then blame it on Putin – a kind of knee-jerk reaction,” he said. “I don’t see an economic program, I don’t see anything constructive, I don’t see anything that could help the future of a


Evidence of the controversial site WikiLeaks: «Washington Regional Committee" was executive committee
Свидетельства скандального сайта WikiLeaks: «Вашингтонский обком» оказался райисполкомом.

19 January, 2011


US one way or another is trying to manage what is happening in Russia

"How often do we hear the expression "the Washington Regional Committee”, which should mean that the US is somehow trying to manage what is happening in Russia . If not the entire state apparatus, then certainly at least Moscow liberals, the fifth column, which, according to one well-known expression, "The embassy’s jackals" ... But seems to be no trace of the instructions which, many believe, the Americans give our politicians human rights activists and journalists. "Where is the Washington Regional Committee?" - the writer and journalist Leonid Mlechin Ironically inquired a few weeks ago, having read the first "release" secret dispatches published by WikiLeaks.

The colleague was in a hurry. Exactly to the exit of some of our New Year's bullpen opposition secret telegrams sent to Washington from the US Embassy in Moscow a year ago have come into the disposal of “Komsomokskaya Pravda”


США так или иначе пытаются руководить тем, что происходит в России

«Как часто у нас звучит ерническое выражение «вашингтонский обком», что должно означать: США так или иначе пытаются руководить тем, что происходит в России. Если не всем государственным аппаратом, то уж по крайней мере московскими либералами, пятой колонной, которая, по одному известному выражению, «шакалит у посольств»... Но вроде бы нет и следа указаний, которые, как многие уверены, американцы дают нашим политикам, правозащитникам или журналистам. «Где же вашингтонский обком?» - иронично вопрошал несколько недель назад писатель и журналист Леонид Млечин, прочитав первый «выброс» секретных депеш, опубликованных сайтом WikiLeaks.

Поспешил коллега. Аккурат к выходу некоторых наших оппозиционеров из новогодней кутузки в распоряжении «КП» оказались секретные телеграммы, отправленные в Вашингтон из посольства США в Москве ровно год назад (архив с оригиналами (13,97 Кб) можно скачать здесь).



Russia Hinders McFaul & His Protesters


US Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul funded and organized protesters in Russia. Russian TV journalists asked why they came to see him. http://youtu.be/yf3LjntNX20


=


This may be the visit to the US embassy referred to

Receiving instructions at the US Embassy

Получение инструкций в посольстве США