NATO and Russia’s Naked Aggression


Intro to ‘NATO and Russia’s Naked Aggression

Intro by John R. Houk, Blog Editor

July 16, 2018

In case you were unaware, during the 2016 election cycle I was a Cruz for President kind-a-guy. After Trump sewed up the GOP nomination, I placed all my efforts behind his candidacy.

 

Nonetheless I was certain Crooked Hillary would win. Why? Because the Dem nomination was fixed and EVEN THOUGH she obviously committed felonies with an unsecured private email server, the Deep State showed the depth of its power by exonerating her of any crimes. The same kind of crimes that past Republican government officials were prosecuted, found guilty or pled guilty.

 

Even with my hesitation to support Trump anyway, he won. Then President Trump began unravelling Obama’s misdeeds except where the Dems and Never-Trumper Republicans have stalled the Trump agenda to Make-America-Great-Again.

 

And so, I have been willing to wait and see how some of controversial policy plans were rolled out even though those policies may look foolish on the outside.

 

Justin Smith addresses one of those uncertain policies in relation to Foreign Policy. Specifically President Trump’s plans to negotiate something with very untrustworthy Vladimir Putin and his Russia.

 

JRH 7/16/18

Please Support NCCR

*************************

NATO and Russia’s Naked Aggression

America’s Most Dangerous Adversary

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 7/15/2018 2:42 AM

 

President Trump has been right all along to harshly castigate our NATO allies for falling short of their duty and responsibility for their own defense contingencies and all associated expenses, but his suggestion that he could pull out of NATO unilaterally, a fact, is dangerous to the free world and serves to undermine NATO and play into Putin’s hands. Putin would love nothing better than to succeed in weakening the NATO alliance, and President Trump must always remain cognizant of the fact that, as long as Putin is in charge of the Kremlin, Russia will be a threat to the U.S. and its allies, a fact Trump seems to acknowledge on some levels and deny on others, in a curious schizophrenic sort of foreign policy.

 

As Europe has grown stronger, since WWII, it has never been a good financial partner to the United States, in the support of NATO, which was created 69 years ago for the defense of Europe. Our NATO allies have consistently handed the major burden to America, while the European Union runs trade surpluses at our expense, in excess of $100 billion a year.

 

Germany pays only 1.2 percent of its Gross Domestic Product on defense, while America spends 3.57 percent. And incredibly, the European Union collectively have a GDP that is tenfold larger than Russia’s. So why do we continue to pay the lion’s share of the free riders’ defense?

 

Before leaving, President Trump demanded all NATO members pay 4 percent, in order to meet present threats from Russia. One should note, its 1946 charter states that NATO decisions be consensus based. That means one member-state can block NATO’s entire agenda.

 

On the first day of the NATO summit, President Trump was most correct along a certain vein of thought, sitting down to breakfast with NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, [President Trump] was particularly harsh with Germany, as he remarked: “I have to say … it’s very sad when Germany makes a massive oil and gas deal with Russia where we’re supposed to be guarding against Russia. We’re supposed to protect you against Russia but they’re paying billions of dollars to Russia, and I think that’s very inappropriate … Germany, as far as I’m concerned, is captive to Russia.”

 

However, neither the U.S. or its NATO allies can lose sight of the fact the Putin is in fact an evil, murderous tyrant seeking the restoration of the Old Czarist Empire, more so than the communist era, and a regional hegemony and a set of buffer states in eastern Europe and central Asia that can add to Russia’s strategic depth. Putin is responsible for 298 murdered people aboard flight MH17 that Russia shot down over Ukraine in July of 2014. Let’s also not forget that Putin has invaded Georgia, annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine, where a hot war is ongoing, not to mention Russia’s violations of the Open Skies and Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaties.

 

Additionally, Russia has violated several international agreements affecting European security, including the 1994 Budapest Memorandum that guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity in exchange for its nuclear weapons; the 2008 Medvedev-Sarkozy ceasefire agreement, removing Russian troops from Georgia; and the September 2014 and February 2015 Minsk agreements, whose ceasefire provisions are regularly violated, as demonstrated by 80 Ukrainians killed and over 500 wounded in 2017 alone, and with 10,000 killed thus far in this conflict.

 

By and large, given that North Korea and Kim Jong Un benefited more from the one-on-one with President Trump and is currently intransigent and reneging on the so-called “agreement”, one should not look for anything to be different with Putin who holds many more cards than little Kim did. And yet, Trump has shown a willingness to abandon Georgia, Ukraine, and Crimea and granting concessions to Putin, in order to develop a better relationship with Russia. President Trump even went so far as to suggest at the recent G-7 meeting, that Putin and Russia should be allowed to return to the “G-8”, somehow oblivious to the fact that this would reward Putin’s bad behavior and ensure no future forthcoming change.

 

In asinine fashion, President Trump shocked the world and the G-7 officials in June, arguing that the Crimean peninsula should belong to Russia, because “people there speak Russian“. The assertion contradicted international law and longstanding U.S. and transatlantic policy of not recognizing the seizure of sovereign territory by force. Using Trump’s logic, Brighton Beach should belong to Russia too.

 

“Kiev’s main concern is that President Trump will unilaterally recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea”, effectively selling Crimea out to the Kremlin, said Daragh McDowell, senior Russia analyst at Verisk Maplecroft. Legally questionable, this would certainly demoralize U.S. allies and trigger greater domestic instability in Ukraine.

 

It’s no wonder that  NATO members Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Finland and Sweden, the Nordic Defense Cooperation nations, hardened their commitment to combat what they see as an escalation of naked Russian aggression. In 2015, Russia feigned an air assault against the Danish island of Bornholm, which served as a major intelligence outpost during the Cold War; and, according to Commodore Hans Helseth, a senior Norwegian defense official, these nations association with NATO has lowered the threshold of an armed Russian aggression against these nations.

 

In the meantime, Air Force General John Hyten, America’s top nuclear commander, warned the Senate Armed Services Committee in March, that Russia was sprinting to deploy a hypersonic nuclear weapon, a new breed of high-speed threats that the U.S is currently incapable of countering or defending against.

 

Although President Trump’s administration is keeping intense economic sanctions on Russia, and it has armed Ukrainian troops and expelled a number of Russian diplomats, Trump’s words vitiate these measures, when he says he “respects” Putin and places the violence of our country in the defense of other nation’s freedom, and for the greater moral good, on the same moral plane as Russian malevolent and naked aggression. In 2017, when asked by Fox News about Putin’s role in the murders and disappearances of so many journalists and opposition members, President Trump responded, “You think our country’s so innocent?”

 

Regardless of President Trump’s ahistorical perspective of NATO, less than half of NATO’s members are exerting much effort to dispel the notion that they are “free riders” who won’t properly defend and protect their own citizens. As Trump speaks about the NATO alliance, as though it’s a big confidence scam, and he accurately illuminates their financial malfeasance and negligence, if ever there was a time for NATO members to increase their defense spending, this is it.

 

Some have suggested the combination of a high-stakes NATO summit and a one-on-one meeting between Trump and Putin, in Helsinki, could bring about the most dramatic geopolitical shift since the end of the Cold War, and it just might, to our detriment, if Trump fails to recognize Putin as a foe. Most of NATO’s European members, such as Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, see Russia as one of the world’s most pressing security threats, and they are concerned that Trump might make undue concessions to Russia, like he recently did with North Korea. Whether it’s Helsinki or elsewhere, President Trump must show real determination and strength in the face of America’s most dangerous adversary.

_________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Any text enclosed by brackets as well as well as source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

Russian Strategy and Europe’s Refugee Crisis


Paul Sutliff sent me a link to a Center for Security Policy (CSP) pdf link with this recommendation:

 

This is a must read. I am hoping to have at least one of the authors on my June 28th show when I move to Thursdays. This is a must read!

 

That show, by the way, is Civilization Jihad Awareness with Paul Sutliff on Blog Talk Radio. The show comes on live, but it is archived. You should go there and catch up.

 

The pdf is 20 pages with foot notes. Take your time and thoroughly read the CSP analysis. I could probably write a whole other post trying to introduce this extremely important analysis, but I won’t.

 

That which I say will little justice to the content presented, but here goes a brief thought. The central bad guy as to American National Security is Russia. You will discover that Russia is at the heart of the Muslim Refugee crisis smacking Europe. AND in relation to that you should understand the Russian goal is destabilization first in Europe and second in the USA. Russia even has tentacle infiltrating European Nationalist movements to foment societal chaos while also publicly supporting the Multicultural Left ideals. This duo strategy has only one purpose: cultural destabilization designed to disunite European resolve and alienate a united Europe away from America.

 

TRUST ME! Those brief words about “Russian Strategy and Europe’s Refugee Crisis” is only the mere tip of the iceberg that I pray you take the time to fully understand what the authors J.R. Nyquist and Dr. Anca-Maria Cernea are trying to enlighten you concerning the survival of our Western Culture via strategic concepts of National Security and National Interests.

 

JRH 6/5/18

Please Support NCCR

************************

Russian Strategy and Europe’s Refugee Crisis

 

By J.R. Nyquist and Dr. Anca-Maria Cernea

May 29, 2018

Center for Security Policy

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Forty years ago, a serious long-term problem confronting Moscow was the USSR’s fast-growing Muslim population. It was then speculated that the Soviet Union’s high Muslim birthrate would turn the USSR into a majority Muslim country by the middle of the twenty-first century. It is a strange joke, and more than a curious twist of fate, that NATO faces this same prospect today.

 

The Russian armed forces officially moved into Syria on 30 September 2015. Already a massive Muslim “refugee” invasion of Europe was underway, stretching through the spring and summer of that year. This migrant flood occurred without a dramatic change in the Syrian crisis. According to a report by investigative journalist Witold Gadowski, published in mid-September 2015, the people then pouring into the heart of Europe included more than refugees, and possibly included ISIS terrorist infiltrators.1

 

Gadowski was a well-known war reporter, documentary film director, and winner of several journalism prizes in Poland and abroad. He went to Syria in 2015 and discovered that in the territory controlled by the Islamic State (ISIS), there was no chance for anyone to leave ISIS-controlled territory without permission. As he explained, the punishment for attempting to escape was crucifixion.2

 

In Gadowski’s opinion, the flood of refugees had been triggered by decisions made in Moscow, and perhaps in Tehran. In fact, the mass killing of Syrian civilians was an ongoing project of the Russian-backed Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad – whose troops were killing seven times more civilians than ISIS.3 Once the Russian bombers arrived, even more civilians were targeted.4

 

Of special interest, and contrary to public declarations, Russian and Chinese technicians were busy helping ISIS to maintain its captured oil rigs and refineries, while Russian trained Iraqi military officers (formerly in Saddam Hussein’s army), were leading ISIS forces against the Baghdad government (which government set up a joint intelligence headquarters in league with Iran and Russia).5 From this and other evidence it appears that Russia has been playing a double game in the Middle East.

 

Using the Iraqi oil infrastructure, relying on clandestine Russian technical support, ISIS earned $800 million in annual revenues by “selling more than 60,000 barrels of oil per day.” But this was not the Islamic State’s only source of income. According to Gadowski:

 

…the Islamic State trades artworks and archeological artifacts. It is not true that the monuments of antique culture are destroyed. They are sold and bring a large income. In 90 percent of the cases, this is happening through the Russian mafia. The Islamic State and the wave of refugees bring profits to the Russian, Turkish and Albanian mafias.6

 

In this matter the Russian mafia is not simply the Russian mafia, and the same can be said of mafia organizations which have appeared throughout the “former” communist world. As noted by Brian Whitmore of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, “Organized crime is now a major element of Russian statecraft.”7 According to Gadowski, Russia’s game is to “checkmate Europe, and to a lesser extent the United States.” Outwardly Russia pretends to fight ISIS. In reality, Russia helps ISIS. Essential to the plan, the Syrians were generating refugees by terrorizing civilians in Syria. As stated above, Gadowski believed that a secret Islamic State Terrorist Unit (AMNI) was placing fanatical killers among the refugees. In this way a vast network of suicide bombers and murderers entered Europe.8

 

After arriving in Syria, Russian air units launched bombing raids against Syrian civilians, adding to the refugee flow in late summer. Of course, the refugee crisis was well under way before the Russians arrived. It had peaked earlier. What the bombing showed, however, was Russia’s strategic intention. The Syrians and the Russians were following a pre-defined path. The bombers were the icing on a cake already baked. Long before the Russian bombers arrived other means of pressure had been employed by Syria – including the use of chemical weapons. Refugees (and terrorists) had long since flooded into neighboring Turkey. Through the spring and summer of 2015, the numbers were getting larger and larger. A significant proportion of these masses moved into Europe. This paper will present evidence and arguments that Russia and her allies (Syria and Iran) set this process in motion as part of a larger strategic design. The authors believe that Moscow does not act haphazardly. Rather, its moves are carefully thought-out in advance. The strategy being applied is complex, its objectives masked by disinformation and subterfuge, extortion and blackmail, organized crime and false flag terrorist operations.

 

THE ARAB SPRING

 

When rebellions began to break out in the Middle East several years ago, the former chief of Romanian intelligence, Ion Mihai Pacepa, wondered why the first rebellions in the series took place “only in Islamic countries that are pro-American.” He asked why the rebels were burning American flags. He thought it suspicious that the United States had no advanced warning of the mass demonstrations that swept the Arab world from Morocco to the Persian Gulf. Pacepa noted that “on the first day of the Cairo uprising” the demonstrators “were carrying flags displaying the hammer and sickle.” He called this “a mistake caused by overzealousness….”9

 

The rebellion that began on 17 December 2010 in Tunisia, and spread across the Arab world, was an attempt to sweep away “moderate” Arab regimes. It was not a revolution for freedom or democracy. As Richard Miniter wrote in a 2011 Forbes article, “Virtually every element of the media narrative [on the Arab Spring] … is wrong or misleading.” The rebellion was not a spontaneous reaction to local dictatorships. According to Miniter, Egypt’s chief of intelligence warned Gen. David Petraeus in 2010 that Iran – a close ally and client state of Moscow – was preparing to “bring down [Egypt’s] Mubarak regime.”10

 

Miniter was told by intelligence officials that “Iran’s agents are behind the street demonstrations and violent attacks on government buildings.” 11 Iran’s revolutionary activity throughout the region, however, was not merely Iranian. This activity was connected to Russia, and to Russia’s past support for the communist cause. According to an Iranian specialist, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, was educated in Moscow and may be a Russian intelligence asset. Worse yet, other top leaders in Iran were also educated in Russia, with ongoing ties to Moscow.12

 

In a recently published article by the Katehon Institute13 in Russia, B. Ozerov explained that the Soviet government in 1918 “was guided by understanding Islam as a close ideology to the communist doctrine.” After all, Islam favored ideals of equality, social justice, and the redistribution of wealth. According to Ozerov, Moscow’s initial plan in the region was “to transform Islam into an Eastern edition of Communism….”14

 

In a 4 July 1925 interview with the Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin was asked if he believed revolutionary turmoil in China, India, Persia and Egypt was bound to sweep away the Western powers. “Yes, I do,” said the communist leader, who added that the West would be “attacked on two sides – in the rear as well as in front.”

 

RELATED INSIGHTS OF V. KALASHNIKOV AND A. ILLARIONOV

 

In June 2013 J.R. Nyquist interviewed a disaffected KGB officer in Russia named Viktor Kalashnikov. In reference to Syria, the former KGB lieutenant colonel said, “It’s all about struggle against the United States. All allies are measured in terms of their anti-Americanism. If they are anti-American, they are our friends.” Kalashnikov then referred to the deployment of “terrorist armies.” Armies composed of terrorists, said Kalashnikov, were better than old-fashioned Soviet tank armies. They were more flexible, and cheaper than tanks. “The head of the Russian state has publicly warned the West that … arms deliveries to the opposition in Syria might result in terrorist attacks against Europe. That’s a clear causus belli – a real terrorist threat,” said Kalashnikov.15

 

When Nyquist advanced the idea that the Cold War was over, Kalashnikov scoffed. This is yet another topic, he said. “But we have to ask what happened to the Soviet Union in 1991. It was dismantled for the sake of reorganization and for the sake of Russian power.” The Soviet generals were not happy with the strategic situation. The large tank armies of the Soviet Union were, in Kalashnikov’s words, “a wasting asset, especially after 1983.”16

 

The core strategy, he explained, “was splitting Europe from America.” In the 1980s this was attempted with the threat of war. But now, under present circumstances, a different method would have to be devised. “What happened on 9/11 was just an omen of things to come,” he explained.

 

In Part 1 of the interview, headlined “Russia’s Islamist Alliance, Plans to Destroy NATO,” the former KGB lieutenant colonel, who had been trained as a strategist, attempted to draw the interviewer’s attention to Russia’s support for the anti-immigrant parties in Europe. Here Kalashnikov referred to Islam as a Russian weapon in the destruction of NATO. Realizing the interviewer was perplexed, Kalashnikov said, “Let me talk about [the neo-fascists] in Hungary. They are pro-Putin. They are nationalists, and of course, they are absolutely anti-Semitic and anti-American.”17

 

What did the anti-immigrant parties have to do with “terrorist armies” in the Middle East? What did any of it have to do with splitting America off of Europe? Here was a question requiring careful consideration. To answer this question, one might well imagine how NATO would have prospered if Hillary Clinton and Marine Le Pen had won their respective elections. What if Europe followed France’s lead? Would the politically correct Americans remain allies with the new Europe? “What I would suggest,” said Kalashnikov, “is that your anti-terror experts read Vladimir Lenin who provided the textbook for terrorists. How they should set up combat units; who is to be killed first and second; what strategy and tactics to adopt. Lenin developed a complete theory for using terrorism to take power and govern a huge state. That was the beginning of Soviet strategy, statehood and government, as well as international policy.”18

 

Was Kalashnikov talking about Europe?

 

More than one year after Kalashnikov’s curious pronouncements, a former Kremlin economic advisor named Andrei Illarionov, made an even more curious statement. In a December 2014 television interview, Illarionov noted that Europe had reached its lowest level of defense readiness. He also noted that Russia was openly threatening the West with nuclear war. Illarionov then made an astonishing prediction, adding that “the European nations will not be very much surprised, let’s say, if in the spring of next year, 2015, there will be some kind of massive political movement – let’s say a kind of ‘Islamic spring.’”19

 

Being Russian himself, having worked in the Kremlin, it seems obvious that Illarionov had access to high-level sources. The coming “Islamic spring,” he said, would not occur in the Middle East, “but in Europe.” He mentioned destabilizing effects on “certain European countries” where the crisis would “consume the energy and attention of European leaders at a time when Mr. Putin would try and fulfill his neo-imperial project….”20

 

Illarionov was quite specific when he said the coming “Islamic spring” in Europe would involve “movements and activities … in European countries themselves.” When asked if this could be triggered by Russia, Illarionov said, “I am just warning … when it should happen … European societies should not be [too] much shocked and surprised.”

 

Illarionov’s prediction carries forward the suggestion that Moscow instigated the migrant crisis. For how else could Illarionov have known about an “Islamic spring” involving “movements and activities … in Europe”? His prediction was an unlikely direct hit. To know something in advance is to know something is being planned. Illarionov clearly predicted the most significant event of the following year. He also implied this event was planned to distract the West from Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. And this prediction fits perfectly with the analysis of Lt. Col. Viktor Kalashnikov, a resident of Moscow, who warned of Russia deploying “terrorist armies” in 2013. The fact is, people in Moscow knew what was coming. And why wouldn’t they? It takes enormous resources and real planning to move millions of people from the Middle East to the heart of Europe. A lot of people had to know in advance, if only to set up the needed transport system.

 

INSIGHTS OF A ROMANIAN GENERAL

 

Those who have lived under communist regimes, who were educated as strategists, are in a better position to properly evaluate recent events than their West European counterparts. During an August 2015 Adevarul Live television discussion, retired Army General Constantin Degeratu referred to the European refugee crisis as a “hybrid war” of aggression, conjured out of the Middle East by Russia. Superficially, the refugee crisis “completely covered the problem of the Russian aggression against Ukraine,” Degeratu noted. He then stated that the whole refugee operation was “well organized.” The general added, “Look at the people who are coming. They are better dressed and better fed than 10 to 15 percent of Romania’s population. This is a planned invasion, it doesn’t have a direct cause in the Middle East….” He then pointed out the logistical difficulties involved in moving millions of people hundreds or thousands of miles. “If somebody is to come from Afghanistan with a trolley to the border of Macedonia, this requires logistics.”21

 

As if to clarify Kalashnikov’s earlier point about Hungary, Degeratu pointed to a curious anomaly. “It is said that this threefold increase in the number of refugees compared to the numbers of last summer is taking everyone by surprise. But [this] occurred a week after Hungary completed the building of [a large border] fence. Doesn’t it seem interesting to you that first the fence was built and afterwards this migration started, in that particular area?”22

 

Retired Army General Alexandru Grumaz was also on the program. He agreed that the migration was “well supported.” He added that Turkey also had an interest in pushing the refugees along, toward Europe. It was, said Grumaz, a crisis of European institutions. Degeratu said the problem of the refugee invasion could not be solved. Why? “Because it is managed by Russia and thus it is meant not to be solved, but to be maintained.” The general then said, “Russia’s interest is to maintain this crisis.”

 

“It is clear,” said Degeratu, “that if the European Union doesn’t want to live the nightmare … which says that in the years 2030 to 2040 more than 60 percent of the active EU population will be Muslim … then the European countries should decide if they want to survive as a civilization or not.” According to Degeratu’s strategic assessment, “We have to understand that we are the target of a war, and we may call it hybrid, or an asymmetrical war, but this migrant wave is a consequence of it.” He then summarized the perilous cost of the migrants for Europe, noting, “the cost for each one of these people is three times the minimum retirement pension in Romania!”23

 

Surely, said Degeratu, “The political attitude [in Europe] with regard to this situation needs to change. So far, it’s been peace-time politics. Now we are the target of an aggression. Border control is absolutely mandatory.”

 

According to Prof. Przemysław Żurawski vel Grajewski, who was asked by Dr. Cernea to comment on Gen. Degeratu’s assessments, “The opinions of Gen. Degeratu are fully justified and I would subscribe [to] each of his statements….” Prof. Żurawski is one of Poland’s best political analysts. He teaches social science at the University of Łódz and the National School of Public Administration, serving in the National Council for Development, an advisory board to President Andrzej Duda. He is also a counselor to the current Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jacek Czaputowicz. According to Prof. Żurawski, the Russians are not responsible for all the refugees who have flooded into Europe, but it is certain “they did their best to make [the problem] larger … to confuse the political scene in European countries … as much as they can. Russia is the main ally of Assad and Iran….” These allies of Russia, he said, have maximized “the scale of the refugees.” Prof. Żurawski also pointed to “the semi-criminal FSB/local mafias and hybrid structures in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” These also played a role in moving refugees through the Balkans into the heart of Europe. “The conclusion is,” he said, “that Russia had instruments to maximize the troubles” despite Europe’s inability to find “a smoking gun.”24

 

Prof. Żurawski also noted that, “Anti-immigrant parties in the West are usually pro-Russian (Front National, AfD); so deepening the crisis helps Russia’s followers in the West.” This point should not be overlooked. (Kalashnikov hinted at this factor with reference to Hungary more than a year before the refugee crisis began.) Here the manipulation of the European right that takes center stage. Moscow has every reason to believe the European anti-immigrant parties will gain political traction as the refugee crisis intensifies. Moscow, therefore, has reason to invest in the European right. Simultaneously, Moscow also uses its agents on the European left. These agents intensify the crisis through “politically correct” policies. As the left drives the crisis forward, the right opposition grows and seeks ready allies – and is driven into Moscow’s open arms.

 

This process may already be underway in Hungary where Prime Minister Viktor Orban has shifted toward Moscow.25 The Chief of the Hungarian General Staff, Gen. Tibor Benkő, says that Hungary does not have to buy equipment exclusively from NATO countries. Russia is currently modernizing Hungarian Mi-24 and Mi-17 helicopters for $64 million.26 Perhaps even more alarming is Prime Minister Orban’s tolerance with regard to Russian infiltration of the Hungarian right. Former Hungarian anti-communists are now celebrating Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin, linking arms with Russian officials. According to authors Péter Krekó and Lóránt Győri, Russia has invested political capital in “hate groups in Central Europe,” with financial ties “to violent organizations in Central and Eastern Europe as well….”27 This is a conscious strategy:

 

In Moscow’s toolkit of active measures and hybrid warfare, the boundaries between violent and nonviolent tools are increasingly blurry. And this process is two-directional: not only can information be weaponized; violent organizations can be used as soft-power tools. The Kremlin is highly effective at infiltrating fringe parties and paramilitary organizations in Central Europe. They are easy to purchase or control, as these extremist groups tend to be small and easily manipulated.28

 

What is the ultimate strategic value of the infiltration and manipulation of fringe parties and paramilitary groups? Keeping this question in mind, when we look at the present-day chaos in the Middle East, Russia’s past support for terrorist organizations of every kind becomes less and less of a riddle.

 

The former Romanian Minister for Communications and Information,29 Marius Bostan, was asked by Dr. Cernea if he agreed with Gen. Degeratu’s remarks. Bostan replied, “From the perspective of my own experience in public service and politics, I do agree with Gen. Degeratu’s opinion that Russia is likely to have been involved in the migrant crisis and … it should be regarded as a hybrid war operation against the West.” Bostan emphasized that “a very important component of the hybrid war is the cultural dimension.” Here the Internet plays a key role. The Russian long-term investment in “propaganda, disinformation, opinion and behavior-shaping” cannot be underestimated. A short-term view would be a mistake. Bostan explained,

 

There is something about the Russian strategy that is difficult to explain to our Western allies. It’s the fact that Russia usually acts on both sides of a (real or manufactured) conflict. For instance, on [the] Internet we notice that Russian propaganda, disinformation or trolling activity on forums and social networks typically carry messages meant to create/amplify conflicts between different ethnic or religious groups – Romanians versus Hungarians, Poles versus Ukrainians, Christians versus Jews, etc. And they encourage at the same time groups with opposed views – far left anti-market tendencies [versus] libertarian ones, LGBT-rights [versus] conservative Christian activism, open-border multiculturalism [versus] anti-immigration movements, etc. Thus, Russia is able to provoke conflicts and crises, and to influence the public agenda of the countries it targets for subversion.

 

This ambivalence may seem paradoxical to Western minds, used to a binary logic according to which something cannot be black and white at the same time. Well, Russians are not Westerners. In the East, black and white may be defined in many different ways. Moreover, the Russian leaders still function according to a mentality shaped by Marxist dialectics, which says that progress results from the constant struggle between contrary elements.

 

It looks like the West is only now discovering that, for instance, Russian internet trolls simultaneously support a certain cause and its contrary.30

 

Bostan has laid out one of Russia’s key strategies. He says this kind of strategy is “difficult” for the West to understand. As Rudyard Kipling expressed it, “East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.” At some point in the future, however, the West must learn to appreciate Russia’s “scissors strategy” – “that Russia usually acts on both sides of a … conflict.” If there is one central lesson to be drawn from this study, Bostan has underscored it.

 

In their Atlantic Council article, “From Russia with Hate,” Péter Krekó and Lóránt Győri explain how Polish counterintelligence “is currently investigating Mateusz Piskorski, the leader of the Polish leftist party … as well as former activists of the far-right Polish Congress of the New Right (KNP) on charges of espionage on behalf of Russia.”31 Here is the classic Russian “scissors strategy” at work If the refugee crisis is part of a Russian scissors strategy, how does Russia benefit? First, political tensions are intensified between the European right and left; second, the right can be pushed toward Moscow by a variety of mechanisms; third, a general weakening of NATO develops under a scenario of “divide and conquer”; fourth, a general demoralization and loss of belief in existing institutions naturally follows.

 

In his interview with Epoch Times in November 2015, General Degeratu showed the depth of this understanding when he said we “should see who takes profit” from the refugee crisis. “Well,” he explained, the Russians profited, and many cracks appeared in NATO. “We see how ‘united’ Europe has been,” Degeratu added. “Full unity! There have been 50 voices in our European ‘unity.’”32

 

Those who have set up the exercise have understood all our weaknesses and have exploited them properly. What else have they obtained … does anyone still speak about the Ukrainian crisis? Not anymore. There are also 1 million – in fact, 800,000 – refugees, from Eastern Ukraine and Crimea, most of them from Donbass. Eight hundred thousand. There are 8,000 dead. Around 2,000 children and pregnant women have died in this crisis. We almost haven’t seen them on the (TV) screen, there have been no gatherings, there was no session of the Romanian Parliament….33

 

Degeratu is extraordinarily perceptive, and other experts agree with his assessment that Russia is waging a hybrid war against Europe. “Maybe some of us are too militarily-minded and ask questions that shouldn’t be asked,” said Degeratu.

 

DIRECT TESTIMONY FROM A SYRIAN GENERAL ON RUSSIA’S DOUBLE GAME

 

There is a stunning revelation in the fragment of a September 2015 interview given to Witold Gadowski by Syrian Brigadier General Ahmad Aljjdeaa, a soldier with thirty years of experience in the Syrian Army who is also the deputy minister of defense in the Syrian government-in-exile. According to Gen. Aljjdeaa, “Russian officers are constantly present in the branches of the Syrian army supporting the regime of Bashar Assad….”

 

Then he added, “Russia is interested in confusion in Syria. There are also four military training centers in Russia, in which fanatics are trained, who then fill the ranks of the Islamic State troops (ISIS). Among the trained are also Chechens.”34

 

Related to this, another curious headline reads: “In retreating from Iraq, ISIS terrorists

 

lost their Russian passports.”35  The facts are reported as follows: “The Iraqi military, who at the end of last week occupied the university building previously held by ISIS in the city of Mosul, displayed what was found in evidence as the identification papers of Islamic State terrorists, which mostly turned out to be Russian.”36

 

Again, it is a case of the “scissors strategy.” Moscow has perfected the fine art of stage-managing fake wars and phony splits with false fronts made up of “useful idiots.”37 Russia’s deployment of terrorist and counter-terrorist forces in Syria and Iraq should surprise no one. This procedure was used during the Soviet-Afghan War in the 1980s and again during the recent wars in Chechnya.38

 

At this juncture it may be useful to recite a bit of history. In July 2005 the Russian KGB/FSB defector Alexander Litvinenko told the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita that Ayman al-Zawahiri (then Al-Qaeda’s second in command) was trained by the FSB in Dagestan in 1997. According to the former KGB foreign intelligence officer Konstantin Preobrazhensky, Litvinenko “was responsible for securing the secrecy of al-Zawahiri’s arrival in Russia … in 1996-1997.”39

 

The Romanian intelligence defector, Lt. Gen. Ion Mahai Pacepa, has described Moscow’s use of Arab terrorist organizations throughout the Cold War in his books.40 We know that Russia stands firmly behind the Islamic terror regime in Tehran. Researcher Antero Leitzinger explained, “Modern terrorism was born within a year, 1967-68. International socialists (communists) started the fashion all over the world simultaneously, which should make us suspicious about the common roots. National socialists followed suit, turning Marxists of Muslim origin into Islamists of Marxist origin.”41

 

Among the closest associates of Khomeini, there were many Communists who had conveniently grown beards. Mustafa Ali Chamran had studied in California and Egypt before he founded a Red Shi’ite secret society. His pupils included later foreign minister Ibrahim Yazdi, oil minister Mohammed Gharazi, and Lebanese fellow student in Berkeley University, Hussein Shaikh al-Islam, who led the occupation of the US Embassy in Tehran. This occupation, shortly before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, focused Iranian radicalism into anti-Americanism…. Mohammed Beheshti, whose death at a bombing on June 28th, 1981, remained a mystery, had resided in East Germany. Khomeini’s early companion and foreign minister, Sadegh Ghotbzadeh had successfully accommodated with the new regime. Both Ghotbzadeh and Chamran had received Palestinian terrorist training. As a student in the USA, Ghotbzadeh had been recruited by the [Soviet] GRU.42

 

With regard to the Soviet-Afghan War, Leitzinger explained that Soviet Military Intelligence (GRU) had developed special capabilities by the late 1980s, especially “how to manipulate Islamists and to make Communists (of the Khalq faction) to grow beards and join their declared enemies.” According to Leitzinger, “This ‘Khalq strategy” provided a successful alternative to the more orthodox “Parcham strategy” that relied on ideologically less unholy alliances.”43

 

Leitzinger argued that the Russian secret services “gained a tight hold on international terrorism, and [especially] on Islamism” in the 1990s. The terrorist is, in essence, a special kind of agent provocateur. A Western analyst finds it difficult to see the Afghan-Soviet War or the first and second Chechen Wars as utilizing provocation techniques on a broad scale. Former CIA official T.H. Bagley and KGB defector Peter Deriabin noted, “Soviet provocation … remains little understood in the West. People safe in a democratic system may find it difficult to conceive that rulers would systematically use such hostile techniques against their own subjects.”44

 

If Moscow’s wars in Afghanistan and Chechnya were built around terrorist provocations, and the objective was to radicalize and infiltrate Islam, and reorient Islam against the West, then the wars in Afghanistan and Chechnya appear in a more intelligible light. The Soviet Union did not invade Afghanistan for conventional reasons, or to attain classical military control.

 

With the advent of the refugee crisis in Europe, with the likelihood of thousands of terrorists settled within a mass of protected Muslim refugees, the least sign of Russian involvement – or the involvement of Russia’s Islamist surrogates – ought to inspire a shockwave of alarm through Europe’s security establishment. Given the history of Moscow’s infiltration of Islam, and the mounting evidence of Russia’s double game, the Kremlin would be the most natural suspect in any close study of the refugee crisis. Arguably, any other focus would be irresponsible.

 

As reported by the BBC, U.S. Gen. Philip Breedlove, the senior NATO commander in Europe, said that Russia and Syria were “deliberately weaponizing migration in an attempt to overwhelm European structures and break European resolve.” He cited Russia’s use of barrel bombs against Syrian civilians. What was the purpose of such indiscriminate attacks? The purpose was, he said, to “get them [masses of people] on the road” to Europe.45

 

Masses of homeless people, adhering to an alien religion, is one problem for Europe. Terrorism is yet another. Since the refugee crisis began Europe has been hit with an unprecedented wave of terrorist attacks (not to mention rapes and robberies). First came the Paris killings of November 2015, then the Brussels bombings of March 2016, then the Nice truck attack and the Normandy church attack of July 2016. Then there was the string of Islamic stabbings across Europe.46

 

Some of our sources (quoted above) have claimed that modern terrorism was introduced to the Muslims by the communist bloc half a century ago. This point must not be forgotten when evaluating the left’s strange love affair with Islam. “From the very beginning,” said former KGB Lt. Col. Konstantin Preobrazhensky, “the so-called Bolsheviks, or communists, were considering Muslims as the reserve [army], as the human resource for the world revolution. Not all … people know that the second appeal by Lenin, after the Great October Socialist Revolution in 1917, was addressed to Muslim toilers….” Preobrazhensky continued:

 

At that time Islam was the religion of the oppressed … of the people colonized by the West. As Lenin said by the time of the … Communist International, ‘The West is existing at the expense of the East.’ Even now we can hear such conclusions, such ideas. And as soon as the Russian Revolution took place, Russian Muslims immediately supported it, so that the communist Muslim military organizations were formed. The Muslim communists were dethroning the local bourgeois Muslim governments which appeared in the Russian Empire47.

 

MUSLIM REFUGEES TO EUROPE: A RUSSIAN POLICY

 

According to Antoni Rybczynski, “The migratory crisis in Europe is largely a work of Russian policy….” He further stated, “Already … when nobody expected Russian raids in Syria, Vladimir Putin warned that Europe would face the great problems associated with the influx of immigrants.” In this way Moscow supported Assad while undermining Europe.48

 

Another Niezalezna.pl headline underscores this same idea: “Putin’s diabolical game, Exporting Muslim immigrants to Europe.” The article begins, “The Norwegian authorities believe that the refugees’ invasion of their country is a Russian provocation.”49

 

In October 2015 the Czech Minister of Defense, Martin Stropnicky, suggested that Russia was possibly financing the transportation of refugees to Europe. “Although I do not have 100 percent proof of this information,” he said, “I cannot discount it either.”50 Given all we know, his surmise is logical. It is sensible. Why wouldn’t Russia – which has armed Islamic terrorists throughout Asia – arm Islamic terrorists in Germany, Britain, France or Sweden?

 

According to a member of the Estonian National Defense League, Ants Laaneots, “Putin’s aim is the disintegration of the European Union and NATO, if possible.” Russia, he added, is promoting “Euroscepticism.”51 More likely, Russia’s strategy includes many subtle and indirect objectives. As with the work of the late Mohammad Fahim in Afghanistan, Russia can take over a NATO-defended country through the work of an enterprising criminal. Russia can thereby paralyze the heart of Afghanistan or the heart of Europe in a way that mocks European compassion.

 

The Chairman of the Supreme Council of Lithuania, Vytautas Landsbergis, made an observation on 15 September 2015 about the refugee crisis almost identical to others we have seen:

 

I was thinking who had to profit, and I know now. In the current crisis, the whole attention is focused on Europe. Nobody is speaking of Ukraine any more, although there are almost 2 million refugees there as well. Putin has chased them away, and nobody is proposing them to go where life is better….52

 

According to Landsbergis, the current migration crisis is a threat to European civilization.

 

Europe has met a big danger for its own system, even for its own civilization. The Germans earlier had illusions, that they would manage to integrate a million Turks, that the Turks would become Germans and there would be no problem. It didn’t work. Ghettos were created, a state within the state, and these are big problems….53

 

The Ukrainian MP, Anton Gerashchenko, speaking on TV Channel News One, stated:

 

The crisis of migrants in Europe arose because of Putin. The war in Syria began in 2011, but migrants flooded [Europe] like a large river in the spring of 2015. Russia made a decision after Europe imposed economic sanctions on Russia: ‘Let’s create problems for them.” They created a problem: $1,000 was allocated for the head of [each] refugee who will be taken from Syria to Europe. A million refugees are a billion dollars. This is nothing to Putin….54

 

The cost to Europe, however, is much more than a $1 billion. Gerashchenko added that an atmosphere of xenophobia has been created in Europe along with the growing influence of various nationalist parties, which are known for their favorable position toward Putin’s Russia.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Whatever the causes of the Refugee crisis, Moscow’s strategists have taken full advantage of the situation. Those who know Russian policy best, who are geographically further east, know that Russia has something to gain. If a “smoking gun” is absent, in a strict sense, there is yet a loaded gun. One might say this gun is pointed at the heart of Europe.

 

With regard to proof, the strategist does not wear a white lab coat or follow some academic procedure to understand the world. He is not a prosecuting attorney who has to prove his case in a court of law. He is engaged in “a duel on an extensive scale” – which was Carl von Clausewitz’s famous definition of war. If military and political leaders only acted on the basis of scientific proof – or rely on proofs used to convince a jury – they would not be able to act at all. The soldier and the stateman exercise judgment on a more commonsense level.

 

Consider the following analogy: If it is 2 December 1941 and an American plane spots six Japanese aircraft carriers moving east between Alaska and Midway Island, a sensible strategist would assume that the Japanese were intending to attack the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor. The sensible strategist would be quite foolish to declare that “there was no proof” of a Japanese intention to attack. It would be pedantic, under the circumstances, to say there was “no smoking gun.” Strategy dictates an entirely different epistemology. The reported movement of the Japanese aircraft carriers would constitute a loaded gun, aimed at the U.S. Pacific Fleet. A responsible military leader does not wait for that gun to be fired. An American admiral, drawing the proper inferences, would know exactly what to do. He would alert the fleet at Pearl Harbor and take countermeasures. He would know, as one who directs fleets, that every enemy move speaks to intention. That must be the foundation of his certitude, of his practical knowledge.

 

In terms of the Muslim refugee crisis in Europe: reports of ISIS training camps in Russia, reports of GRU/SVR and Russian Mafia assistance to a massive influx of refugees, reports of Russian infiltration of terrorist organizations throughout the Muslim world, etc., constitute a loaded gun. We must judge these reports as strategists – not as social scientists or academics. This must be the foundation of a new strategic methodology for the Muslim Refugee problem. Clearly, this is not simply about Islam. Russian involvement is indicated. Russian strategy must be understood as part of a greater strategic whole in order to properly assess the larger situation.

 

NOTES

 

1 http://www.fronda.pl/a/gadowski-dla-frondapl-agenci-panstwa-islamskiego-wsrod-imigrantowf,57134.html?part=1

 

2 Ibid.

 

3 http://www.vocativ.com/news/224151/syria-government-assad-kills-more-civilians-than-isis/index.html

 

http://www.vocativ.com/news/247479/russian-airstrikes-killed-more-syrian-civilians-than-isis-fighters/

 

5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War

 

6 http://ileanajohnson.com/2015/12/witold-gadowski-polish-journalist-talks-to-fronda-pl-about-syrian-refugees/

 

7 http://www.businessinsider.com/organized-crime-is-now-a-major-element-of-russia-statecraft-2015-10

 

8 http://ileanajohnson.com/2015/12/witold-gadowski-polish-journalist-talks-to-fronda-pl-about-syrian-refugees/

 

9 https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/02/usegypt_relations_under_attack_1.html#ixzz58Jw FkwoF

 

10 https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardminiter/2011/08/18/the-exciting-notion-of-arab-spring-is-a-jedi-mind-trick/#2ab603254ce7

 

11 Ibid.

 

12 The former intelligence official was interviewed by J.R. Nyquist on condition of anonymity.

 

13 Katehon’s president is Konstantin Malofeev, a Russian oligarch with close ties to Aleksandr Dugin, previously the co-founder of the National Bolshevist movement (along with Eduard Limonov). This was a movement which combined nationalism and communism (i.e., a Red-Brown prototype movement). More recently Dugin changed his ideological formula, mixing pan-European or Eurasianist ideas with nihilistic metaphysics in order to justify a worldwide anti-U.S. alliance between traditionalist and Marxists. All this is interspersed with a thinly disguised Lenin-style anti-capitalist millenarianism which seeks to hasten the “end times” with the destruction of Carthage (i.e., the United States). Dugin’s pretense at Orthodox Christianity should not be taken any more seriously than his nationalist pretenses. His entire ideology is an arcane justification for a renewed USSR/Third Rome. His enemies are the old enemies of the USSR. His friends are the old friends of the USSR. Dugin’s philosophic sophistication is not to be taken seriously, though his past fascination with Aleister Crowley’s black magic craves closer investigation. Of course, Dugin’s flirtation with esoteric ideas has helped to win adherents on the alt-right, particularly among neo-pagans, occultists and Sufis. His supposed positive attitude toward traditional Christianity leads to the conclusion that he is consciously toying with dialectically opposite theologies and ideologies. Using conspiracy theory as a tool to advance his anti-U.S. agenda, Dugin also pretends to support President Donald Trump, making English language broadcasts praising Trump for stopping globalism and “the expansion of liberal ideology.” Dugin also praises Alex Jones and Infowars. To watch Dugin’s English language broadcasts, see – “The Mystic Shaping Russia’s Future and Bringing Back the Dark Ages, https://godsandradicals.org/2017/03/28/the-mystic-shaping-russias-future-and-ending-the-modern-era/. See also, http://www.4pt.su/en/content/who-aleksandr-dugin and https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/06/dugins-evil-theology-robert-zubrin/.

 

14 http://katehon.com/article/tragic-loss-red-pasha

 

15 http://www.trevorloudon.com/2013/06/exclusive-part-2-former-kgb-colonel-victor-kalashnikov-on-the-dangers-of-putin-worship-russias-anti-western-alliance-with-islam-israel-syria-iran-and-the-kremlins-grand-strateg/

 

16 Ibid.

 

17 http://conservativeread.com/former-kgbs-victor-kalashnikov-dangers-of-putin-worship-russias-islamist-alliance-plans-to-destroy-nato/

 

18 http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2013/07/were-911-terror-attacks-false-flag.html

 

19 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=27&v=F6vj0z_oZIs – at about 15 minutes into the interview.

20 Ibid. 

21 http://adevarul.ro/international/europa/adevarul-live-generalul-degeratu-despre-criza-imigrantilor-rusia-cea-genereaza-criza-acestei-migratii-excesive-1_55e05dbdf5eaafab2c014a6e/index.html

 

22 Ibid.

 

23 Ibid.

 

 24 From Żurawski’s written reply to Dr. Cernea.

 

25 newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-meets-hungary-viktor-orban-agenda-gas-soviet-sanctions-551263

 

26 http://www.defence24.pl/geopolityka/wegry-sie-zbroja-orban-kupi-sprzet-w-rosji

 

27 http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/component/content/article?id=35796:from-russia-with-hate-the-kremlin-s-support-for-violent-extremism-in-central-europe

 

28 Ibid.

 

29 Bostan was minister from Nov. 2015 to July 2016.

 

30 Written response to inquiry of former Communications and Information Minister Marius Bostan to Dr. Cernea, dated 3 March 2018.

 

31 atlanticcouncil.org/component/content/article?id=35796:from-russia-with-hate-the-kremlin-s-support-for-violent-extremism-in-central-europe

 

32 http://epochtimes-romania.com/video/constantin-degeratu-criza-refugiatilor-a-fost-o-operatiune-organizata—1099

 

33 Ibid.

 

34 https://wpolityce.pl/swiat/260088-syryjski-general-oskarza-w-rosji-szkoleni-sa-fanatycy-ktorzy-potem-zasilaja-szeregi-panstwa-islamskiego

 

35 org/wycofujac-sie-iraku-bojowcy-isis-zgubili-swe-rosyjskie-paszporty/

 

36 Ibid.

 

37 See, especially,Yao Ming-le, The Conspiracy and Death of Lin Biao (1983). There it is explained how Gen. Lin Biao secretly prepared to wage a phony war with the Soviet Union in 1971.

 

38 See, especially, Bearden and Risen, The Main Enemy: The Inside Story of the CIA’s Final Showdown with the KGB (New York: Random House, 2003), p. 233.

 

39 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko#cite_note-69

 

40 Ronald Rychlak and Ion Mihai Pacepa, Disinformation: Former Spry Chief Reveals Secret Strategies for Undermining Freedom, Attacking Religion, and Promoting Terrorism (WND Books, 2013). See also, Pacepa, Red Horizons: The True Story of Nicolae and Eana Ceausescus’ Crimes, Lifestyle, and Corruption (1990).

 

41 See also Antero Leitzinger’s article in the The Eurasian Politician – Issue 5 (April-September 2002), “The Roots of Islamic Terrorism,” http://users.jyu.fi/~aphamala/pe/issue5/roots.htm

 

42 In this matter Leitzinger offers citations from the following sources: Livingston & Halevy, Inside the PLO (USA, 1990), p. 153-154; and Kuzichkin, Inside the KGB – Myth and Reality (Frome, 1990), p. 302.

 

43 eitzinger referenced Finnish researcher Anssi Kullberg’s master’s thesis on Russian geopolitics focusing on the Islamic Renaissance Party founded in Astrakhan in June 1990, “under KGB surveillance.” Kullberg

 

44 Deriabin and Bagley, KGB: Masters of the Soviet Union (New York, 1990), p. 252.

 

45 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35706238

 

46 http://time.com/4607481/europe-terrorism-timeline-berlin-paris-nice-brussels/

 

47 Konstantin Preobrazhensky: “How the Russian Communists Run Islam.” https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Preobrazhensky+Konstantin+How+the+Russian+Communists+r un+Islamic+Terrorism+https%3a%2f%2fwww.youtube.com%2fwatch%3fv%3d0AqMCLqTRFo&PC=ACTS &refig=ebf0ef63163f4c948bcf96c60aeb434a&ru=%2fsearch%3fq%3dPreobrazhensky%2bKonstantin%2 bHow%2bthe%2bRussian%2bCommunists%2brun%2bIslamic%2bTerrorism%2bhttps%253A%252F%252 Fwww.youtube.com%252Fwatch%253Fv%253D0AqMCLqTRFo%26FORM%3dEDGNCT%26PC%3dACTS% 26refig%3debf0ef63163f4c948bcf96c60aeb434a&view=detail&mmscn=vwrc&mid=19EC1DC31D497F37 378719EC1DC31D497F373787&FORM=WRVORC

 

48 http://niezalezna.pl/77702-jak-putin-i-asad-produkuja-uchodzcow-rosjanie-stosuja-taktyke-z-wojny-czeczenskiej

 

49 http://niezalezna.pl/73114-diabelska-gra-putina-rosja-eksportuje-islamskich-imigrantow-do-europy

 

50 http://www.uawire.org/news/czech-minister-of-defense-it-is-possible-that-russia-is-financing-the-influx-of-refugees-to-europe

 

51 http://www.uawire.org/news/estonian-politician-russia-uses-the-migration-crisis-as-part-of-its-hybrid-war#

 

52 http://zw.lt/litwa/landsbergis-o-kryzysie-z-uchodzcami-winna-jest-rosja/

 

53 Ibid.

 

54 https://newsone.ua/news/politics/gerashhenko-krizis-migrantov-dlya-evropy-pridumal-putin.html

 

________________

Center for Security Policy HOMEPAGE

 

About CSP

 

The Center for Security Policy was founded in July 1988 by 30 national security policy practitioners united by an overarching goal – to perpetuate the time-tested policy Ronald Reagan used to such transformative effect during his presidency: “Peace through Strength.” Led by Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan Defense Department official and aide to Senators Henry “Scoop” Jackson and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Tower, they founded a non-partisan, educational public policy organization with a single, overarching mission: secure freedom.

 

“What an  exemplary organization you are — devoting yourselves to the pursuit of peace and national security.  I can think of no loftier purpose or goal.”  — 1995 letter from President Ronald Reagan to the Center for Security Policy

 

The Center has diligently advanced that goal ever since through a combination of: cutting-edge public policy research; the skillful and evolving use of multi-media platforms for outreach to – and impact with – the nation’s leadership and people; and, most uniquely, the creation and direction of coalitions to undertake effective advocacy.

 

In its early days, the Center for Security Policy became famous for  READ THE REST

 

Borderlands: First Moves in Romania


Borderlands around Russia map

That which happens in Ukraine matters to America. George Friedman gives you the reasons why.

 

JRH 5/27/14

Please Support NCCR

********************************

Borderlands: First Moves in Romania

 

By George Friedman

MAY 27, 2014 – 03:02

STRATFOR

 

I arrived in Bucharest, Romania, the day after U.S. Vice President Joe Biden. U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel will be here in a few weeks. The talk in Bucharest, not only among the leadership but also among the public, is about Ukraine. Concerns are palpable, and they are not only about the Russians. They are also about NATO, the European Union, the United States and whether they will all support Romania if it resists Russia. The other side of the equation, of course, is whether Romania will do the things it must do in order to make outside support effective. Biden left Romania with a sense that the United States is in the game. But this is not a region that trusts easily. The first step was easy. The rest become harder.

 

If this little Cold War becomes significant, there are two European countries that matter the most: Poland and Romania. Poland, which I visit next, stands between Germany and Russia on the long, flat North European plain. Its population is about 38 million people. Romania, to the south, standing behind the Prut River and bisected by the Carpathian Mountains, has a population of about 20 million. Of the roughly 82 million people along the eastern frontier (Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria), approximately 58 million live in Poland and Romania. Biden’s visit to Romania and U.S. President Barack Obama’s planned visit to Poland provide a sense of how Washington looks at the region and, for the moment at least, the world. How all of this plays out is, of course, dependent on the Russians and the course of the Ukrainian crisis.

All Soviet satellites emerged damaged after the collapse of the old order in 1989. Few were as damaged as Romania. In many ways, the damage was self-inflicted: The villain of the piece was a Romanian, Nicolae Ceausescu. Ceausescu followed an anti-Soviet line, staying in the Warsaw Pact but displaying singular hostility to the Soviet Union. I recall Americans being excited about Ceausescu’s Romania since, being anti-Soviet, it was assumed that by definition he had to be pro-American. To America’s amazement, he wasn’t. He wasn’t even pro-Romanian given that he concocted a scheme to pay off all of Romania’s foreign debts by destroying the lives of a generation of Romanians by consigning the vast majority of the country’s agricultural and industrial production to hard currency exports. Beyond that, he created a nightmarish security system that was both corrupt and vicious. The world barely noticed. When the end came, it also came for Ceausescu and his wife, the only Eastern European leaders to be executed (amid intense fighting between factions).

 

For all that, Romania has done remarkably well. Romania’s unemployment rate is only about 7 percent, which by European standards is remarkably low. Its annual growth rate stands at more than 3 percent, which is conversely high. In talking to Romanians, it is hard to see into their hearts. They seem a gracious and friendly people, with a measure of distrust and a taste for conspiracy no greater than the norm for this region. What is remarkable about the Romanians is that they are unremarkable. They have emerged from a nightmare inflicted by one of their own and have regained their balance.

 

Ceausescu aside, the nightmare was initiated by the Soviets, who were drawn in by the Germans. This has resulted in a lasting national trait: When the Russians act, it strikes fear deep into the Romanian heart. When the Russians act and the Germans have a hand in the action, the Romanians’ worst nightmare is realized. Their reaction doesn’t manifest itself as with the Poles, who are always committed to the decisive confrontation. Instead, the nightmare scenario elicits a more cautious and sinewy response involving the search for a way both to resist and if necessary to accommodate. Above all, it elicits a search for allies, preferably far enough away not to occupy them and strong enough to offer meaningful support. Obviously, the Americans are tailor-made for this role, so long as they don’t overstep their bounds and generate fears of domination.

 

The Ukrainian Factor

 

Events in Ukraine have, of course, set this process in motion. Remarkably, the United States, which remained a bystander other times, has gotten quickly and significantly involved this time around. There is no question in Romania as to the importance of Ukraine to Russia, nor any belief that the Russians will let go of it. My view is that Russia will not let go, but will let things quiet down a bit. The Russian gamble is that no matter what the outcome of Ukraine’s elections, the Ukrainians will be unable to form a coherent government. If that is true, then the Russians can pick the Ukrainians apart over time, returning to the status quo ante. Therefore, the Russians will wait. Time, if this view is correct, is on the Russians’ side.

 

The Russians do not want to be excessively aggressive for another reason: namely, Germany. The Germans do not want to go beyond occasional rhetoric in confronting Russia. In fact, they don’t want to confront Russia at all. They want to do business with Russia. I heard several times that the Germans have already opted to align themselves with Russia for commercial reasons. In my view, German policy is moving in that direction, but the deal is not yet sealed. In the same way that Russian President Vladimir Putin rushed to China to gain at least the appearance of strategic options, so, too, Putin wants as deep a relationship with Germany as he can get. He will not be excessively and overtly aggressive until and unless he must be. The Germans cannot be seen as simply abandoning their European allies, and Putin cannot put them in that position

.

The Russians want to quiet Ukraine down for another reason. Crises galvanize Americans to act rapidly, and frequently, effectively. Crises that are dying down cause the Americans to pause and consider the direction of events. As Biden’s visit to Romania indicated, Washington moves fast in crisis mode. The Russians can control the tempo of American actions by cooling things down in Ukraine — or so they think. And this is precisely what worries the Romanians. They see themselves as having a long-term Russian problem. At the moment, they are making a large bet that the Americans will follow through on their commitments and interest even as the Russians dial down the immediate crisis.

 

Fairly or not, the Romanians see the Obama administration as insufficiently engaged and heedless of the dangers the Russians pose. They also see the administration as intensely critical of Romania’s culture of corruption — which the Romanians admit is a problem — but intensely interested in military and political coordination. They understand the United States, which is what worries them. On the one hand, they will be courted intensely by the vice president only to be condemned by the State Department, and expected to expose themselves to Russian retaliation. I tried to explain the complexities of being American. The Romanians’ sympathy was restrained. They think they heard a real commitment from the American side, but they simply don’t know how genuine it is.

 

In the course of various conversations I tried to explain my view of the situation. The United States has a pattern of engagement in Europe. It postpones intervention to the last moment, builds alliance structures, supports allies with economic and military aid, and then waits until late in the game to intervene, always hoping it won’t have to. Biden’s and Hagel’s visits are part of the process of creating a regional bloc to contain the Russians and to establish a framework for military aid. Intervention comes much later, if ever.

 

The Romanians are more comfortable with this than the Poles are, who have asked for 10,000 NATO troops on their territory. The Romanians have no such expectations. They are also prepared to increase their defense budget to 2 percent of gross domestic product, which is significant for Europe these days. But they expect the United States to help finance the cost of the weapons they need to purchase. Expecting credit when facing the Russians, however, is no more reasonable than subjecting a country to State Department criticism while the Defense Department is urging risk taking. The Romanians ultimately feel that the U.S. intent isn’t clear.

 

U.S. Goals

 

The American intent at this point is to maintain an independent, pro-Western Ukraine. That might simply not be possible. But the problem is that in having this goal, and pursuing it to some effect, the United States has convinced the Russians that it intends to break the Russian Federation by denying it an essential sphere of influence. The Russians have now concluded that whatever happens in this round in Ukraine, this process will not end.

 

Whatever the American thoughts initially, they are realizing that the Russian threat to Ukraine is permanent, and that whatever happens in Ukraine, it will extend to countries like Romania. And Romania particularly matters to the Russians for two reasons. First, Romania is on the Black Sea, and the Black Sea is Russia’s southern maritime access to the world. That’s why they had to hold Sevastopol, and that’s why Odessa mattered so much. The Russians are aware that they need access to the Bosporus, controlled by the Turks. Still, American aircraft in Romania and Romanian ships in the Black Sea could complicate the Russians’ lives substantially, including their power in the Caucasus, since Georgia is on the Black Sea as well. It should be noted that boosting naval power is on the Romanian-American agenda, and both countries understand the challenge this creates for Russia.

 

The second challenge is that Romania is potentially capable of producing significant hydrocarbons, including oil. The Russians’ only real card in this game is their energy sales to Europe. If they withhold it, the pressure is enormous and that economic pressure can be converted to political power. Germany’s attitude is influenced by several things, but energy dependence is certainly one of the main ones.

 

There is no simple energy alternative to Russia, but one can be cobbled together from several sources, if not to replace Russian energy then to mitigate its power. Romania has energy and other resources to contribute to this, and the public statement issued by the United States and Romania included a commitment by Romania to focus on energy production as a critical element of the partnership. This is not as easy as it sounds. Romania has a reputation abroad for enormous complexity and unreliability in its permitting process.

 

This is another point where Romania’s new strategy intersects with Russian interests. The Romanian view is that the Russians are extending their influence throughout the region, but particularly in Romania. They do it by the traditional means of using their intelligence services to try to manipulate the political process in Romania. As important, they can use commercial relations to weave networks of influence that are designed to make it costly for Romania to resist the Russians. The Russians are particularly adept at using Gazprom, its subsidiaries and other Russian energy companies to purchase and invest in Romanian and regional companies. The deals are never unattractive to either side in business terms, but they also serve to put the Russians in a position to shape both energy policy and political dynamics. This what I call commercial imperialism: the use of deals, particularly in energy, to create blocking points within the political system when Russian interests are threatened. This is not confined to Romania; the Russians use this tool to shape the behavior of other countries. Though certainly far less unpleasant than Soviet occupation, it nevertheless poses a challenge to U.S. influence.

 

Moldova, Energy and Russian Subtlety

 

There is another dimension to all of this, namely, Moldova. Moldova is ethnically Romanian but has been dominated by the Soviet Union and before that the Russian Empire. It is a place that survives by its wits and by accommodating Russian influence. It is an important place in the sense that if it were to be occupied by the Russians, Moscow would have access to the Prut River, with only a plain between it and Bucharest. If Moldova were to join Romania, then NATO would be on the Dniester River, less than a hundred miles from Odessa.

 

But such calculations matter only in wartime, and the Russians are inherently weak. Their single advantage is energy exports, and that advantage depends on the world price of oil, where they make their real profits. They do not control that price and in the future it is possible that the United States, suddenly a massive producer of oil, will be pushing the price downward. If that happens, there is little left for them.

 

But that won’t happen for a couple of years, if it happens at all. And the full strength of the United States will not be at Romania’s call for a few years, if it does become available. And Romania’s obligation to produce energy won’t manifest itself for a couple of years. So here in southeastern Europe, the Russians have a window of opportunity to create a framework that can withstand the winter that is coming.

 

 

They cannot live without Ukraine. They cannot take Romania. With or without the Americans, the Russians aren’t strong enough for that. What they can do is manipulate, subvert, confuse and deflect. They need to undermine the Romanian entente with the United States, and they are skilled at the political maneuvering needed to do that. To many in Romania, Russia is near and strong, America far and indecisive. This was pointed out to me at one meeting. I replied: “In the 20th Century, the United States has won three wars in Europe. How many have the Romanians won?”

 

The most remarkable thing about Romania and even Europe as a whole is that in spite of the historical reality that the United States wins European wars, there is a view of the United States that it is naive, unfocused and bumbling. This goes beyond this administration to every administration I can recall. And yet, it is the United States that decides the fate of Europe consistently.

 

The Romanians know this, but they still feel that the Russians are more clever and capable than the United States. I think the reason is that the Russians move with enormous subtlety and complexity. They do this to compensate for their weakness. The United States operates more simply. It can afford to; it is playing from strength. For now, the Romanians accept this, but their acceptance is fragile. It depends on political consistency on the part of the United States, but with great distance come options and the ability to change one’s mind. Romania is here and can’t go elsewhere. It can only change alliances and hope for the best, something both sides need to consider.

______________________________

Reprinting or republication of this report on websites is authorized by prominently displaying the following sentence, including the hyperlink to Stratfor, at the beginning or end of the report.

 

Borderlands: First Moves in Romania is republished with permission of Stratfor.”

 

Copyright © 2014 Stratfor | 221 West 6th Street Suite 400 – Austin, TX 78701, USA

George Friedman is the Chairman of Stratfor, a company he founded in 1996 that is now a leader in the field of global intelligence.  Friedman guides Stratfor’s strategic vision and oversees the development and training of the company’s intelligence unit.

 

Dr. Friedman is the author of The New York Times best-seller The Next Decade, which forecasts the major events and challenges that will test America and its presidents over the course of the next decade. Dr. Friedman’s previous book, The Next 100 Years, was also a New York Times best-seller and was published in over 20 languages. His other books on warfare and intelligence include America’s Secret War, The Future of War and The Intelligence Edge.

 

A very popular keynote speaker, Dr. Friedman is READ THE REST

NATO Allies Actively Assisting Russian Military? Unacceptable


Russia to Ukraine - Back in USSR toon

Did you know NATO members are making military deals with Russia while that nation’s President Vladimir Putin is slowly carving up Ukraine for the new Russian Empire? In case you are too young let me remind you that NATO was formed after WWII specifically to present a united front against the Russian dominated Soviet Union. That old USSR was really a Communist Empire that incorporated independent nations by force to be under Russian Communist sovereignty. As soon as the Communist system of the Soviet Union collapsed all those former Socialist Republics separated politically from Russia establishing independence as sovereign nations. Ukraine IS one of those nations.

 

As American voters should we allow our political leaders to continue sharing military whether by sales or donation with a reasserting Russian Empire?

 

 

JRH 5/21/14

Please Support NCCR

*********************************

NATO Allies Actively Assisting Russian Military? Unacceptable

 

By Daniel Kochis

May 21, 2014 at 10:17 am

Heritage Foundation – The Foundry

 

Ukrainian soldiers and police remain willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to fend off Russia’s attempts to take over eastern Ukraine — last week, seven Ukrainian soldiers were killed and another seven wounded when they were ambushed by separatists near Kramatorsk.

 

But so far, beyond hoping for some kind of face-saving diplomatic solution, U.S. leadership has been nearly nonexistent. In fact, while Russia attempts to carve up Ukraine, some NATO allies continue to assist Russia with weapons sales and logistical support for the Russian navy.

 

Spain continues to allow Russian naval vessels to use its cities along the coast of North Africa to refuel and resupply. Some of the same Russian navy ships that have docked in Spanish territory have sailed aggressively close to the coasts of other NATO allies, including, most recently, the United Kingdom.

 

Meanwhile, France refuses to halt the sale of two amphibious assault ships to Russia that are capable of holding 16 helicopters, four landing craft, 70 armored vehicles, and 450 troops.

 

NATO is suffering from a lack of leadership. The United States must recommit itself to transatlantic security and develop realistic policies for U.S.-Russia relations moving forward. Vice President Joe Biden is on a four-day trip to Europe, in which he will visit Romania and Cyprus. On his trip, he must carry two strong messages to our allies in NATO:

 

o   The United States is wholly committed to the NATO alliance, especially to the territorial integrity and sovereignty of allies in Eastern Europe.

 

o   NATO member states giving assistance to the Russian military is entirely unacceptable and should be halted immediately.

 

Deterring Russia’s aggression against NATO allies in Eastern Europe requires a strong, united front. It is past time for our allies in Western Europe to stop assisting the Russian military and to stand in unison against Moscow’s aggression. So far, the Obama administration has failed to show real leadership on the crisis in Ukraine. Convincing our allies to stop supporting the Russian military seems like a good place to start.

_____________________________

The Foundry: Conservative Policy News from The Heritage Foundation

 

(Heritage Foundation) Copyright Notice

 

If YOU Think Peace will Break-out in the Middle East, You’re Dreaming


Israel-Iran war map in German

John R. Houk

© August 18, 2012

 

I don’t have to be a prophet to predict that a war will explode in the Middle East soon. The Muslim nations surrounding Israel have been trying to destroy the Jewish State ever since their modern independence in 1948. For some Islamic Supremacist jealousy cannot court the concept of a sliver of land that a religion other than Islam sets the parameters for governance in the region.

 

Couple this with the old Arab League set up of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) which has been legitimized by Western Powers by linking the PLO to a Western created Palestinian Authority (PA). Western reasoning for the PA is idiotically attempting to set up Israeli-Arab peace by grabbing Israeli land by forcing Israel to accept a Jew-hating sovereign Palestine to Israel’s East.  Of course there is PLO-independent Hamas to the southwest of Israel which is a tool of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and there is Iranian client terrorists Hezbollah to the north of Israel. Iran has been rattling swords against Israel for over half a decade. Egypt is becoming a Radical Muslim State as the Muslim Brotherhood tentacles spread through its government. Muslim Brotherhood Clerics have been voicing a call for unity among Muslim-Arabs for a pan-Islamic State with Jerusalem as its capital city. Syria directly north and east of Israel has been an Iranian client rattling swords against Israel ever since 1948 but they are having a problem with a civil war currently. I look to Syria to continue hostility with Israel no matter who wins that civil war. And there is Lebanon to the north which has become a client of the Shia dominated Hezbollah. Lebanon essentially has become a State within a State.

 

This report from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) and written by Christopher Harmer will give you an idea what an all out war in the Middle Eastern region will look like. And by all out war I mean more than the USA and any coalition of the willing trying to use Western concepts in rebuilding a nation-state.

 

This war will have the appearance initially of multiple Muslim nations and Islamic terrorists attacking tiny Israel. If America honors its treaty with Israel will enter into the fray. If America enters the fray I have little doubt that Russia and Communist China will at first join in the Muslim side because of oil. America’s NATO allies will have to join on our side because an increasingly militant Russia will be a little scary for Europe that has diverted most of its money to Socialist programs that are barely staying afloat PLUS the issue of oil will force Europe to join USA-Israel so they are not cut off by a potential Russia-China-Iran victory.

 

I might point out the allegiance of nations I am pointing out here is conditional only our Treaty allies honor the military treaty terms. It could go bad for the USA if other variables take place in which treaties are broken.

 

The first broken treaty that would make a lot of nations very pleased is if America fails to honor our military treaty with Israel. If Obama is around when this war breaks out Obama could very easily throw Israel under the bus to see if another 1948 miracle occurs with Israel surviving multiple fronts of invasion.

 

Another scenario is that various European nations break away from NATO to join the Russia-China-Iran axis for petroleum and petro-Dollars/petro-Euros with the hope of abandoning America would ease the socio-economic pain that will occur if the NATO is honored on the European side.

 

When all out war breaks out globally this time it will make the ugliness of WWII look like a picnic.

 

WWIII Imagery

 

JRH 8/18/12 (You can also read the ISW text version of “Threat and Response: Israeli Missile Defensedirectly below these thoughts at SlantRight 2.0.)

Please Support NCCR