NATO trace found behind witch-hunt website in Ukraine

Quote:It is just as well Secretary of State John Kerry's momentous meetings with Russian leaders last week took place in Sochi, the Black Sea resort where President Putin keeps a holiday home. When you have to acknowledge that two years' worth of pointless hostility in the bilateral relationship has proven none other than pointless, it is best to do so in a far-away place.

Arriving in the morning and leaving in the afternoon, Kerry spent three hours with Sergei Lavrov, Russia's very competent foreign minister, and then four with Putin. After struggling with the math, these look to me like the most significant seven hours the former senator will spend as this nation's face abroad.

Who cannot be surprised that the Obama administration, having turned the Ukraine question into the most dangerous showdown since the Cold War's worst, now declares cordiality, cooperation and common goals the heart of the matter?

The question is not quite as simple as one may think.

On the one hand, the policy cliques' long swoon into demonization has been scandalously juvenile, and there has been no sign until now of sense to come. Grown men and women advancing the Putin-is-Hitler bit with straight faces. Getting the Poles, paranoids for understandable reasons on all questions to with Russia, to stage ostentatious displays of teenagers in after-school military exercises. American soldiers in those silly berets they affect drilling Ukrainian Beetle Baileys in "war-making functions," as the officer in charge put it.

When the last of these theatrics got under way in mid-April, it was time for paying-attention people to sit up. As noted in this space, it seemed to indicate that we Americans were prepared to go to war with another nuclear power to rip Ukraine from its past and replant it in the neoliberals' hothouse of client statesdoomed to weakness precisely because corrupt leaders were enticed with baubles to sever their people from history.

On the other hand, it took no genius to see what would eventually come. This column predicted long backwithin weeks of the American-cultivated coup that deposed President Yanukovych in February of last yearthat the Obama administration would one day be forced to retreat before it all came to resolution.

It was hard then to see how anyone could anticipate any other outcome, and so it has remained. You cannot turn basic miscalculation, indifference to history and diplomatic insensitivity into a winning hand. You turn it into an overplayed hand. And that is what sent Kerry to Sochi last week.

Surprise and no surprise, then.

What does the Sochi visit make Kerry? Is he Neville Chamberlain just back from Munich? The appeasement paranoids are not in evidence yet, which is curious. But the question is interesting nonetheless.

"Now if this sounds familiar, it's what Hitler did back in the '30s," Hillary Clinton said of Putin's Ukraine policy a month after the Yanukovych coup. Given the corner Clinton has painted herself into, can you wait to hear how she fields questions about Kerry's new démarche? To hear her explain how she would, if elected, address Putin? I have trouble keeping my seat.

Emphatically, let us forget Clinton's problems and dismiss any argument that Kerry is an appeaser before one is even made. There is no question of appeasementa loaded word implying a false equivalence. Kerry is caving to realities, a very different thing.

As I have argued, the best thing American diplomats can do now is admit the failure of our long-expired strategies abroad. Implicitly, at least, Kerry has just done so in one of the most important theaters of American foreign policy. This is a sensible, productive thing to do. When you hit a wall, you can either sit there indefinitely or turn around.

What are these realities Kerry has caved to? I count five, two more than the State Department listed when it outlined Kerry's agenda in Sochi:

* My sources in Moscow tell me that 80 percent of the exchange concerned the pending deal governing Iran's nuclear program. Look back: Kerry and Obama have one significant foreign policy success to their creditthe opening to Cuba the exceptionand a string of messy failures and successes (the restored dictatorship in Egypt, for instance) that would have been better had they failed.

Look forward: Kerry and Obama, both ambitiously aware of "legacy," have 18 months to land a big one. It does not get much bigger than rapprochement with Tehran.

Kerry should have come to his senses on Iran long before this. Lavrov has been instrumental in bridging an imposing divide between Iran and the P5 + 1 negotiating groupthe U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany. Most immediately, it was the Russian foreign minister who persuaded Tehran to consider (for a second time) shipping its uranium stockpiles to Russia and re-importing what it needs for peaceful applications. This provision is on the table now and could prove make-or-break as the June 30 deadline for a deal approaches.

More broadly, relations between Russia and (what is now) Iran are 250 years older than the United States and make a complex, on-again-off-again tale. They are very "on" now, and of all P5 + 1 members, Russia holds more keys to the kingdom than any other.

* Same in Syria: A nearby neighbor, longtime relations. Moscow has supported Damascus since the 1940s and signed a non-aggression pact in 1950. Given how evident American impotence in the Syria crisis has become since the bombing campaigns began last Septemberand how obvious the common cause between Washington and DamascusKerry has been saying the unsayable since March: It is time to talk to Assad. And there is no point talking to Assad without talking to Moscow.

Let us not forget that it was Lavrov, once again, who got Obama and Kerry out of a serious political jam in September 2013, a month after the gas attacks in Damascus the administration instantly and implausibly (and wrongly, it soon turned out) assigned to Assad. The "red line" Obama drew brought the U.S. to the eve of airstrikes, Lavrov then persuading Assad to give up his chemical-weapons inventories.

* Ukraine, like Syria, got 10 percent of Kerry's time in Sochi. I would have thought more, but this is what I am advised by sound Moscow sources. Of all the questions Kerry raised in Sochi, indeed, the new stance on Ukraine amounts to capitulation as well as a request for cooperation.

Readers will recall a rapid-fire sequence of events earlier this year. As the week of February 1 opened, the administration let it be known via a Times storya straight feed, newspaper as bulletin boardthat it was considering arming the Kiev regime. Next day came an announcement that Kerry was traveling to Ukraine, due for meetings Thursday. The topic seemed obvious.

That Wednesday things got interesting. Chancellor Merkel called François Hollande, the French president, and told him to fly to Kiev immediately. Why interesting: These threeKerry, Merkel and Hollandewere there the same day, talking to the same government, and did not meet. All three then went to Moscow, again separately.

So far as I can make out, all that has occurred since flowed from that week. Merkel, Hollande and Putin convened another round of ceasefire talks with the Ukrainians in Minsk, where the Minsk II agreement was signed on February 11. Short work, which tells us something. Minsk II is fragile but still in effect and remains the basis for a negotiated settlement.

The Americans were excluded from Minskpoint blank, so far as one can make out. And I love the Times sentence on this in Monday's paper: "Russia, Germany and France previously made it clear that they did not necessarily welcome the Americans at the negotiating table…" It reminds me of Hirohito announcing the surrender on Japanese radio: "The war has not necessarily proceeded to our advantage."

At the moment described a long-simmering confrontation between the Europeans and Americans was about to boil over. It was the suggestion that American arms might begin to flow into the Ukrainian conflict that prompted Merkel, with Hollande behind her, to tell Washington, "Enough. Cut it out. We are not with you. We settle this at the table, not with missile systems."

What we saw in Sochi was Kerry's acceptance that Washington has been trumped in Ukraine: No one else will any longer stand by as Washington agitates for a military solution, no one is on board for ever-heightened confrontation with Moscow andmiss this notno one else will any longer pretend that the Poroshenko government is other than a new crop of corrupt incompetents.

Where else does an American diplomat go at such a moment but to a Black Sea beach?

* Fourth reality. European Union leaders are due to meet next month to consider whether to renew or drop sanctions against Russia that expire in July. What I get from sources in Europe is that six E.U. members are likely to oppose renewal and that Germany may make seven by the time of the E.U. talks. Since renewal requires a unanimous vote, the outcome seems to be clear.

As noted at the start of this year, Washington's overly assertive strategy toward Russia risked a breach in one of two relationships: Europe's with Russia or America's with Europe. In my view, the increasing risk of trans-Atlantic damage was another factor in Kerry's travels last week.

* Last but maybe first, in the best outcome the Obama administration has learned the most important lesson available to it in its foreign relations. No need to do any other than quote Stephen F. Cohen, the Russianist interviewed here a few weeks ago.

"The road to American national security still runs through Moscow," Cohen said with that conviction that comes of long experience. "There is not a single major regional or issue-related national security problem we can solve without the full cooperation of whoever sits in the Kremlin, period, end of story. Name your poison: We're talking the Middle East, we're talking Afghanistan, we're talking energy, we're talking climate, we're talking nuclear proliferation, terrorism, shooting airplanes out of the sky, we're talking about the two terrorist brothers in Boston."

My reservation about the best outcome is that it is unlikely. To draw lessons from errors you have to acknowledge them, and our policy cliques rarely do, so missing all opportunity to learn from them. Kerry's démarche has failure written all over it, but, per usual, it is advanced as merely the successful outcome of a successful strategy. This is how you will read of it, I assure you.

More interesting choreography comes our way already. Kerry was in Sochi last Tuesday. The frightening Victoria Nuland, his assistant secretary for European affairs, was in Kiev by Friday. There, and then in Moscow, Nuland was a misleading claim a minute, suggesting, among much else, that she and Kerry were "fully committed to Minsk implementation."

What a charade. No one other Americans bamboozled by bad media can take this stuff seriously. Not only were Americans kept away from Minsknot necessarily invited, I should saybut Nuland and her boss vigorously sought to undermine it as soon as it was signed.

Remember Al Haig at the White House after Reagan was shot in 1981? "I'm in charge here!" This is Victoria Nuland bouncing between Kiev and Moscow as we speak. She runs to catch up while claiming to lead, having been left behind by ministers and diplomats with better things to do than provoke confrontation.

We will have to see where this latest turn leads. I credit Kerry. I do not assign him any transcendently imaginative new take on American strategy in the Middle East, in Ukraine, or in Washington's ties to Moscow. He has acknowledged failure without admitting it. It is force of circumstance, not more. It is not everything, but it could be a lot more than nothing.

Lauren Johnson Wrote:Most commentators of the summit meeting at Sochi at the request of the US represented by John Kerry and by Anatoli Lavrov (RF) with V.V. Putin also coming in for the final meet and greet seem to agree the US has recognized its Ukraine gambit is a failure and that it is now going to become a part of Minsk II negotiations. Assuming the US will continue to pursue its strategy of a uni-polar world, this would or should mean the Ukraine gambit as a direct thrust to cause the RF to collapse will be moved to other arenas....

Quote:One afternoon in late October, Kalashnikov-armed pro-Russian separatists led two accused rapists into the House of Culture in Alchevsk in the self-declared Luhansk People's Republic for a "people's court," twisting their arms behind their backs so they were forced to bend over as they walked. One read out the evidence gathered against the first man by the rebels' military police unit, arguing the 37-year-old had threatened a 15-year-old girl until she agreed to have sex with him. Then he asked the 340 local citizens and rebels assembled in the hall to vote to sentence him "to the highest form of punishment according to the laws of wartime, death by firing squad."

The crowd voted to send the first man to redeem himself on the front line, where rebels continue to clash with government forces. It sentenced the second man, accused of at least three rapes since 2008, to death. A video of the people's court caused an uproar in the Ukrainian and Russian media, especially one fragment in which Mozgovoi suggested that women should "sit at home and cross-stitch" and ordered that "any girl who goes to a bar will be arrested.

"But while critics have accused Mozgovoi of facilitating mob rule, communist and Marxist commentators have cited his outspoken opposition to the corrupt, oligarchic government that has plagued Ukraine as proof that he is the best hope to turn the pro-Russian rebellion into a social revolution. Although the armed seizure of buildings in eastern Ukraine in April was accompanied by frequent calls for a social welfare state, communist and other left-wing activists have been marginalized by pro-Russian activists who are more nationalist in their rhetoric. The Communist Party wasn't allowed to run in last month's rebel parliamentary elections and in the end was given a meager 3 seats out of 100 by the ruling coalition, its leader recently told The Nation. Many left-wing activists have said the uprising has turned toward Russian chauvinism rather than social reform.

For his part, Mozgovoi said he does not believe in ideologies but rather "popular democracy" and argued that the recent judicial spectacle had been misunderstood. "To create the mechanisms for a people's government, we need to create precedents like we're doing with the people's court," he told The Nation.

But the jury is still out on the leader: Is he a socially-minded revolutionary propagating a radical form of direct democracy to eradicate years of corrupt government? Or a populist warlord conducting reckless justice and ruling his fiefdom with an iron hand?

A descendant of the Don Cossack warriors who lived in the borderlands of the Russian empire, Mozgovoi was born in the Luhansk region, studied music and sang in a choir, served seven years in the Ukrainian army and worked in the construction industry in St. Petersburg. Returning to Luhansk in February as protests for European integration raged in Kiev, Mozgovoi joined other pro-Russian activists in holding rallies and camping out in the city center, where he first began putting together the group that would become his military unit, the Ghost Brigade.

The unit has now grown to almost 3,000 men, he said. It is arguably one of the most potent fighting forces in separatist-held territory, which has made Mozgovoi a political force to contend with in the Luhansk People's Republic, where he has occasionally clashed with other separatist leaders. Having established a base of operations in Alchevsk (pre-war population: 111,360), he operates largely independently of the rebel leadership in the regional capital, which doesn't provide him with supplies or financing, he said.

Mozgovoi characterizes his war as one against oligarchy and corruption. He sees both in the new Kiev government, which he derides as a pawn of US foreign policy.

"The system in Russia and Ukraine is rotten," he said. "In Belarus, they all say (Lukashenko) is a tyrant but at least he destroyed a little bit of the system that's taking over Russia and Ukraine, there is order there. Democracy is not always good. Sometimes you need to tighten the screws, but you can't tighten them too much."Boris Rozhin a.k.a. "Colonel Cassad," a communist and preeminent blogger in Crimea covering the pro-Russian movement, has called Mozgovoi the "farthest left of the (rebel) commanders," and said the burgeoning rebel state could "have some sort of half-socialist program if Mozgovoi's ideas win out." Russian Marxist political analyst Boris Kagarlitsky called him a "social democrat with a radical direct democracy agenda." His anti-oligarchic stanceand an openness to dialoguehas allowed Mozgovoi to take on a new possible role, that of the peacemaker, in three Skype sessions with volunteer battalion commanders fighting in Kiev's "anti-terrorist operation" against the pro-Russian rebels. Mozgovoi and his battlefield opponents seemed to agree upon the essential problems facing Ukrainepoverty, corruption and oligarchyeven if they differed drastically on the solutions.

During the first conversation, Mozgovoi offered that the conflict could be solved if the volunteer fighters on both sides would join together to "clean out the parliament and the government" in Kiev, a suggestion that seemed to resonate with the pro-Ukrainians present, several of whom spoke out against the government of oligarch president Petro Poroshenko.

Mozgovoi's reputation has attracted ideologically driven far-left volunteers like the Moscow antifascist Anton Fatulayev, who was reportedly killed in an ambush in August after joining the Ghost Brigade. According to Fatulayev's friend and roommate Maxim Solopov, the recruiter in Rostov-on-Don who helped Fatulayev pick a rebel commander to serve under had recommended Mozgovoi because he "supports the idea of popular democracy, he takes an independent position, he doesn't believe the Russian government, he's an independent person and a man of strong beliefs who is fighting for ideals including social justice, and besides all that he has the reputation of a good commander who takes care his soldiers."

But Mozgovoi's political platform remains fluid, ill-defined and sometimes contradictory. Although he is ostensibly fighting for the creation of a pro-Russian "Novorossiya" state over a wide swath of southeastern Ukrainehe at one point suggested resurrecting the Russian empirehe said the regimes of both Russia and Ukraine run counter to true government by the people. He admitted he is worried that the rebels in their alliance with Russia are simply trading one oligarchy for another.

Mozgovoi describes himself as a supporter of "rule by the people," and, when pushed on what that might actually mean, said he envisions a government with direct citizen participation in policy-making, a strong social welfare component, nationalization of key industries and a division between government and business that is "written in blood." He said he opposed following any one ideology or dogma, although he admitted his respect for Vladimir Lenin and Nestor Makhno, the controversial leader of the brief-lived anarchist communist Free Territory in eastern Ukraine during the Russian Civil War. He has criticized Ukraine's Communist Party for failing to "fix anything or build anything in the socialist direction."

The commander's support for radical popular democracy has a darker side. By law, Ukraine doesn't allow the death penalty such as that handed down by the people's court, but Mozgovoi is by all accounts the ultimate authority in Alchevsk right now. As The Nation arrived at his headquarters in a decrepit former printing press for the interview, a group of haggard-looking men swept the street outside, part of the "work therapy" Mozgovoi has instituted for minor crimes like violating the curfew or drunk and disorderly conduct.

Sitting in an office decorated with old weapons like a saber and a WWII-era submachine gun, the commander said his order to arrest woman in bars was "absurd" and that the man sentenced to death would remain alive for now. "We didn't conduct that court to shoot someone, but rather so people could feel how it is to make a decision themselves," Mozgovoi said.

Both of the sentenced rapists told The Nationin the presence of armed guardsthat they were being held in decent conditions, although one had a black eye, which he said he got when he slipped on a small set of nearby steps.

Oleg Izmailov, a Donetsk-based journalist and political analyst, called Mozgovoi's people's court a "medieval" practice, but said it was also reminiscent of the tradition of "people's gatherings" common in Russian villages and Cossack communities. He added that "social revolution is closer to him than the idea of national revolution," unlike with many rebel commanders, and admitted that Mozgovoi's ideas have a popular appeal.

"Under the Ukrainian regime, almost all judges earned the hatred of the people," Izmailov said. "Those who heard cases, especially criminal ones, were not clean and everyone knew it, so the people of course welcomes this.

"But relatives of the two sentenced rapists questioned the commander's methods."It was awful, there was no defense, no witnesses," Irina Karpusha, the estranged wife of the man sentenced to duty on the front line, told The Nation when asked about the people's court. "Some people came there drunk and decided a person's fate without fear of God or anything else … I'm not justifying [my husband], he's done wrong, but it was awful.

"According to Russian Marxist Kagarlitsky, although Mozgovoi lacks an intelligible political program, such populist military leaders are typical in times of unrest. Nonetheless, he remains the "best show in town from a left of point of view," Kagarlitsky said.

"Some are a little bandit, a little revolutionary, a little people's hero," he said. "Today's Ukraine can compare with the Mexico of Pancho Villa and Zapata, so he's a people's hero with all the pluses and minuses … There were lots of such heroes in the Russian Civil War, but then the Bolsheviks put commissars from the intelligentsia above them. Nowadays there is no such left movement or intelligentsia.

"Sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko, a pro-Ukrainian leftist commentator and a member of the editorial board of Commons: Journal for Social Criticism, said Mozgovoi has "ideas about anti-oligarchic egalitarian democracy." But the commander also has "conservative, sexist ideas," he said, calling into doubt Mozgovoi's ability to influence the separatist movement to focus more on left-leaning social reforms.

"Which precisely elements in his politics will dominate, either progressive, or reactionary, will depend not on him foremost but on the general development of the separatist movement," Ishchenko said. "And generally it is developing not in the left direction now."

Quote:There is no speaking of inclusion of Novorossia into Ukraine any longerApril 8th, 23:05

In the journal of general Kanchukov I found an interview of the former SVR general Reshetnikov, who now leads the RISR analytical center.

On the northern outskirts of Moscow, under reliable protection of the interior troops the formerly secret institute of the Foreign Intelligence Service is hidden. The golden letters "Russian Institute of Strategic Research" now show up on the front of the overhang. But the peaceful name doesn't confuse those who are in the know more than two hundred employees forge the Motherland's analytical shield here. Will there be a new war in the south-east of Ukraine? Who is behind the US president? Why so many among our officials can be called the ideological agents of influence? These and other questions of "AN" were answered by the director of RISR, the retired lieutenant-general Leonid RESHETNIKOV.
( Collapse )
[B]Rivals on the same field

[B] You had a serous "roof" the SVR. Why would they suddenly declassify you?
Indeed, we were a closed institute of the foreign intelligence, which mostly specialized in analyzing the available information on the far and near abroad. That is, on the information that is not only needed by the intelligence service, but also by the structures that determine the country's foreign policy. Oddly enough, there were no similar analytical centers in the Russian president's administration. Even though there were plenty of "institutions" in which there is only the director, the secretary and the wife of the director who works as an analyst. The PA lacked serious specialists and so the intelligence service had to share.
Today our founder is the president of Russia, and all governmental requests for research are signed by the head of the administration Sergey Ivanov.

[B] How much demand is out there for your analytics? For we are a paper country: everyone writes, writes a lot but does that influence the final result?
Sometimes we see the actions that echo our analytical papers. Sometimes it is impressive when you put up certain ideas and they become a trend in the Russian public opinion. It is clear that many directions are ripe for being pursued.

[B] Something similar is done in the USA by the analytical center Stratfor and the strategic research center RAND Corporation. Which of you is "cooler"?
When, after the transition to the PA in the April of 2009 we made the new statute of the institute, as a suggestion we were told to use their example. Back then I thought "if you'll finance us like Stratfor or the RAND Corporation are financed, then we'll beat all of these foreign analytical companies." Because the Russian analysts are the strongest in the world. Even more so the regional specialists, who have more "fresh", uncontaminated brains. I can speak about this confidently, in the end I have 33 years of experience of the analytical work. First in the First main directorate of the KGB USSR and then the Foreign Intelligence Service.

[B]NGO, NGO where did you bring us

[B] It is well-known that RAND Corporation developed the plan of the ATO in the south-east of the country for Ukraine. Did your institute give information about Ukraine, in particular about Crimea?
Of course. In principle, just two institute were engaged on Ukraine: RISR and the Institute of CIS countries of Konstantin Zatulin. From the very beginning of our work we wrote analytical papers on the growth of anti-Russian sentiment in Ukraine and on the strengthening of pro-Russian sentiment in Crimea. We analyzed the actions of the Ukrainian authorities. But we didn't give the alarmist data everything is lost, rather, we increased the attention to the growing problem.
We proposed to significantly intensify the work of pro-Russian non-governmental organizations (NGO), intensify, as they now say, the pressure of "soft power" policy.

[B] With an ambassador like Zurabov we don't even need any enemies!
The work of any embassy and of any ambassador is subject to a number of limitations. One step to the side and there is a scandal. Plus, there is a huge problem with professional personnel in the country. And not just in the field of diplomacy. Somehow we exhausted the stocks very few strong people with a strong pivot remain in the government service.
It is hard to overestimate the role of NGOs. Color-coded revolutions are a clear example, which are warmed up primarily by the American non-governmental organizations. This happened in Ukraine as well. Unfortunately, effectively no attention was devoted to creating and supporting such organizations that would act in our interests. And if they would work, then they could replace ten embassies and ten ambassadors, even very smart ones. Now the situation started to change, following a direct order from the president. Hopefully, the subordinates won't wash out this development.

[B]If tomorrow there will be war

[B] How do you think the events in Novorossia will develop in the spring and summer? Will there be a new military campaign?
[B] Unfortunately, the probability is very high. Just a year ago the idea of federalizing Ukraine was workable. But now Kiev needs only war. Only a unitary state. For several reasons. The main is that the country is now led by ideologically anti-Russian people, who are not simply subordinated to Washington, but actually are bought and paid for by those forces who are hiding behind the US government.

[B] And what does this notorious "world government" need?
It is easier to say what they don't need: [B]they don't need a [B]federal Ukraine, such a territory will be hard to control. It will be impossible to deploy their military bases, a new ABM echelon there. And there are such plans. From Lugansk and Kharkov tactical cruise missiles can reach behind the Urals, where our main nuclear deterrence forces are located. And they can hit silo-based and road-mobile ballistic missiles on the ascent trajectory with a 100% probability. Currently this area is not reachable by them neither from Poland nor from Turkey nor from the South-East Asia. [B]This is the main goal. So the US will fight for Donbass to the last Ukrainian.[/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B]
[B][B][B][B][B][B] So this is not about the shale gas depots that were found on this territory?
[B] Their main strategic goal is a unitary Ukraine under their full control for fighting Russia. And the shale gas or arable lands this is just a pleasant bonus. Collateral gain. Plus a serious strike on our MIC due to the cutting of the links between the MIC of Ukraine and Russia. This is already accomplished.

[B] We were outplayed: "son of a bitch" Yanukovich had to be evacuated with the help of Spetsnaz and Washington placed its own "sons of bitches"?
From the strategic-military point of view, of course we were outplayed. Russia got "compensation" Crimea. There is "compensation" the resistance by the residents of the south-east of Ukraine. But the enemy already got huge territory, which was a part of the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire.

[B] What are we going to see in Ukraine this year?
[B] The process of semi-disintegration or even utter disintegration. Many are still silent in the face of the genuine nazism. But people who understand the Ukraine and Russia are strongly connected didn't say their last word yet. Not in Odessa, not in Kharkov, not in Zaporozhye, and not in Chernigov. This silence is not eternal. And [B]the lid of this cauldron will be inevitably blown away.

[B] And how will the relations between Novorossia and the rest of Ukraine develop?
[B] There is a low-probability scenario of Transnistria. But I don't believe in it the territory of the DPR and the LPR is much bigger, millions of people were already sucked into this war. For now Russia still can convince the militia leaders to engage in a temporary respite and truce. But exactly that temporary. There is no speaking about the return of Novorossia into Ukraine any longer. The people of the south-east don't want to be Ukrainians.

[B] So if our country ended up isolated globally due to the reunification with Crimea, why don't we go all-in in the south-east? How much hypocrisy can there be?
I think that it is too early to go all-in just yet. We underestimate the degree of awareness of our president, who knows that there are certain processes in Europe that are not clearly visible to outside observers. These processes give hope that we will be able to protect our interests using different methods and means.

[B]A front without the front line

[B] In the flow of information associated with Ukraine we forget about the explosive growth of the religious extremism in the Central Asia...
This is an extremely dangerous trend for our country. The situation in Tadzhikistan is very difficult. The situation in Kyrgyzstan is unstable. But Turkmenistan may become the direction of the first strike, just like "AN" wrote. Somehow, we forget about it a little, because Ashkhabad stands somewhat alone. But this "mansion" may fall first. Will they have enough strength to beat off? Or will we intervene into a country that keeps quite long distance away from us? So, this direction is hard.
And not only due to the "Islamic State" militants seeping into the region. According to the latest data, the USA and NATO are not going to leave Afghanistan and are going to maintain their bases there. From the military point of view, five or ten thousand soldiers who remain there may be deployed into a 50-100-strong group within a month.
This is a part of the overall plan of surrounding and pressuring Russia, which is implemented by the hands of the USA with the goal of deposing president Vladimir Putin and breaking the country. A typical layman may, of course, not believe this, but people with access to a large volume of information know this very well.

[B] Which borders will the split go through?
First they plan to simply cut off that which is "easy". It doesn't matter what will fall off: Kaliningrad, the North Caucasus, or the Far East. This will serve as a detonator of the process that may intensify. This is not a propaganda phantom it is a real idea. Such pressure from the west (Ukraine), and the south (Central Asia) will only grow. The are trying to seep through the western gates, but they'll also probe the southern ones.

[B] What is the most dangerous strategic direction for us?
The southern direction is very dangerous. But for now the buffer states the former central asian Soviet republics still function. [B]And in the west the war is already at the border. Effectively, on our territory.
Currently, it is not the bloodbath of Ukrainians and Russians there, but rather a war of global systems. Some think that they "are Europe", others that they are Russia. Because our country is not just a territory. It is a separate, huge civilization, which brought its own view of the global order to the whole world. Primarily, of course, this is the Russian Empire as an example of the East-Orthodox civilization. The Bolsheviks destroyed it, but they put up a new civilizational idea. A third is now very close. And we'll see it within 56 years.

[B] What will it be?
I think that it will be a decent symbiosis of the previous ones. And our "sworn colleagues" perfectly understand this. That is why the attack from all sides started.

[B] That is, the joint Russian-American fight against terror, in particular, against ISIS is a fiction?
Of course. America creates terrorists, feeds them, trains them, and then gives an order to the whole pack: "catch". Perhaps, they can shoot one "rabid dog" in the whole pack, but the other dogs will be set even more actively.

[B]Satan leads the ball

[B] Leonid Petrovich, you think that the USA and the American presidents are just an instrument. Who do you think determine their policy?
There are communities of people who are effectively unknown to the public, which not only determine the American presidents but also determine the rules of the whole "big game". In particular, these are the transnational financial corporations. But not only them.
[B]Currently there is an ongoing process of reformatting the financial and the economical system of the world. Clearly, there is an attempt to rethink the whole structure of capitalism without rejecting it. The foreign policy is subject to rapid change. The US suddenly effectively abandoned Israel their main ally in the Middle East for the sake of improving the relations with Iran. Is it because now Tehran is more valuable and more important than Tel-Aviv? Because it is among the countries around Russia. These covert forces set the goal of liquidating our country as a serious player on the global stage. Because Russia is a civilizational alternative to the whole united west.
Moreover, there is an explosive growth of anti-American sentiment in the world. Hungary, where the conservative right-wing forces are in power, and Greece's left-wingers diametrically opposed forces effectively united and "bucked" against the US dictate in Europe. There are also those who may "buck" in Italy, Austria, in France, and so on. If Russia will now stand its ground, then the processes that are not beneficial to the forces who seek to claim the global domination will start in Europe. And these forces perfectly understand this.

[B] Some European leaders already lament that the USA effectively forced sanctions on them. Europe may break out of the "friendly" American embrace?
[B] Never. America holds her on several chains: the Federal Reserve printing press, the threat of color-coded revolutions and of the physical elimination of unwanted politicians.

[B] Are you exaggerating about the physical elimination part?
Not at all. The Central Intelligence Agency of the USA is not even an intelligence service based on the level of the tasks set before it. The PGU KGB or the SVR of the RF are classical intelligence services: information gathering and reporting to the leadership of the country. In the CIA these traditional features of an intelligence service are at the end of the list of its problems. The main goals are: elimination, which included physical elimination, of the politicians and the organization of coups. And they do this in real time.
After the loss of the "Kursk" submarine, the CIA director George Tenet visited us. I was asked to meet him in the airport. Tenet was slow to exit the airplane, but the apparel was open so I could peek inside his "Hercules". This was a flying headquarters, the operational computer center, which was full of equipment and communications systems that can track and model the situation in the whole world. The accompanying delegation twenty people. As for us we flew and fly regular flights, in 2-5 person teams. You can feel the difference, so to say.

[B] By the way, about the intelligence. Once again there is talk of the idea of restoring the united Russian intelligence service by uniting the SVR and the FSB. What do you think about this?
I'm very negative. If we combine the two special services the foreign intelligence and the counter-intelligence, then we'll create one source of information for the highest leadership of the country out of two. Then, the person who sits at this "origin of information" becomes a monopolist. And he can manipulate it for achieving some goal. In the USSR KGB such informational manipulations were obvious even to the captain Reshetnikov. [B]For a president, a czar, a prime-minister no matter how you call the highest official it is advantageous to have several independent intelligence sources. Otherwise he becomes a hostage of a specific leader of the structure of the structure itself. This is very dangerous.
The authors of this idea think that we will become stronger after this union. Instead, we will create threats for ourselves.

[B]Where are the imprisonments?

[B] And now lets go from the global conspiracy theories to our local affairs. How can you tell between an official who doesn't know what he's doing and an agent of influence who knows what he's doing?
There are not as many agents of influence of a serious level in the world as many think. Passing or not passing serious strategic decisions against the interests of one's own country is typically initiated by, so to speak, ideological agents. These are those among our officials who ended up occupying a high-rank domestic position, but whose soul is in the West. There's no need to enlist or order them. For these people everything that's done "there" is the highest achievement of the civilization. And what's here the "unwashed" Russia. They don't associated the future of their children, whom they send abroad, with the country. And this is a more serious indicator than the accounts in foreign banks. [B]Such "comrades" sincerely don't like Russia, the "development" of which they supervise.

[B] You just drew a portrait of some of our ministers very precisely. How are we going to make it through 2015 with them?
This year, with them or without them, will be difficult. Most likely, the next year won't be easier either. But after that new Russia will be confidently on the march.
[/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B]

[/B]