PDA

View Full Version : Introducing George Michael Evica's "A Certain Arrogance"



Charles Drago
09-27-2008, 05:06 AM
The following is my "Introduction" to A Certain Arrogance: U.S. Intelligence's Manipulation of Religious Groups and Individuals in Two World Wars and the Cold War -- and the Sacrificing of Lee Harvey Oswald (2006; The Iron Sites Press), by the late George Michael Evica, PhD.

(If I may exercise author's prerogative: The original edition's typesetters butchered my words -- much to George Michael's chagrin. So here's my chance to set things right.)

George Michael was -- and remains -- my friend, mentor, and comrade. He honored me in this life in so many ways. When he asked me to introduce what would be his final major work, I received the most important, lasting, and loving compliment of my professional life.

CD

*********

To Withdraw From the Tumult of Cemeteries

By Charles R. Drago


human kind
Cannot bear very much reality

-- T. S. Eliot, Burnt Norton, Four Quartets

Let me be clear from the outset: A Certain Arrogance is no more or less about the assassination of John F. Kennedy than cancer surgery is about the tumor.

George Michael Evica, one of the preeminent prosectors of the malignant growth that disfigured the American body politic on November 22, 1963, for decades has focused his intellect and intuition on the search for a cure for the underlying disease. In the course of forty years of research, analysis, writing, broadcasting, and teaching, he has followed its devastating metastasis through the vital organs of politics (deep and otherwise) to the extremities of business, culture, and religion. All the while he has cut away necrotic tissue and struggled valiantly, in the company of a surgical team as distinguished as it is obscure, to keep the patient alive.

Professor Evica, author of And We Are All Mortal: New Evidence and Analysis in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy (1975; University of Hartford), can be numbered among the most honored of the so-called second generation of Kennedy assassination researchers. Their labors to refine, reinforce, expand upon, and draw attention to the discoveries of their predecessors -- and to break new ground -- validate this direct statement of fact:

Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the homicide of JFK who does not conclude that the act was the consequence of a criminal conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

Conspiracy in the Kennedy killing is as well-established an historical truth as is the Holocaust. Further, those in a position to know this truth who nonetheless choose to deny it in service to the darkest political and cultural agendas are morally akin to Holocaust deniers.

A Certain Arrogance stands as Professor Evicas response to the long suffering question: How do we define and effect justice in the wake of the world-historic tragedy in Dallas?

Clearly he understands that, at this late date, being content merely to identify and, if possible, prosecute the conspiracys sponsors, facilitators, and mechanics would amount to hollow acts of vengeance. Cleaning and closing the wound while leaving the disease to spread is simply not a survivable option.

With the nobility of knowledge comes obligation: How can we utilize all that has been learned through our post-Dallas experiences to heal and immunize the victims of the malady of which the assassination of John F. Kennedy is but the most widely appreciated and putrescent manifestation?

The method by which Professor Evica honors his noblesse oblige is, at first blush, hardly novel. Like many other researchers, he has chosen to begin his exploration by focusing on an aspect of the complex life of the lead character in the assassination drama, Lee Harvey Oswald. To carry the cancer metaphor forward: Think of the falsely accused killer as a tumor cell whose sojourn through the host organism in theory can be traced back to its source.

Oswalds movements, however, are not easily discerned. False trails and feints abound. Promising clues have been obscured by a host of ham-handed interlopers and sinister obfuscators.

Rather than traverse well-worn pathways, Professor Evica sets out by following one of the few remaining under-examined passages of an otherwise over-mapped life. His uniquely painstaking investigation of Oswalds involvement with Albert Schweitzer College (hereinafter ASC), including the processes and implications of his application, acceptance, and nonattendance, has led both to major discoveries and to significant refinements of previously developed hypotheses.

In the former category our attention is drawn to what Professor Evica terms one of U.S. intelligences last important secrets, the involvement by the Central Intelligence Agency and psychological operations (psyops) in student and youth organizations especially those with religious affiliations.

The U.S. governments faith-based initiatives, it seems, did not originate with George W. Bushs alleged presidency.

As he meticulously follows Oswalds ASC paper trail, the author is led not toward the Swiss campus, but rather into brick walls and empty rooms. A prime example: Oswald applied to the college on March 19, 1959. Less than two months later, when the chairman of ASCs American Admissions Committee (and, at the time, the pastor of the First Unitarian Church of Providence, Rhode Island) submitted to Switzerland the applications and related materials of prospective American students, Oswalds folder was included.

Today those documents critically important evidence in the investigation of the crime of the 20th century do not exist in any official repository. This in spite of the fact that copies, or perhaps even originals, were in the Providence ASC file seized by the FBI after the assassination. This troubling absence, within a broader context fully substantiated in A Certain Arrogance, inevitably leads the author to conclude that Oswalds application to ASC is a still-protected American intelligence operation.

I do not wish to spoil the bittersweet joy of discovery to be experienced as readers accompany Professor Evica on his journey through terra incognita. Yet the methodology and ultimate value of A Certain Arrogance as a whodunit (as opposed to the howdunit nature of the overwhelming majority of JFK assassination-related volumes) must be fully appreciated. To discover the identities of Oswalds early manipulators is to be drawn into the necrotic nucleus of the disease. And so, thanks to the Evica investigation of the ASC charade, we are left with a preliminary, shattering conclusion regarding the who we seek.

Whoever directed the Oswald [assassination] Game was thoroughly knowledgeable about both the OSSs and CIAs counterintelligence manipulations of Quakers, Unitarians, Lutherans, Dutch Reformed clerics and World Council of Churches officials as intelligence and espionage contacts, assets, and informants.

From the mountains and snowfields and quaint villages of Switzerland, Professor Evica escorts us through a darker, more mysterious inner landscape. Examinations of what he neatly summarizes as U.S. covert intelligence operating under humanitarian cover leads us to a confrontation with psychological operations psyops and its propaganda, disinformation, and morale operations alter egos.

Professor Evica was the first scholar/researcher to understand the Kennedy assassination and other intelligence operations as by-design theatrical productions, replete with all the essential elements of drama including shameless manipulations of audiences minds and emotions. Within these pages he further supports and refines this hypothesis.

Psychological manipulations of individuals and groups, whatever the procedure may have been called in the 18th and 19th centuries, drew upon discoveries in anatomy, mesmerism, hypnotism, counseling, studies in hysteria, rhetorical theory, psychoanalysis, advertising, behavior modification, and psychiatry. In the same periods, the literary forms of irony, satire, and comedy and the less reputable verbal arts of slander, libel, and manufactured lies were applied.

Before we are tempted to argue that the realities of war often require an honorable combatant to mimic, for a limited period and with noble intent, the darker designs of an evil foe, Professor Evica reminds us that, Most of these genres and strategies were enlisted in the service of social, class, and political power. He then identifies a likely second unit director of the aforementioned Oswald Game.

C. D. Jackson was the psyops expert who organized and ran General Dwight David Eisenhowers Psychological Warfare Division at SHAEF an official of the Office of War Information [and] a veteran of the North African campaign.

Jacksons career and its impact upon American history, heretofore marginally understood at best (he is widely identified as the Time-Life editor who purchased the Zapruder film) are major focuses of A Certain Arrogance. Nowhere is both the validity of Albert Einsteins observation that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion and the contemporary relevance of Professor Evicas discoveries more clearly evident than in the authors exposition of the Jackson oeuvre. In particular we are drawn to the discussion of how mass media early on was identified as a key weapon in the mind control arsenal.

In a 1946 letter to Jackson, General Robert McClure, at one time Eisenhowers chief of intelligence for the European theater, boasted to his psyops counterpart of the scope of their manipulation.

We now control 137 newspapers, 6 radio stations, 314 theaters, 642 movies, 101 magazines, 237 book publishers, 7,384 book dealers and printers, and conduct about 15 public opinion surveys a month, as well as publish one newspaper with 1,500,000 circulation run the AP of Germany, and operate 20 library centers.

Fairness and balance, it seems, did not originate with the Fox Networks alleged news division.

Haunting the pages of A Certain Arrogance in the company of the shades of John Fitzgerald Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald is a revelation so menacing in its assault on convention as to provoke a reflexive shielding of our eyes from its searing light. Yet the author cannot spare us the psychic pain that is the unavoidable side effect of his scholarship, insofar as such suffering remains the sine qua non for the eradication of our common malady and the return to robust good health.

Within the nucleus of the disease, Professor Evica has discovered a treasonous cabal of hard-line American and Soviet intelligence agents whose masters were above Cold War differences.

In light of this revelation, we are left with no choice but to embrace a new paradigm of world power.

Professor Evica reveals the universally accepted vertical, East v. West Cold War confrontation to have been a sophistic construct, illusory in terms of its advertised raison detre, all too real in its bloody consequences, created by the powerful yet outnumbered manipulators of perception to protect what they recognized to be an all too fragile reality. The true division of power, he teaches us, then as now is drawn on a horizontal axis.

Envision the earth so bifurcated, with the line drawn not at the equator, but rather at the Arctic Circle. Above the line are the powerful few the Haves. Below the line, in vastly superior numbers, are the powerless many the Have-Nots.

Can we bear so much reality?

While contemplating the implications of Professor Evicas research, I was reminded of how Francis Ford Coppola struggled to find the best thematic hook on which to hang the plot of The Godfather, Part III. It is said that he considered and ultimately rejected a treatment of the Kennedy assassination as the most cinematically viable expression of systemic evil in full flower. Instead perhaps wisely, perhaps not he opted to dramatize the Vatican Bank scandal.

Upon initial examination, the conjoined stories of the looting of the Banco Ambrosiano, the perfidy of Roberto Calvi and P2, the assassination of John Paul I, and the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church at its highest levels present as the cellular components of yet another tumor, arguably the most horrific manifestation imaginable of the disease being probed by Professor Evica.

We are incredulous. We are outraged.

Then reason returns.

The manipulations of religious institutions by elements of the deep political structure for unholy purposes should provoke neither surprise nor anger. For is not organized religion merely politics by other means?

The assault on Albert Schweitzer, however, is another matter.

The ethical spirit must be awakened anew, Dr. Schweitzer instructed at the height of the Cold War. The defiling of the name and the perversion of the mission of that saintly man no doubt provoked sweet satisfaction within the breasts of those for whom a worldview informed by ethics is simply not a survivable option.

What then of justice? Have we any reason to expect the guilty to be punished, the disease to be eradicated? The novelist Jim Harrison:

People finally dont have much affection for questions, especially one so leprous as the apparent lack of a fair system of rewards and punishments on earth We would like to think that the whole starry universe would curdle the conjunctions of Orion twisted askew, the arms of the Southern Cross drooping. Of course not; immutable is immutable and everyone in his own private manner dashes his brains against the long suffering question that is so luminously obvious. Even gods arent exempt; note Jesus howl of despair as he stepped rather tentatively into eternity.

It is for us to deliver justice and heal ourselves, to muster the courage to ask questions and the strength to endure answers.

Within the pages of A Certain Arrogance, George Michael Evica leads by example.

Paul Rigby
12-26-2008, 09:21 PM
The following is my "Introduction" to A Certain Arrogance: U.S. Intelligence's Manipulation of Religious Groups and Individuals in Two World Wars and the Cold War -- and the Sacrificing of Lee Harvey Oswald (2006; The Iron Sites Press), by the late George Michael Evica, PhD... to muster the courage to ask questions and the strength to endure answers.

Within the pages of A Certain Arrogance, George Michael Evica leads by example.

I'm part way through this, and richly rewarding it has proved already.

The pages given over to the Noel Field affair/Operation Splinter Factor (OSF) are worth the price of admission in and of themselves. They go to the heart of the myth of "roll back" and shed revealing light on the true nature of US objectives, strategies and tactics.

In brief, OSF was designed to preserve and maintain the status quo in post-WWII Europe. The rhetoric of liberation was for suckers. The lessons for those seeking to comprehend US policy in late-1950s Cuba and beyond are direct and profound.

Evica might usefully have looked at Beria's programme of reform in the immediate post-Stalin era: OSF was in large measure designed to shape the post-Stalin succession to thwart those within the Soviet elite who realised the dead-end into which the Party and the Red Army had, under the curious figure of the grotesque Stalin, driven the colossus.

Paul

Charles Drago
12-26-2008, 09:54 PM
Thanks, Paul.

Please do continue your review when time permits.

FYI, I'm working with George Michael's estate and a major publisher to bring out an updated version of ACA in 2009.

Paul Rigby
12-26-2008, 10:32 PM
Thanks, Paul.

Please do continue your review when time permits.

FYI, I'm working with George Michael's estate and a major publisher to bring out an updated version of ACA in 2009.

Do take a look at the figures targeted by the CIA's OSF - reformists, almost to a man, with Beria as their main patron. The Berlin "Uprising" represented a classic confluence of interest, with East Germany party, Red Army and the Agency united in the desire to destroy economic reform and political liberalization, not merely in Russian-controlled Germany, but throughout eastern Europe, each for their own complex of self-interested reasons. The dead give-away, from the point of exposing the hypocrisy and deceit of the East German party establishment, was the subsequent sustained campaign to point the finger at CIC, not the Agency.

Once one sees clearly what it was that Beria was attempting, we see immediately that Gorbachev's campaign of reform did not arise ex nihilo, but was firmly rooted within the divisions within the Soviet elite of the late 1940s and early 1950s. Gorby got the boot, by the way, not for rushing through reform, but for resisting it: He wanted to preserve the Union. The ascendant Chekists did not.

Paul

Charles Drago
12-27-2008, 02:40 AM
Gorbachev's campaign of reform did not arise ex nihilo, but was firmly rooted within the divisions within the Soviet elite of the late 1940s and early 1950s.
Paul

Much to think about here.

For the moment, know that your sense of divisions within ostensibly monolithic constructs is key to understanding the deeper political complexities of broader (hemispheric, etc.) ideological conflicts.

An example: To view post-revolutionary Cuba as an ideologically coherent state is to misapprehend -- fatally -- the forces whose conflicting agendas and the battles they engendered remain the focus of our attention now.

Paul Rigby
12-27-2008, 07:31 AM
Much to think about here.

For the moment, know that your sense of divisions within ostensibly monolithic constructs is key to understanding the deeper political complexities of broader (hemispheric, etc.) ideological conflicts.

An example: To view post-revolutionary Cuba as an ideologically coherent state is to misapprehend -- fatally -- the forces whose conflicting agendas and the battles they engendered remain the focus of our attention now.

The Beria Interregnum

Throughout the Cold War, British and U.S. intelligence spent sizable quantities of tax payers money lying to the latter about their crimes. A favourite front was the migr and/or dissident, and the preferred medium, the book. Thus in Mihajlo Mihajlovs Moscow Summer reassuringly, copyrighted in 1965 by those noted bibliophiles of the American Labor Conference on International Affairs, Inc. we learn, ostensibly from the fearless Yugoslavian dissident-author, that Patrice Lumumba was killed by the same institutional hand that placed an ice-pick in Trotskys skull (1). The revelation of the existence of the CIA prior to 1947 was not the works only addition to the sum total of knowledge. Elsewhere, we learned that only the destruction of all power will open the door to spiritual unity for mankind (2), a proposition that no doubt elicited a chuckle or two from the CIA professor charged with overseeing the fulfilment of that years Langley literary quota.

Such vehicles also offered another use - the opportunity for the spooks to vent their deepest fears and neuroses. In the CIAs case, the simmering terror was that the Soviet Union would de-ideologise and deprive it of its public raison detre. A second Mihajlov book, this one published in 1977, expressed this fear in the course of an episodic analysis of Solzhenitsyns Letter to the Soviet Leaders. Here, Mihajlov/the CIA overseer reinterpreted Soviet history from Lenin on, noting that the very revolution itself represented a repudiation of classical Marxism and its tenets. Even more revealing was this section:


On Yugoslav TV screens not long ago, there was shown weekly for two months a new Soviet series entitled Seventeen Moments of Spring, based on a screenplay by Julian Semyonov. Although the hero of the series was a Soviet secret intelligence officer a KGB man who worked at the end of the war in the highest echelons of Hitlers Reich due to the wonderful directing of Tatyana Leonova and Vyacheslav Tikhonov, the series became a truly artistic creation rather than a stereotyped KGB spoof. The most interesting thing is that the authorcrammed into the series a great number of very interesting reflections and thoughts on the totalitarian system (3).

What lay at the heart of these very interesting reflections and thoughts? Semyonovs indifference to Marxist ideology; and boundless contempt for democracy. What was there in this to trouble the CIAs more thoughtful elements, given that the CIA itself had spent its entire history destroying democracy at home and abroad? The fear that the Cheka would gain the same freedom from supervision and ideology as the CIA enjoyed.

It is a measure of the dismal nature of most Anglo-American scholarship on the post-Stalin succession that one must turn to a book, published in the late 1950s, and authored by a German former inmate of the gulag, to find lucidity and insight into what Beria sought to do, and why only a Chekist and the secret police bureaucracy could have attempted it. Bernhard Roeders analysis has a further vital utility: It offers us a precedent for the Gorbachevian revolution-from-above.

Did Beria really intend to introduce a new regime, grant more freedom to the oppressed nations, abolish collective farming, initiate a policy of concilitation with the West in short, revert to the Menshevik, Social-Democratic ideals of his youth?

One thing is certain: nobody knew better than he, Beria, in his position of potent, omniscient Chief of Secret Police, that extensive reforms were objectively necessary to get the Soviet system out of the blind alley into which Stalin had led it. And nobody but he could make such an attempt, for his Cheka was not, like the Party, entwined with the whole machine of State and economy. The Cheka was isolated, and therefore efficient; Cheka officials were in no danger of losing their jobs in the course of such radical reforms, as would be the case with Party officials, but would rather gain new positions of influence. Most important of all, the Cheka was not, like the Party, tied to a rigid ideology. The Cheka was an instrument of power for powers sake. It can do without any ideology, can serve any ideology and betray any ideology. It has no ideology of its own, because it is the abstract organisation of absolute power which is not ashamed of its nakedness and therefore does not need the fig-leaf of an ideology (4).



(1) Mihajlo Mihajlov. Moscow Summer (London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1966), p.214.
(2) Ibid., p.168.
(3) Mihajlo Mihajlov. Underground Notes (Routledge & Keegan Paul, 1977), p.96.
(4) Bernhard Roeder. Katorga: An Aspect of Modern Slavery (London: William Heinemann,1958), p.210.

Paul Rigby
12-27-2008, 08:15 AM
The Beria Interregnum

I wrote the brief passage years ago. I was both surprised and delighted to see that Anne Applebaum, in her Gulag: A History (London: Penguin edition, 2004), offers a very fine two page summary of the sweeping reforms Beria launched almost the instant Stalin died. The most profound domestically concerned a) the gulag, and b) the conduct of the secret police:


Beria requested that an amnesty be extended to all prisoners with sentences of five years or less, to all pregnant women, to all women with young children, and to every one under eighteen a million people in all. The amnesty was announced on 27 March. Releases began immediatelyon 16 June he laid all of his cards on the table, openly declaring his intention to liquidate the system of forced labour, on the grounds of economic effectiveness and lack of perspective

Beria made other changes as well. He forbade all secret police cadres from using physical force against arrestees effectively ending torture. (1)

The point isnt to start some sort of cult of Beria, but instead to see him clearly for what he was and what he sought to do and thence to understand the CIAs desperate desire to thwart him and his reforms. The relevance of Beria to the Kennedy assassination? Kennedy, like Beria before him, sought to end the Cold War.

(1) Anne Applebaum. Gulag: A History (London: Penguin, 2004), pp.430-431.

Magda Hassan
12-27-2008, 09:46 AM
Paul, I am finding this thread most interesting. I am also reading ACA at the moment. It has been 25 years or more since I delved into Soviet politics and even then it was for other reasons that what I am interested to know now. Do you or any one else here know any good information (in English preferably) on factions with in the Soviet power structures over the years? Worth a try, hey?

Paul Rigby
12-27-2008, 12:50 PM
Paul, I am finding this thread most interesting. I am also reading ACA at the moment. It has been 25 years or more since I delved into Soviet politics and even then it was for other reasons that what I am interested to know now. Do you or any one else here know any good information (in English preferably) on factions with in the Soviet power structures over the years? Worth a try, hey?

I found Boris I. Nicolaevsky's "Power and the Soviet Elite: 'The Letter of an Old Bolshevik' and other Essays" (London: Pall Mall Press, 1966), edited by Janet D. Zagoria, a very useful place to start. The same author wrote a number of very interesting and informative pieces for The New Leader in the late 40s and the 50s.

The best English-language overview of Beria and his policies I've come across is Amy Knight's "Beria: Stalin's First Lieutenant" (Princeton UP, 1993). On p.169, for example, Knight illustrates the clear link between Kremlin power struggles and the purges in Eastern Europe. The missing dimension, of course, it what the CIA and its directors were up to, all of which is a no-no for Knight:


The Prague trial can be seen as a forerunner of the subsequent Doctors' Plot trial in Moscow, In fact, the charge of political murder by doctors introduced in Prague was to be a central theme, along with Zionism, of the Doctors' Plot.

As Knight notes, Slanksy and Bedrich Geminder were Beria's men: "...acting with Beria's sanction, they had made Czechoslovakia a center for funneling aid and weapons to Isreal..." (Ibid.)

At one point in the same book, Knight claims that the truth of Beria's reform programme (and much else) was hidden until recent revelations. This is purest balls, as we shall now see.

In Nicolaevsky's "Power and the Soviet Elite: 'The Letter of an Old Bolshevik' and other Essays," there is reproduced an article first published in Sotsialistichesky Vestnik in 1955, wherein the author notes: "We know definitely that while living in the USSR, Slansky and Geminder were high-ranking officials of the MVD-MGB and that they maintained this connection later, when they held major posts in their own country. Geminder had a direct telephone line the MGB in Moscow; those who arrested him knew this, and the first thing they did was to cut off his line to Moscow."

In a footnote on the same page added in 1964, Nicolaevsky stated baldly that Slansky had acted "on the instructions of Beria" in the arms flows to Israel.

CIA knew all of this in real-time, it almost goes without saying, and acted accordingly. Bolstering Soviet anti-semitism was no great leap for a man as inhumane as Allen Dulles, of course, who never once batted an eyelid at the same tactic in Germany. Evica misses a trick here, I can't help thinking.

Paul

Magda Hassan
12-27-2008, 01:01 PM
Thanks Paul :).

Charles Drago
12-27-2008, 01:45 PM
If I may exercise author's prerogative: The typesetters of ACA's first edition butchered my Introduction -- much to George Michael's chagrin.

Please refer to the corrected version that leads off this thread.

David Guyatt
12-28-2008, 05:52 PM
One curious individual who is always of interest in regard to the Soviet Union is the late millionaire Armand Hammer who had an open door to Stalin and other top figures. Hammer made his bones in the USSR dealing in the Romanoff treasure apparently, but also beer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armand_Hammer#Career

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,753932-2,00.html

Paul Rigby
12-31-2008, 04:01 PM
If I may exercise author's prerogative: The typesetters of ACA's first edition butchered my Introduction -- much to George Michael's chagrin.

Please refer to the corrected version that leads off this thread.

Don't be put off, the book's fascinating, one of the most rewarding and original works yet produced on the case. Buy it.

Paul Rigby
01-26-2009, 09:34 PM
Did Beria really intend to introduce a new regime, grant more freedom to the oppressed nations, abolish collective farming, initiate a policy of concilitation with the West in short, revert to the Menshevik, Social-Democratic ideals of his youth?

One thing is certain: nobody knew better than he, Beria, in his position of potent, omniscient Chief of Secret Police, that extensive reforms were objectively necessary to get the Soviet system out of the blind alley into which Stalin had led it. And nobody but he could make such an attempt, for his Cheka was not, like the Party, entwined with the whole machine of State and economy. The Cheka was isolated, and therefore efficient; Cheka officials were in no danger of losing their jobs in the course of such radical reforms, as would be the case with Party officials, but would rather gain new positions of influence. Most important of all, the Cheka was not, like the Party, tied to a rigid ideology. The Cheka was an instrument of power for powers sake. It can do without any ideology, can serve any ideology and betray any ideology. It has no ideology of its own, because it is the abstract organisation of absolute power which is not ashamed of its nakedness and therefore does not need the fig-leaf of an ideology (4).

(4) Bernhard Roeder. Katorga: An Aspect of Modern Slavery (London: William Heinemann,1958), p.210.

His generation of Chekists contained many such: indeed, the leadership of the KGB had to a large extent thrown in their lot with Beria - knowing, from their unillusioned intelligence of the state of the Soviet economy and of Soviet morale, that only radical reform might save it. In the event, it did not: the KGB leadership turned against Beria, and helped organise the abortive coup against him. But for Lebedev and a few like him, Beria was a ticket out of a dead end.

OK, I confess, I did substitute "Beria" for "Gorbachev" throughout the above paragraph, but I think you'll agree, eerily familiar, is it not?

John Lloyd, "Why nobody lords it over the press barons: As a former KGB man takes over London's evening paper, John Lloyd calls for him to be held to account," The Guardian, Media, Monday, 26 January 2009, p.3

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jan/26/alexander-lebedev-evening-standard-press-publishing-murdoch

By the way, Lloyd has it about-face: The Chekists dumped Gorby precisely because he couldn't bring himself to dissolve the Soviet Union.

Paul Rigby
07-11-2015, 05:29 AM
Much to think about here.

For the moment, know that your sense of divisions within ostensibly monolithic constructs is key to understanding the deeper political complexities of broader (hemispheric, etc.) ideological conflicts.

An example: To view post-revolutionary Cuba as an ideologically coherent state is to misapprehend -- fatally -- the forces whose conflicting agendas and the battles they engendered remain the focus of our attention now.

The Beria Interregnum

Throughout the Cold War, British and U.S. intelligence spent sizable quantities of tax payers money lying to the latter about their crimes. A favourite front was the �migr� and/or dissident, and the preferred medium, the book. Thus in Mihajlo Mihajlov�s �Moscow Summer� � reassuringly, copyrighted in 1965 by those noted bibliophiles of the American Labor Conference on International Affairs, Inc. � we learn, ostensibly from the fearless Yugoslavian dissident-author, that Patrice Lumumba was killed by the same institutional hand that placed an ice-pick in Trotsky�s skull (1). The revelation of the existence of the CIA prior to 1947 was not the work�s only addition to the sum total of knowledge. Elsewhere, we learned that �only the destruction of all power will open the door to spiritual unity for mankind� (2), a proposition that no doubt elicited a chuckle or two from the CIA professor charged with overseeing the fulfilment of that year�s Langley literary quota.

Such vehicles also offered another use - the opportunity for the spooks to vent their deepest fears and neuroses. In the CIA�s case, the simmering terror was that the Soviet Union would de-ideologise and deprive it of its public raison d�etre. A second Mihajlov book, this one published in 1977, expressed this fear in the course of an episodic analysis of Solzhenitsyn�s �Letter to the Soviet Leaders.� Here, Mihajlov/the CIA overseer reinterpreted Soviet history from Lenin on, noting that the very revolution itself represented a repudiation of classical Marxism and its tenets. Even more revealing was this section:


On Yugoslav TV screens not long ago, there was shown weekly for two months a new Soviet series entitled �Seventeen Moments of Spring,� based on a screenplay by Julian Semyonov. Although the hero of the series was a Soviet secret intelligence officer � a KGB man who worked at the end of the war in the highest echelons of Hitler�s Reich � due to the wonderful directing of Tatyana Leonova and Vyacheslav Tikhonov, the series became a truly artistic creation rather than a stereotyped KGB spoof. The most interesting thing is that the author�crammed into the series a great number of very interesting reflections and thoughts on the totalitarian system (3).

What lay at the heart of these �very interesting reflections and thoughts�? Semyonov�s indifference to Marxist ideology; and boundless contempt for democracy. What was there in this to trouble the CIA�s more thoughtful elements, given that the CIA itself had spent its entire history destroying democracy at home and abroad? The fear that the Cheka would gain the same freedom from supervision and ideology as the CIA enjoyed.

It is a measure of the dismal nature of most Anglo-American scholarship on the post-Stalin succession that one must turn to a book, published in the late 1950s, and authored by a German former inmate of the gulag, to find lucidity and insight into what Beria sought to do, and why only a Chekist and the secret police bureaucracy could have attempted it. Bernhard Roeder�s analysis has a further vital utility: It offers us a precedent for the Gorbachevian revolution-from-above.

�Did Beria really intend to introduce a new regime, grant more freedom to the oppressed nations, abolish collective farming, initiate a policy of concilitation with the West � in short, revert to the Menshevik, Social-Democratic ideals of his youth?

One thing is certain: nobody knew better than he, Beria, in his position of potent, omniscient Chief of Secret Police, that extensive reforms were objectively necessary to get the Soviet system out of the blind alley into which Stalin had led it. And nobody but he could make such an attempt, for his Cheka was not, like the Party, entwined with the whole machine of State and economy. The Cheka was isolated, and therefore efficient; Cheka officials were in no danger of losing their jobs in the course of such radical reforms, as would be the case with Party officials, but would rather gain new positions of influence. Most important of all, the Cheka was not, like the Party, tied to a rigid ideology. The Cheka was an instrument of power for power�s sake. It can do without any ideology, can serve any ideology and betray any ideology. It has no ideology of its own, because it is the abstract organisation of absolute power which is not ashamed of its nakedness and therefore does not need the fig-leaf of an ideology�� (4).



(1) Mihajlo Mihajlov. Moscow Summer (London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1966), p.214.
(2) Ibid., p.168.
(3) Mihajlo Mihajlov. Underground Notes (Routledge & Keegan Paul, 1977), p.96.
(4) Bernhard Roeder. Katorga: An Aspect of Modern Slavery (London: William Heinemann,1958), p.210.

From Vladimir Suchan's Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/vladimir.suchan?fref=nf


Based on interviews with insider veterans, this article argues that the overthrow of the communist regime in the USSR originated or was mainly harbored within the KGB and that's the phase of the transition already started at least under Andropov already. The first off-shore, shell companies were found back in 1981, 1984. The early form of the plan (one of its key teams was led by Chubais) foresaw a Pinochet-like dictatorship for the transition (counter-revolution). From the very beginning, it was neo-liberalism (in its Russian form) which was adopted the model to pursue to the exclusion of all the other alternatives, including the "Swedish model," which for the KGB was for some reason not interesting (too sensible?). Andropov's original template was also strictly oriented against the communist party as an organization. The KGB believed that the party outlived itself. Thus to change the system, the original expectation was that the communist party would be banned and dissolved and, in case the trade union would resist, they too would be abolished.

The only thing, which, in the article, indicates any of the possible reasons of why the KGB became attached to neo-liberalism within the communist system is that, as people with exclusive access to Western ideas and schools at that time, they came to believe that ne-liberalism was the most modern of available systems and that all the others were in that regard outdated.

In the face of the tremendous scope of the task, in the end, the KGB decided to strike a compromise with the other factions of the elites or nomeklatura provided that they agreed to embrace the new liberal order.

The article in question:

Plan Andropov-Putin

Dmitry Kartcev, December 18, 2014

http://expert.ru/russian_reporter/2015/03/plan-andropovaputina/


The KGB chief Yuri Andropov became general secretary of the CPSU Central Committee and thirty-two years ago - November 12, 1982. At the head of the country, he spent more than a year, but left a question, legends and unrealized hopes almost more than all the other leaders of the XX century. A common theory is that Andropov was a full-scale reform plan, which became degraded version of the restructuring. And besides, it was with him in the bowels of the KGB was developed, and then allegedly carried out the plan of redistribution of property, in which the security officers took control of the entire economy of the country in the name of the "oligarchs." "PP" in conversations with a number of security officers searched for traces of the complex fate of the "Plan of the KGB"

- In my opinion, the current Russian opposition does not understand one thing - that their utopia, I mean, of course, part of the liberal, has already been implemented, - our source from the environment Vladimir Kryuchkov (in 1988-1991 Chairman of the KGB of the USSR) speaks slowly, measured, almost always smiling. - Right now they have the slogan "Fair elections!", But when the elections were fair and defeated the Communists, they shouted: "Let Pinochet!" And they were given.

We talked with different security officers: and those who are in power and those outside of it, and those who "for Putin," and those who "for the opposition," but the logic and structure of thought they wonder similar. On both sides show distinct traces of liberal Chekist Union. And it is certainly not in the popular conspiracy theory and not in a favorite myth of the omnipotence of the intelligentsia of the KGB, and the complex and contradictory historical roots of the new Russia, its birth injury.

The starting point of the modern history of our country is considered to be in April 1985, when Mikhail Gorbachev announced the beginning of perestroika. But in the longer historical perspective, perhaps more important than the words of a man who owes his Gorbachev's rapid political rise: Yuri Andropov.

"Frankly speaking, we have still not learned adequately the society in which we live and work, not fully disclosed the inherent laws, particularly economic, - Andropov admitted in June 1983. - Therefore, sometimes we have to act, so to speak, empirically, rather inefficient way of trial and error. "

In the mouth of the leader of the Soviet state it was not just a reference to "certain shortcomings" and not even a statement of lack of competence of the government. It was also a direct reference to the need to realize the full program and further action. First of all, in the economy. The details of its secretary general plan, however, was silent, drowned them in the ritual phrases about the necessity of socialist construction, and so on and so forth. It turned out well in the KGB - hints.

- Transformation plan was prepared Andropov back in 1965 - says Gennady Gudkov, a former State Duma deputy, a fiery opposition leader, and in a past life, like Vladimir Putin, a KGB officer. - At that time, by the way, is quite radical. Then it did not take, choose soft, Kosygin. Perhaps in twenty years, especially at the head of the KGB, and could easily be improved.

Stalinism with a human face
Details of the plan: the liquidation of the national division of the country, and the dissolution of the dictatorship of the Communist Party.

About Andropov for radical reform of the Soviet system has long legends. Most people, anyway familiar with the plan or parts of it, still silent. With rare exception. Senior officials working directly with Andropov Secretary General, Arkady Volsky only talked about some details of a large reform plan.

"He had the obsession - to liquidate the USSR on the construction of the national principle, - he said shortly before his death in an interview with" Kommersant ". - Ethnic strife in the Soviet Union suppressed. It was not as evil as it is now. However, always smoldering. Once the secretary general called me: "Let's put an end to the national division of the country. Imagine considerations about the organization in the Soviet Union states on the basis of population, production feasibility, and that the image of the nation was settled. Draw a new map of the USSR. " Fifteen options did! And neither Andropov did not like. What neither bring - unhappy. "

It is clear that any radical reform could not come at a sharp resistance of the old nomenklatura. And the reaction of the population could be unpredictable. Presumably, in the memory of Andropov and then pop up in 1964 when the party leadership just kicked off played in innovation Nikita Khrushchev. And he knew exactly what happened under Stalin, this is not exactly be.

According to the KGB, it was another part of the plan the secretary general - the introduction of a few tough years, almost Stalinist dictatorship. Andropov wanted to direct it first of all against the party nomenklatura, which, not without reason considered the main source of corruption and bureaucratic ulcer, infected the Union. In some Andropov he was going to surpass even the "father of nations."

- The activity of all parties in the country would be prohibited - says the "PP" a retired KGB general. - "All" in the circumstances, as you know, it means a single: the Communist Party. I do not really understand how it would be combined with the preservation of the Marxist ideology, but one thing I know for sure: Andropov was the least dogmatic as some would have found an opportunity to combine. I would say, finally, that the party has degenerated and no longer defends the interests of working people. Especially since it was so. Of course, neither of which freedom of expression and independent media there we could not go in principle - in a country where it is assumed full-scale cleaning and, apparently, the revival to some extent, even the camp system. It would not be popular reform. It was impossible to allow the Conservatives have drowned them in their demagoguery.

In general, the notorious Article 6 of the Soviet Constitution on the leading role of the Communist Party was supposed to abolish.

The Soviet Union and the Chinese way

Details of the plan: ten experimental economic zones - and let the strongest win!

Tighter political regime was not an end in itself, but a prerequisite for large-scale economic reforms, the general sense of which lies in a radical restructuring of the economy. Today, the path that Andropov was going to send a country called China.

In recognition of people from surrounding Andropov, the general idea is this: the reform did not have to begin simultaneously and spread right across the country. It was supposed to create about 10 pilot zones in which were to transform, and not the fact that the same scenario. That is not "one country - two systems", as it was in China after the reunification of Hong Kong and "one country - a dozen systems and subsystems."

Thus were killed just two things: on the one hand, on the basis of this kind of inter-regional socialist competition brings out the best in all proven modernization project, and on the other - which is perhaps even more important - to eliminate the scourge of the country would long ago: huge regional disparities, which are practice exist to this day. It is clear, however, that in those places, which would remain in the stagnation region, gradually increased to massive discontent, which also would require strict control.

- When, after all that we went through in the nineties and zero, I remember that I was then and later known about Andropov plan - reflects our interlocutor, the security officer - all this seems to me, well, naive, a little role-playing game . After all, we could not imagine how far the degradation of the control system. You see it Yuri? Hard to say. But on the other hand something, then even those who are degraded, did not know that they are degraded. So you might be frightened to stand at attention and to implement the decisions of the party and the government.

However, for the implementation of any economic reforms primarily we need professionals. At an early stage could come up and the most advanced of the then party bureaucrats, but strategically betting on them was risky too severe ulcers were the then Nomenclature. Andropov was looking for new people. And, say some security officers found. However, the country learned their names only after ten years many of Andropov's staff joined the government of Yegor Gaidar.

Gaidar and Chubais, under the wing of the KGB?
Детали плана : поиск людей , способных выйти при обсуждении экономических вопросов за рамки жесткой парадигмы социалистической экономики , стимулирование их к выработке идей , помощь в образоVania .

- The Soviet Union did not have its own economics, - says "PP" a high-ranking KGB officer who worked under the direction of Vladimir Kryuchkova.- Yuri is well understood. For the reforms needed to grow reformers. And, most importantly, give them the opportunity to get acquainted with the advanced trends in Western economics.

That's what many of our interlocutors, security officers explained to the relaxed attitude of Soviet life, which at that time began to actively engage people, who subsequently became the head of the first liberal Russian government.

- Judge for yourself: in those days could be arrested for reading Solzhenitsyn about the events of forty years ago, but the discussion of the draft reform, that is, in fact, the dismantling of the Soviet system, It went in academic institutions aloud and not very quiet1. Coincidence? - Asks Alexei Kondaurov, a former KGB general and chief analyst of Yukos.

Indeed, the very Gaidar told in his interview that, together with like-minded they were discussing large-scale transformations since the early 80s. And this took place in the All-Union Scientific Research Institute for System Studies. By the way, this institution was a Soviet branch of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, based in the early 70s in Vienna. Internships Internships are not, but at least he arranged through the delivery of the latest scientific literature was possible. It turns out that the discussion of the reforms passed, if not controlled, then certainly with the acquiescence of the KGB. And, given the large-scale plans Andropov is unlikely it could be a coincidence.

- Let's not use the word "recruited": it is not out of the dictionary and is not about that - a former aide to Vladimir Kryuchkov vigorously protested against attempts to classify young reformers to KGB agents. - Economists are doing their job, their bodies. I'm not even sure if, in the early 80s, all these future ministers understand that they are interested in the work of the organs. As far as I know from colleagues who have worked directly with them, some simply did not understand that they are in fairly close contact with the staff bodies. Well, he and some years it was twenty - thirty, intelligent boys, giving work, and they are happy.

- How did it happen that a bet is placed on the elaboration of ultraliberal project? It's hard to come up with something more radical destroying the Soviet system.

- Yeah, that's interesting ... It's, you know, that in the mid-80s it was the most fashionable and advanced economic direction. Remember: Thatcherism, reygonomika. That is, was, of course, Swedish socialism, but we do not want Sweden to be ... This is of course a huge historic failure, to be sure. But I do not think that if there was some other way. The boys carried away with neo-liberalism, they could say: "Everything, dragging something else" - is contrary to the very essence of Andropov's thinking, which was directed against the dogmatism of the party in the political economy. In addition, the East Asian tigers grew up just yet, China started almost simultaneously with us the possibility of state capitalism is not very aware of it. The main thing is the existence of several areas with different types of management could serve as a kind of airbag in the event that if something went wrong - just would not have spread a bad experience further.

At the same time thinking of the liberal academic wing, followed keep an eye of the KGB, something quite consistent with the views of Andropov. It became clear later in the spring of 1990 published fragments of "research note on the concept of transition to a market economy in the Soviet Union." Article eloquently called "hard-liners" and preparing her team of economists led then little-known Anatoly Chubais.

"Resistance to reform the masses - write the authors, - due to the need to implement it during the harsh and unpopular measures and the inevitable costs, which should include not only the decline in living standards, but also a sharp rise, and most importantly - the legalization of socio-economic differentiation giant scale of legal speculation, as well as the associated "unjust enrichment" of individuals and social groups, money laundering of the shadow economy, provocative behavior of the nouveau riche and so on. ".

To combat anti-reform tendencies authors recommended the following measures: "the dissolution of the trade unions in case of protests against government measures", "antistrike emergency legislation", "control over all the mainstream media", "measures of direct repression against members of the party activists." The similarity with Andropov's plans as presented by our interlocutors from the authorities there. And it is unlikely it is entirely accidental, given the keen interest of the KGB Andropov to young and promising economists to whom Chubais is certainly true.

It is very likely that the operating time group Gaidar - Chubais had planned to base the economic structure of one of the pilot areas, but not the fact that this experience has spread to the whole Union. Which, by the way, in the old, Leninist-Stalinist form had disappeared. But in the end, not only disappeared in the Leninist-Stalinist form, and more.

Yuri Andropov's death is still shrouded in mystery. The KGB circles even today a lot of talk about how he was killed, and even called the killer - Svetlana Shchelokova, whose husband Andropov convicted of numerous crimes and dismissed from the post of interior minister. Short reign old Chernenko, Gorbachev, the April plenum, alteration; falling apart of the USSR ... The liberal idea becomes a material force and directed initially against the party nomenclature of the very nomenclature as a result and has served an excellent service.

Birth KGB capitalism

Детали плана : с середины 80- х руководство советских спецслужб начало концентрировать на западных офшорных счетах часть советской экспортной выручки , чтобы в изменившихся экономических условиях установить контроль над основными активами и ресурсами экономики .

Today, thirty years after coming to power of Andropov, the presence of employees in the management of the Russian economy can not fail to impress. Sometimes the feeling that people in uniform infiltrated almost all spheres of national capitalism, which can reasonably be called the KGB. And it fits in the notorious plan Andropov.

- Of course, he meant that the state will assign itself liberated property owners - says a former counterintelligence officer familiar with some details Andropov plan. - It is quite logical, given that there is no initial capital in the country was not, and let the foreigners here no one was going. It need not have been the committee members, but to work, of course, they were under the control of the KGB. People are prepared, taught ...

Perhaps they are preparing for them, and this is the original capital. In an exaggerated way, this version has been suggested in an anonymous, but the sensational book "Project Russia", published in 2005: "When the Soviet Union collapsed, over vast raw materials and strategic resources urgently needed temporary control system. Under no circumstances we did not have the resources to work in uncontrollable political sector. Efficiency tied for second place. The main condition - controllable. It was decided to transfer the condition state assets to private individuals. But not all in a row, and very selective. " The anonymous author leads to the idea that the process of transferring it to organize and control strategy of the security forces. Thus, the current oligarchs really are only hired managers who controls the present owners.

"Project Russia", however, bright words, but facts. However, circumstantial evidence which, if desired, can be interpreted as a confirmation of the version appeared in the same 2005. The scientific editor of the journal "Expert" Alexander Privalov, analyzing the sentence on the first case of Yukos, drew attention to the fact that both sides - the prosecution and the defense - in fact, ignored the fact that the main beneficiary of the activities of the oil companies had to be some kind of an offshore company "Dzhamblik ". Most interesting is that it has been registered ...November 8, 19841.

Thus, bold hypothesis might look like this: even in the distant '80s, realizing the futility of the Soviet economic system, some of the major functionaries, mostly just out of the KGB, made sure that part of the Soviet export earnings remained in foreign accounts. For this could be a network of offshore companies, where money accumulated. The accumulated funds thus - and it is tens of billions of dollars - and in the end made the initial capital, which began with the new Russian economy. And in general, it is not surprising that its founders were former employees of the bodies. In this model, the oligarchs - just "operators", people who were allowed to direct the property acquired for other people's money.

Interestingly, following companies like "Dzhambliku" registered before the collapse of the Soviet Union, found in business and other major Russian businessmen. For example, the company Sibir Energy-known businessman Shalva Chigirinsky was established in 1996 on the basis of the London company Pentex Energy plc. And that has existed since 1981 and was created "to attract investment in the USSR." Or the strange story of enrichment banker Alexander Lebedev, which in banking circles, many can not be explained by anything other than a proverbial "gold party" - so abruptly in the mid-90s, he had accumulated under its control a lot of money. Lebedev last cadre intelligence officer working undercover in the Soviet embassy in the UK.

Many security officers to the corporation for his flattering versions are, however, with some skepticism (or simply do not want to discuss it). And pushes the other - without overseas assets, but also with the assumption of control over their newborn Russian business:

- Imagine that you have an agent. For example, he is sitting in some Foreign Trade Association, relatively speaking "Podshipnikeksporte", or, for example, in some co-op. He sits and sits. He delivers you from time to time the information you need, you help him. Then it happens the restructuring, privatization, all the cases, and it becomes a private businessman. And the first thing is calling you to himself. The security service. You think, "Why should I tell him now?" Like what? And the fact that you have a large file on him without cause for close communication? And the fact that you have the power and communication among the security forces? And the fact that you, unlike him, a professional analyst? And in general is not the fact that he would have a private entrepreneur, he did not tell you in detail how the situation will develop further.

- It turns out, it is not clear who gets hired.

- You think. Material is enough.

In the 90s the last chairman of the KGB, Vladimir Kryuchkov, he worked in the leadership of the AFC "System", the former head of the 5th, the ideological department of the KGB Fillip Bobkov headed the security service of the "Bridge" Vladimir Gusinsky, former head of the public relations center of the Ministry of Security of Russia Alexei Kondaurov I went to the information-analytical service group "Menatep" Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

Someone, however, insists that his influence in the Russian business security officers are obliged to exclusively own professional qualities.

- Who would not say, but the KGB was almost completely clean of corruption. His staff, especially from foreign intelligence, characterized by professionalism and good knowledge of the standards of the western Soviet economy - shares his thoughts security officer, who went to the Presidential Guard. - Of course, when Russia came to foreign investors, working with security officers as counterparts, they were most convenient. Remember: Vladimir Putin when he was vice mayor Peter for External Economic Relations, for example, has done much to ensure that the city opened a branch of Deutsche Bank. Foreigners are happy to take on the work of the former KGB, and they learned from them the basics of business. In addition, at each plant in the Soviet Union certainly was a man of the bodies engaged in formal economic counterintelligence, and really - the whole complex of issues related to the safe operation of the plant, in fact, the second director. It is clear that these people were not bypassed during start over informal and then formal privatization. Or take the case of genes Gudkov - he was with me, count on one floor sitting - worked on economic compositions, he saw that a well-organized and informed security - something that will be in demand. And here's the first in the Soviet Union CHOP.

And someone did, and assures that the employees of the business went from despair:

- Just imagine, one day to you in the magazine come and say: "Everything is collapsible, whatever you do, bad and nobody wants, thank that you do not put in jail," - says another senior officer . - There have been cases where people have returned from abroad, where they worked illegals, and they were told that the documents they appear dead and no more business with them have not. In this situation, wherever you go - even to the oligarchs, even though the bandits.

The Putin better Korzhakov

Details of the plan : the plan does not provide

Anyway, in the early and mid-90s under the direct or indirect control of the former employees had an enormous financial resources. Why do not they use them to as commanded universal idol Andropov immediately take power?

Perhaps, precisely because they were afraid of losing the funds.

To begin with the "official" corporate version as presented by General Kondaurova:

- Security officers are used to analyze, predict catch enemies follow instructions, but does not govern. Error think that the KGB engaged in politics, it is not, in this sense, Andropov was glaring exception, not by chance that he was not a security officer personnel. When Andropov died, everything went down the drain.

But less official, speaking anonymously:

- The problem of Andropov's plan is that it is, generally speaking, the civil war - said the former aide to Kryuchkov, who hardly be suspected of antipathy towards security officer, the general secretary. - Population unhappy - again, dissatisfied with the nomenclature - the two, and only those who stood up abruptly, good. And who would protect them now? Physically? It is a utopia. Utopia was in general and Andropov plan. Because one is a warrior. There can be spetssluzhbistskoy junta: not the style without the skills, machines, roughly speaking, is not enough. Not a utopia - it is a compromise of the elites, the legalization of property, which, of course, at the initial stage goes mainly the very nomenclature, well beyond the gradual introduction of the governing bodies - business, government. What we have seen in recent years.

It turns out that at the beginning of the 90 heirs of Andropov went to temporary tactical compromise with the party bureaucracy, which was closely linked to the generals, having agreed to give her a piece of property, and virtually all political power in exchange for the opportunity to appoint a group of "friends of the oligarchs" and themselves to take the necessary places nearby. That is why the initial plan Chubais decisive for total eradication of nomenclature eventually deformed almost beyond recognition.

However, a compromise was just temporary. Already in the mid-90s came from the 9th Directorate of the KGB (government security) Alexander Korzhakov tried to take full control of the course of affairs in the Russian business, thereby disturbing the delicate balance of power.

There Chekist jargon is such a thing - "ninth art." This money is earmarked for special operations for which is strictly forbidden - it is forbidden - report. This is done to ensure that foreign spies were unable to track down the secret operation to the financial statements. The analogue of "Nine" tried to introduce into the daily life of the Russian business and personal bodyguard of Boris Yeltsin, who - an interesting detail - and served in the protection of Yuri Andropov. Pay Invites States.

Korzhakov plan failed. He played a role and personality of the then president, who could not forgive the fact that his bodyguard offered - no, do not cancel the 1996 elections as subsequently assured the liberal media, and to find another, a younger candidate. Said and what Korzhakov were virtually alone in its ambitions: it does not support any government liberals or former colleagues.

- It is impossible in such cases to act hurriedly - explains the man from the inner circle of then Korzhakov. - He was too ambitious even for their own.

But what has not managed Korzhakov happened after more than three years of Putin and his entourage. By 1999, that same former nomenklatura, get their hands on power and property, brought itself to such a situation, what other choice but to turn to the secret police, she just left.

- For the KGB as a corporation in the 99th general formed a win-win situation - says one of our interlocutors. - Putin against Primakov (the first director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service. - "PP") - youth against experience, but of the same structure. Especially "Media-Most" ...

In fact, for anybody not a secret that the material and information support block "Fatherland - All Russia" is provided holding Vladimir Gusinsky, who led the Security Service said Philip Bobkov. And if you remember also that in the AFC "System", close to Moscow Mayor Luzhkov, found a place, Vladimir Kryuchkov, the impression is that the entire election campaign in 1999 was one continuous intra disassembly. By the way, then another, Kryuchkov had worked advisor to Putin. And then at an opportune recognition Alexei Kondaurova:

- I just do not like Putin, I helped the team Primakov. Mikhail Borisovich (Khodorkovsky. - "PP") knew about this and did not mind, but he chose to Putin, it has sponsored and participated as much in the campaign.

We recall at this moment Kondaurov worked as chief analyst structures Khodorkovsky. And he made a political choice, but to work together it did not stop. That's almost a friendly match.

Meanwhile, the operation for the implementation of the Kremlin was successfully completed, and as reported to Putin the Chekist Day December 20, 1999: "I want to report that a group of employees of the FSB aimed at travel for work under the guise of the government, in the first step to cope with their tasks ". The circle is closed.

Of course, with the arrival of Vladimir Putin's power is not transferred to the KGB. The ruling group is very cohesive and not very big, and of course, it does not represent a corporation security officers in general. Moreover, with the arrival of immigrants from the authorities intracorporate struggle escalated dramatically. With a claim to power in different times were different groups, including those originating from the security services, sometimes these claims have been expressed and straight. Considering it is permissible okolochekistskoe origin of capital and the influence of "Media-Most" and Yukos war with them, too, can be regarded as an episode of internal corporate battles.

But after 2003 vnutrichekistskie disassembly and then spills out. Case "three pillars", the story of the multi-billion dollar Chinese smuggled consumer goods - all the episodes one internal war. The apotheosis of this phase was the head of the Federal Drug Control Service scandalous demarche Viktor Cherkesov, published an article "We must not allow warriors had turned into traders."

Infighting in the organs stops. Among the leaders of the opposition, we see the representatives of the same corporation: KGB colonel Gennady Gudkov, a KGB lieutenant colonel Alexander Lebedev ...

From Putin to Putin. Afterword

I want to finish this story thus conversation that started our story.

- What is Pinochet as a phenomenon? - Explains to me one of the assistants Kryuchkov. - It is representative of a power group, which, based on this same power group, a non-democratic way, that is, without public discussion, conducts complex modernization of unpopular reforms aimed at westernization of the country.

- But Putin-popular.

- It is not essential. It is essential that all his key reforms - the monetization of benefits, tax, educational, military, medical today, then it will probably pension - are no real public debate. And, mind you, they are all completely liberal. And the fact that in doing so he also remains popular - PR really work wonders. Putin uses his full dictatorial life, he simply had very limited. He can not dissolve parliament, can not make a complete nomenclature clean, a lot of things he can not, in general. Therefore, the last name he did Putin. It is, I think, to ensure maximum Westernism, which was agreed power elite, which, in turn, provides modernization. This is the plan of Andropov, only without the Gulag and the Civil War. But why the effect is not as impressive.

My companion was still smiling. Open and friendly.

№1-3 (379)Print
KGB - FSK - FSB
How do the powers of state security in the new Russia

03/12/1991 . Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev signed the law № 124-N "On reorganization of state security" KGB is eliminated as a single state agency, and all territorial divisions are transferred to the exclusive jurisdiction of the national authorities.

12/18/1991 . Russian President Boris Yeltsin signed a decree establishing the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service. Later in the individual departments are allocated the Presidential Guard and FAPSI. Many of the powers intersect: it is assumed that competition will be an incentive for quality work.

12.19.1991 from the Ministry of Security, renamed the Federal Counterintelligence Service (FSK), stands out in a separate structure Border Service. Dissolve the Department of Investigation, the KGB actually deprived of the opportunity to conduct operational activities. Prisons, including the Lefortovo, transferred to the Interior Ministry. The lowest point of the fall of the influence of the KGB.

05.01.1994 from the Ministry of Security, renamed the Federal Counterintelligence Service (FSK), stands out in a separate structure Border Service. Dissolve the Department of Investigation, the KGB actually deprived of the opportunity to conduct operational activities. Prisons, including the Lefortovo, transferred to the Interior Ministry. The lowest point of the fall of the influence of the KGB.

12.04.1995 Federal renamed the Federal Security Service (FSB), its structure is returned Investigation Department, which dramatically expands the operational capabilities of the KGB. The management of the FSB back Lefortovo prison.

07/02/1996 Presidential Security Service is included in the Federal Security Service (FSS). The failure of the first in the recent history of Russian attempts to create a service on the service, which took a Boris Yeltsin's bodyguard Alexander Korzhakov.

06/07/1998 The structure of FSB created management of Constitutional Security, the purpose of which its leader Gennady Zotov called the fight against "political sedition" in the country. Later, it will be merged with the Department for Combating Terrorism.

04/03/1999 Very expanded management of economic security of the FSB: within it are management of Counterintelligence Support to industrial enterprises (management of "P"), transport (management of the "T"), credit and financial system (the "K"), management to combat smuggling and drug trafficking (control "H").

11/03/2003 FAPSI and Border Guard Service are deprived of independence. Border guards are included in the FSB powers and material and technical base FAGCI divided between the FSB and FSO. In fact recreated the Soviet KGB. Independent was only foreign intelligence, as well as a number of highly specialized departments - for the protection of the highest officials of the state, control of drug trafficking and the construction of special facilities.

06/03/2006 . Vladimir Putin has signed the law "On Combating Terrorism": FSB official leading the fight against terrorism, its director coordinates the activities of all agencies in this direction as the chairman of the National Anti-Terrorist Committee. Thus, the fight against terrorism is officially recognized as a major priority of the security services.