|
If, during early stages of his first term as president, putin had aroused suspicions in the west about his dictatorial tendencies, his arrest of khodorkovsky was seen as confirmation of these suspicions.
The New York Times - Timothy L O'Brien and Erin E. Aryedlund.
Two reporters, working for the zionist controlled new york times wrote, "The case (the arrest of khodorkovsky) also has renewed questions about civil rights in a country led by a former K.G.B. official intent on redefining the government's relations with an elite class of business owners who are known as oligarchs. Mr. Khodorkovsky failed to heed that message and his arrest in October on murky fraud charges has set off an international debate about Russia's economic and political course." (Timothy L O'Brien and Erin E. Aryedlund ‘Putin vs. the Jailed Tycoon: Defining Russia's New Rules’ New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/02/international/europe/02YUKO.html
?ex=1091505600&en=ccaed12aad46976e&ei=5070&ei=1&en=dffd424a51774 abe&ex=1074049675&pagewanted=print&position= January 2, 2004). These reporters represent putin as a former kgb officer who wants to acquire dictatorial power over russia whilst, on the other hand, representing the zionist robber barons as ordinary businessmen wanting to operate in a free market such as those which supposedly exist in the united states and britain. The fact that putin was acting to stop zionist oligarchs from ransacking the country’s resources, behaving like members of the russian mafia, and treating russian politicians as puppets, is ignored!
The American Enterprise Institute.
The american enterprise institute was outraged by khodorkovsky’s arrest on 31st October 2003. "On the same day, a very loaded commentary from the Neocon-dominated American Enterprise Institute bombastically declared that: "… a scandal of Watergate proportions is rocking Moscow. It threatens Russia's economic revival and endangers President Vladimir Putin's long-term political survival. Russians are calling it a signal event in their country's history, comparable to Stalin's purges of the 1930s or the Soviet invasion of Prague in 1968." (‘Richard Perle to the rescue in Russia’ Balkan Analysis http://www.balkanalysis.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=232 January 13 2004).
Richard Perle.
The members of the global conspiracy for zionist domination kept up a barrage of anti-putin propaganda. Perle tried to get russia banned from the global club, G8, "On 31 October (2003), following the arrest of Yukos boss Khodorkovsky, "Prince of Darkness" Richard Perle demanded that Russia be expelled from the G-8: "No (other) G-8 country is allowed to treat its leading businessmen the way Russia treated Khodorkovsky," he spewed. "I believe Russia is moving fast in the wrong direction." (‘Richard Perle to the rescue in Russia’ Balkan Analysis http://www.balkanalysis.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=232 January 13 2004). In january 2004, the necons launched further protests, "The last months have seen neocons, worst of all being Richard Perle, protest the growing power of Russian president Vladimir Putin. He sparked their ire by cracking down on the country’s oligarchs, especially Yukos boss Mikhail Khodorkovsky." (‘Richard Perle to the rescue in Russia’ Balkan Analysis http://www.balkanalysis.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=232 January 13 2004).
Raimondo has commented that, "Khodorkovsky's arrest led to an outcry in the West, with neoconservative ambassador-of-ill-will without portfolio Richard Perle demanding that Russia be thrown out of the G-8 on its ear. It is oh-so-appropriate that Richard Perle should become the chief Western defender of the crony capitalist Khodorovsky: Perle's links to such companies as Trireme Partners, Boeing, and Hollinger International have paid off as a direct result of his high-level political connections. Boeing was subsidizing his company, Trireme, even as Perle lobbied for huge government contracts on Boeing's behalf. Trireme Partners received substantial investments from Hollinger even as Perle and his friends presided over the Hollinger board of directors. Seymour Hersh exposed Trireme as enriching Perle even as the company cashed in on the consequences of his policies. (Perle announced a libel suit against Hersh and the New Yorker in the British courts, which are notoriously tilted against the defendant in such cases, but somehow never followed through on the threat.) The Perles, Khodorovskys, and Conrad Blacks of this world stick together. That's why they call it crony capitalism." (Justin Raimondo ‘Now They're After Putin: The hypocrites of the "democratic" West set their sights on Russia’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j121003.html December 10, 2003).
William Kristol and Ariel Cohen.
Other members of the global zionist conspiracy for world domination were quick to defend zionist interests in russia, "It was not long after Putin began threatening the Yukos conglomerate that neo-conservative pundits such as William Kristol and Ariel Cohen began calling Putin a "communist," "another Stalin" and "tyrannical." The basis of these wild accusations, of course, is the fact that Putin stands in the way of Zionist domination." (M. Raphael Johnson ‘Countdown to Armageddon? Are the Israelis willing to start World War III?’ American Free Press http://www.americanfreepress.net/11_07_03/Countdown_to_Armageddon
/countdown_to_armageddon.html April 12 2004). Guardian.
The zionist loving guardian frequently criticized putin whilst defending the zionist robber barons. "The tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky is not the average defenceless victim of alleged judicial abuse in Russia, yet however high-powered his legal team may be, and whatever the strength of the fraud and tax evasion charges levelled in a Moscow court against him yesterday, it is still a worrying affair. As Human Rights Watch - though rightly devoting more attention to other abuses, particularly in Chechnya - has commented, the Khodorkovsky case illustrates "one of Russia's most serious human rights problems: the willingness of the authorities to selectively use laws against specific individuals for political purposes". It is widely assumed that his real crime has been to cross Vladimir Putin by refusing to keep out of politics - unlike other more prudent tycoons - after Russia's president came to power in 2000. Mr Putin has routinely denied any involvement, but his muscular approach to human rights gives no grounds for confidence. Most Russians approve of Mr Putin's emphasis on stability and the strong state, but they may come to regret it." (Leader ‘Russia The state they're in’ The Guardian June 17, 2004). It has to be suggested that the russian people might regret putin’s curbs on media freedoms but they have much greater regrets about allowing zionist oligarchs to ransack their country.
Paul Jenkins.
"Our filming into what happened in Togliatti, and the situation for other independent journalists, got under way just as the Federal Security Service arrested the then head of the Yukos oil company, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a move widely seen as an attempt to clamp down on opposition to the government." (Paul Jenkins ‘How Moscow kills the truth’ The Observer http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1253251,00.html July 4, 2004).
Conal Walsh abiding by the Taboo on Invisible Zionists.
Virtually all journalists in the western media refuse to mention the ethnic roots of any zionist discussed in the media. It is a taboo issue which, if broken, will bring down a torrent of abuse from zionist organizations around the world who will claim the person is an anti-semite an accusation that is often accompanied by a range of social and financial sanctions. Jewish people in the western media are invisible. The media cloaks them with the power of invisibility and ensures that, whatever evil they do, is never linked to their ethnicity. Conal walsh’s may 9th 2004 article in the (london) observer provides a good example of such pro-zionist bigotry. Ironically, this bigotry is quickly foisted onto other peoples.
Walsh wrote that there is a fear amongst western investors that they might get ripped off if they invest in russia. "When President Vladimir Putin threw Mikhail Khodorkovsky into a Moscow jail, some feared that he wanted to re-Sovietise the Russian economy. Others hailed the Yukos billionaire's dramatic arrest as a victory against lawlessness. But seven months on, investors are still asking: is Russia once again the Wild East? Among them are two major British corporate investors. BP is suddenly struggling to keep Russian partners involved in TNK, its much-trumpeted $13.5 billion joint oil venture. And Aim-listed Sibir Energy has suspended trading in its shares on the news that one of its big Russian investments has 'disappeared'. Once again the Russians' respect for a contract is being questioned. But most experts counsel against panic." (Conal Walsh ‘Russian oligarchs put screws on BP’ The Observer http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1212276,00.html Sunday May 9, 2004).
So, let’s analyze walsh’s assumptions. Despite the collapse of the soviet empire, russia has always had laws and a functioning legal system, and despite the fact that it was the zionist oligarchs who flouted these laws in the most blatant way, conal walsh does not blame the zionists for their lawlessness. He opted for the easy option. He blamed russians, "Once again the Russians' respect for a contract is being questioned." There are vast numbers of non-zionist businesspeople in russia who abide by russian laws and who would be horrified by this aspersion on their character and business practices and yet, because of zionist global domination, it is far easier for observer/guardian journalists to cast aspersions on russians rather than on zionists.
Carolynne Wheeler and Christopher Reed see fit to mention that Klebnikov might be Anti-semitic even though he was shot dead for exposing Zionist Corruption.
The guardian refused to mention the zionist roots of the russian oligarchs during the time they controlled the country. However, it is not unwilling to point out that people are anti-semites if they criticize the criminality of the zionist oligarchs. This attitude has descended into such an appalling depth of political depravity that two guardian reporters mentioned that a respected writer, who was murdered for exposing the corruption of the zionist oligarchs, may have been anti-semitic for focussing on zionist criminals as if there were far more important criminals in russia at this period in time! "But Klebnikov did not back down, publishing his book, Godfather Of The Kremlin: Boris Berezovsky And The Looting Of Russia, in 2000, before the lawsuit was settled. It appeared in paperback as Godfather Of The Kremlin: The Decline Of Russia In The Age Of Gangster Capitalism. Some Moscow reviewers alleged an anti-semitic bias in Klebnikov's discussion of the relative merits of the country's new moguls and their methods." (Carolynne Wheeler and Christopher Reed ‘American journalist probing Russian business’ The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,,1262387,00.html July 16, 2004). The best thing that guardian journalists could do would be to go and live in palestinian occupied areas for a few months to get a real understanding of how the world works these days.
It is easy for commentators in america and brutland to condemn putin for undermining civil liberties, curbing media freedoms, and preventing the emergence of a free market in russia, because zionist dominance is taken for granted in these countries. Perhaps the zionist loving guardian believes civil liberties and the free market ought to be respected even when a group of zionists use bribery, corruption, and murder, to take control of a country’s economy and political system, and ransack its resources?
It has been noted that some commentators have defended the zionist oligarchs on the grounds that they could not have committed any acts of criminality given that russia had no laws at the time. But russia did have laws and the zionist oligarchs broke them. However, even if there were no laws this would not justify what the zionist oligarchs did. There is one relatively easy way to determine whether the zionist oligarchs’ activities were justifiable or not and that is to determine whether they acted in a way that was beneficial to their own self interests. If the zionist oligarchs had created civil liberties, created a decent law abiding society, ensured a better way of life for increasing numbers of russians, they would have still been in power. What they did, however, was to alienate the russian people to such an extent that made it possible for putin to defeat them. In the process of accumulating vast amounts of wealth, they treated russian people with contempt and allowed millions to fall into poverty.
Justin raimondo is one of the few american commentators who has managed to see beyond the global zionists’ denunciation of putin for his allegedly dictatorial tendencies. He has rightly exposed the hypocrisy of those defending boris berezovsky, the man who ruled russia whilst yeltsin was ill, "Forbes magazine called him (Boris Berezovsky) "the godfather of the Kremlin," little more than a Mafia boss. The Western media claims he represents the "free media" in Russia, shut down by the evil Putin. Don't believe it. Forbes shows how Berezovsky is the main suspect in the murder of the previous owner of Russia's biggest national TV network, who was shot down in a gangland-style assassination of the sort that was all too common in the Yeltsin era. (Justin Raimondo ‘Now They're After Putin: The hypocrites of the "democratic" West set their sights on Russia’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j121003.html December 10, 2003).
Raimondo also mocked those who condemned the recent elections to the russian parliament, "The decisive victory of Russian President Vladimir Putin's "United Russia" slate of candidates for the Duma is the occasion for a new round of Putin-bashing, with "human rights officials" condemning the election results as "a retreat from Russia's democratic reforms." Just what is a "human rights official," anyway? The way the Associated Press puts it, one might almost suppose that we're talking about elected officials here, or else guardian angels appointed by God to watch over the human race in His stead. In either case, these unofficial officials deserve to be recalled forthwith, just on the basis of their phony complaints about the Russian electoral process: "International observers delivered a blistering assessment of the vote, calling it free but not fair. Taxpayer money and state television was used to benefit a few parties, monitors said in their criticism." The real complaint of Putin's Western critics is that the Russian parties favored by Washington and its Euro-weenie satellites Yabloko and the Union of Right Forces failed to get the 5 percent required to garner seats in the Duma. The election was "free but not fair" because they didn't like the results." (Justin Raimondo ‘Now They're After Putin: The hypocrites of the "democratic" West set their sights on Russia’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j121003.html December 10, 2003).
Raimondo is right that the zionist dominated western media is out to smear putin because he refused to defer to the global zionist conspiracy, "The real reasons for the concerted attack on Putin and evocations of a new "Russian threat" have nothing to do with the consolidation of a neo-Soviet regime in the Kremlin, and everything to do with Moscow's increasingly independent foreign policy stance. Putin opposed the Iraq war, and is cooperating with Iran in the development of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. The neocons have always considered Russia as the enemy: the infamous Wolfowitz memorandum, in which the now deputy defense secretary and architect of the Iraq war laid out the new hegemonism of post-cold war American foreign policy, explicitly targeted Russia for encirclement and subjugation in a U.S.-dominated world order." (Justin Raimondo ‘Now They're After Putin: The hypocrites of the "democratic" West set their sights on Russia’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j121003.html December 10, 2003).
M. Raphael Johnson.
"It was not long after Putin began threatening the yikos conglomerate that neo-conservative pundits such as William Kristol and Ariel Cohen began calling Putin a "communist," "another Stalin" and "tyrannical." The basis of these wild accusations, of course, is the fact that Putin stands in the way of Zionist domination." (M. Raphael Johnson American Free Press ‘Countdown to Armageddon? Are the Israelis willing to start World War III?’ http://www.americanfreepress.net/11_07_03/Countdown_to_Armageddon
/countdown_to_armageddon.html April 12 2004). The Worst aspect of Zionist Rule in Russia.
The israelis’ takeover of the russian economy, their ransacking of russia’s resources, their attempts to sell russian resources to american/zionist companies, their contempt for the poverty experienced by millions of russians, and their dominance over the country’s political system, were appalling enough. So pervasive was this take-over of the russian economy and political system that the only parallel by which it can be appreciated is the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" although as has been argued, the take-over of russia did not start off with a zionist conspiracy. The zionist conspiracy only emerged when the oligarchs realized they needed to re-elect yeltsin to protect their interests. The zionist oligarchs’ conspiracy to take control of russia was bad enough but to focus on this alone would be to considerably underestimate the zionist oligarchs’ viciousness and global ambitions. Most deplorably of all is that they pushed russia into a war against the moslem state of chechnya. It has been estimated that a hundred thousand people lost their lives and a whole country has been pushed back towards the stone age.
The First War against Chechnya 1994-1996.
The chechens struggle for independence from foreign invaders goes back centuries. After the second world war, stalin carried out a large scale ethnic cleansing of chechnya transporting an estimated 300,000 chechens to the wastes of siberia. Those who survived the ordeal returned to chechnya in 1976 reinforcing the country’s desire for independence from russia. The chechens rebelled in 1991, "The last straw came in August 1991, when, during the failed hard-line communist coup, rumors spread that another deportation was in the works. Chechens overthrew their local, Soviet-appointed leader, and elected a new president on a nationalist platform." (Masha Gessen ‘Chechnya What drives the separatists to commit such terrible outrages?’ http://www.slate.com/id/2106287/ Sept. 4, 2004).
In november 1991, yeltsin’s first move to subdue the chechens was to declare a state of emergency in chechnya. He sent russian troops to the airport near the chechen capital, grozny. However, yeltsin had to withdraw the troops when he failed to obtain legal backing for the invasion from the russian courts.
A few years later, on december 9th 1994, yeltsin once again ordered the russian military to invade chechnya. 40,000 troops were sent to subdue the country. "The Russian defense minister at the time boasted he could take Grozny, the Chechen capital, in two hours." (Masha Gessen ‘Chechnya What drives the separatists to commit such terrible outrages?’ http://www.slate.com/id/2106287/ Sept. 4, 2004). Grozny, and other towns were heavily bombed. It took the russians from december 31st until january 19th 1995 to secure the capital. The centre of the city was totally destroyed in the process.
A low level war continued until august 1996 when yeltsin’s national security adviser, general alexander lebed, negotiated a deal. The guardian has stated that, "An estimated 60,000-100,000 people had lost their lives during the war." Masha gessen’s estimate is similar, "The war, which began on Dec. 11, 1994, lasted nearly two years, cost at least 80,000 Chechens and about 4,000 Russian soldiers their lives, and ended in military defeat for Russia. In 1996, Russia pulled its troops out of a virtually demolished Chechnya, leaving it to fester—again." (Masha Gessen ‘Chechnya What drives the separatists to commit such terrible outrages?’ http://www.slate.com/id/2106287/ Sept. 4, 2004).
Paul klebnikov has pointed out that one of boris yeltin’s main advisers was a zionist oligarch, boris berezovsky. It is possible that berezovsky had some responsibility for triggering the first war against chechnya. However, there is no evidence of this influence.
|
| The Second War against Chechnya 1999 - Present.
In september 1999, three weeks after the appointment of vladimir putin as the new russian prime minister, a large block of flats in moscow were hit by a series of terrorist bombs killing 300 people. According to masha gessen, "The second war in Chechnya began in September 1999, following a bizarre and brutal series of terrorist acts. Two apartment buildings in Moscow and one in the south of Russia exploded, killing more than 300 people. Another building, in the town of Ryazan, was de-mined in time. At the same time, a group of Chechen rebels staged an incursion into the neighboring republic of Dagestan, taking over several villages there for a few weeks." (Masha Gessen ‘Chechnya What drives the separatists to commit such terrible outrages?’ http://www.slate.com/id/2106287/ Sept. 4, 2004). Boris yeltsin immediately blamed the atrocities on chechen terrorists, and ordered troops back into chechnya.
There are those who dispute chechen responsibility for these atrocities. John mcvicar has argued, "There is no evidence that Chechens acting for President Maskhadov or such mujahedin as Basayev or Khattab were in fact responsible for the apartment bombings that killed 293 Russians in August, which were blamed on them and led to the present popular war." (John McVicar ‘Why I believe in a conspiracy’ The Guardian January 7, 2000). Some believe it was the kgb’s successor, "In the last five years, several critics of the Putin regime, including a former senior secret services officer, have produced a fair amount of evidence indicating that the Russian secret services may have instigated or even carried out some or all of these attacks. If this were the case, it wouldn't be the first time a country fighting a separatist movement tried to defeat it by funding a more radical terrorist wing in the hopes of undermining the more moderate separatists locally and discrediting them internationally. It also wouldn't be the first time such tactics had failed. Usually, the terrorist movements quickly take on a life of their own, and their federal masters and funders lose control." (Masha Gessen ‘Chechnya What drives the separatists to commit such terrible outrages?’ http://www.slate.com/id/2106287/ Sept. 4, 2004).
Justin raimondo, however, objects to such speculations, "The neocons are promoting a Russified version of the "Bush knew" tinfoil hat conspiracy theories pushed by Michael Ruppert and the nuttier fringe of the "Anybody But Bush" movement, who essentially believe that, on September 11, 2001, the U.S. government bombed itself. According to the "Putin knew" crowd, the 1999 terrorist bombings in Moscow and elsewhere, widely and credibly attributed to Chechen terrorists, were really an inside job pulled off by the Russian security services. The ACPC's Howard avers that there's "a lot of evidence" to support this theory, but fails to offer any in the above-linked interview. David Satter, a resident scholar over at the neoconservative Hudson Institute, is also pushing this nutso conspiracy theory." (Justin Raimondo ‘Putin, the Patriot’ http://antiwar.com/justin/ September 17th 2004).
For russia’s leaders, however, there was no doubt that it was chechens. By december 1999, yeltsin and putin were politically locked into the war in chechnya, "If there was any hope that last Sunday's vote for the Russian parliament might end the bombing of Chechnya, the poll's shock result has killed it. As they freeze in the railways wagons which pass for shelter in Ingushetia or huddle in fear in the basements of Grozny, the civilians of Chechnya now know they are doomed to six more months of hell. So too are Russia's conscripts. The Kremlin's political strategy has been so stunningly successful that it is bound to continue until the presidential elections next summer. Why should Boris Yeltsin's advisers, the small group of cynical men known as the "family", abandon a mechanism which has done so well on its first trial? With astonishing brilliance prime minister Vladimir Putin and his cronies exploited the widespread desire for revenge after the terrorist bombings in Moscow and other cities in September. First, they used it to justify a full-scale war on Chechnya. Then they created an electoral instrument which hijacked the campaign agenda. The issues which Russians never stop discussing in their kitchens - the social effects of the criminalised privatisation process, the collapse of the public health service, the corruption of government officials, and the bankruptcy of vast swaths of industry - were cast aside." (Jonathan Steele ‘Boxing clever’ The Guardian December 23, 1999).
Boris Berezovsky’s Claim to have started the Second Chechen War.
Uri avnery has stated that boris berezovsky has claimed responsibility for starting the second war against chechnya. "By the way, Berezovsky boasts that he caused the war in Chechnya, in which tens of thousands have been killed and a whole country devastated. He was interested in the mineral resources and a prospective pipeline there. In order to achieve this he put an end to the peace agreement that gave the country some kind of independence. The oligarchs dismissed and destroyed Alexander Lebed, the popular general who engineered the agreement, and the war has been going on since then." (Uri Avnery ‘The Virgin of Democracy Became a Whore in US, Russia, Israel’ CounterPunch http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery08032004.html August 3rd 2004). Quite how berezovsky might have done this is not known. It is slightly worrying given the links that the ‘big seven’ zionist oligarchs probably had with mossad.
The background to the second chechen war is firstly, the zionist oligarchs’ ownership of virtually the whole of russia’s oil industry; the oil resources possessed by chechnya; and, thirdly, the zionist oligarchs’ self interest in pushing russia into an invasion of chechnya to obtain control over the country’s oil.
The Zionist Ownership of Russia’s Oil Wealth.
By the mid 1990s, members of the ‘big seven’ zionist oligarchs controlled virtually all of russia’s oil industry. Some had become oil billionaires whilst the others were on their way to becoming billionaires. The five main israeli oligarchs controlling russia’s oil industry were, vagit alekperov, boris berezovsky, mikhail fridman, mikhail khodorkovsky, and leonid nevzlin. At this time, a fifth member, roman abramovitch, was also involved in the russian oil industry but only in a managerial capacity. He became an oil tycoon only in the second half of the 1990s.
Vagit Alekperov.
Alekperov’s family were a part of the oil industry in the caspian sea area, "Vagit Alekperov, 52, was born in 1950 in Baku, Azerbaijan, one of the earliest centers of the international petroleum industry. His father worked in the oil fields all his life and inspired Alekperov to follow in his footsteps. He was 18 when he landed his first job in the industry. Alekperov attended Azerbaijan Institute of Oil and Chemistry, then trained as an engineer to work in the nearby Caspian Sea oil fields." (‘Vagit Alekperov: Oil Magnate’ Frontline World http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/moscow/alekperov.html October 2003).
In the early 1990s, alekperov had become russia’s minister of fuel and energy and he used his position to force the merger of three russian oil companies which he then promptly took over. "By 1991, Alekperov had established himself as an industry expert, winning an appointment as first deputy minister of fuel and energy, then as acting minister. He used his newly attained power to lobby for the consolidation of Russia's three oil producers into one company - then assumed presidency of the new company. His nicknames, "the General," "Alek the First" and "the Don," are indicative of his indisputable authority at LUKoil, whose name came from the first letters of the three companies that consolidated - Langepas, Urai and Kogalym. Today LUKoil is among the world's most powerful oil companies, with reserves second only to Exxon. LUKoil also owns its own refineries and filling stations, including 1,300 in the United States, which it acquired after its purchase of Getty Oil in 2000. LUKoil was the first Russian company to acquire a publicly traded U.S. corporation." (‘Vagit Alekperov: Oil Magnate’ Frontline World http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/moscow/alekperov.html October 2003). "Another "former" Commie who turned his government career into a fortune: a first deputy minister of energy under the old regime, Comrade Alekperov snapped up Lukoil, the largest oil company in Russia, under the "shares for loans" ersatz-privatization scheme cooked up by "the Family" as a pay-off for their support to the Yeltsin regime. (Justin Raimondo ‘Now They're After Putin: The hypocrites of the "democratic" West set their sights on Russia’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j121003.html December 10, 2003).
Given alekperov’s background it is not surprising that lukoil has been searching for oil in the caucasus region, "In 2003, LUKoil negotiated new exploration contracts in .. Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan." (‘Vagit Alekperov: Oil Magnate’ Frontline World http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/moscow/alekperov.html October 2003). With his expertise in the oil industry, alekperov knew better than any of the other zionist oligarchs just how important chechnya’s oil industry was.
Boris Berezovsky.
Berezovsky acquired Sibneft. He was one of the leaders of the ‘big seven’ zionist oligarchs, "In 1996, Berezovsky teamed up with other powerful Russian bankers to form the Big Seven, a group of oligarchs that underwrote Yeltsin's reelection campaign. Berezovsky viewed himself as a king-maker, and he was a major force in ousting some senior officials and electing others." (‘Boris Berezovksy: Russia’s Fallen Oligarch’ Frontline World http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/moscow/berezovsky.html October 2003). In november 2003, the zionist oligarchs planned to amalgamate sibneft and yukos, "Last Friday, Sibneft withdrew from plans to merge with Yukos. Their union would have created the world's fourth biggest private oil producer, in terms of crude production, with revenues of $15 billion a year." (Dafna Maor ‘Hounded Russian oil barons meet in Israel’
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/366788.html 30/11/2003).
Mikhail Fridman.
Fridman is another of the ‘big seven’ zionist oligarchs who became an oil tycoon, "Today, he is a major shareholder and the chairman of the newly formed Russian oil giant TNK-BP, Russia's third-largest oil producer. Fridman was one of the Big Seven, the original group of oligarchs who bankrolled the 1996 reelection of President Boris Yeltsin and who claimed to then control 50 percent of Russia's assets." (‘Mikhail Fridman: Oil Tycoon’ Frontline World
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/moscow/fridman.html October 2003). It has been reported that, "Fridman recently sold 50 percent of Tyumen Oil to British Petroleum in a landmark $6.75 billion deal, creating TNK-BP, the 10th-largest private-sector oil and gas company in the world in terms of production." (‘Mikhail Fridman: Oil Tycoon’ Frontline World
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/moscow/fridman.html October 2003).
Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
Khodorkovsky is the fourth of the ‘big seven’ zionist oligarchs who became an oil tycoon. "In 1996, he was among the Big Seven, Russia's most influential bankers who backed the reelection of President Boris Yeltsin." (‘Mikhail Khodorkovsky: Billionaire Industrialist’ Frontline World http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/moscow/khodorkovsky.html October 2003). He bought yukos, "In 1995, he purchased Yukos, Russia's largest oil company for a mere $309 million -- today it is valued at $15 billion." (‘Mikhail Khodorkovsky: Billionaire Industrialist’ Frontline World http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/moscow/khodorkovsky.html October 2003). M. Raphael Johnson has described yuoks in the following way, "The giant Yukos conglomerate is presently one of the largest oil companies in the world, valued at about $40 billion. Yukos is the result of a "loans for shares" deal brokered through the semi-coherent Boris Yeltsin in 1995. Here, the liberal Russian government swapped loyalty from the oligarchs in exchange for privatization at prices far below that of the market. This $40 billion giant was bought for about $300 million, thus looting the entire Russian economy for the benefit of a handful of Israeli citizens living in Russia." (M. Raphael Johnson ‘Countdown to Armageddon? Are the Israelis willing to start World War III?’ American Free Press http://www.americanfreepress.net/11_07_03/Countdown_to_Armageddon
/countdown_to_armageddon.html April 12 2004). Khodorkovsky also owns what has been reputed to be the world’s largest producer of fertilisers, an industry which is almost wholly reliant on oil, "Russian prosecutors say that in 1994 Mr. Khodorkovsky fraudulently obtained Apatit, a government-owned company that was one of the world's leading producers of fertilizer. Only four bidders competed for a 20 percent stake in the company and all were fronts for Mr. Khodorkovsky, prosecutors say. The highest bidder made a $1 billion offer but then dropped out. The sale went to the lowest bidder, say prosecutors, with an offer of only $283 million in cash and investments. (Timothy L O'Brien and Erin E. Aryedlund ‘Putin vs. the Jailed Tycoon: Defining Russia's New Rules’ New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/02/international/europe/02YUKO.html
?ex=1091505600&en=ccaed12aad46976e&ei=5070&ei=1&en=dffd424a51774 abe&ex=1074049675&pagewanted=print&position= January 2, 2004). Leonid Nevzlin.
Nevzlin was khodorkovsky’s partner, "Leonid Nevzlin, the deputy and partner of imprisoned oil baron Mikhail Khodorkovsky. He is the second-biggest shareholder in oil giant Yukos, and holds Khodorkovsky's voting rights in the company, according to the Wall Street Journal. (Dafna Maor ‘Hounded Russian oil barons meet in Israel’
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/366788.html 30/11/2003).
Roman Abramovich.
In the mid 1990s, abramovich was only a bit player in the zionists’ take-over of the russian oil industry, "By 1996, Abramovich joined the board of directors for Sibneft, Berezovsky's most prized oil holding, and was later put in charge of the company's Moscow offices. After Berezovsky fell out of favor with the new Putin regime, Abramovich took over his patron's oil assets and the country's largest television network." (Abramovich ‘Stealth Oligarch’ Frontline World http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/moscow/abramovich.html October 2003). "Billionaire Roman Abramovich, Russia's second-richest man and principal owner of oil producer Sibneft ..." (Dafna Maor ‘Hounded Russian oil barons meet in Israel’
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/366788.html 30/11/2003). "Abramovich is one of the wealthiest persons in the world, with a personal fortune estimated at $5.7 billion. He took over Sibneft together with Boris Berezovsky, in Russia's biggest privatization in the 1990s. Abramovich later bought out Berezovsky's shares when the latter fled Russia in 2000 after being charged with fraud." (Dafna Maor ‘Hounded Russian oil barons meet in Israel’
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/366788.html 30/11/2003).
In conclusion then, prior to the start of the second chechen war, the ‘big seven’ zionist oligarchs owned tyumen oil (now TNK-BP) sibneft, lukoil, and yukos, russia’s four main oil companies whose combined assets today are in the region of $100 billion. If berezovsky represented the interests of the zionist oil tycoons he could have put enormous pressure on a semi-comotose yeltsin and putin to support the invasion of chechnya. If the zionist neocons in america were able to force america into a war against iraq, then it is far from being implausible that the zionist oligarchs were able to force russia into a war against chechnya. It didn’t matter to them that by pushing russia into war they would be responsible for the deaths of 100,000 men, women and children, because they stood to increase their fortunes by taking control of chechnya’s oil. Given the vast oil assets owned by russia’s israeli oligarchs, berezovsky’s boast of having started the second chechen war does not seem implausible.
Chechnya’s Oil.
It seems as if chechnya has some oil deposits; an oil pipeline; a strategic location which means there will be further pipelines when the caspian sea oil production reaches full capacity; and a small amount of oil refining. Masha gessen has stated, "What's more, an oil pipeline went through Chechnya, and a small amount of oil was produced in the republic itself, so losing Chechnya could have meant significant financial loss for Russia." (Masha Gessen ‘Chechnya What drives the separatists to commit such terrible outrages?’ http://www.slate.com/id/2106287/ Sept. 4, 2004). Bulent gokay concurs, "The loss of this small republic would decisively weaken Russian influence in the north Caucasus - a region with vast international significance because of its rich oil deposits and its strategic proximity to the key oil pipeline routes." (Bulent Gokay ‘The Heavy Hand of Putin: Russia and Chechnia After Beslan’ http://www.counterpunch.org/gokay09082004.html September 8, 2004).
What makes russian control over chechnya even more important is that the americans are moving into the southern causasus and threatening to establish oil pipelines which will bypass russia and iran … "the embryonic Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) project, set to reduce Georgia's and Azerbaijan's energy reliance on Russia and bring the southern Caucasus into the U.S. fold. Washington has recently injected fresh momentum into its Caspian designs, home to the world's third-largest oil and gas deposits. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage emphatically re-affirmed U.S. support for BTC on March 8 during the visit of Turkish premier Bulent Ecevit. Four days later U.S. Caspian envoy Stephen Mann told Kazakh authorities he wanted to promote pipelines bypassing Iran." (Armen Georgian ‘U.S. Eyes Caspian Oil in "War On Terror"’ Foreign Policy in Focus http://www.fpif.org/outside/commentary/2002/0204oil.html April 30, 2002).
The Change in the Political Balance of Power resulting from the War against Chechnya.
No matter who initiated the second chechen war, once yeltsin and putin had sent in troops, they became electorally responsible for the outcome of the war. They won popular political support for the invasion but, equally, they could lose this support if the invasion went badly, or was seen to be going badly. It is undoubtedly true that the zionist oligarchs stood to gain financially from the war but, in their fight for survival against putin, they must have realized their only way of undermining his popularity was by challenging him over the chechen war. Privately they supported the war, but publicly they had to attack putin’s handling of the war. Once putin had been elected as president the invasion had made him popular enough to be able to dump his zionist benefactors but, the war also made him vulnerable to their political criticisms of the war. Zionist oligarchs used political or military setbacks in chechnya to undermine putin’s credibility in the hope of eventually forcing him from office. "Every night NTV's news punctures the anodyne claims of Russian triumphs in Chechnya and queries the official version of casualty figures. Every week Mr Gusinsky's Itogi magazine and Segodnya newspaper purvey more revelations of sleaze and corruption among the high and mighty. Mr Gusinsky is the sole oligarch to oppose Mr Putin publicly and consistently." (Ian Traynor ‘Russia turns against irreverent oligarch’ The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,332213,00.html June 15, 2000).
It was a zionist oligarch who’d initiated the war. Virtually all of the ‘big seven’ israeli oligarchs stood to gain financially from it. They had no moral interest in stopping the slaughter after all they had for many years shown their contempt for the russian people so what did they care about the chechens. They became critics of the war solely to undermine putin’s political popularity. This political opportunism ought to be remembered when western critics sympathize with the anti-war stance of the zionist oligarchs and attack putin for the measures he took against the zionist oligarchs. It is true that putin has prosecuted the war with vigour but he hadn’t initiated it. He had to take action against the zionist oligarchs who were ruining russia and who, if they ever return to power, would prosecute the war with even more vigour because of the profits they could make from it.
Putin’s Repackaging of the War against Chechnya as the War against Terrorism.
The political propaganda surrounding russia’s war against chechnya changed after the september 11th 2001 new york and pentagon (p*ny) bombings. Prior to this event, the american administration, like many governments in europe, were concerned about russia’s oppression of the chechen people. They refused to give the russian government a free ride to do anything it wished in chechnya to stem chechen resistance to russian domination.
After the p*ny bombings, putin started to portray the chechens as moslem terrorists like those responsible for the p*ny bombings and he saw the invasion of chechnya as being part of the war against terrorism. He learnt from the tactics used by the zionist state in palestine which regarded its efforts to crush palestinian resistance as being the same as america’s struggle to combat moslem resistance. Putin equated russia’s desire to combat chechen resistance with america’s desire to combat moslem resistance. So, here we have the utterly bizarre spectacle of three countries invading other countries, then denouncing resistance to these invasions as terrorism, and then using terrorism as an excuse for the further crushing of this resistance.
The american administration rapidly began to accept these new views of old conflicts. It gave increasing support to the zionists’ oppression of palestinians and denounced palestinian resistance as terrorism. It also gave increasing support to russia’s oppression of chechens and denounced chechen resistance as terrorism. Behind these changes in perspective, however, were the political manoeuvrings of the global conspiracy for zionist world domination. The zionists in the bush administration supported the zionist state in palestine for dealing ever more harshly with the palestinians and they supported the zionist oligarchs for pushing russia into an invasion of chechnya in order to take control of chechnya’s oil.
The american administration needed allies in its war against terrorism and, overcoming its wariness of russian aggression in chechnya, increasingly welcomed the russian input to the global propaganda denigrating moslems around the world as terrorists. A new political bargain was struck between russia and america, "That is the tacit deal struck between Moscow and Washington since 9/11. He (putin) gets a green light for his Chechen campaign, in return for sharing intelligence with the US and not resisting US bases in post-Soviet central Asia." (Ian Traynor ‘A war that doesn't exist’ The Guardian May 10, 2004).
The russian media took up the new anti-moslem theme which, prior to the collapse of the soviet empire, would have been utterly anathema to russian communists. "Complaining about EU protests at Russian human rights abuses in Chechnya recently, a Russian commentator typically described Aslan Maskhadov, the Chechen guerrilla leader, as Russia's Bin Laden. The comparison is absurd. Maskhadov is a legitimate leader, elected president of Chechnya in 1997 in a reasonably fair election. Had there been any Russian will to negotiate a settlement, Maskhadov would. Instead, Putin's tactics have marginalised and radicalised him, trying to turn him into a Bin Laden of the Caucasus. Eschewing politics, seeking a showdown and violence, the Kremlin has preferred self-fulfilling prophecy. That may be the one area where Putin has been successful. He should not be surprised to be confronting fundamentalist Islamists, black widow female suicide bombers, and a jihad." (Ian Traynor ‘A war that doesn't exist’ The Guardian May 10, 2004).
The (non-zionist) russian media took up putin’s perspective and frequently denounces chechen freedom fighters as islamic fundamentalists, "It would be nice if this was a hint that Russia could accept the republic's self-determination. It looks more like a device to win western sympathy. A few Chechens have studied Islam and had weapons training in Afghanistan and Pakistan but the society remains too secular to justify Putin's claim that it is a base for Osama bin Laden-style fundamentalism aimed at the whole of Europe." (Jonathan Steele ‘No one knows what the war is about, or when it will end’ The Guardian July 27, 2001).
The Beslan School Massacre.
At the beginning of september 2004, chechen rebels invaded a school in beslan, north ossetia, and took over 1200 young children and teachers as hostages. The russian army besieged the school but during the attempt to end the hostage some 300 children and adults are thought to have been killed.
The russian authorities were keen to publicize the view that a large proportion of the beslan hostage-takers were not chechens but arabs implying that al quaeda was also involved. This enabled putin to present the beslan slaughter as part of the global war against terrorism and thus win international praise for his policies, "Valery Andreyev, the top Federal Security Service official in the region, said 20 militants were killed, including 10 Arabs. The Arab presence among the attackers would support President Vladimir Putin's contention that al-Qaida terrorists were involved in the Chechen conflict, where Muslim fighters have been fighting Russian forces in a brutal a war of independence for most of the past decade." (Mike Eckel ‘Russians Storm School; 150 May Be Dead’ http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040903/D84SA2B80.html September 3 2004).
Putin drew a parallel with the west’s view of osama bin laden not merely to show how difficult it would be for russians to negotiate with chechen rebels but to reinforce the perception that russia, america, and the zionist state, are all fighting a common islamic enemy. "Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, is so fed-up with being grilled over his handling of the Beslan catastrophe that he lashed out at foreign journalists on Monday. "Why don't you meet Osama bin Laden, invite him to Brussels or the White House and engage in talks?" he demanded, adding that: "No one has a moral right to tell us to talk to child-killers." (Naomi Klein ‘The Likud doctrine’ The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1301504,00.html September 10, 2004).
Putin believed the survival of the russian state was at stake, a parallel with the zionist state facing the wroth of moslem countries, "In that same meeting with journalists, Putin made it clear he sees the drive for Chechen independence as the spearhead of a strategy by Chechen Islamists, helped by foreign fundamentalists, to undermine Russia by stirring up its Muslim population. "There are Muslims along the Volga, in Tatarstan and Bashkortostan ... This is all about Russia's territorial integrity," he said. It used to be just Israel that was worried about being pushed into the sea." (Naomi Klein ‘The Likud doctrine’ The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1301504,00.html September 10, 2004).
The white house, eager to promote the global war against terrorism, was happy to commiserate with putin for his country’s suffering at the hands of moslem terrorists, "The White House branded the hostage-taking "barbaric" and "despicable" and said responsibility for dozens of lost lives rests with the terrorists. "The United States stands side-by-side with Russia in our global fight against terrorism," spokesman Scott McClellan said." (Mike Eckel ‘Russians Storm School; 150 May Be Dead’ http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040903/D84SA2B80.html September 3 2004).
American/European Criticisms of Putin’s Handling of the Beslan School Massacre.
Although the bush administration issued a statement giving its sympathy to the russian president, this did not change its basic policy over russia’s invasion of chechnya, "Although the White House issued a condemnation of the Beslan hostage-takers, its official view remains that the Chechen conflict must be solved politically. According to ACPC member Charles Fairbanks of Johns Hopkins University, US pressure will now increase on Moscow to achieve a political, rather than military, solution - in other words to negotiate with terrorists, a policy the US resolutely rejects elsewhere." (John Laughland ‘The Chechens' American friends’ The Guardian September 8, 2004).
Raimondo is highly critical of american and european attitudes towards putin over the invasion of chechnya. "The West, far from assisting the Russians in their fight against Osama bin Laden's co-thinkers in the Caucasus, is aiding and abetting the Chechen "separatists": The same Western governments that strained to create phony "links" between Iraq and al-Qaeda are weirdly oblivious to the numerous Chechen/al-Qaeda links. One would think that Washington, at pains to detect any sign of Muslim support in the war on terrorism, would have taken full advantage of the near-universal condemnation that greeted the Beslan outrage from Tangier to Tehran. But no: instead, the British have granted political asylum to Akhmed Zakayev, a top Chechen military commander accused of murder, kidnapping, and other crimes, who is now feted in London by the likes of Vanessa Redgrave." (Justin Raimondo ‘Putin, the Patriot’ http://antiwar.com/justin/ September 17th 2004).
ACPC’s Criticisms of Putin’s Handling of the Beslan School Massacre.
For many years, ACPC has supported the chechen cause against russia and have been highly critical of putin’s handling of the conflict. "The ACPC heavily promotes the idea that the Chechen rebellion shows the undemocratic nature of Putin's Russia, and cultivates support for the Chechen cause by emphasising the seriousness of human rights violations in the tiny Caucasian republic. It compares the Chechen crisis to those other fashionable "Muslim" causes, Bosnia and Kosovo - implying that only international intervention in the Caucasus can stabilise the situation there. In August, the ACPC welcomed the award of political asylum in the US, and a US-government funded grant, to Ilyas Akhmadov, foreign minister in the opposition Chechen government, and a man Moscow describes as a terrorist. Coming from both political parties, the ACPC members represent the backbone of the US foreign policy establishment, and their views are indeed those of the US administration." (John Laughland ‘The Chechens' American friends’ The Guardian September 8, 2004). Neil mackay makes the same point, "Why would a group of leading American neo-conservatives, dedicated to fighting Islamic terror, have climbed into bed with Chechen rebels linked to al-Qaeda? The American Committee for Peace in Chechnya (ACPC), which includes Pentagon supremo Richard Perle, says the conflict between Russia and Chechnya is about Chechen nationalism, not terrorism. The ACPC savaged Russia for the atrocities its forces have committed in the Caucuses, said President Vladimir Putin was "ridiculous", claimed Russia was more "morally" to blame for the bloodshed than Chechen separatists and played down links between al-Qaeda and the "Chechen resistance". The ACPC’s support for the Chechen cause seems bizarre, as many of its members are among the most outspoken US policymakers who have made it clear that Islamist terror must be wiped out. But the organisation has tried to broker peace talks between Russia and Chechen separatists." (Neil Mackay ‘US neo-cons: Kremlin is ‘morally’ to blame for the school massacre’ http://www.sundayherald.com/44741 September 12th 2004).
Raimondo is highly critical of the neocons’ attitude towards putin over the invasion of chechnya, "The neocons, who supposedly abhor "appeasing" terrorists, are demanding, through the ACPC, that Putin negotiate with the murderers of children. Their website is filled with "peace proposals" and articles blaming the Russians themselves for the wave of violence being visited upon them, and extolling the Chechens as "oppressed" victims of Great Russian expansionism. Putin has long been demonized by the neocons as an aspiring Stalin, and now he is being blamed for provoking and inflaming the Chechen terrorists by refusing to negotiate with them."" (Justin Raimondo ‘Putin, the Patriot’ http://antiwar.com/justin/ September 17th 2004).
The Reasons for the Neocons’ Hatred of Putin.
The american government’s increasing reticence to give unequivocal support to putin in his ‘war against terrorism’ was brought about by the neocons in the bush administration who are suspicious not only of putin but of russia itself. There are a number of reasons for the neocons’ attitude. These reasons have long historical roots.
Firstly, after the zionist state’s victory in the 1967 war, an increasing number of jewish intellectuals in america began to regard the survival of the zionist state as their over-riding political priority and consequently sought to boost american support for the zionist state in palestine. They appreciated that the support of the american government for the zionist state was becoming more critical to the survival of the zionist state, "Israel's national security, as established by all Israeli governments since Ben-Gurion, is based on the total support of the United States - military, political and economic." (Uri Avnery ‘Manufacturing Anti-Semites’ October 2, 2002).
These jewish intellectuals began to assess the domestic and foreign policies of america’s political parties according to the criteria of whether those policies would benefit the zionist state in palestine. Many began to suspect that the democratic party’s policies were of less benefit to the zionist state in palestine than the republicans. Even those jewish intellectuals who had started out on the extreme left of american politics began shifting to the right for the sake of increasing american support for the zionist state in palestine. "The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending." (No author ‘Neocon 101’ Christian Science Monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html no date c.2003). This group of jewish intellectuals became known in the early 2000s as the neocons.
The neocons were also acutely aware of the threat posed to the zionist state by the soviet union. The soviet union posed a terrible threat to the zionist state - it could obliterate the zionist state in a matter of minutes if it so desired. It was far and away the biggest threat to the survival of the zionist state not merely because the soviet’s nuclear weapons could totally wipe out the zionist state, but because of its support for palestinian rights. For the zionist state in palestine, like many jews around the world, which holds survival as its absolute priority, the soviet union was far and away its greatest nightmare. Thus the greater the allegiance that zionists could forge between america and the zionist state, the greater the reduction in the threat that the soviet union posed to the zionist state.
This brought about a considerable coincidence of interests. On the one hand there were traditional right wing cold-war warriors who believed that america should be more militarily powerful than russia. On the other hand, there were jewish americans who were petrified about the annihilatory threat that russia posed to the zionist state in palestine and thus supported any policy which would reduce this threat. The neocons have been at the forefront of america’s ideological war against russia ever since they entered politics in the early 1970s. In the mid 1970s, the neocons destroyed henry kissinger and richard nixon’s policy of détente between america and russia and instituted what was in effect the second phase of the cold war. They were the authors of the reagan doctrine of boosting american military might to contain and then gain supremacy over the soviet union. Ever since they have been in politics, which is now nearly three decades, the zionist neocons have continually fabricated lies about the terrible menace posed by the soviet union in order to whip up american hatred against the russians because this enabled them to boost america’s military power and thus reduce russia’s threat not to the united states, since the soviet union would never to attack america, but solely to the zionist state. The zionist neocons have been perpetually liars and deceived the american public in order to win its support for american foreign policies that were of use only to the zionist state in palestine.
The neocons have used their political power in successive american administrations to promote an american foreign policy whose primary objective is to protect the zionist state. The neocons have sought to use american military power to defeat russia so that it no longer poses a military threat not to america but, primarily, to the zionist state. They have sought the political break up not only of the soviet empire but of russia itself in order to reduce even further the military threat it poses to the zionist state. "Contrary to what the adherents of preemptive war would have us believe, the doctrine of American hegemony on every continent is not a response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but a goal the neocons have been pushing since the end of the cold war. As early as 1992, chief neocon theoretician now deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz had written up their post-cold war manifesto in the form of a policy memo that was subsequently cited by the New York Times. Wolfowitz foresaw a future conflict with Russia over the Baltic states, and even advocated going to war over Lithuania, if necessary, while warning that Russia is still the only nation on earth capable of destroying the U.S. in a nuclear confrontation." (Justin Raimondo ‘Putin, the Patriot’ http://antiwar.com/justin/ September 17th 2004). Raimondo goes on, revealing a powerful insight into neocons’ preference for the chechen rebels rather than putin, "Terrorism schmerrorism. 9/11 changed nothing the neocons would rather support al-Qaeda-affiliated rebels than give one iota of support to Putin." (Justin Raimondo ‘Putin, the Patriot’ http://antiwar.com/justin/ September 17th 2004).
Raimondo’s brilliant insight is that the neocons are much more fearful of the threat posed by russia rather than the threat posed by al quaeda after all, although al quaeda is a major terrorist threat to america, it is not a major terrorist threat to the zionist state. As a consequence, no matter how much it runs counter to american interests, the neocons in the bush administration would rather support alleged al quaeda attacks on russia than russia’s attacks on al quaeda. And they would rather use the american government to attack russia rather than al quaeda.
Secondly, in the 1990s the neocons supported the rise of the zionist oligarchs in russia. If zionists could take over the russian state this would be of enormous benefit to the zionist state. They could forge an alliance between russia and the zionist state which could dramatically reduce the number of nuclear weapons aimed at the zionist state. As a consequence, when putin won the 2000 presidential election and began to curb the power of the zionist oligarchs in russia, thereby ensuring that russia would continue to point nuclear weapons in the direction of the zionist state, they were livid.
There has been a truly remarkable turn around in the balance of military power between the zionist state in palestine and russia since the 1960s. The economic and political collapse of the soviet empire dramatically reduced russia’s global military power - although russia’s possession of nuclear weapons ensures it continues to pose an exterminatory threat to the zionist state. On the other hand, the zionist state has become an increasingly powerful military force with a considerable arsenal of nuclear, biological, and chemical, weapons. In the mid 1960s the tiny zionist state was virtually no military threat to russia at all - it was as much of a threat to russia as cuba was to america. But, by 2005, the zionist state had such an array of lethal weapons it was virtually on an annihilatory parity with the russian military.
Zionist Support for Putin’s Handling of the Beslan School Massacre.
Naomi klein has argued that the zionist state in palestine reacted with glee to the atrocity in beslan because it forced putin to reaffirm his commitment to the use of zionists’ global propaganda against the moslem world, "Fortunately for Putin, there is still one place where he is shielded from the critics: Israel. On Monday, Ariel Sharon welcomed the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, for a meeting about strengthening ties in the fight against terror. "Terror has no justification, and it is time for the free, decent, humanistic world to unite and fight this terrible epidemic," Sharon said. Yet sympathy alone does not explain the outpourings of solidarity for Russia coming from Israeli politicians this week. An unnamed Israeli official was quoted as saying that Russians "understand now that what they have is not a local terror problem but part of the global Islamic terror threat". The underlying message is unequivocal: Russia and Israel are engaged in the very same war, one not against Palestinians demanding their right to statehood, or against Chechens demanding their independence, but against "the global Islamic terror threat". Israel, as the elder statesman, is claiming the right to set the rules of war." (Naomi Klein ‘The Likud doctrine’ The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1301504,00.html September 10, 2004).
It is at this point that it may be as well to draw together some of the loose ends which might seem to have appeared in the above analysis. The bush administration supports putin because of his contribution to fighting the war against terrorism but, because of the neocon influence within the administration, does so with reservations. The zionist neocons inside the american administration have a greater fear of russia than al quaeda and thus try to persuade the bush administration to take a much harder line against putin even though to the non-zionists al quaeda is a far bigger threat to america than russia is.
The zionist neocons outside the american administration, who detest putin for curbing the zionist oligarchs and posing a threat to the zionist state in palestine, are more condemnatory of putin than they are of the rebels who carried out the beslan massacre even if they have links with al quaeda. The zionist state itself, whilst fearing the remnants of russian military power, congratulates putin because of his use of zionists’ global propaganda against moslems.
The Terrible War in Chechnya.
Since the start of the russians’ invasion of chechnya in 1999, the chechens have continued to resist occupation with a series of revenge attacks on russia. "In a 2002 theater raid in Moscow, Chechen rebels took about 800 hostages during a performance, a standoff that ended after a knockout gas was pumped into the building, debilitating the captors but causing almost all of the 129 hostage deaths." (Mike Eckel ‘Russians Storm School; 150 May Be Dead’ http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040903/D84SA2B80.html September 3 2004). At the end of august 2004, two russian planes crashed almost simultaneously hundreds of miles apart. It is suspected that chechen rebels planted bombs on both planes. At the beginning of september 2004, a suspected chechen suicide bomber blew herself up outside a Moscow subway station, killing nine people. The following day chechen rebels started began the hostage disaster in the beslan school.
The number of casualties suffered by the russian people as a result of this invasion far outstrips those suffered by the british people during the ira’s resistance to british rule in ireland. "Russians, by contrast, have suffered at least a dozen major terrorist incidents in the last five years, far outstripping the death toll of the IRA campaign of bombings in British cities in the 1980s and 1990s." (Jonathan Steele ‘Russia is united in shock and grief - but for how long?’ The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1301498,00.html September 10, 2004).
Russia’s invasion of chechnya makes america’s invasion of iraq, and the consequent iraqi rebellion, look lame. The casualties on the russian and chechen sides are far greater than those occurring in iraq, "While he was speaking, Russian forces were "rounding up" another 160 men in Chechnya for the beatings and detentions that are a daily occurrence. At the same time, four Russian troops were killed in Chechnya, also a daily fixture. Running at around 30 deaths a week, plus dozens more maimed and ultimately dying, the Russian death toll now runs into the thousands." ." (Ian Traynor ‘A war that doesn't exist’ The Guardian May 10, 2004). The russian invaders continue to oppress and humiliate the chechen people. Chechen rebels kill russian soldiers and occasionally commit revenge attacks which putin and the russian media denounce as ‘terrorism’. This legitimates the russian military increasing its oppression of chechnya in order to pacify the country.
Putin’s Commitment to the Chechen War.
A number of commentators have stressed putin’s determination to win the war in chechnya. "When Tony Blair met Vladimir Putin yesterday, he said he would raise the subject of Moscow's atrocities in Chechnya. There's no reason to doubt that he did so, but equally no reason to suppose he had the slightest effect. He blew his powder at their first meeting in St Petersburg. In the full read-out of that wide-ranging conversation which London immediately supplied to Washington, what most struck the Americans was Putin's unyielding severity on Chechnya. It was harsher than they expected. The Russian replied to Blair's expressions of disapproval with brutal indifference." (Hugo Young ‘A welcome for Putin, the butcher of Chechnya’ The Guardian April 18, 2000).
It has been suggested above that putin had to ensure russian success in the war against chechnya because, in the early stages of his first presidency, the zionist oligarchs were exploiting any negative news about the war as a means of undermining his political popularity. Hence the following comment by jonathan steele, written in june 2003, was premature considering that putin had still not managed to curb the power of the remaining zionist oligarchs. "Why Putin insists on continuing an endless and corrupting war is the main riddle about him. He has no credible rivals and without risking his own power could easily pursue dialogue with all the Chechen factions on a ceasefire, a programme of autonomy and reconstruction, and the withdrawal of Russian forces. This is what his fellow leaders in the G8 should constantly be telling him, not as a ritual item nine on their list of talking points but as priority number one. (Jonathan Steele ‘Putin sweeps the Chechen war under his red carpet’ The Guardian June 18, 2003).
Since the imprisonment of mikhail khodorkovsky in november 2003 and the defeat of the most prominent zionist oligarchs, the way is now open for putin to compromise on this issue. Only now will it be possible to determine just how enthusiastic putin has been about the war and his role in its prosecution. "And still Putin pretends there is no war, until a "terrorist" bomb explodes on one of the holiest days in the Russian calendar, May 9, the day that Russia marks its greatest victory, over Nazi Germany. Yesterday's attack, the boldest Chechen guerrilla strike since the Moscow theatre siege of October 2002, deprived Putin of his self-appointed loyal Chechen leader, Akhmad Kadyrov, and, more importantly from the military's point of view, of General Valery Baranov, the Russian commander in Chechnya." (Ian Traynor ‘A war that doesn't exist’ The Guardian May 10, 2004). If putin falls because of russia’s inability to subdue chechnya then the zionst oligarchs will return and prosecute the war with genocidal rage.
Putin curbed the zionist oligarchs’ propaganda about the war and won his second presidential election in may 2004. He continues to prosecute the war against chechnya.
Although putin has neutered most of the zionist oligarchs politically he has done comparatively little as far as their ill gotten gains are concerned. They continue to own most of russia’s oil industry. This means they continue to possess a huge degree of economic power and will thus always pose a threat to russia’s political system should putin lose popular political support.
* Roman Abramovich.
Abramovich bought up boris berezovsky’s shares in sibneft. It has been reported that, "The 36-year-old tycoon (Roman Abramovich), who is worth at least £1.8bn, sold his stake in Sibneft to Yukos …." (Mark Tran ‘Proceed with caution’ Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/economicdispatch/story/0,,1062146,00.html October 13, 2003). According to peter lavelle, "Lukoil is Russia's second largest oil company …. Roman Abramovich, majority shareholder of Sibneft Oil Co., has also done the Kremlin a great favor. At the very last second, Sibneft called off its merger with Yukos." (Peter Lavelle ‘Analysis: Russia's oligarchs surrender’ http://www.untimely-thoughts.com/index.html?cat=Jan%2016,%202004&type=3&art=306 January 16, 2004).
* Vagit Alekperov.
Alekperov shows no sign of wishing to challenge putin and continues to work in russia controlling lukoil. "Today LUKoil is among the world's most powerful oil companies, with reserves second only to Exxon." (‘Vagit Alekperov: Oil Magnate’ Frontline World http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/moscow/alekperov.html October 2003).
* Boris Berezovsky.
Berezovsky sold his shares in sibneft to roman abramovich. "When Berezovsky left Russia, he sold most of his oil and media interests to his protégé Roman Abramovich." (‘Russia’s Fallen Oligarch’ Frontline World http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/moscow/berezovsky.html October 2003). He currently owns no oil shares.
* Mikhail Fridman.
Fridman also continues to work in russia, "Fridman recently sold 50 percent of Tyumen Oil to British Petroleum in a landmark $6.75 billion deal, creating TNK-BP, the 10th-largest private-sector oil and gas company in the world in terms of production." (‘Mikhail Fridman: Oil Tycoon’ Frontline World http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/moscow/fridman.html October 2003); "Today, he is a major shareholder and the chairman of the newly formed Russian oil giant TNK-BP, Russia's third-largest oil producer." (‘Mikhail Fridman: Oil Tycoon’ Frontline World
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/moscow/fridman.html October 2003).
* Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
Khodorkovsky owned yukos, "The giant Yukos conglomerate is presently one of the largest oil companies in the world, valued at about $40 billion." (M. Raphael Johnson ‘Countdown to Armageddon? Are the Israelis willing to start World War III?’ American Free Press http://www.americanfreepress.net/11_07_03/Countdown_to_Armageddon
/countdown_to_armageddon.html April 12 2004). Since being arrested and imprisoned awaiting trial, khodorkovsky has handed over his shares to roman abramovich. * Leonid Nevzlin.
Nevzlin was khodorkovsky’s partner and currently .. "holds Khodorkovsky's voting rights in the company (Yukos), according to the Wall Street Journal." (Dafna Maor ‘Hounded Russian oil barons meet in Israel’
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/366788.html 30/11/2003).
Conclusions.
What emerges at this point in time is a strange parallel world between the wars pursued by russia in chechnya, by america in iraq, and by the zionist state in palestine. The first common factor between these wars is that they are all against moslem countries.
A second parallel is oil. After the september 1999 bombings in moscow, the zionist oligarchs pushed russia into an invasion of chechnya not merely to exact revenge but in the hope of acquiring access to, or even ownership of, the country’s oil reserves. Uri avnery has stated that one of the zionist oligarchs, boris berezovsky, has claimed responsibility for initiating the war against chechnya because he was interested in the country’s mineral resources and a prospective pipeline. John mcvicar also believes there is an oil motive in russia’s determination to dominate chechnya, "Russia's obsession with Chechnya, which is partly to do with state pride but in the last decade has been intensified by the massive oil reserves discovered in the Caspian basin, is corrupting its already morally bankrupt state institutions." (John McVicar ‘Why I believe in a conspiracy’ The Guardian January 7, 2000). Jonathan steele, however, who sees oil as the prime factor in america’s war against iraq, believes oil was not a factor in russia’s invasion of chechnya, "Almost two years into Russia's second war on Chechnya no one in this battle-scarred country can agree on why the Kremlin launched it. Boris Yeltsin's first effort to tame the rebel republic ended in humiliation in 1996, and there was no reason to expect a new war to have more success." (Jonathan Steele ‘No one knows what the war is about, or when it will end’ The Guardian July 27, 2001).
There was also an oil factor in america’s invasion of iraq. Like russia, america suffered a revenge attack (for its support of zionist state terrorism) and invaded iraq (which had nothing to do with the attack). Some in the bush administration supported the invasion solely out of revenge; the zionist neocons supported the war as a means for protecting the zionist state in palestine; whilst others saw it as an opportunity to acquire control over iraq’s oil resources.
The third significant component of this parallel world is that all three wars were initiated by zionists. The zionists in the zionist state in palestine have, since 1948, continually invaded palestinian land. In russia, the zionist oligarchs were responsible for fomenting the war against chechnya. And, in america, zionist neocons pushed america into a war against iraq.
Fourthly, russia, america, and the zionist state in palestine, all use the same propaganda to justify their invasion of moslem countries. The zionists invaded palestine. The palestinians resisted and the zionists labelled the resistance as ‘terrorism’. The threat of terrorism was then used to justify even further oppression of palestinian people.
Russia invaded chechnya. The chechens resisted and the russians labelled the resistance as ‘terrorism’. The threat of terrorism was then used to justify even further oppression of chechen people.
America invaded iraq. The iraqis resisted and the americans labelled the resistance as ‘terrorism’. The threat of terrorism was then used to justify even further oppression of the iraqi people.
In each case, as soon as resistance to an invasion was encountered, the initial purpose of the invasion was dispensed with so that countering terrorism became the new justification for the invasion. Quite bizarrely, then, the zionists invaded palestine, the russians invaded chechnya, and the americans invaded iraq, to put an end to terrorism in each case the invaders seem to have overlooked the fact that there had been no terrorism in these countries prior to these invasions and that it was the invasions themselves that triggered off this resistance. In russia, america, and the zionist state in palestine, there is now global zionist propaganda against moslems depicting moslem resistance to the invasion of their land as ‘terrorism’.
Finally, the zionist oligarchs’ war in chechnya was followed by sharon’s invasion of palestine and then america’s invasion of afghanistan and iraq. These pre-emptive wars boosted the western public’s perception that moslems are terrorists and that moslem countries are breeding grounds for terrorism which thus need to be suppressed. Conversely, they also reinforce the feelings of people in the moslem world that they are under attack from zionists in russia, america, and palestine.
There is clearly an alice in wonderland quality about politics in the western world. The zionists invade palestine; they push the russians into an invasion of chechnya; and they push the americans into an invasion of iraq, and yet the zionist invaders denounce the moslems who resist these invasions as terrorists, moslem fundamentalists. In the first few years of the millenium, it is clearly possible to make out the contours of a global zionist conspiracy even if, thankfully, it now seems that putin has managed to wrest back control of his country from the israeli robber barons. These parallel developments in russia, america, and the zionist state in palestine, suggest there is a global zionist conspiracy to steal moslem land, take moslem resources, and prevent moslem countries from being able to defend themselves against zionist expansionism.
Oil is the Means but Global Zionist Power is the Goal.
Since the p*ny bombings, what russia and america have been doing, politically and militarily, is almost identical. The israeli oligarchs in russia triggered a war against chechnya because they wanted their companies to take control of chechnya’s oil and gas resources - lukoil, the largest oil company in Russia, sibneft, and yukos. The war in chechnya could have boosted the profits of zionist owned oil companies and thus the personal profits of the zionist oligarchs. It could have provided them with even more political power to consolidate their domination of russian politics. They were also interested in the possibility of constructing an oil pipeline - which perhaps might have been of benefit to the zionist state in palestine.
The israeli oligarchs in america pushed america into a war against iraq. This was primarily to protect the zionist state from iraqi military threats. Secondarily, to take control of iraqi oil in order to boost the profits of american and zionist owned companies which would thereby boost their political power. And, thirdly, to provide an oil pipeline between iraq and the zionist state in palestine in order to consolidate the military dominance of the zionist state in the middle east.
As far as the global zionist conspiracy is concerned, the basic issue at stake is that moslem states, whether in the middle east or central asia, own vast quantities of oil. Zionists are unwilling to abide by global commodity markets and pay moslems for their oil because firstly, and most obviously, it would be expensive. It is cheaper for zionists to get america and russia to launch proxy zionist wars against moslem countries and steal the oil than it is for them to pay for the oil on the open market. Secondly, and most importantly, because paying for oil would provide moslem countries with oil revenues to build prosperous economies, increase their military strength to protect themselves from zionist imperialists, and increase their political standing in the world. This analysis seems to suggest that if israelis can steal resources from moslem countries through provoking wars then they have no hesitation in doing so. In order to do this they use their political and media power in america and russia to churn out the vile propaganda that moslems are terrorists and that moslem states are breeding grounds for terrorism and thus need to be suppressed.
It has been argued that, "The American empire’s battles in Serbia, Central Asia, Iraq and Chechnya are one and the same war. Other than fighting Israel’s enemies, these adventures are also wars to control Central Asian oil and natural gas (one of the main pipelines from the Caspian Sea went straight through Serbia). The control of this wealth by the United States and Israel necessitates bypassing Russian channels. This means that the Jewish oligarchy in Russia would become the central actor in world politics." (M. Raphael Johnson ‘Countdown to Armageddon? Are the Israelis willing to start World War III?’ American Free Press http://www.americanfreepress.net/11_07_03/Countdown_to_Armageddon
/countdown_to_armageddon.html April 12 2004). There are doubts about the serbian connection but the trend is clear. The unjust and shameful war on terror gives zionists around the world the pretext for launching proxy zionist wars against moslem countries. It is the means by which israelis can expropriate oil from moslem countries in order firstly, to avoid having to pay for the oil on the open market; secondly, to prevent moslem countries from using oil revenues to purchase arms to defend themselves against zionist aggressors; thirdly, to boost the economic and political power of the israelis controlling the united states and the remaining zionist oligarchs in russia (who continue to own the country’s biggest oil companies); and, fourthly, to provide the zionist state in palestine, the home of the zionist world conspiracy, with oil pipelines to increase its economic, political, and military, power. The so-called war against terror is supposedly a war against the injustices perpetrated by evil terrorists. In reality, russia’s invasion of chechnya, and america’s invasion iraq, are about zionists’ acquisition of oil as a means for boosting zionists’ individual wealth and political power; the political and military power of the zionist state in palestine; and global zionist domination. Oil is just a means for the world’s zionist rulers to increase their global political dominance.
The zionists, in collusion with the americans, invaded palestine and continually annexe palestinian land. The zionist oligarchs who owned most of russia’s oil industry pushed russia into an invasion of chechnya in order to steal chechen oil resources. The zionist neocons pushed america into an invasion of iraq in order to protect the zionist state in palestine and, secondarily, to steal iraqi oil. When palestinians, chechens, and iraqis, resist these occupations they are denounced as terrorists. Prior to these invasions neither the palestinians, chechens, nor iraqis, were terrorists. They do not seek to annihilate those who occupy their land only to force them to leave what does not belong to them. There is no such thing as the war against terrorism. It is a war to suppress those who object to being invaded. It is a war to enable zionists in palestine, russia, and america, to protect the gains they made through their invasion. It is a war to protect the invaders from retaliation by those who rightly believe the foreign occupation of their country is illegal, immoral, and unethical. It is the invaders who are the terrorists.
The Reaction to Global Zionist Domination.
For a time, whilst the israeli oligarchs ruled russia, neocons ruled america, and zionists were getting away with murder in palestine, it seemed that zionists’ drive to control the world’s resources and reinforce their global political domination was progressing as quickly in central asia as it was in the middle east. For a time, the so called war on terror, often referred to as the third world war, which included russia’s proxy zionist war on chechnya; the zionist state’s war on palestinians; and america’s proxy zionist war on iraq, seemed to be going well.
But currently zionists have been losing out in russia although it is too early to say that they won’t be able to restore their power one day particularly if the war against chechnya isn’t resolved. America’s invasion of iraq is going badly and an increasing number of people have come to see it as a proxy zionist war. For many decades, zionist global propaganda had made israelis invisible in america (and brutland) so that they could do whatever was in the zionist state’s best interests. However, the war in iraq has dragged them into the public spotlight where their loyalty to the american state has been increasingly questioned. The israeli neocons in america are under considerable political pressure from their opponents but they are still as entrenched in american politics as they were before and still intent on pursuing their plan for global zionist domination. Only time will tell whether americans have woken up to the facts. Firstly, that their country is dominated by israeli oligarchs in virtually the same way as russia was dominated by israeli oligarchs and, secondly, that zionists pushed america into the war against iraq just as zionists pushed russia into the war against chechnya.
That Boring Anti-semitic Canard
This article has sought to outline the links between israelis in russia, america, and palestine. The inevitable response to this empiricial research, will be accusations of anti-semitism from the massed ranks of israelis in the world’s media. The zionist david aaronovitch accused neil clark of anti-semitism for his article in the new statesman about such links, "The degree to which America is held uniquely responsible for the sins of the world is remarkable. To give but one example, writing in last week's New Statesman, a journalist called Neil Clark accuses America of being behind the Russian oligarchs who President Putin is so wisely (if unconstitutionally) cracking down on at the moment. 'In the oligarchs,' says Clark, 'Perle... saw a way in which the US and Israel could, by proxy, gain political and economic power in Russia...' The 'and Israel' should have warned the editor of the New Statesman what he was dealing with here. I suggest he visits David Irving's home page or the revisionist Zundelsite website very soon." (David Aaronovitch ‘Why I say welcome’ The Observer http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1086158,00.htmlNovember 16, 2003). Clark protested at this boring anti-semitic canard which is trotted out every time anyone criticizes ariel sharon’s policies, "In his tactic of denouncing as anti-Semitic all those who do not share his world view, David Aaronovitch has sunk to new depths. He seems to believe that anyone who, as I did in a recent New Statesman article, points out the links that exist between the Russian oligarchs, Israel and the extreme Likudniks who currently motor US foreign policy must therefore be allies of David Irving and other Nazi apologists. But it is Mr Aaronovitch, with his enthusiasm for powerful nations riding roughshod over international law and treating the sovereignty of smaller nations with contempt, who has more in common with those who defend the regime-changing war-mongers of the Third Reich. It is because the US is acting like Nazi Germany on the international stage that millions of us around the world are so passionately opposed to it." (Neil Clark ‘Lewtters to the Editor’ The Observer http://observer.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,1091235,00.html November 23, 2003).
Ian traynor, a guardian journalist, indicates the way that russia has adopted american propaganda in the war against terrorism but argues that otherwise there is no link between their current wars, "And his spin doctors constantly equate the Chechen guerrillas with al-Qaida. There are inarguably links in the Islamist international, and increasingly so as the conflict becomes more embittered and radicalised. But the parallel between Russia in Chechnya and America in Afghanistan or Iraq is also specious." (Ian Traynor ‘A war that doesn't exist’ The Guardian May 10, 2004). The reason that traynor can’t see the links between these two wars is simply because he’s censored himself about the role of zionists in geopolitics.
One of the main reasons why putin simply could not allow the zionist oligarchs to control russian industries, especially those with military connections, was because the zionist state in palestine was becoming an increasing military threat to russia.
In the 1960s when russia was a superpower it possessed a vast military machine with a substantial nuclear arsenal with the aircraft to deliver them virtually anywhere around the world. It would not have worried unduly about the acquisition by the zionist state of a tiny number of nuclear weapons with only the most limited range of delivery. However, the military balance of power between russia and the zionist state in palestine has shifted dramatically over the last four decades. The political and economic decline of russia from the 1970s onwards has led to a dramatic decline in the country’s military capability. It has been suggested that the most recent Russian Black sea navy ship is 20 years old and not reliable. The russian airforce hasn’t purchased a new jet fighter in 10 years and will be out of business by 2011 - their own estimation. The Russian army has bought only a handful of new tanks since the fall of the soviet union and half of what they have are non operational.
On the other hand, the zionist state is heavily subsidized by the american government and has close connections with the american military industrial complex some of which is owned by zionists in america. The zionist state has thus been able to foster a prodigious development of nuclear, space, and missile, technologies. Even in the 1960s the zionists were planning to develop a nuclear capability that would ultimately enable it to deter a nuclear threat from russia, "American-born Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard obtained satellite-imaging data of the Soviet Union, allowing Israel to target accurately Soviet cities. This showed Israel's intention to use its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent political lever, or retaliatory capability against the Soviet Union itself."
The zionists have developed medium range weapons which can reach almost any country in the middle east. They are also developing long range missiles which could pose a threat to russia, europe, china, and even, quite surprisingly, the united states. They have launched satellite systems which circle the Earth. According to yoichi clark, "Israel is midway through a drive to establish a space program, much of it devoted to military purposes." According to warner d. farr, the zionists are as good technically at developing nuclear weapons as the americans or the russians, "Mordechai Vanunu provided the best look at the Israeli nuclear arsenal in 1985 complete with photographs. A technician from Dimona who lost his job, Vanunu secretly took photographs, immigrated to Australia and published some of his material in the London Sunday Times. He was subsequently kidnapped by Israeli agents, tried and imprisoned. His data shows a sophisticated nuclear program, over 200 bombs, with boosted devices, neutron bombs, F-16 deliverable warheads, and Jericho warheads. The boosted weapons shown in the Vanunu photographs show a sophistication that inferred the requirement for testing. He revealed for the first time the underground plutonium separation facility where Israel was producing 40 kilograms annually, several times more than previous estimates. Photographs showed sophisticated designs which scientific experts say enabled the Israelis to build bombs with as little as 4 kilograms of plutonium. These facts have increased the estimates of total Israeli nuclear stockpiles (see Appendix A). In the words of one American, "[the Israelis] can do anything we or the Soviets can do." Vanunu not only made the technical details of the Israeli program and stockpile public but in his wake, Israeli began veiled official acknowledgement of the potent Israeli nuclear deterrent. They began bringing the bomb up the basement stairs if not out of the basement." The zionist state in palestine has acquired somewhere between 250 and 400 nuclear devices. It has become one of the most powerful militaries in the world.
As a consequence, the zionist state currently poses an increasingly serious military threat to russia, a former superpower. The existence of a zionist state with a plethora of powerful nuclear weapons on the russians' doorstep has gone far beyond the realms of a modern cuban missile crisis in the middle east. It's a little difficult to credit it but basically a tiny country with a mere six million people is getting closer and closer to annihilatory-parity with a vast country of 120 million. Perhaps, one of the reasons that russia would not support the zionist inspired american invasion of iraq in march 2003 was that it would give the zionists even greater military supremacy in the region.
The ultimate military goal of the zionist state, however, is to become so powerful that even the united states will fear to challenge it. The zionists are determined that if any country, even america, attempts another mass slaughter of jews then they will destroy that country, and perhaps, take the whole world down with them.
At the end of 2004, the bush administration sought to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and provided the zionist state with the aircraft and weapons needed to destroy iran’s underground nuclear facilities, "In West Asia, Washington is increasing the threat posed by Israel's nuclear weapons and other WMD by providing Israel with more than one hundred of its most advanced jet bombers, accompanied by prominent announcements that the bombers can reach Iran and return and are an advanced version of the U.S. planes Israel used to destroy an Iraqi reactor in 1981. The Israeli press adds that the U.S. is providing the Israeli air force with "'special' weaponry." There can be little doubt that Iranian and other intelligence services are watching closely and perhaps giving a worst-case analysis: that these may be nuclear weapons. The leaks and dispatch of the aircraft may be intended to rattle the Iranian leadership, perhaps to provoke some action that can be used as a pretext for an attack." (Noam Chomsky ‘The Resort to Force’ http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=3591 September 17th 2004).
This massive escalation in the zionist state’s military capabilities does not solely affect the balance of military power between the zionist state and iran. It also affects the zionist state’s military status with russia. Since putin came into power he has had to increase investments in the russian military to take account of this increasing superpower on its doorstep, "In February 2004, Russia carried out its largest military exercises in two decades, prominently exhibiting advanced WMD. Russian generals and Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov announced that they were responding to Washington's plans "to make nuclear weapons an instrument of solving military tasks," including its development of new low-yield nuclear weapons, "an extremely dangerous tendency that is undermining global and regional stability . . . lowering the threshold for actual use." Strategic analyst Bruce Blair writes that Russia is well aware that the new "bunker busters" are designed to target the "high-level nuclear command bunkers" that control its nuclear arsenal. Ivanov and Russian generals report that in response to U.S. escalation they are deploying "the most advanced state-of-the-art missile in the world," perhaps next to impossible to destroy, something that "would be very alarming to the Pentagon," says former Assistant Defense Secretary Phil Coyle. U.S. analysts suspect that Russia may also be duplicating U.S. development of a hypersonic cruise vehicle that can re-enter the atmosphere from space and launch devastating attacks without warning, part of U.S. plans to reduce reliance on overseas bases or negotiated access to air routes. U.S. analysts estimate that Russian military expenditures have tripled during the Bush-Putin years, in large measure a predicted reaction to the Bush administration's militancy and aggressiveness." (Noam Chomsky ‘The Resort to Force’ http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=3591 September 17th 2004).
The Russian-American Military Situation.
The collapse of the soviet empire has allowed the americans to move into the middle east through its invasions of afghanistan and iraq. It is currently pushing even closer towards russia by gaining a military foothold in central asia. "Moscow also sees a blatant effort, begun under Clinton and still continuing, to carve out an American sphere of influence in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and central Asia." (Jonathan Steele ‘No one knows what the war is about, or when it will end’ The Guardian July 27, 2001); "And yet Russia has also been taking a more muscular stance toward US involvement in its own neighborhood, particularly Moldova, Georgia, and Central Asia. Russia recently opened a military base in the Central Asian republic of Kyrgyzstan, just miles from a US-operated base used to support the war in Afghanistan. Moscow bristled at what it considers US interference in Moldova, where a Russian-brokered deal to resolve a long-standing separatist dispute in Transdniestr recently fell apart. And Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov accused the United States last week of secretly helping to orchestrate the ouster of President Eduard Shevardnadze of Georgia, naming US Ambassador Richard M. Miles as the main agent. Ivanov traveled to Tbilisi last month to mediate between Shevardnadze and the opposition forces that ultimately pushed him out." (Peter Slevin and Peter Baker ‘Hard-line moves dim US view of Russian leader Washington Post http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2003/
12/15/hard_line_moves_dim_us_view_of_russian_leader/ December 15 2003). Central Asia.
Armenia.
Moldova.
"Moscow bristled at what it considers US interference in Moldova, where a Russian-brokered deal to resolve a long-standing separatist dispute in Transdniestr recently fell apart." (Peter Slevin and Peter Baker ‘Hard-line moves dim US view of Russian leader Washington Post http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2003/
12/15/hard_line_moves_dim_us_view_of_russian_leader/ December 15 2003). Georgia.
The russians have been usurped by the americans in georgia, "In 2002 the Bush administration set up an 18-month, $65m programme aimed at training and equipping Georgia's impoverished army. The programme was part of America's war on terror and it started after the US confirmed Russian allegations about the presence of Chechen and al-Qaeda fighters in Georgia's Pankisi Gorge, on the border with Chechnya. (Natalia Antelava ‘US military will stay in Georgia’ BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3406941.stm January 18th 2004).
"And Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov accused the United States last week of secretly helping to orchestrate the ouster of President Eduard Shevardnadze of Georgia, naming US Ambassador Richard M. Miles as the main agent. Ivanov traveled to Tbilisi last month to mediate between Shevardnadze and the opposition forces that ultimately pushed him out." (Peter Slevin and Peter Baker ‘Hard-line moves dim US view of Russian leader Washington Post http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2003/
12/15/hard_line_moves_dim_us_view_of_russian_leader/ December 15 2003). In january 2004, the american administration announced it would keep, with the agreement of the georgian government, a permanent military presence in georgia, "US officials have said that their military presence in Georgia will now become permanent." (Natalia Antelava ‘US military will stay in Georgia’ BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3406941.stm January 18th 2004). Even worse for the russians is that, "Georgia's new president-elect has set the removal of Russian troops still based in the country as a major priority for his government. Last week, the Bush administration also called for Russia to remove its military and said it was even prepared to take up some of the costs needed for the relocation of Russian troops." (Natalia Antelava ‘US military will stay in Georgia’ BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3406941.stm January 18th 2004). According to john laughland, "Allegations are even being made in Russia that the west itself is somehow behind the Chechen rebellion, and that the purpose of such support is to weaken Russia, and to drive her out of the Caucasus. The fact that the Chechens are believed to use as a base the Pankisi gorge in neighbouring Georgia - a country which aspires to join Nato, has an extremely pro-American government, and where the US already has a significant military presence - only encourages such speculation. Putin himself even seemed to lend credence to the idea in his interview with foreign journalists on Monday." (John Laughland ‘The Chechens' American friends’ The Guardian September 8, 2004); "Hundreds of US troops have also been installed in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, even though the Caucasus is geostrategically key and traditionally in the Russian sphere of influence. A US-controlled pipeline is soon to take oil from the Caspian Sea across Azerbaijan and Georgia, and both these countries are already on the fast track to join Nato itself." (John Laughland ‘Putin the poodle’ http://www.lewrockwell.com/spectator/spec403.html October 9th 2004).
Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.
"US military bases have also been created in two key former Soviet republics, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, part of a new archipelago of American bases in Central Asia." (John Laughland ‘Putin the poodle’ http://www.lewrockwell.com/spectator/spec403.html October 9th 2004).
Azerbaijan.
"In Azerbaijan, for example, American elites have pushed for a "democratic" state, that is, a state not under the control of pro-Moscow Heydar Aliev, thus leaving the country open to U.S. oil investment. Aliev, of course, is promoting Russian interests in the region, and thus, has become a "tyrant" in the Beltway mind." (M. Raphael Johnson American Free Press ‘Countdown to Armageddon? Are the Israelis willing to start World War III?’ http://www.americanfreepress.net/11_07_03/Countdown_to_Armageddon
/countdown_to_armageddon.html April 12 2004). North Ossetia.
.. "a tiny Caucasian state called North Ossetia. It is here that Russia's biggest military base in the region is located in the garrison town of Mozdok." (Leader ‘Putin's biggest crisis’ The Guardian September 3, 2004).
The GUAAM Pact.
"The American response to this situation within this region is to create the GUAAM pact, including, Georgia, Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Moldova." (M. Raphael Johnson American Free Press ‘Countdown to Armageddon? Are the Israelis willing to start World War III?’ http://www.americanfreepress.net/11_07_03/Countdown_to_Armageddon
/countdown_to_armageddon.html April 12 2004). The Baltic.
"Since 2000, three former Soviet republics - the Baltic States - have joined Nato. This puts the West’s military arsenal within 40 miles - and a few seconds - of St Petersburg, because the Baltic States have never signed the 1990 CFE (Conventional Armed Forces in Europe) treaty which limits the movement of conventional forces in Europe. It also means that the major Russian naval base at Kaliningrad is now physically surrounded by Nato and EU states." (John Laughland ‘Putin the poodle’ http://www.lewrockwell.com/spectator/spec403.html October 9th 2004).
|
5.3.2: Jewish/Zionist Members of Putin's Administration.Mikhail Fradkov, prime minister.
"The Jews that have come back find many signs that they can feel more at home in Russia than before, one of them being the appointment of Mikhail Fradkov, whose father is Jewish, to the post of prime minister. According to Gorin, the Jewish Community Center in Moscow, with a wide range of sports facilities, an Internet cafe and a library, is one of the best in Europe. Moscow is also home to four Jewish universities, 10 schools, three newspapers and one online news agency, Gorin said." (Anatoly Medetsky ‘A Wave of Jews Returning to Russia’ ItsZone http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=18585 August 04, 2004).
|
| TERRA FIRM - Issue 1 - - Issue 2 - - Issue 3 - - Issue 4 - - Issue 5 - - Issue 6 - - Issue 7 - - Issue 8 - - Issue 9 - - Issue 10 |
| Issue 11 - - Issue 12 - - Issue 13 - - Issue 14 - - Issue 15 - - Issue 16 - - Issue 17 - - Issue 18 - - Issue 19 - - Issue 20 |
| Issue 21 - - Issue 22 - - Issue 23 - - Issue 24 - - Issue 25 - - Issue 26 - - Issue 27 - - Issue 28 - - Issue 29 - - Issue 30 |
| MUNDI CLUB HOME AND INTRO PAGES - Mundi Home - - Mundi Intro |
| JOURNALS - Terra / Terra Firm / Mappa Mundi / Mundimentalist / Doom Doom Doom & Doom / Special Pubs / Carbonomics |
| TOPICS - Zionism / Earth / Who's Who / FAQs / Planetary News / Bse Epidemic |
| ABOUT THE MUNDI CLUB - Phil & Pol / List of Pubs / Index of Website / Terminology / Contact Us |
| All publications are copyrighted mundi
club © You are welcome to quote from these publications as long as you acknowledge the source - and we'd be grateful if you sent us a copy. |
We welcome additional
information, comments, or criticisms. Email: carbonomics@yahoo.co.uk The Mundi Club Website: http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/ |
To respond to points made on this website visit our blog at http://mundiclub.blogspot.com/ |
|