International Jewish bankers of London and New York verses Russia and Putin

.
.
.
.

US to Attempt Overthrow of Putin Government

Wall Street & London elite lay groundwork to justify large scale destabilization in Russia.

by Tony Cartalucci

As predicted - the Western media and US State Department-funded "opposition" inside Russia have called Vladimir Putin's landslide victory a "fraud." It was stated on Thursday March 1, that the Western media had "already determined how Russia's elections will unfold, creating the pretext in the minds of impressionable viewers to justify the unrest the US is undoubtedly planning."


Image: Despite every poll indicating well in advance an easy victory for Vladimir Putin, and his critics admitting mobs of anti-Putin protesters constitute but a minority, claims of "election fraud" are rife across Western media. Clearly a man sure to win is not going to taint his victory by needlessly cheating. (Unless you are a paranoid Richard Nixon, looking to over egg the pudding in the 1972 Presidential elections! )

Conversely, in Thailand, when convicted criminal Thaksin Shinawatra ran for office by proxy through his own sister, and squeaked by with a tenuous victory, the Western media hailed it as a triumph of democracy. The difference? Thaksin Shinawatra of Thailand works for Wall Street, Vladimir Putin does not. (I thought he worked for London ....he brought Manchester United (6). Spent time in the UK, in exile, until the ex-Thai Policeman was pushed out by further corruption charges there, and then he lived in UAE, which is an ex-British naval base and colony------though I accept that Thailand since the 1950's has been heavily dominated by the USA, reinforced during the Vietnam war, and its security apparatus looks to the USA for guidance and inspiration ....military, Dick Shit International, and the police.......and Thaksin was educated in the USA)Thaksin Shinawatra making the Jewish International Banker Devil sign.

Didn't Taksin seek closer relations with China {He has Chinese ancestry}, and thus by implication less closer relations with the USA, which would be the antithesis of what Wall Street would want from one of their puppets surely? And a more pseudo-nationalist strident platform? I thought Wall Street only wanted obedient local globalist servants?

Asif Ali Zardari President of Pakistan, Mr. 10%, with his Swiss bank $4 billion loot stolen from the impoverished nation would be a better example of Washington's brazen hypocrisy and love for "Freedom" and "democracy", in power since 2008 with repeated USA backing, after the ISI murdered his wife for the USA, even though 90% of Pakistanis hate him)

......Or what about Charles Taylor........or Mobutu Sese Seko in power in the Congo between 1965--97 with USA backing, destroying the second richest African country through three decades of misrule.



















Have a guess which country this one works for.

This is similar to what took place during the 2009 Iranian elections where US State Department-funded opposition groups also claimed the elections were "illegitimate" and took to the streets in an attempt to reverse the democratic process through ochlocratic means. In Egypt, directly before the US-engineered Arab Spring, elections that predictably overlooked the suspicious Mohamed ElBaradei were likewise called "fraudulent" and used as the rhetorical justification to execute destabilization long-planned by the US State Department since 2008.

Proceeding Thailand's July, 2011 elections, as explained in ""Stolen Elections" Battle Cry of the Color Revolution," Wall Street and London's operatives laid the groundwork to likewise call any result aside from their proxies' full installation to power "fraud," to then be used as impetus to justify street mobs, destabilization, and violence.

And already, before Sunday's elections, US State Department-funded Freedom House, through an article written by its "president" David Kramer, stated in Foreign Policy magazine:

"Even if the system delivers the required results, clear evidence of rigging may lead voters to reject the election as unfair and illegitimate. Moreover, the authorities' stifling of the Russian public's voice runs the risk of creating an even more combustible environment in the period after March 4. The balloting, whatever its outcome, is therefore unlikely to extinguish the rising desire for real change. Unless and until that change is permitted, Putin's continued pursuit of simulated democracy will fail to achieve even a simulation of stability."

Kramer's veiled threats of instability brought about by the opposition he, his Freedom House organization, and its parent organization, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) have long been cultivating would then be repeated almost verbatim throughout the Western press on Sunday - also predictably. It was stated on March 1 that, "It is important to keep in mind Freedom House president David Kramer's words, knowing that both the National Endowment for Democracy and Freedom House are self-serving frauds, when listening to these very same talking points regurgitated by the Western media during the elections this coming Sunday."

The LA Times would feature an editorial by the Wall Street-funded American Enterprise Institute (AEI) titled, "Putin's Pyrrhic victory," which stated, "Putin's win "will be a Pyrrhic victory. Far from enhancing the Putin regime's legitimacy, the election will diminish it further in the eyes of a significant part of the Russian population."

The corporate-funded hit piece would go on to admit that the "revolution" clearly constituted a minority but maintained:

"...few, if any, regime changes, let alone revolutions, have been started by the majority. The majority has families to feed and a living to make. It is the younger, the urban, the better educated who have led successful modern revolutions. People who start them are getting uncensored news and opinions from the Internet and social media, not state-controlled television.And make no mistake about it: This is a young, middle-class revolt. "

This frightening stamp of approval for lawless ochlocratic "regime change" would then be followed by a comparison to the now admittedly fraudulent US-engineered "Arab Spring."

Joining the LA Times was a myriad of headlines regurgitating Freedom House president David Kramer's predetermined conclusions, with the Wall Street Journal reporting, "Putin Claims Election Win as Observers Claim Fraud," Fox News reporting, "Putin claims victory in Russia's presidential election amid allegations of violations in election," Reuters reporting, "Vladimir Putin 'elected Russian president', opponents allege fraud," and the London Guardian reporting, "Vladimir Putin's critics cry foul over alleged voter fraud in Russian election."

Each report mentions either US-funded fraud Alexey Navalny or US-funded "independent election monitor" GOLOS, or both.

Alexey Navalny is fully subsidized by the US State Department through the National Endowment of Democracy (NED). And while Alexey Navalny is renowned for "exposing corruption," at least when profitable, those researching his background begin unraveling his own insidious, compromised agenda. Alexey Navalny was a Yale World Fellow, and in his profile it states:

"Navalny spearheads legal challenges on behalf of minority shareholders in large Russian companies, including Gazprom, Bank VTB, Sberbank, Rosneft, Transneft, and Surgutneftegaz, through the Union of Minority Shareholders. He has successfully forced companies to disclose more information to their shareholders and has sued individual managers at several major corporations for allegedly corrupt practices. Navalny is also co-founder of the Democratic Alternative movement and was vice-chairman of the Moscow branch of the political party YABLOKO. In 2010, he launched RosPil, a public project funded by unprecedented fundraising in Russia. In 2011, Navalny started RosYama, which combats fraud in the road construction sector."

The Democratic Alternative, also written DA!, is indeed a National Endowment for Democracy fund recipient, meaning that Alexey Navalny is an agent of US-funded sedition and willfully hiding it from his followers. The US State Department itself reveals this as they list "youth movements" operating in Russia:

"DA!: Mariya Gaydar, daughter of former Prime Minister Yegor Gaydar, leads DA! (Democratic Alternative). She is ardent in her promotion of democracy, but realistic about the obstacles she faces. Gaydar said that DA! is focused on non-partisan activities designed to raise political awareness. She has received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, a fact she does not publicize for fear of appearing compromised by an American connection."

Alexey was involved directly in founding a movement funded by the US government and to this day has the very people who funded DA! defending him throughout Western media. The mention of co-founder Mariya Gaydar is also revealing, as she has long collaborated, and occasionally has been arrested with, Ilya Yashin, yet another leader of a NED-funded Russian "activist" opposition group.

Photo: Alexei Navalny, Yale World Fellow and co-founder of US National Endowment for Democracy Da! or "Democratic Alternative/Yes in Russian." It is yet another Otpor-esque organization courtesy of the United States government and willful traitors to their motherland.
....

GOLOS, also mentioned endlessly by the Western media, is directly listed on the US State Department-run National Endowment for Democracy (NED) website as a recipient of funding. A NED subsidiary, the International Republican Institute (IRI), chaired by Senator John McCain, openly desires the ousting of Russia's president Vladimir Putin while the US State Department itself is publicly accused by Moscow of trying to incite unrest across Russia. It is then difficult to fathom how GOLOS can claim to be an "independent" poll monitor when they are funded by a foreign nation actively seeking to manipulate Russia's political landscape. It is also difficult to then understand why any reputable journalist would cite GOLOS as a reliable source of information, when clearly they are compromised. Difficult to understand, that is, unless one accepts that the Western media is nothing more than paid-propagandist serving Wall Street and London interests.



Image: Screenshot taken from the National Endowment for Democracy website featuring US funding for the NGO "Golos." Golos allegedly was searching for "election irregularities." Golos and other US-backed NGOs and opposition parties are now attempting to trigger an "Arab Spring" in Russia. (click to enlarge.)
....


The next step will be to fill the streets of Russia's cities with the NED-funded opposition's mobs of "young, educated urban youths," just as they did in Egypt. AEI's op-ed in the LA Times clearly states an intent to leverage a minority magnified through "social media" to enact "regime change." Whether Russia's security apparatus is capable of quickly and decisively dealing with this foreign-funded sedition, and how far Wall Street and London are willing to go are the only remaining variables that will determine the outcome of what was from the beginning the Wall Street-London "Arab Spring's" final destination.

Conclusion

By understanding this process by which the neo-imperialists of New York and London manipulate both domestic and international opinion through a clearly compromised media and network of disingenuous, insidious NGOs and "pro-democracy opposition" movements, this geopolitical gambit can be exposed and balked.

The intended purpose of the US State Department is to maintain communications and formal relations with foreign countries - not project American hegemony around the globe. Meddling and subverting a sovereign nation is an act of war, and the potential conflict America's ruling elite threaten to trigger will be one paid for by the American people, not the corporate-fascists on Wall Street, or their proxies in Washington.

Study and understand how the US State Department has manipulated and destabilized nations from the Middle East, to Thailand, and now across Russia through foreign-funded NGOs like GOLOS, and treasonous opposition movements like those led by Alexey Navalny, Vladimir Ryzhkov, and Boris Nemtsov. Then spread the word. A well-informed population is inoculated from crass, demagogic and ultimately self-destructive manipulation by a degenerate and dangerous ruling elite.

The Pentagon's Opium trade.

.
.
.
.
The USA is the biggest consumer of illegal drugs in the world, and also not surprisingly the biggest organizer and trafficker of illegal drugs, with American State Institutions playing the leading role.

As the Jewish Mafia boss John Paul Gotti at his trial stated, "Are you kidding, I can't compete with the State" ....the bulk of the business is run by International Jewish bankers using state institutions to enforce the trade for them (The Pentagon, CIA....cynically and ruefully named the Cocaine Importation Agency), and at a more historical level the UK, and the City of London.

Careful Jewish propaganda means that in many Western societies drugs is often associated with criminalized immigrants, and other foreigners from Africa or South America.

The international business may be worth up to $1 trillion......it hasn't been audited accurately.

This aspect and habit of the USA was acquired from the criminal UK State, especially after WWII.

For this reason one presumes, black belt Vladimir Putin and his KGB cohorts after two decades with deliberate American policy to introduce narcotics into the Russian armed forces in Afghanistan in the 1980's...........has not been:

1. Able to figure out why so many of his countrymen perish each year from this problem. It is a real war that is killing Russians in the 100,000's.........and 3 million addicts. The sheer cost to Russian society.

2. His regime has not taken any clear strong concerted action to stop this vile trade from Afghanistan, beyond a few exasperated speeches over the years.

But Putin of course has real not mere symbolic options. He can hasten the exit of the USA from Afghanistan. Second, he can encourage a friendly government in Kabul which is serious about fighting narcotics.........as it is harming Afghanistan itself.

One of the biggest threats to Russia is its de-population...80 million by 2050, 32 million by 2100. Putin suggests more sex for Russians to solve the problem, and yet fourth world Tanzania can manage annual population growths of 4%.

One of the biggest threats to Russia is the International Jewish plot to flood Russia with Afghan drugs, which kills 100,000 of people each year.......it is a WAR against Russia. Putin and his expert KGB have done nothing about this problem.

One of the biggest threats Russia faces in the 21st century is a desire by the International Jews to surround and there after further divide the country for its vast mineral resources. Putin and his KGB experts have made a few speeches about the problem but have been mainly caught on the back foot and defensive.

We ask why the Russian state is so vulnerable, weak and inactive against these clear threats......it after all has vast resources and clear allies with whom to work with at its disposal.

We understand the presence of a fifth column, but with the passage of time these can surely be identified.

__________________________

Drug Trafficking by the Pentagon for the Jewish bankers in New York and London.

Russia and US Clash Over Afghan Drug Trafficking

By Alexander SHUSTOV (Russia)

This month Washington whose commitment to fighting drug production in the US occupied Afghanistan is widely called into question rolled out a new plan of coordinating the activities of Central Asian republic’s anti-narcotic agencies. The initiative was, however, promptly blocked as potentially counterproductive by Russia, the country hit hardest by the Afghan drug output.

In essence, the US plan codenamed The Central Asia Counternarcotics Initiative (CACI) amounts to forming, with the funding from Washington and under its oversight, special drug enforcement units with extensive powers including access to the operational materials and databases of the police and security agencies of the host republics. All of the five Central Asian republics were invited to join the program which also had to be endorsed by the US, Russia and Afghanistan. Support for CACI was supposed to be expressed in Vienna on 16 February at the Third Ministerial Conference of the Paris Pact Partners on Combating Illicit Traffic in Opiates Originating in Afghanistan in the form of a collective resolution, but passing it proved impossible due to the resistance mounted by Russia.

Serious suspicions arise in connection with Washington’s bid to tap, in the framework of the program, into the bulk of classified data maintained by the law-enforcement agencies of the host republics, as the information can easily be invoked to exert pressure on Central Asian administrations. Moscow cited the argument to convince its Collective Security Treaty Organization partners – Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan – to refrain from signing the statement drafted by the US.

The US agenda behind the initiative is to gain stronger political and military positions in Central Asia, while Washington actually lacks the resolve to take practical steps towards suppressing Afghan drug production and trafficking.

The US tendency to cultivate relations with Central Asian republics on a bilateral basis and to route around Russia and the Collective Security Treaty Organization is seen in Moscow as evidence of the above, and the explanations like the one offered by US Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs William R. Brownfield – that the US is neither a member of the group nor even an observer in it – indeed sound unconvincing as it remains unclear why the circumstance should hinder multilateral cooperation in countering the drug threat.

Drug production in Afghanistan has reached ominous proportions and is known to be swelling. According to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, the country’s narcotics output rose by 61% in 2011 compared to 2010 – from 3,600 to 5,800 tons. Notably, over the time the area used for drug cropping expanded only by 7% and most of the output increase is attributable to bumper harvest across the drug plantations. A circumstance not to be overlooked in the context is that the opium prices are rising continuously and added 133% in 2011, meaning that demand for drugs is currently outpacing supply. In 2010, opium price growth was driven by supply contraction as a fairly mysterious fungal decease wiped out a large part of opium poppy crops. Drug production did start to climb in 2011 in the regions where the epidemic had taken place, even in Kapisa, Baghlan, Faryab provinces formerly reported to have completely dropped out of the game.

Overall, drug production has become the key sector of the Afghan economy over the period of the US occupation, and the fact by all means merits deeper analysis.

The UN currently estimates the 2011 revenues of Afghan poppy farmers to top $1.4b, which is equivalent to 9% of Afghanistan’s GDP.

Deploying US special forces in Central Asian republics is a recurrent theme on Washington’s foreign policy agenda. In 2009, for example, the US declared dispatching to all the five of them commando units charged with the mission of keeping secure NATO’s Northern Supply Route To Afghanistan.

The White House went public with a plan to construct security infrastructures in Central Asia in August, 2010. Specifically, US Central Command’s counter-narcotics fund intended to pour over $40m into building training compounds in Kyrgyzstan’s Osh and Tajikistan’s Karatog plus a canine training facility and helicopter hangar near Almaty in Kazakhstan, and into an upgrade of a number of border-crossing checkpoints in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan. In the majority of cases, the installations are strategically located – for instance, a facelift awaited Turkmenistan’s Sarahs checkpoint sited on the Turkmen-Iranian border and Kyrgyzstan’s checkpoint in the proximity of Batkent, a position key to the Fergana Valley.

The US interest in Kyrgyzstan drew ample media coverage. Talk began years ago that a US military base was about to pop up in the southern part of the republic which is traversed by a major drug-trafficking route. The June, 2010 outbreak of ferocious inter-ethnic fighting in the Osh and Jalalabat provinces of Kyrgyzstan is oftentimes blamed on the drug mafia.

Ousted Kyrgyz president K. Bakiyev, by the way, was markedly unenthusiastic about admitting to the republic a Russian military base or one to be ran by the Collective Security Treaty Organization but seemed open to the idea of a training center functioning under the US control.

Speaking of the cooperation under the umbrella of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, its drug enforcement coordination must be credited with steadily improving efficiency. The Kanal-2001 raid jointly launched by the group’s members last December led to the seizure of 16 tons of drugs including 500 kg of heroin, over 2 tons of hashish, 9 tons of opium, and around 130 kg of cocaine. In concert, the Treaty partners’ law-enforcement agencies opened over 21,000 criminal cases, 3,400 of them being related to illicit drug circulation. It is indicative of the progress being made that the grab in a similar 2010 stint was modest in comparison, totaling just 7 tons of drugs, while the number of agents involved was several times higher. Moscow’s bilateral ties with Central Asian republics in the drug enforcement sphere also help – thanks to the Russian assistance, Kyrgyz border guards managed to boost the amounts of confiscated narcotics by a factor of 23 over just one year.

The US push for the creation and operation under its control of an alternative Central Asian drug enforcement architecture is naturally seen apprehensively against the background, especially considering that Washington rejects on a wholesale basis the initiatives targeting drug production within Afghanistan. Russia floated a series of proposals at the aforementioned Vienna conference such as compiling an interactive real-time map of drug crops in Afghanistan to guide eradication raids, using satellite surveillance to detect drug trafficking, equipping border guard outposts with advanced technologies, etc., but neither of the ideas resonated with the US. As before, Washington opposes eradication on the pretext that it would leave Afghan farmers unable to fare for themselves, and, moreover, shuns Russia’s initiative to subject to strict control the precursors to heroin and other complex opiates. Precursor codification could make it possible to track their origins and, eventually, to radically cap hard drug production, but it seems that this would not be the result to the US Administration’s liking.

The inescapable conclusion stemming from the analysis of the US position vis-a-vis Afghanistan’s drug problem, attempts to perpetuate in some form its military presence in the country, and efforts to make inroads into Central Asia is that the intensifying flow of drugs from Afghanistan to Russia and across it to Europe is regarded as an at least acceptable phenomenon in Washington.

Source: Strategic Culture Foundation and therearenosunglasses.com

UN Agency Warns Opium Production in Asia Set to Rise

1. Who benefits from the Afghan Opium Trade?

2. Obama and Afghanistan: America’s Drug-Corrupted War

Putin on Syria and Iran

.
.
.
.
This is a better fuller version of what Vladimir Putin had to say yesterday, then that reported by the mullahs Presstv, in the previous copy paste....two posts before.

In its TOTALITY I believe its significant for Russia and the world.

I wish him good luck.

Putin warns West over Syria, Iran

Yahoo news and antiwar.com

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned against military intervention in Syria or an attack on Iran in scathing criticism of the West on Monday as he laid out his foreign policy priorities less than a week before Russia's presidential election.

Putin said the West had backed the Arab Spring to advance its interests in the region, and that instead of promoting democracy the revolts had given rise to religious extremism.

(Yes patently obvious......."al-CIA-duh" has won or is winning in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and with USA/NATO backing possibly in Syria. Who can conceivably benefit from this?)

Anti-Western rhetoric has been a key part of Putin's campaign, aimed at rallying support among his core electorate of blue-collar workers, farmers and state employees widely suspicious of the West after years of government propaganda.

In criticizing the Arab Spring and accusing the U.S. of trying to encourage a similar uprising in Russia, Putin on Monday played on patriotic feelings by posturing as a defender of national interests in the face of potential unrest.

His lengthy article, brimming with criticism of the United States and its Western allies, was the latest in a series of manifestos Putin has published in Russian newspapers ahead of Sunday's election. Although none of the other four candidates poses a challenge and Putin is all but certain to win, he has been rattled by an unprecedented outburst of public discontent in Russia.

Putin defended the Russia-China decision earlier this month to veto a United Nations resolution condemning Syrian President Bashar Assad's crackdown on protests, saying that Moscow wouldn't allow a replay of what happened in Libya, where NATO airstrikes helped Libya's rebels oust Moammar Gadhafi's regime.

"Learning from that bitter experience, we are against any U.N. Security Council resolutions that could be interpreted as a signal for military interference in domestic processes in Syria," Putin said in the article published in Moscow News.

He said that any attempt to launch military action without U.N. approval would undermine the world body's role and hurt global security.

"I strongly hope that the United States and other nations will learn from the sad experience and won't try to resort to a forceful scenario in Syria," Putin said. "I can't understand that bellicose itch."

Activists estimate that close to 7,500 people have been killed in the 11 months since the Assad regime's brutal crackdown on dissent began.

Putin said both the Syrian government and opposition forces must pull out of populated areas to end bloodshed, adding that the Western refusal to demand that from Assad's opponents was "cynical."

(Desirable, but not a practical solution....."al-CIA-duh" wishes to gain power in Damascus and nothing else will do)

Syria is Russia's last remaining ally in the Middle East. Moscow has maintained close ties with Damascus since the Cold War, when Syria was led by the current leader's father, Hafez Assad.

Putin said that Russian companies have lost ground in the countries engulfed by the Arab Spring uprisings and are being replaced by firms from the nations that backed the regime change.

"That raises the thought that the tragic events to some extent had been driven not by concern about human rights, but a desire by some to redistribute markets," he said. "We mustn't watch that with an Olympian calm."

Putin also warned against an attack on Iran.

"Russia is worried about the growing threat of a strike on Iran," Putin said. "If it happens, the consequences will be truly catastrophic. Their real scale is impossible to imagine."

He said the international community must acknowledge Iran's right to conduct uranium enrichment in exchange for placing the program under close supervision by the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

Iran has insisted that its controversial uranium enrichment program is aimed at producing energy and medical isotopes, but the West believes it's a cover for developing nuclear weapons.

"The West has gotten carried away trying to 'punish' some nations," Putin said. "It reaches out for sanctions or even a military club at the drop of a hat."

He said the Western emphasis on using force could encourage more countries to seek nuclear weapons in a bid to protect themselves: "If I have a nuclear bomb in my pocket, they wouldn't touch me because it would cost them. And those lacking a bomb should wait a 'humanitarian' intervention."

Putin also accused the U.S. of using non-governmental organizations as an instrument of "soft power" aimed at destabilizing regimes.

"It's necessary to draw a clear distinction between the freedom of speech, normal political activities on the one hand, and illegal instruments of soft power on the other," he said, adding that U.S. attempts to interfere in Russian elections have strained ties.

The statement follows Putin's earlier claims that the U.S. was behind the protests against his rule.

In Monday's article, Putin again criticized the U.S.-led plans for a NATO missile defense system in Europe, saying it's aimed against Russian nuclear forces.

"The Americans are obsessed with the idea of ensuring absolute invulnerability for themselves, which is utopian and unfeasible from both technological and geopolitical points of view," he said. "An absolute invulnerability for one means an absolute vulnerability for all the others. It's impossible to accept such a prospect."

Beware of the Fifth Column filth in sheeps clothing offering alms

.
.
.
.
An old article from 5 years ago, which is still relevant especially now with JEWSA funded regime change.

__________________________

450,000 NGOs in Russia

U.S. finances opposition

By Sara Flounders

A struggle is developing in Russia over legislation regulating non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that is due to go into effect in April.

The new law was passed by both houses of the Russian legislature, called the Duma, and signed by President Vladimir Putin on Jan. 10. Resistance to it has opened a window on the level of Western and especially U.S. intervention in Russia today.

Under the new law, foreign organizations and groups receiving funding from outside Russia have to register with the government. Russian officials say the legislation is necessary to combat the hundreds of millions of dollars flowing from foreign governments to organizations in the country.

An original version of the law was toned down under an intense campaign of pressure from the NGOs themselves and from the U.S. government. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pressured Putin, expressing concern for “democracy.” The legislation was on the agenda at the recent G-8 meeting.

The law imposes restrictions on the financing, registration and activities of NGOs. This term originally meant any non-profit, voluntary, civic, humanitarian, health, human rights, service or environmental organization. Now a huge number of organizations that claim to be non-governmental, but rely on the U.S. and other major imperialist countries and on big corporations for their funds, operate in Russia and in many countries around the world. They dispense aid, set policy and intervene in political life based on the political agenda and economic interests of the funders.

The sheer number of organizations described as NGOs and the number receiving foreign funding is staggering. Since 1991 and the collapse of the Soviet Union, hundreds of thousands of NGOs have sprung up in Russia. Members of the Russian Duma say over 450,000 NGOs operate in Russia today. The Yale Center for the Study of Globalization puts the number even higher, saying that “There are at least 600,000 registered non-governmental, non-commercial organizations operating in Russia. At least as many may be working in the country without official registration.”

Duma deputy Alexei Ostrovsky, a co-author of the new law, estimates up to a quarter of Russian NGOs receive money from abroad. These include environmental groups, human rights monitors and consumer advocates.

President Putin, in supporting the legislation, said: “Whether these organizations want it or not, they become an instrument in the hands of foreign states that use them to achieve their own political objectives. This situation is unacceptable. This law is designed to prevent interference in Russia’s internal political life by foreign countries and create transparent conditions for the financing of nongovernmental organizations.”

The cross followed the gun

When the European capitalist nations first established colonies around the world, the cross followed the gun. Thousands of missionaries were an integral part of the machinery of conquest and subjugation.

Establishing a colonial administration meant reorganizing society and the ownership of property in a way that benefited the colonizers. It involved schools, training and political orientation for those among the local elite who would become collaborators. Religious conversion helped to pacify a whole section of the population, and paved the way for some to become loyal and fervent servants of the new power structure.

Today in Russia, not just religious organizations have been flooding into the region. The primary role of proselytizing capitalist values is played by “human rights” NGOs.

(With the irony and added hypocrisy that it is the JEWSA and its lapdogs who are the greatest clappy happy purveyors of violence and human rights abuse around the world.....100,000 people from the Greater Middle East abducted, kidnapped by the JEWSA and incarcerated at various secret prisons, over 10 years. 5 wars fought where millions have died and millions more turned into refugees. The JEWSA itself holds 2,300,000 people in gulag, free labor industrial prisons.......with the added capacity to hold 20,000,000 million more at FEMA concentration camps if peoples views don't match Rick Santorums.......and of course the Gestapo laws since 2001.

The Irony and hypocrisy is glaring.......the JEWSA is the greatest Humans rights abuser in the world, but given the sheer Jew Chtuzpah such FACTS above does not discourage the JEWSA from promoting "Liberty" in other peoples countries, and in the case of Libya in the mold of classic colonialism)

In response to these new restrictions, the volume of political pressure and protests from Washington has been turned up. But it is sheer hypocrisy. Regulations that are far more restrictive and intrusive monitor organizations in the U.S.

Any individual or organization here that accepts money from a foreign country must register with the U.S. government under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Charitable donations are a matter of public record. Imagine Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea or Iran pumping millions of dollars into political organizations in the U.S. Even U.S. allies such as Britain, France, Germany or Japan cannot secretly fund political organizations within the U.S.

Alexei Pankin, writing in the Jan. 25 issue of the magazine Russia Profile, described his relation with two NGOs. “I ran a USAID-funded three-year program supporting Russian media, with a total budget of $10.5 million, and a Soros Foundation program supporting Russian media with an annual budget of $1.8 million. The number of supervisors, bosses, inspectors and advisers who I had to deal with (or had to deal with me) defies belief. I am sure there were intelligence officers among them.”

Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB), successor of the KGB, on Jan. 23 accused four British diplomats of spying. It said it had caught one of them “red-handed” channeling funds to several Russian nongovernmental organizations. London denied misconduct, saying it openly funded NGOs in Russia.

Significant foreign funding comes directly from U.S. sources, such as the quasi-governmental National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and from the European Union’s Tacis Program. Millions of dollars in funding originates with foundations that represent the interests of the wealthy elite, such as the Ford, MacArthur, Carnegie, Rockefeller and Soros organizations.

Regime change in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan

The role of U.S.-funded NGOs in trying to impose “regime change” in Cuba, Venezuela, Chile, Nicaragua and Haiti is increasingly understood. The role of these same subversive organizations in Eastern Europe and the countries that made up the former Soviet Union is less well known, even though they operate on an even larger scale there.

Russia’s FSB security service chief, Nikolai Patrushev, recently blamed foreign-funded NGOs for fomenting coups in the post-Soviet states of Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan.

The active and open role that foreign-funded NGOS played in the overturn of these three governments is what is setting off alarm bells in Moscow. The imperialist media fondly call these coups “velvet revolutions” and sometimes “color revolutions” for the colors chosen by the opposition forces.

Ironically, the political leaders who were overthrown—especially Eduard Shevardnadze in Georgia and Leonid Kuchma in Ukraine—had in the past been the U.S.-chosen candidates. Both had carried out policies that brought their governments into the U.S. orbit. They had pushed for joining NATO’s “Partnership for Peace.” Both had agreed to send troops to Iraq.

Yet both politicians were unceremoniously thrown out when they were not totally compliant with U.S. corporate demands. Both of their replacements—Mikheil Saakashvili in Georgia and Viktor Yuschchenko in Ukraine—had served in the governments of their predecessors.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said after attending Yuschchenko’s inauguration as president of Ukraine on Jan 23, 2005, that he was “proud to have been associated with both events”—in Georgia and Ukraine.

Much insight into U.S. plans for the future and evaluations of past interventions can actually be found on the web sites of the foundations behind these regime changes.

40,000 NGOs in Ukraine

In an article on the World Bank’s website entitled: “Civil Society Development in Ukraine and the Orange Revolution,” Vira Nanivska, director of the International Center for Policy Studies in Ukraine, brags: “Today some 40,000 NGOs in Ukraine involve 12 percent of the population—and these organizations have been a key active force in the Orange Revolution.” (www.worldbank.org)

She describes how international consultants, policy experts and technical assistants work in coordination to change legislation, develop interest groups, set up media centers and develop protest movements. NGOs affect legislation, train civil servants, establish community councils and business associations, and push to revise the state budget in their own interests.

Young people and student organizations are drawn in through campaigns around protection of minority rights and fighting child abandonment. The whole aim of this web of projects, she explains, is to prevent any “backsliding towards the old regime” and to push for “Euro-integration,” meaning integrating into international and European organizations like NATO and the World Bank.

The overturn of socialist ownership and the breakup of the Soviet Union is a process that did not end in 1991. Shaping the laws on property, the rights of foreign capital, justifying the expropriation and privatizing of the socially owned resources, industry and services for individual profit, dismembering social programs, shaping the media, education and culture, and undermining any assertions of sovereignty are a much longer process.

These funds have an even greater impact in a region where the centralized socialist planning that once guaranteed pensions, full employment, free health care, free education and subsidized housing is gone. Its brutal dismembering has affected millions of people, leaving them intensely angry with the leaders who betrayed them.

Funding youth movements

A significant part of the U.S. corporate funding is to create youth movements. The Soros Foundation, USAID and the NED together funded the Serbian youth group Otpor. Young people were provided specialized training and seminars in Budapest, Hungary, along with t-shirts, stickers, posters, office rent and a newspaper, as part of the successful campaign to overturn the Milosevic government in Serbia.

In Georgia, the Soros Foundation budgeted $4.6 million for the youth group Kmara, which became a primary weapon against the government. In Ukraine, Soros budgeted $7 million for the youth group Pora.

The opendemocracy.net web site is funded by the Ford and Rockefeller foundations. An article there by Sreeram Chaulia analyzes the role of U.S.-funded NGOs from Georgia to Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine. The blurb for it is provocative, saying that “new forms of youthful, tech-savvy mass mobilization are impelling regime change from below. But is the phenomenon as benign as it appears? Are the movements who inspire the ‘color revolutions’ catalysts or saboteurs?”

The author is not criticizing these NGOs; he is evaluating their effectiveness in implementing “regime change.” A few of his observations give insight into how these political organizations operate as just another weapon in the U.S. arsenal.

“Sabotage can suffice in some countries while full-scale military offensives may be needed in others,” Chaulia says.

“These three revolutions—the ‘rose revolution’ in Georgia (November 2003-January 2004), the ‘orange revolution’ in Ukraine (January 2005) and the ‘tulip revolution’ in Kyrgyzstan (April 2005)—each followed a near-identical trajectory; all were spearheaded by the American democratization Ingos [international NGOs] working at the behest of the U.S. foreign policy establishment. … Rarely has the U.S. promoted human rights and democracy in a region when they did not suit its grander foreign-policy objectives. … Ingos heavily dependent on U.S. finances have been found to be consciously or subconsciously extending U.S. governmental interests. …

“NED’s first president, Allen Weinstein, admitted openly that ‘a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA. … NED was conceived as a quasi-governmental foundation that funneled U.S. government funding through Ingos like the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), the International Republican Institute (IRI), International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX), and Freedom House. …

“The U.S. Embassy in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, worked closely with NGOs like Freedom House and the Soros Foundation—supplying generators, printing presses and money to keep the protests boiling until President Akayev fled. Information about where protesters should gather and what they should bring was spread through State Department-funded radio and TV stations.”

Today’s new and developing anti-war movement needs an understanding of the many forms of U.S. intervention, along with the chaos and instability that it breeds. This will build anti-imperialist awareness and strengthen the growing global demand of “U.S. out now!”

---

Articles copyright 1995-2011 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org

A new alliance.

.
.
.
.

Bear nettles the eagle, dragon smiles

By M K Bhadrakumar at therearenosunglasses.com and Asia Times

From an apparently impromptu remark on Monday, the United States has elevated the Russian parliamentary election held on December 5 to a core issue of US-Russia ties. The dramatic escalation of rhetoric scatters the continued pretences over the Barack Obama administration’s “reset” of relations.

In a swift move, Beijing has also stepped forward to express understanding for Moscow. The faultlines will impact on the regional and international situation on a host of issues in the coming period.

To recap, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lost no time to offer comment on the Russian parliamentary election when speaking on the sidelines of the Bonn Conference II in Germany on Monday, she aimed barbs at the Kremlin claiming she was “worried” about the conduct of the ballot and “Russian people, like people everywhere deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted”.

Clinton spoke out even before the results of the election were fully available. In fact, a complete vote count was available from the vast regions of Russia only on Wednesday. It revealed that the ruling party United Russia (UR) suffered a severe jolt by losing as many as 77 seats they held in the outgoing 450-member parliament. The UR scraped through with a simple majority of 238 seats.

Clinton made it out to be that the Kremlin orchestrated a Soviet-style 98% victory for the UR. While Western media have gone to town interpreting the result as a big “defeat” for Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (who is making a bid for presidency in the election on March 4), Clinton argued in a diametrically opposite direction as if the Kremlin leadership trampled the popular opinion and consolidated its grip on power.

Curiously, Clinton didn’t let go the topic after her remarks in Bonn, but revisited it the very next day to give a further stinging rebuke to the Russian leadership from a high-profile podium right in Russia’s doorstep – Vilnius, Lithuania – in the presence of the entire community of the post-Soviet states and Old and New Europe. Her choice of the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) forum was particularly symbolic since the regional body is the inheritor of the Cold War legacy of the famous Helsinki Accords of 1975.

What prompted the US onslaught? A simple explanation could be that Clinton grabbed a chance to throw mud at Putin and make his bid for the presidency in the Kremlin in the Russian presidential election on March 4 as difficult and as controversial as possible.

A spring in mid-winter

Indeed, enough indications were available in recent weeks that Washington felt annoyed at the high probability of Putin’s return as Russia’s president at a formative period in world politics. Putin means an assertive Russia – a Russia that will negotiate hard to influence world events, a Russia that will cement its cooperation and coordination with China, a Russia that will forcefully counter the US’s crucial Middle East project to re-establish its hegemony over the region in the new conditions of “democracy”.

The Russian Foreign Ministry routinely ridiculed Clinton’s remark, but Moscow’s reaction finally came when Putin spoke on Wednesday after letting the US secretary of state say all she had to say. Putin tore into Clinton. He said:

I looked at the first reaction of our US colleagues. The [US] secretary of state was quick to evaluate the elections, saying that they are unfair and unjust, even before she received materials from the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights [OSCE] observers. She set the tone for some actors in our country and gave them a signal. They heard the signal, and with the support of the US State Department, began active work.

Putin then went on to allege that “hundreds of millions” of foreign money have been used to influence the outcome of Russia’s elections and Russia must protect its sovereignty:

When money from abroad is invested in political activities inside another country, this concerns us … We are not against foreign observers monitoring our election process. But when they begin motivating some organizations inside the country, which claim to be domestic but in fact are funded from abroad … this is unacceptable. We will have to think about improving our laws in order to make those fulfilling the tasks of a foreign state aimed at influencing our domestic [political] process more responsible.

The response is strongly worded, no doubt, and four things must be noted. One, this has been a rare personal accusation of Clinton herself for inciting instability in Russia. Two, Putin segregated the US State Department within the Barack Obama administration as working according to a plan of action. Three, Putin hinted at hard evidence of US meddling in the hands of the Russian intelligence. Finally, he indicated that Moscow won’t take this lying low.

Clinton can hardly complain that Putin took a personal tone. The US State Department’s campaign against Putin had of late assumed a vicious tone even by the standards of the tumultuous Russian-American relations. A fortnight ago Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe (RFE/RL) featured a report over Putin’s personal life, with the seeming intent of animating an anti-Putin tsunami in the social media network in Russia.

One cannot recall Russian official media descending to such abysmally poor taste to attack Bill Clinton even at the peak of the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. In retrospect, the US seems to have anticipated that the Russian intelligence had come in possession of hard evidence pointing toward the American meddling in Russian politics. The RFE/RL commentary would appear to have been a diversionary measure to get the eagle out of the trap that was actually intended for the bear.

Clinton’s attempt seems to have been broadly in the same direction when she took to the high ground and made Russia’s election an epochal issue of the progress of democracy in the 21st century. From this point, actually, Obama administration is left with no alternative but the ridiculous one of kindling a Tahrir Square-like eruption in Moscow.

According to the tabulation by the New York Times, by Thursday evening more than 32,000 people had clicked a Facebook page to say they would gather near the Kremlin. The daily carefully assessed, “Even if half that number showed up, that would make it the largest political protest since the fall of the Soviet Union.”

But the advent of the Arab Spring in the middle of the Russian winter in Moscow can only have predictable consequences. Beijing is also watching the unnatural phenomenon. If the New York Times senses that Putin “struggled to regain his footing after his party, United Russia, suffered big losses in the elections on Sunday”, attentive observers in Beijing have concluded otherwise.

It’s Putin, stupid!

Even as Clinton in spoke in Bonn on Monday, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei drew just the opposite conclusions. He said, “We [China] believe that the election will be beneficial for Russia’s social unity, national stability and economic development.” He said China respected the choice of the Russian people, and would work with the Russians to push forward the “comprehensive partnership of coordination” between the two countries.

China made a deliberate decision to take a clear-cut stance as early as Monday although the reverse suffered by UR in the poll was known in Beijing. The Xinhua news agency in a pithy comment with Beijing dateline on Monday had even added a note of caution:

Despite looking very likely to win the parliamentary election, many challenges lie ahead for Vladimir Putin’s United Russia, as it comes to terms with a severely reduced majority. Some analysts are citing the poor state of Russia’s economy for the drop in support. The party is also seen by many as having failed to reduce corruption, and not carrying out promises to improve government efficiency. There has also been a large amount of criticism of Putin’s government on Internet chat rooms and online forums.

By Tuesday, however, Xinhua carried a full commentary strongly rebutting the US allegations and the “caricature-like description” of the “forgone conclusion that Russia’s ruling party United Russia, led by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, has won the State Duma elections”.

The nuanced commentary estimated that the core issue was not ‘democracy’ in Russia, but Putin:

Putin’s world-view is said to be ‘anti-western’ … American politicians have no interest in seeing the ‘tough guy’ at the apex of Russian power … the White House will not be delighted at the prospect of dealing with ‘prickly’ President Putin again … Russia’s election is just in line with its own interest, far from echoing the need of Western countries. Mrs Clinton’s reaction seems understandable.

Xinhua noted that Russia’s policies did not always concord with its own self-interest and at times Moscow preferred to act on issues in line with the “Western practice”, but even then, such acts “could not be a precise docking” with the western agenda and therefore, Western pressures on Russia continue. The commentary, by the way, was attributed to the People’s Daily columnist Li Hongmei.

Quite obviously, China is keeping in view the big picture of the power dynamic on the world scene. Beijing never quite concealed its high regard for Putin as a consistent advocate of the imperatives of Sino-Russian strategic ties. But the current acrimony in the US-Russia relations also comes at a crucial juncture for China.

On a range of fronts, coordination with Russia has become a very vital aspect of the Chinese regional policy. Not less than four times, top Chinese foreign ministry officials traveled to Moscow for consultations through the month of November.

The Russian-Chinese coordination is at an all-time high level. Their “joint” veto in the United Nations Security Council over the resolution regarding Syria has no parallel. They followed up blocking a resolution adopted by the UN Human Rights Commission at Geneva from being transferred to the Security Council in New York. Beijing helped Moscow to get the BRICS adopt Russia’s stance on Syria as its common position.

On Iran, too, the two countries are thwarting the US moves to impose additional sanctions. (Russian envoy to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin recently suggested that it is time the UN Security Council rolls back even the existing sanctions regime.) On Asia-Pacific, Russia stands by China in accordance with the two countries’ joint statement adopted last year in September.

Russia and China both oppose the establishment of US-North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military bases in Afghanistan. They are both interested in enhancing Pakistan’s strategic autonomy. They worked together at the recent Istanbul conference (November 2) to derail Clinton’s pet New Silk Road project. A high water mark will probably be reached when Russia’s NATO envoy Dmitry Rogozin travels to Beijing (and Tehran) to discuss the US’s missile defense (ABM) program, which is posing a major hurdle in the US-Russia relations.

Beijing has been closely but silently viewing the US-Russia shadow play over ABM and Rogozin’s consultations must be on the basis of quiet signals that Beijing wants to talk things over. Russia and China have specific interests on the ABM issue, but any degree of coordination, however tentative, would still form a new template in international security.

Above all, Beijing counts on Putin to somehow ensure that the pending negotiations over a trillion-dollar gas deal are concluded at an early date. With the US establishing a military base in Australia and strengthening its presence in Singapore and also rallying the Asian countries to help revitalize its leadership role, China’s energy security concerns are becoming acute.

In sum, the trajectory of the current US-Russia acrimony and Putin’s success in weathering the furious American onslaught on his political career are of the highest importance to China. If the eagle has actually ended up in a trap it thought it had set up for the bear, that becomes a matter of joy for the dragon.

The Secret Jewish government that runs Russia.

.
.
.
.

JEWISH CONTROL OF RUSSIA? by aangirfan

Putin

On 6 September 2010, Russia and Israel signed an agreement on military cooperation.

When we were in Greek Cyprus we noted the presence of a number of Russian millionaires with the most expensive cars you can imagine.

When we were in Italy we also sighted millionaire Russians.

Is Russia a Mafia state and is it close friends with Israel?

It is not just the UK security services which have strong links to Israel (THE CLASSIC SEX SCANDAL), it is also the Russian security services.

The KGB and Mossad used to share their secrets.

Marc Rich is Jewish.

According to Newsmax (Marc Rich Helped KGB Create Hidden Government,), 31 March 2001:

"Marc Rich, the most-wanted fugitive pardoned by former President Clinton, was a key figure in the Communist Party and the KGB's creation of an underground government that survived the break-up of the Soviet Union and still rules Russia today behind the scenes."

Medvedev has Jewish origins?

What are we to make of Russian prime minister Putin and Russian president Medvedev?

Medvedev's "maternal grandfather's first name was Veniamin - similar to the Hebrew Binyamin (Benjamin) - while his family name, Shaposhnikov, is sometimes a Jewish name." (Rumors that Putin's successor is Jewish.)

"Medvedev will be wonderful for the Jews," just as Putin was, declared Israeli-Russian businessman Lev Leviev, who heads the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia. (Rumors that Putin's successor is Jewish.)

Reportedly, Stalin was Jewish and had Jewish mistresses. Reportedly, his top spy was Victor Rothschild.

In November 2009, Russian President Dimitry Medvedev told a visiting delegation from the European Jewish Congress that the Iranian threat is very real, as are the threats posed by North Korea and Pakistan, and should be treated seriously. (Medvedev to European Jewish Congress: Iran threat very real ...)

According to a western diplomat: "Russia's main problem ... is that an unholy nexus of politics, big business and organised crime still dominates the ruling class." (Putin legacy - Telegraph )

Mogilevich is Jewish

Reportedly, Putin Dared To Call The Bluff Of The Global Jewish Mafia.

In 2008, "according to Russian media reports, Mogilevich, a Ukrainian business tycoon and Mafia godfather, was arrested in a Moscow shopping center. (Die Welt, 26 Jan 2008, p. 11.)...

"Semion Mogilevich, mass murderer and global swindler, has officially been on the 'wanted' list for decades, but he enjoyed the protection of the most powerful government ministries in the world.

"This was especially true where the BND: Federal German Intelligence Agency was concerned...

"According to the ZDF German Television magazine 'Kennzeichnen D' (1 Sep 1999), Semion Mogilevich, the presumed godfather of the largest Russian crime syndicate, who has been named who in connection with billions swindled by the Yeltsin Clan, enjoys protection at the highest levels in all Europe.."

Mogilevich was arrested in Moscow on January 24, 2008, for suspected tax evasion.[25] [26]

He was released on July 24, 2009.

The Russian interior ministry stated that the charges against him "are not of a particularly grave nature."[27][28]

Beria was Jewish. "Beria was noted for having his bodyguards kidnap young schoolgirls so that he could rape them in his Lubyanka office, which doubled as a torture chamber."

General Leonid Ivashov is a former joint chief of staff of the Russian army.

On 28 September 2010, at voltairenet.org/en, Ivashov suggests that Medvedev has opted for the US-Israeli camp.

("In the Interests of Israel": Why Russia will not sell the S-300 Air Defense System to Iran)

According to Ivashov:

1. On September 22 2010, it was announced that Russia will not sell the S-300 air defense system to Iran.

2. This defence system is a purely defensive system.

3. The refusal to supply the S-300 complexes to Iran clearly hurts Russia's political and economic interests.

4. Tehran proposed a number of times to turn the Middle East into a nuclear-free zone.

5. Igor Yurgens, chief of a well-connected Russian thinktank, spoke on 28 July 2010 about the possibility of integrating Russia into NATO.

He reported that in the nearest future Russia would ­be importing at least 30% of the weapons and equipment for its army from Israel and NATO countries.

6. General V. Dvorkin paid a visit to Israel a short time ago. He urged US senators to OK launching an attack against Iran.

Russian girl, from http://www.russian-victories.ru/

7. On 6 September 2010, the defense ministers of Russia and Israel A. Serdyukov and Ehud Barak signed a first-ever agreement on military cooperation between the two countries.

This includes sharing intelligence and could mean that Russia spies on Turkey and passes information onto Israel.

8. Russia seems to be turning a blind eye to Israel's role in the attack on its troops in South Ossetia.

Israel assisted in organizing and launching the August 2008 unprovoked Georgian aggression against South Ossetia and the deadly raid against the Russian peacekeepers deployed in the republic.

9. Russia has a problem with its Moslem population in the Caucasus. (This may be being stirred up by the CIA and Mossad - Aangirfan)

10. There is a fear that Russia will join the "military escapades of the Anglo-Saxons and of the Israeli Zionist leadership in the name of the shadowy financial oligarchy’s global dominance."

Putin, from http://www.russian-victories.ru/

Anonymous added this comment:

"Medvedev might be leaning towards the Zionazis but dont count out the formidable chess player Vladimir Putin and remember that he won a stunning popularity because he threw the Jewish oligarch-mafia crooks behind bars.

"He also vapourized the Israeli base and their local infrastructure intended for an imminent attack on Iran, in Georgia. (IDF participated directly in the Georgian suprise attack on Russian peace keepers)

"The fact that Iranian critisism of the move is close to zero speaks something too and besides, Syria (host to the Russian mediterrian base at Tartus), which is a close ally of Iran, will get a similar defence system..."

Yuri Andropov, former leader of the USSR, was Jewish.

Winston Churchill wrote that: "in the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is astonishing.

"And the prominent, if not indeed, the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses...

"The fact that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship are excepted by the Bolsheviks from their universal hostility has tended more and more to associate the Jewish race in Russia with villainies which are now being perpetrated..."

Researcher Wayne McGuire of Harvard University writes: "50% of the communist terrorist vanguard in the south and west of Russia was comprised of Jews." (http://www.russians.org/communist.html)

The Siberian novelist Valentin Rasputin wrote in 1990: "I think today the Jews here in Russia should feel responsible for the sin of having carried out the revolution and for the shape it took.

"They should feel responsible for the terror - for the terror that existed during the revolution and especially after the revolution ... their guilt is great.

"They perpetrated the relentless campaign against the peasant class whose land was brutally expropriated by the state and who themselves were ruthlessly murdered."

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's biographer wrote: "By the age of ten he had the cross ripped from his neck by jeering Pioneers and for over a year was held up to ridicule...

"Solzhenitsyn was, as a boy, exposed to students whose parents had an officially superior status.

"Most of the members of the Young Pioneers and Komsomol movements, at least in Rostov, were Jewish children..." (Michael Scammell, Solzhenitsyn: A Biography, p. 64).

According to the RNS wire service (reprinted in "The Christian News," Jan. 8, 1996, p. 2), "Some 200,000 (Christian) clergy, many crucified, scalped and otherwise tortured, were killed during the approximately 60 years of communist rule in the former Soviet Union, a Russian commission reported Monday (Nov. 27, 1995)...

"40,000 churches (were) destroyed in the period from 1922 to 1980..."

Russia's concentration camps and slave labor system were "staffed in its upper echelons by Jewish Communists."

Sixteen million ethnic Germans were forcibly expelled from Silesia, Moravia and the Volga at the end of the Second World War. Two million perished. 800,000 mostly Muslim Chechens were deported to Kazakhstan; a quarter of a million died enroute. 12% of the Baltic population was either deported to Siberia or executed. http://www.russians.org/communist.html

In the Bolshevik era, 52 percent of the membership of the Soviet communist party was Jewish, though Jews comprised only 1.8 percent of the total population (Stuart Kahan, The Wolf of the Kremlin, p. 81)

Source: http://www.russians.org/communist.html

Reportedly, Tito was the only non-Jewish dictator behind the Iron Curtain in the late 1940s. However, the Yugoslavian communist party sent massive arms shipments to Jewish fighters in Palestine in the 1940s.