by Paul Collins & Phillip Collins ©, Dec. 9th, 2006
When former FSB lieutenant Alexander Litvinenko died from deliberate radiation poisoning on November 23, 2006, it came as little surprise that many accusatory fingers were pointing at the Kremlin. Litvinenko’s revelations concerning the FSB and Putin had earned him many enemies amongst the Russian elites. Deputy Chairman of the Russian parliament’s security committee, Viktor Ilyukhin, probably hit the nail on the head when he stated:
“That former KGB officer [Litvinenko] had been irritating the Russian authorities for a long time and possibly knew some state secrets. So when our special services got the chance to operate not only inside but outside the country, they decided to get rid of him.” (No pagination)
It comes as little surprise that Litvinenko’s allegations would create so much “irritation” for the Russian authorities. They suggest that the “fall of communism” was one of the greatest deceptions of the last century. All of the Russian “liberalization” initiatives seem to have been mere cosmetic alterations with no sincerity behind them at all. This move has been quite effective. It has caused the Western elite (which are just as criminal and conspiratorial as the Russian elite) to believe that Russia had ceased to be a major competitor in the crusade to establish a New World Order. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the Russian elite continued building a dictatorial system. That system has eschewed the hammer and sickle, but has embodied all of the principles of those symbols. Litvinenko’s friend, Alex Goldfarb, seemed to be implying just such a contention while on Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees. Goldfarb stated:
And it is very important that the west recognizes before it is too late. This country is drifting into a kind of a police state which will become a threat to the world. And if we fail to recognize it now, it will be to our own peril. And this is probably one of the last wake-up calls. (No pagination)
If Litvinenko’s words are, as Goldfarb suggested, the last wake-up call, then the words of KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn can be considered one of the first.
The Scam Predicted
Golitsyn was a high level KGB agent who defected to the United States in 1961. He brought with him several startling prognostications concerning a counterfeit liberalization campaign in the Soviet Union, which he contended would lead to a hoaxed “fall of communism.” This feigned decline in Soviet power was designed to lure the Western elite into a trap. Believing the liberalization campaigns to be genuine, the Establishment would pledge logistical and financial support to the emergent republics of the former Soviet Union. Meanwhile, the communist elite would use this Western assistance to restore their waning power.
Author Mark Riebling pointed out that, of the 194 predictions made by Golitsyn in his book New Lies for Old, no less than a 139 came to pass by 1993 (no pagination). Commenting on Golitsyn’s accuracy, Riebling wrote:
Even if one rejects Golitsyn’s overall thesis — viz., that Gorbachev’s changes comprised a long-term strategic deception — one must still acknowledge that Golitsyn was the only analyst whose crystal ball was functioning during the key period of the late 20th century. (No pagination)
Ex-KGB officer Anatoliy Golitsyn foretold the false “liberalization” campaign in 1984. In New Lies For Old, Golitsyn wrote:
If in a reasonable time “liberalization” can be successfully achieved in Poland and elsewhere, it will serve to revitalize the communist regimes concerned. The activities of the false opposition will further confuse and undermine the genuine opposition in the communist world. Externally, the role of dissidents will be to persuade the West that the “liberalization” is spontaneous and controlled. “Liberalization” will create conditions for establishing solidarity between trade unions and intellectuals in the communist and noncommunist worlds. In time such alliances will generate new forms of pressure against Western “militarism”, “racism”, and “military industrial complexes” and in favor of disarmament and the kind of structural changes in the West predicted in Sakharov’s writings. If “liberalization” is successful and accepted by the West as genuine, it may well be followed by the apparent withdrawal of one or more communist countries from the Warsaw Pact to serve as the model of a “neutral” socialist state for the whole of Europe to follow. Some “dissidents” are already speaking in these terms. (336)
Europe has already witnessed this condition of alleged “liberalization.” As the former Soviet “scientific dictatorship” feigned immolation, its various socialist machinations remained intact under the guise of “social democracy.” Encouraged by the prospect of a more comfortable and non-violent merger with its eastern counterpart, the “scientific dictatorship” of the West pledged its support to this counterfeit “liberalization” movement. Golitsyn continues:
Political “liberalization” and “democratization” would follow the general lines of the Czechoslovak rehearsal in 1968. This rehearsal might well have been the kind of political experiment Mironov had in mind as early as 1960. The “liberalization” would be spectacular and impressive. Formal pronouncements might be made about a reduction in the communist party’s role; its monopoly would be apparently curtailed. An ostensible separation of powers between the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary might be introduced. The Supreme Soviet would be given greater apparent power and the president and deputies greater apparent independence. The posts of president of the Soviet Union and first secretary of the party might well be separated. The KGB would be “reformed”. Dissidents at home would be amnestied; those in exile abroad would be allowed to return, and some would take up positions of leadership in government. Sakharov might be included in some capacity in the government or allowed to teach abroad. The creative arts and cultural and scientific organizations, such as the writers’ unions and Academy of Sciences, would become apparently more independent, as would the trade unions. Political clubs would be opened to nonmembers of the communist parties. Censorship would be relaxed; controversial books, plays, films and art would be published, performed, and exhibited. Many prominent Soviet performing artists now abroad would return to the Soviet Union and resume their professional careers. Constitutional amendments would be adopted to guarantee fulfillment of the provisions of the Helsinki agreements and a semblance of compliance would be maintained. There would be greater freedom for Soviet citizens to travel. Western and United Nations observers would be invited to the Soviet Union to witness the reforms in action. But, as in the Czechoslovak case, the “liberalization” would be calculated and deceptive in that it would be introduced from above. It would be carried out by the party through its cells and individual members in government, the Supreme Soviet, the courts, and the electoral machinery and by the KGB through its agents among the intellectuals and scientists. It would be the culmination of Shelepin’s plans. It would contribute to the stabilization of the regime at home and to the achievement of its goals abroad.
The arrest of Sakharov in January 1980 raises the question of why the KGB, which was so successful in the past in protecting state secrets and suppressing opposition while concealing the misdemeanors of the regime, is so ineffective now. Why in particular did it allow Western access to Sakharov and why were his arrest and internal exile so gratuitously publicized? The most likely answer is that his arrest and the harassment of other dissidents is intended to make a future amnesty more credible and convincing. In that case the dissident movement is now being prepared for the most important aspect of its strategic role, which will be to persuade the West of the authenticity of Soviet “liberalization” when it comes. Further high-level defectors, or “official émigrés,” may well make their appearance in the West before the switch in policy occurs. If it [liberalization] should be extended to East Germany, demolition of the Berlin Wall might even be contemplated.
Western acceptance of the new “liberalization” as genuine would create favorable conditions for the fulfillment of communist strategy for the United States, Western Europe, and even, perhaps, Japan. The “Prague spring” was accepted by the West, and not only by the left, as the spontaneous and genuine evolution of a communist regime into a form of democratic, humanistic socialism despite the fact that basically the regime, the structure of the party, and its objectives remained the same. Its impact has already been described. A broader-scale “liberalization” in the Soviet Union and elsewhere would have an even more profound effect. Eurocommunism could be revived. The pressure for united fronts between communist and socialist parties and trade unions at national and international level would be intensified. This time, the socialists might finally fall into the trap. United front governments under strong communist influence might well come to power in France, Italy, and possibly other countries. Elsewhere the fortunes and influence of communist parties would be much revived. The bulk of Europe might well turn to left-wing socialism, leaving only a few pockets of conservative resistance. (339-41)
Despite harsh criticism from Establishment-christened “experts” and “Sovietologists”, many of Golitsyn’s above predictions happened with frightening accuracy during the period of 1989-1991. The whole sham culminated with the August, 1991 Soviet coup. Several strange features of the overthrown suggest that whole event was staged. Donald McAlvany enumerates various oddities that are indicative of this thesis:
- The U.S. and world press were warned about the coming coup for several days leading up to August 19. Seldom is the world press given advance notice of such events. Western intelligence sources knew of the coup several months in advance. Also curious was the fact that in spite of the advance publicity of the coup, Gorbachev made no moves to head it off or avert it.
- All of the eight coup leaders were Gorbachev appointees and confidants.
- Coup leader Gennady Yanayev referred to himself only as “acting president” and spoke of Gorbachev returning to power after recovering from “his illness.”
- The coup leaders did not cut the internal or international communication lines-something which is always done in a coup or revolutionary upheaval.
- The coup leaders made no attempt to control the press – neither the Soviet nor the foreign press stationed in Russia – which had complete access to international phone lines throughout the coup.
- Anti-coup leaders such as Yeltsin had access to international phone lines and operators throughout the coup.
- Only minimal troops were used throughout the coup, and troops loyal to Yeltsin were sent to surround Yeltsin in the parliament building.
- The airports were all left open.
- Utilities in the parliament building were never cut.
- In a legitimate coup, the KGB would have killed Yeltsin, Gorbachev, and other reform leaders. No attempt was ever made to arrest Yeltsin, but the coup plotters did arrest Godiyan, a well-known enemy of Gorbachev’s. (220-21)
There were so many phony characteristics to the coup that many expressed suspicions. McAlvany elaborates:
The president of Soviet Georgia came out shortly after the coup and accused Gorbachev of having masterminded the coup, and 62 percent of the Soviet people (according to private polls) believe the coup was a fake. Even Eduard Shevardnadze (Gorbachev’s former foreign minister) said that Gorby may have been behind the coup. (222)
All the suspicions aside, these theatrical overtures were successful. The western elites dropped their guard, believing that their version of a “scientific dictatorship” would be the one that would dominate the world. However, the Soviet Bear had not been vanquished. What appeared to be death was merely hibernation. The ascendancy of Vladimir Putin, formerly of the KGB, to the Russian Presidency may have marked the beginning of the slumber’s end. Litvinenko claimed that Putin was responsible for his assassination. In a final statement, Litvinenko made the following accusation:
But as I lie here I can distinctly hear the beating of wings of the angel of death. I may be able to give him the slip but I have to say my legs do not run as fast as I would like. I think, therefore, that this may be the time to say one or two things to the person responsible for my present condition.
You may succeed in silencing me but that silence comes at a price. You have shown yourself to be as barbaric and ruthless as your most hostile critics have claimed.
You have shown yourself to have no respect for life, liberty or any civilised value.
You have shown yourself to be unworthy of your office, to be unworthy of the trust of civilised men and women.
You may succeed in silencing one man but the howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life. May God forgive you for what you have done, not only to me but to beloved Russia and its people. (No pagination)
The Putin Factor
The BBC’s Bridget Kendall conducted an investigation into the background of this enigmatic political figure. She found that Putin’s “burning ambition was always to be a Soviet secret agent” (no pagination). Kendall also reported that the Russian President “was devastated at the sudden and humiliating Soviet retreat from Eastern Europe and subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union” (no pagination). This hardly sounds like a reformer.
In 1999, Putin became Prime Minister of Russia. An incident during this period of his political career could just as easily been lifted out of a biography of Stalin. Kendall elaborates:
In August of that year, he waged a brutal war against the Chechens after a series of explosions had ripped through tower blocks in Moscow and other cities. Thousands were killed, and Chechnya was all but obliterated. (No pagination)
It is very likely that the pretext for this war was generated by employing the Soviet tactic of state sponsored terrorism. On September 4, 1999, a bombing occurred in Buinaksk, Dagestan, claiming 62 people (Henry, no pagination). This attack was followed by another bombing in Moscow which cost the lives of 215 people (no pagination). Another bombing occurred on September 16 in Volgodonsk, killing 18 people (no pagination). While the government blamed Chechen rebels, “it has never produced evidence to back up this claim” (no pagination).
The Russian government’s failure to produce any evidence implicating Chechen rebels leads one to consider the possibility of another culprit. Exiled media tycoon Boris Berezovsky leveled accusations at Putin and the FSB that suggested they were the real guilty party. Patrick Henry elaborates:
Boris Berezovsky announced Tuesday that President Vladimir Putin “definitely knew” that the Federal Security Service was involved in four bombings that killed more than 300 people in Moscow and two other cities in the fall of 1999, as well as a foiled bombing attempt in Ryazan. “At a minimum Vladimir Putin knew that the FSB was involved in the bombings in Moscow, Volgodonsk and Ryazan,” Berezovsky told reporters, adding that Putin’s failure to order a full investigation of the attacks constituted a coverup. (No pagination)
Evidence supporting these allegations are true may lie in a failed bombing in Ryazan, which occurred on September 22, 1999:
A bomb was discovered in the basement of a 12-story apartment building in Ryazan by local police. The device consisted of several bags of a white powder connected to a timer and a shotgun shell detonator. Investigators in Ryazan initially identified the powder as hexogen, a powerful explosive. But FSB chief Nikolai Patrushev quickly dismissed this finding, claiming that the whole incident was merely a training exercise with a dummy bomb, and that the bags contained sugar.
According to Berezovsky, four explosives experts from Britain and France had examined the available evidence from the Ryazan incident– including photographs of the explosive device made by investigators–and concluded that the bomb was authentic. All physical evidence from the Ryazan crime scene has been classified and sealed for 75 years, he said. (No pagination)
One individual who reinforced Berezovsky’s contentions was Nikita Chekulin, the former director of a research institute affiliated with the Education Ministry that deals with explosives (no pagination). Chekulin’s claims were most telling:
Chekulin claimed to have documentary evidence showing that the institute had purchased tons of the explosive hexogen from military installations in 2000. That hexogen was then falsely labeled and transferred to “various cover agencies in the regions,” he said. An internal Education Ministry investigation led Minister Vladimir Filippov to ask for the FSB to get involved. Among those Chekulin said knew of this “possible terrorist activity” were Deputy Prime Minister Valentina Matviyenko, then-Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov, Patrushev, then-Interior Minister Vladimir Rushailo and then-Security Council Chairman Sergei Ivanov.
“Mr. Patrushev forbade the investigation, and his deputy Yury Zaostrovtsev informed the Education Ministry of this decision,” Chekulin said. (No pagination)
The FSB claimed that these allegations were “untenable and devoid of common sense” (Henry, no pagination). However, it is interesting to note that the bombings provided Putin with the pretext to achieve objectives reminiscent of Stalin’s agenda.
Putin also borrowed another page from the old Soviet playbook: suppression of media dissent. Kendall explains:
But meanwhile, the independent television channel NTV was questioning the war in Chechnya. For Mr. Putin this amounted to betrayal. As part of his crackdown on corruption, he set about pursuing the channel’s owner, Vladimir Gusinsky, one of the so-called Russian oligarchs who had allegedly exploited Russia’s chaotic privatisation reforms to amass a personal fortune.
Before long, his office had been raided by armed tax police, his journalists interrogated, and he had fled into exile where he was arrested on a Russian extradition warrant.
Mr. Putin claimed this was just the Prosecutor’s office doing its job. But many worried it could be the first step in a crackdown on free speech and democratic freedoms.
“People are more afraid now,” said one journalist we talked to. “Only influence from international leaders on Putin can protect Russia’s democracy,” said another. (No pagination)
Kendall also saw Putin’s ascension as an enthronement of the infamous KGB. She states:
The KGB, or FSB as it is now called, is back at the heart of government. A plaque commemorating Russia’s first KGB president, the Soviet leader Yuri Andropov, has been installed on Putin’s orders to pride of place at the security service’s headquarters in Moscow. (No pagination)
The Russian President’s actions in 2003 certainly reinforce Kendall’s contention. Consider the Russian President’s recent restructuring of the government, reported by the BBC on March 12, 2003:
Russian President Vladimir Putin has restructured his government to extend the powers of the Federal Security Service (FSB).
The secret police will now absorb the border guards and the government agency for monitoring communications (Fapsi).
Liberal opposition politicians say the change amounts to the return of the KGB–the FSB’s notorious predecessor. (No pagination)
The FSB is the successor to the infamous KGB. However, it never could boast the same tyrannical power possessed by its Soviet forerunner. According to the BBC, that could all be ending now:
The new powers given to the FSB by President Putin’s decrees were enjoyed by its Soviet predecessor.
Post-Soviet reforms had gradually stripped the secret police of its control over the border guards–a force now numbering about 174,000 which still plays an important part in Tajikistan and other flash-points–and Fapsi. The FSB’s headquarters remain in the old KGB building on Lubyanka Square, a few streets away from the Kremlin. (No pagination)
It seems very suitable for the FSB to be located in the old KGB building, as it is becoming virtually indistinguishable from its Cold War precursor. It also suggests that history is about to repeat itself. The false liberalization campaigns of the past were always followed by the considerable strengthening of Russia’s internal security organs. Russian communism, which now eschews the hammer and sickle, may be preparing to make a twenty-first century return. This means the war between communism and capitalism predicted by Manuilski could be just on the horizon. Conflict between the east and west may have already broken out in the form of proxy warfare. If a Pentagon report is correct, the first shots in this proxy war were fired by the Russians during the 2003 Iraq invasion. Robert Burns elaborates:
The Russian government collected intelligence from sources inside the American military command as the U.S. mounted the invasion of Iraq, and the Russians fed information to Saddam Hussein on troop movements and plans, according to Iraqi documents cited in a Pentagon report released today. The Russians relayed information to Saddam during the opening days of the war in late March and early April 2003, including a crucial time before the ground assault on Baghdad, according to the documents. (No pagination)
For the time being, the Russians seem satisfied with employing surrogates in their competition with the west. However, things are changing. The Russian elite, previously known as the Soviet elite, has their own version of a “scientific dictatorship.” They have never abandoned that model and will, if necessary, fight a war to see it implemented. However, while this war was probably not intended by the western elites, it would still fit into their script quite nicely. As researcher James Perloff has noted: “The Establishment has frequently exploited the native anti-Communism of the American people to inveigle them into destructive circumstances” (137). In this case, those destructive circumstances would be a socialist West. The Western elites have always offered up their own unique brand of socialism as a bulwark against the Russian threat.
Some people may view the warnings put forward by Golitsyn and Litvinenko as alarmist in nature. In reality, plans for intentionally shifting Russia back into totalitarianism have existed for quite some time. Such a move was announced as far back as the 1930s, when Dimitri Manuilski stated:
“War to the hilt between communism and capitalism is inevitable. Today, of course, we are not strong enough to attack. Our time will come in 30 to 40 years. To win, we shall need the element of surprise. The bourgeoisie…will have to be put to sleep. So we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends. As soon as their guard is down, we will smash them with our clenched fist.” (McAlvaney 196-97)
In November 1987, Mikhail Gorbachev reiterated this idea. According to Sir William Stephenson, head of Combined Allied Intelligence Operations during the Second World War, Gorby said the following in a speech to the Politburo:
“Comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about glasnost and perestroika and democracy in the coming years. These are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal change within Russia other for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep. We want to accomplish three things: One, we want the Americans to withdraw conventional forces from Europe. Two, we want them to withdraw nuclear forces from Europe. Three, we want the Americans to stop proceeding with Strategic Defense Initiative.” (201)
Despite all of this compelling evidence coming directly from Russian communist sources, the West is still fast asleep. Golitsyn is marginalized and Litvinenko is dead. The watchmen have been removed from the picture. Meanwhile, the Russian bear shakes off the grogginess from a long hibernation.
- Burns, Robert. “ Russia gave Saddam intelligence during invasion, Pentagon says.” Seattle Times 24 March 2006
- Golitsyn, Anatoliy. New Lies For Old. New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company, 1984.
- Henry, Patrick. “Berezovsky Says Putin Knew About FSB Role.” Moscow Times. 6 March 2002
- Kendall, Bridget. “Who is Putin?” BBC News 9 February 2001.
- McAlvany, Donald S. Toward a New World Order. Phoenix, AZ: Western Pacific Publishing Co., 1992.
- Perloff, James. The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline. Wisconsin: Western Islands, 1988.
- “Poisoned by Radiation.” The Sun. 21 November 2006.
- “ Poison Plot: The Killing of a Spy; Who Was Alexander Litvinenko?” CNN. 4 December 2006.
- Riebling, Mark. “The Golitsyn Predictions.” Markriebling.com
- “Statement by Alexander Litvinenko.” Wikipedia. 30 November 2006.
About the Authors
Phillip D. Collins acted as the editor for The Hidden Face of Terrorism. He co-authored the book The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship, which is available at www.amazon.com. It is also available as an E-book at www.4acloserlook.com. Phillip has also written articles for Paranoia Magazine, MKzine, News With Views, B.I.P.E.D.: The Official Website of Darwinian Dissent and Conspiracy Archive. He has also been interviewed on several radio programs, including A Closer Look, Peering Into Darkness, From the Grassy Knoll, Frankly Speaking, the ByteShow, and Sphinx Radio.
In 1999, Phillip earned an Associate degree of Arts and Science. In 2006, he earned a bachelor’s degree with a major in communication studies and liberal studies along with a minor in philosophy. During the course of his seven-year college career, Phillip has studied philosophy, religion, political science, semiotics, journalism, theatre, and classic literature. He recently completed a collection of short stories, poetry, and prose entitled Expansive Thoughts. Readers can learn more about it at www.expansivethoughts.com.
Paul D. Collins has studied suppressed history and the shadowy undercurrents of world political dynamics for roughly eleven years. In 1999, he earned his Associate of Arts and Science degree. In 2006, he completed his bachelor’s degree with a major in liberal studies and a minor political science. Paul has authored another book entitled The Hidden Face of Terrorism: The Dark Side of Social Engineering, From Antiquity to September 11. Published in November 2002, the book is available online from www.1stbooks.com, barnesandnoble.com, and also amazon.com. It can be purchased as an e-book (ISBN 1-4033-6798-1) or in paperback format (ISBN 1-4033-6799-X). Paul also co-authored The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship.