By Steven MacMillan/The Analyst Report: 4 February, 2015
In 2014, the Western elite launched a full-scale economic and information war against the Russian Federation in a quest to force regime change in Moscow. The Western media has been promulgating anti-Russian propaganda and misrepresenting the truth in Ukraine for the entirety of last year, with the liberal press – such as the Guardian and the Washington Post – being some of the worst offenders, as John Pilger illustrated in a recent article. The Guardian just published an insanely belligerent and inaccurate piece on Sunday titled: Putin must be stopped. And sometimes only guns can stop guns.
Sanctions have been imposed on the Kremlin along with the oil price being deliberately dropped by a US-Saudi pact to weaken Russia and other enemies of the West – such as Venezuela and Iran, who are also heavily reliant on energy exports to balance their budgets. Weakening Iran and Russia in turn weakens the regime of al-Assad in Syria, a key objective of the Western elite. The drop in the price of oil is also partly due to Saudi Arabia’s desire to bankrupt US shale oil producers to maintain their market share, along with global demand dropping from a stagnant world economy which has further pushed the price down. How long it will remain so low is hard to determine. OPEC’s Secretary-General Abdulla al-Badri recently remarked that he sees the possibility of oil shooting up to around $200 per barrel in the future. It is by no means coincidental however that the oil price has fallen in conjunction with sanctions being placed on Russia. The strategy is to weaken the Russian economy in a bid to create resentment against the government; then foreign NGO’s in Russia will try to foster and amplify this animosity to force regime change through a colour revolution led by a Western puppet.
Alexey Navalny, an influential figure in the Russian opposition who has very close ties to the West, is a potential leader of this attempted western-orchestrated revolution, although the Russian authorities are closely watching his activities. Navalny recently received a suspended sentence for embezzlement and is currently under house arrest – although his brother received a three and a half year jail sentence. In Tony Cartalucci’s article: Wall Street’s man in Moscow charged with fraud, Cartalucci documents Navalny’s connections to the CIA and U.S. State Departments National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the West’s preeminent regime change organisation.
Known Putin critic Ilya Ponomarev could alsoplay a role in Western attempts to force regime change in Russia, as he recently gave a PowerPoint presentation on how to oust the Russian government at the Washington based think-tank, the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. Former oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky is another individual that will aid the West with its strategy in Russia, a man who last year launched a pro-European political movement within Russia in addition to stating his interest in being the President of the country in the future.
Russian authorities are well aware of this strategy and have so far successfully staved off attempts by the West to overthrow them. Russia’s own Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has stated that the sanctions were implemented to force “regime change” in Russia, and Putin has acknowledged the threat of a colour revolution being orchestrated by foreign NGO’s in the country. Russian spy chief Mikhail Fradkov, the head of the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), has also stated that the US is behind the collapse in oil prices and the dramatic fall of the ruble, adding that no one desires a “strong and independent Russia”.
Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution
1919 Moscow, Bolsheviks celebrate the second anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution (Lenin is pictured in the centre) Photo Credits: L.Y. Leonidov
This is not the first time in history that the Anglo-American elite have worked to overthrow the government in Russia however. The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 was supported and financed by Wall Street in addition to a myriad of international bankers and the German government. Anthony Sutton, a former Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution for War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford, and a former Economics Professor at California State University, wrote a book in 1974 titled: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. Sutton’s research revealed that it was not only the German government that facilitated and financed the revolution, but also Wall Street and an array of international bankers from European countries:
“The return to Russia of Lenin and his party of exiled Bolsheviks, followed a few weeks later by a party of Mensheviks, was financed and organised by the German government…. German objectives were: (a) removal of Russia from the war, and control of the post-war Russian market.” (p.169)
Sutton documents a “continuing working relationship between Bolshevik banker Olof Aschberg and the Morgan-controlled Guaranty Trust Company in New York before, during, and after the Russian Revolution. In tsarist times Aschberg was the Morgan agent in Russia and negotiator for Russian loans in the United States; during 1917 Aschberg was financial intermediary for the revolutionaries; and after the revolution Aschberg became head of Ruskombank, the first Soviet international bank, while Max May, a vice president of the Morgan-controlled Guaranty Trust, became director and chief of the Ruskombank foreign departments.” (p.170)
Sutton pinpoints the director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from 1914 to 1919, William Boyce Thompson, as a key figure in the revolution:
“There is evidence of transfers of funds from the Wall Street bankers to international revolutionary activities. For example, there is a statement (substantiated by a cablegram) by William Boyce Thompson – a director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, a large stockholder in the Rockefeller-controlled Chase Bank, and a financial associate of the Guggenheims and the Morgans – that he (Thompson) contributed $1 million to the Bolshevik Revolution for propaganda purposes (p.170)… The American Red Cross Mission to Russia was a private venture of William B. Thompson, who publicly proffered partisan support to the Bolsheviks. British War Cabinet papers now available record that British policy was diverted towards the Lenin-Trotsky regime by the personal intervention of Thompson with Lloyd George in December 1917.” (p.171)
Immediately after the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, Russia descended into a civil war that would last up until 1922. In early 1918, the peace treaties of Brest-Litovsk were signed by the Central Powers with the Ukrainian Republic and with Soviet Russia, meeting German objectives of removing Russia from the war. As Germany was fighting against Russia during WW1, it is clear to see why they financed the Bolsheviks. But why Wall Street and an assortment of international bankers funded the revolution is a rather more intriguing question? Sutton explains this partly due to the lucrative financial opportunities the Russian market offered to Wall Street financiers:
“So the simplest explanation of our evidence is that a syndicate of Wall Street financiers enlarged their monopoly ambitions and broadened horizons on a global scale. The gigantic Russian market was to be converted into a captive market and a technical colony to be exploited by a few high–powered American financiers and the corporations under their control…. The financiers were power-motivated and therefore assisted any political vehicle that would give them an entree to power: Trotsky, Lenin, the Tsar, Kolchak, Denikin – all received aid, more or less. All, that is, but those who wanted a truly free individualistic society.” (p.173 & p. 174)
But was it solely about business opportunities, or did these revolutionaries and their financial supporters have a common ideology? As Sutton writes (emphasis added):
“Trotsky then was not pro-Russian, or pro-allied, or pro-German, as many have tried to make him out to be. Trotsky was for world revolution, for world dictatorship; he was, in one word, an internationalist. Bolshevists and bankers have then this significant common ground – internationalism. Revolution and international finance are not at all inconsistent if the result of revolution is to establish more centralized authority. International finance prefers to deal with central governments. The last thing the banking community wants is laissez-faire economies and decentralized power because these would disperse power.” (p.176)
The objective of this group of international bankers has always been the creation of a global government, and they may have believed it was possible to establish such an entity after the world was brought to its knees at the end of the Great War. It transpired that the world was not ready for such a proposal however. The League of Nations was created shortly after the First World War, but it was far from being a certified world government.
Directive to merge the U.S. and Soviet Union
Norman Dodd was a financial advisor who served as the chief investigator in the 1950’s Reece Committee, a special U.S. committee investigating the activities of tax exempt foundations such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation. In an interview with G. Edward Griffin shortly before he died, Dodd reveals that he was told by the President of the Ford Foundation in the early 1950’s, Horace Rowan Gaither, that (emphasis added):
“We have had experience operating under directives, and these directives emanate and did emanate, from the White House. Now we still operate under just such directives. Would you like to know what the substance of these directives is? Mr Dodd, we are here operating in response to similar directives, the substance of which is that we shall use our grant-making power so to alter life in the United States, that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.” (19.30 into interview)
The Anglo-American elite of today are still pushing for the creation of a “world government”, with the ubiquitous globalist Bill Gates the latest to advocate such an organisation. The merger of Russia and the West is essential to this desire, but it seems Russia under Putin and Lavrov is not fully on-board with the agenda. At the 30th EU-Russia summit in December 2012 which Putin attended, the President of the European Council at the time, Herman Van Rompuy, stated that the “EU and Russia can make a decisive contribution to global governance”, in addition to calling for greater integration between the EU and Russia. Whether Putin fully endorsed this idea is difficult to ascertain, but it seems over the past few years there has been a definite disagreement between the power blocs.
George Freidman, the founder and CEO of Stratfor (which is known as the shadow CIA), asserts that the US orchestrated the Ukrainian coup due to Russia’s stance on Syria, and his opposition to a direct Western war to oust al-Assad in 2013. Some prominent Western geopoliticians have criticised the strategy in Ukraine, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger being the most distinguished. Writing in the Washington Post, Kissinger warns that to treat Ukraine as a stand-off between East and West only impedes the prospect of an cooperative international system arising in the near future:
“To treat Ukraine as part of an East-West confrontation would scuttle for decades any prospect to bring Russia and the West — especially Russia and Europe — into a cooperative international system.” (c) Henry Kissinger
Unless a deal is struck between Russia and the West in the coming year, or unless sanity prevails in the West and de-escalation begins, economic warfare will continue which will only push the world closer to a hot war – and if it goes hot, it will go nuclear!
1952 U.S. nuclear weapon test Ivy Mike, a test of a thermonuclear weapon (hydrogen bomb) Photo Credits: U.S. Gov
Steven MacMillan is an independent writer, researcher, geopolitical analyst and editor of The Analyst Report, who has had articles featured on numerous news sites including Global Research and New Eastern Outlook.
Photo Credits: U.S. Department of State