Dave Emory’s entire lifetime of work is available on a flash drive that can be obtained here.  (The flash drive includes the anti-fascist books available on this site.)
You can subscribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE .
You can subscribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE .
You can subscribe to the comments made on programs and posts–an excellent source of information in, and of, itself HERE .
Listen: MP3 Note that side 2 is mistakenly identified as side 1 in the introduction. There is roughly 30 seconds of corrupted audio in side 2 which will be corrected presently.
Introduction: In FTR #808 , we examined the highly dubious  claims of a “Russian invasion” of Ukraine. Among the painfully limited voices supporting our profound doubts about the accuracy of those claims is Robert Parry of Consortium News.
It appears that intelligence professional s of his acquaintance dismiss the accuracy of the dangerously irresponsible claims of Russian invasion and have taken the trouble to communicate their analysis to Angela Merkel.
The satellite imager y purporting to show Russian armor and self-propelled artillery inside of Ukraine comes from a private company–DigitalGlobe . That company was founded by key personnel from Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative.
Much of the executive structure of DigitalGlobe have CV’s including management positions with IHS, the Thyssen/Bornemisza Industries-owned firm that is the epicenter of Peak Oil. The DigitalGlobe management also heavily overlaps previous managerial personnel from Bain & Company, Mitt Romney’s old firm.
We highlight an article noting the military prowess and sophistication of ISIS. Critical to this analysis is the apparent role of the Chechens in the tactical development of the group. In FTR #381 . we noted the role of the Saudi/Wahhabi/Al-Taqwa milieu in the funding of the Chechen separatists, which appears to have continued, as we saw in our analysis of the Boston Marathon Bombing .
In the context of U.S. and Western support for the OUN/B milieu in Ukraine, including the UNA-UNSO fighters who fought with the Chechens  and elsewhere in the Caucasus, we may well be seeing “blowback” from our policies vis a vis Ukraine in the development of ISIS’ sophistication. As discussed in FTR #808 , the UNA-UNSO fighters were initially composed largely of Ukrainian veterans of the Afghan war. The organization gave rise directly to Pravy Sektor.
The broadcast also highlights the apparent support of the petroleum faction of the U.S. national security establishment for jihadist fighters in Chechnya and elsewhere in the Caucasus.
An excerpt from FTR #182 , we note the continued disinformation disseminated by the New York Times about Russian actions and intentions in the Earth Island.
Program Highlights Include: Discussion of the Dashnags, Armenian fascists involved in the assassinatin of the Armenian political leadership in 1999; the Dashnags’ historical relationship with the Third Reich, Ukrainian fascists and domestic American fascists; review of the fascist nature of the doctrines deriving from Peak Oil.
(We have covered the ascension of the OUN/B heirs in the Ukraine in a number of programs: FTR #‘s 777 , 778 , 779 , 780 , 781 , 782 , 783 , 784 , 794 , 800 , 803 , 804 , 808 .)
1a. An article by Robert Parry at Consortium News notes the dubious nature of the claims of a “Russian Invasion” of Ukraine.
. . . . And now there’s the curious case of Russia’s alleged “invasion” of Ukraine, another alarmist claim trumpeted by the Kiev regime and echoed by NATO hardliners and the MSM.
While I’m told that Russia did provide some light weapons to the rebels early in the struggle so they could defend themselves and their territory – and a number of Russian nationalists have crossed the border to join the fight – the claims of an overt “invasion” with tanks, artillery and truck convoys have been backed up by scant intelligence.
One former U.S. intelligence official who has examined the evidence said the intelligence to support the claims of a significant Russian invasion amounted to “virtually nothing.” Instead, it appears that the ethnic Russian rebels may have evolved into a more effective fighting force than many in the West thought. They are, after all, fighting on their home turf for their futures.
Concerned about the latest rush to judgment about the “invasion,” the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group of former U.S. intelligence officials and analysts, took the unusual step of sending a memo  to German Chancellor Angela Merkel warning her of a possible replay of the false claims that led to the Iraq War.
“You need to know,” the group wrote, “that accusations of a major Russian ‘invasion’ of Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the ‘intelligence’ seems to be of the same dubious, politically ‘fixed’ kind used 12 years ago to ‘justify’ the U.S.-led attack on Iraq.”
But these doubts and concerns are not reflected in the Post’s editorial or other MSM accounts of the dangerous Ukraine crisis. Indeed, Americans who rely on these powerful news outlets for their information are as sheltered from reality as anyone living in a totalitarian society.
1b. An excerpt of the above-referenced letter to Merkel:
. . . . Photos can be worth a thousand words; they can also deceive. We have considerable experience collecting, analyzing, and reporting on all kinds of satellite and other imagery, as well as other kinds of intelligence. Suffice it to say that the images released by NATO on Aug. 28 provide a very flimsy basis on which to charge Russia with invading Ukraine. Sadly, they bear a strong resemblance to the images shown by Colin Powell at the UN on Feb. 5, 2003, that, likewise, proved nothing. . . . .
. . . . If the photos that NATO and the U.S. have released represent the best available “proof” of an invasion from Russia, our suspicions increase that a major effort is under way to fortify arguments for the NATO summit to approve actions that Russia is sure to regard as provocative. . . .
2. The satellite imagery purporting to show Russian armor and self-propelled artillery inside of Ukraine comes from a private company–DigitalGlobe. That company was founded by key personnel from Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative.
. . . . . Origins
WorldView Imaging Corporation was founded in January 1992 in Oakland, California in anticipation of the 1992 Land Remote Sensing Policy Act (enacted in October 1992) which permitted private companies to enter the satellite imaging business. Its founder was Dr Walter Scott, who was joined by co-founder and CEO Doug Gerull in late 1992. In 1993, the company received the first high resolution commercial remote sensing satellite license issued under the 1992 Act. The company was initially funded with private financing from Silicon Valley sources and interested corporations in N. America, Europe, and Japan. Dr. Scott was head of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories “Brilliant Pebbles” and “Brilliant Eyes” projects which were part of the Strategic Defense Initiative. Doug Gerull was the executive in charge of the Mapping Sciences division at the Intergraph Corporation. The company’s first remote sensing license from the United States Department of Commerce allowed it to build a commercial remote sensing satellite capable of collecting images with 3 m (9.8 ft) resolution.
In 1995, the company became EarthWatch Incorporated, merging WorldView with Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp.‘s commercial remote sensing operations. In September 2001, EarthWatch became DigitalGlobe. . . . . .
3. DigitalGlobe co-founder Doug Gerull had previously worked for the Zeiss firm, discussed in FTR #272  as one of the German/Underground Reich/Bormann firms that were moving into satellite imagery technology in the U.S.
. . . . . Carl Zeiss
Privately Held; 10,001+ employees; Electrical/Electronic Manufacturing industry
January 1980 – 1985 (5 years) Toronto / White Plains, NY
4. DigitalGlobe’s management shows a considerable overlap with two companies we have studied in the past, both with apparent links to the Bormann capital network. CEO Jeffrey Tarr got his start with Bain, Mitt Romney’s old firm and worked in senior management for IHS, a subsidiary  of Thyssen/Bornemisza Industries at the time during which IHS was the epicenter  of the Peak Oil  movement.
(Bain Capital–Romney’s latest venture–is a spin-off of Bain & Company. Although they are separate legal entities, they are very close and many of the Bain Capital execs are, like Romney himself, formerly of Bain & Co.)
Jeffrey R. Tarr
President and Chief Executive Officer
Prior to DigitalGlobe, he was President and COO of IHS (NYSE: IHS). During his tenure IHS grew from $400 million in revenue in 2004 to more than $1 billion in 2010, through both rapid organic growth and more than 40 acquisitions, including Jane’s Information Group, Lloyd’s Register Fairplay and Global Insight.
Mr. Tarr began his career with Bain & Company.
5. Tony Frazier got his start with Bain as well:
Senior Vice President, General Manager, Insight.
Mr. Frazier began his career in strategic consulting at Bain & Company.
6. Senior Vice-President Bert Turner is also a veteran of IHS, like Jeffrey Tarr.
Senior Vice President, Sales and Marketing
Executive Bio 
Bert Turner joined DigitalGlobe in June 2012 and currently serves as Senior Vice President, Sales and Marketing. Prior to DigitalGlobe, Bert served as VP, Strategy & Analysis and Supply Chain at IHS, a global information company. At IHS, Mr. Turner led sales and business development for the Americas Strategy & Analysis sales teams.
7. IHS is a subsidiary of Thyssen/Bornemisza industries and, therefore, inextricably linked with the Bormann capital network. IHS is the epicenter of the Peak Oil philosophy/movement. Embraced by the so-called progressive sector, the doctrine is actually a fascist ideological element, used to justify a gutting of environmental regulations. It has also spawned  genocidal “neo-eugenics” proposals consistent with Nazi racial pracitces.
. . . . In fact, the coalition that is pushing for a radical new energy policy is largely composed of those who stand to benefit from a revival, not a phase out, of oil and gas development. The intellectual and activist core of the coalition is made up of those veteran oil geologists and engineers who use the method of modeling the ratio of reserves to production developed by the maverick research geophysicist Marion King Hubbert, who died in 1989. He believed that the peak of production is reached when half of the estimated ultimately recoverable resource, determined by what has been discovered and logged cumulatively as actual reserves, has been pumped. In1956 at the Shell Oil Lab in Houston, Hubbert startled his colleagues by predicting that the fossil fuel era would be over very quickly. He correctly predicted that US oil production would peak in the early 1970’s.
Support for a remedial program of oil exploration and development versus switching to research and development of alternative energy sources tends to be found among oil experts who are consultants to the industry. While accepting some of the values of the New Age, they largely remain loyal to their calling as oil geologists and wildcatters. The leading trio of Jean H. Laherrere, Colin J. Campbell, and L.F. (Buz) Ivanhoe have worked for, or with, the leading firm modeling oil fields, Petroconsultants of Geneva. Since the 1950’s they have been fed data on oil exploration and production by just about all the major oil companies, as well as by a network of about 2000 oil industry consultants around the world. They use this data to produce reports on various matters pertinent to the oil industry, which they sell back to the industry. ‘This much is known,’ Kenneth Deffeyes writes, ‘the loudest warnings about the predicted peak of world oil production came from Petroconsultants’ (Deffeyes, 2001: p. 7).
In a late 1998 merger, Petroconsultants became IHS Energy Group, a subsidiary of Information Handling Services Group (IHS Group), a diversified conglomerate owned by Holland America Investment Corp., IHS Group’s immediate parent company, for the Thyssen-Bornemisza Group (TBG, Inc.).” [Emphasis added.] In the 1920’s, George Herbert Walker and his son-in-law, Prescott Bush, had helped the Thyssen dynasty finance its acquisitions through Union Banking Corp. and Holland-American trading Corp. (Wikipedia, 2003). Until his death last year, Hans Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza, the nephew of the Nazi steel and coal magnate, was one of the world’s richest men. . . .
9. Illustrating the direct line of institutional evolution from the OUN/B to the present, Pravy Sektor is the political arm of the UNA-UNSO. It elected Yuriy Shukheyvch as its head. Shukheyvch is the son of OUN/B commander Roman Shukhevych, declared a “Hero of Ukraine” by the Yuschenko government. Roman also headed the Nachtigall Battalion in their liquidation  of the Lvov Ghetto in 1941.
Note that the UNA/UNSO organization–the political parent of Pravy Sektor–has apparently been active in Chechnya as well.
. . . . One of Bandera’s lieutenants was Roman Shukhevych. In February 1945, Shukhevych issued an order stating, “In view of the success of the Soviet forces it is necessary to speed up the liquidation of the Poles, they must be totally wiped out, their villages burned … only the Polish population must be destroyed.”
As a matter of additional embarrassment, Shukhevych was also a commander in the Nachtigall (Nightingale) battalion organized by the Wehrmacht.
Today, a major preoccupation of Ukrainian nationalist historical scholarship is beating back rather convincing allegations by Russian, Polish, and Jewish historians that Nachtigall was an important and active participant in the massacre of Lviv Jews orchestrated by the German army upon its arrival in June 1941. . . .
. . . . Yuriy Shukhevych’s role in modern Ukrainian fascism is not simply that of an inspirational figurehead and reminder of his father’s anti-Soviet heroics for proud Ukrainian nationalists. He is a core figure in the emergence of the key Ukrainian fascist formation, Pravy Sektor and its paramilitary.
And Pravy Sektor’s paramilitary, the UNA-UNSO, is not an “unruly” collection of weekend-warrior-wannabes, as Mr. Higgins might believe.
UNA-UNSO was formed during the turmoil of the early 1990s, largely by ethnic Ukrainian veterans of the Soviet Union’s bitter war in Afghanistan. From the first, the UNA-UNSO has shown a taste for foreign adventures, sending detachments to Moscow in 1990 to oppose the Communist coup against Yeltsin, and to Lithuania in 1991. With apparently very good reason, the Russians have also accused UNA-UNSO fighters of participating on the anti-Russian side in Georgia and Chechnya.
After formal Ukrainian independence, the militia elected Yuriy Shukhevych—the son of OUN‑B commander Roman Shukhevych– as its leader and set up a political arm, which later became Pravy Sektor. . . .
10. The program highlights an article noting the military prowess and sophistication of ISIS. Critical to this analysis is the apparent role of the Chechens in the tactical development of the group. In FTR #381 . we noted the role of the Al-Taqwa milieu in the funding of the Chechen seperatists, which appears to have continued, as we saw in our analysis of the Boston Marathon Bombing .
In the context of U.S. and Western support for the OUN/B milieu in Ukraine, including the UNA-UNSO fighters who fought with the Chechens  and elsewhere in the Caucasus, we may well be seeing “blowback” from our policies vis a vis Ukraine in the development of ISIS’ sophistication. As discussed in paragraph 4a, the UNA-UNSO fighters were initially composed largely of Ukrainian veterans of the Afghan war. The organization gave rise directly to Pravy Sektor.
With the Obama White House left reeling from the “savage” slaughter  of an American journalist held hostage by ISIS  terrorists, military options are being considered against an adversary who officials say is growing in strength and is much more capable than the one faced when the group was called “al Qaeda-Iraq” during the U.S. war from 2003–2011.
ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria , has been making a “tactical withdrawal” in recent days in the face of withering U.S. airstrikes from areas around Erbil in northern Iraq and from the major dam just north of Mosul it controlled for two nail-biting weeks, according to military officials monitoring their movements.
“These guys aren’t just bugging out, they’re tactically withdrawing. Very professional, well trained, motivated and equipped. They operate like a state with a military,” said one official who tracks ISIS closely. “These aren’t the same guys we fought in OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom ) who would just scatter when you dropped a bomb near them.”
ISIS appeared to have a sophisticated and well thought-out plan for establishing its “Islamic Caliphate” from northern Syria across the western and northern deserts of Iraq, many experts and officials have said, and support from hostage-taking, robbery and sympathetic donations to fund it. They use drones to gather overhead intel on targets and effectively commandeer captured military vehicles – including American Humvees — and munitions.
“They tried to push out as far as they thought they could and were fully prepared to pull back a little bit when we beat them back with airstrikes around Erbil. And they were fine with that, and ready to hold all of the ground they have now,” a second official told ABC News.
ISIS didn’t necessarily count on holding Mosul Dam, officials said, but scored a major propaganda victory on social media when they hoisted the black flag of the group over the facility that provides electricity and water to a large swath of Iraq, or could drown millions if breached.
U.S. special operations forces under the Joint Special Operations Command and U.S. Special Operations Command keep close tabs on the military evolution of ISIS and both its combat and terrorism — called “asymmetric” — capabilities, officials told ABC News. A primary reason is in anticipation of possibly fighting them, which a full squadron of special mission unit operators did in the Independence Day raid  on an ISIS camp in Raqqah, Syria.
“They’re incredible fighters. ISIS teams in many places use special operations TTPs,” said the second official, who has considerable combat experience, using the military term for “tactics, techniques and procedures.”
In sobering press conference Friday, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel  said ISIS has shown that it is “as sophisticated and well-funded as any group that we have seen.”
“They’re beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology, a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess. They are tremendously well-funded,” he said. “This is beyond anything that we’ve seen.”
Prior ISIS’s recent public successes, the former chairman of the 9/11 Commission, which just released a tenth anniversary report on the threat of terrorism currently facing the homeland, said he was shocked at how little seems to be known inside the U.S. intelligence community about the Islamist army brutalizing Iraq as it has Syria.
“I was appalled at the ignorance,” former New Jersey Governor Tom Kean, who led the 9/11 Commission, told ABC News last week.
Kean, a Republican, who with vice chairman Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, recently met with about 20 top intelligence officials in preparation of the commission’s latest threat report, said many officials seemed both blind-sided and alarmed by the group’s rise, growth and competency.
“One official told me ‘I am more scared than at any time since 9/11,’” Kean recounted in a recent interview.
A spokesperson for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence defended the intelligence community’s tracking of ISIS, saying officials had “expressed concern” about the threat as far back as last year.
“The will to fight is inherently difficult to assess. Analysts must make assessments based on perceptions of command and control, leadership abilities, quality of experience, and discipline under fire — none of which can be understood with certainty until the first shots are fired,” ODNI spokesperson Brian Hale said.
Where did ISIS learn such sophisticated military methods, shown clearly after the first shots were fired?
“Probably the Chechens,” the one of the U.S. officials said.
A Chechen commander named Abu Omar al-Shishani — who officials say may have been killed in fighting near Mosul — is well known for commanding an international brigade within ISIS. Other Chechens have appeared within propaganda videos including one commander who was killed on video by an artillery burst near his SUV in Syria.
Earlier this year, ABC News reported  on the secret history of U.S. special operations forces’ experiences battling highly capable Chechen fighters along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border since 2001. In addition, for decades Chechen separatists have waged asymmetric warfare against Russian forces for control of the Northern Caucasus.
In the battle against ISIS, many within American “SOF,” a term that comprises operators from all branches of the military and intelligence, are frustrated at being relegated by the President only to enabling U.S. airstrikes in Iraq. They are eager to fight ISIS more directly in combat operations — even if untethered, meaning unofficially and with little if any U.S. government support, according to some with close ties to the community.
“ISIS and their kind must be destroyed,” said a senior counterterrorism official after journalist James Foley was beheaded on high-definition ISIS video, echoing strong-worded statements of high-level U.S. officials including Secretary of State John Kerry .
11. Next, the discussion illuminates the al-Haramayne foundation. Note that al-Haramayne was allegedly involved with bin Laden.
. . . . In the beginning of the 1990’s originating from Sudan, there was registered in Vienna the Third World Relief Agency (TWRA) with Saudi money and support from the Iranian secret police, the Vevak, which supplied money and weapons to the Muslim factions in the Bosnia war. There was also established al-Haramayne that supplied weapons to Mujahadin in Afghanistan.
The ‘humanitarian’ organization al-Haramayne was founded in 1992 by the Saudi Religion Minister Saleh bin Abdulaziz al Sheikh as the spearhead for the aggressive expansion of Wahhabi beliefs. In the views of Russian and American investigators, the al-Haramayne Foundation was linked with the Saudi financial concern Dallah al-Baraka whose founder and majority holder, Saleh Abdullah Kamel, earlier served among other things as the General Inspector of Finance for the Saudi monarchy. Kamel’s name surfaced after 9/11 in connection with the role the Sudanese financial world played in connection with the activities of Osama bin-Laden.
11b. Note that some of the Saudi “charities” allegedly sponsored trips to the USA by Chechen rebel leaders. The possibility of collusion between petroleum-related elements of the U.S. intelligence community should not be too readily dismissed.
Ibid.; pp. 3–4. 
In 1999, al Haramayne opened in Azerbaijan an office of the—until then unknown—‘Foundation for Chechnya.’ A year before the Russian secret service FIS discovered that the leading management of the Al-Baraka Group including Hafez Abu Bakr Mohammed of ‘Al Baraka Investment and Development’ had financed trips by Chechnya rebel leaders to the USA. In December 1999, a member of a European secret service based in Karachi overheard Sheik Abu Omar, who represented al-Haramayne in Chechnya, being greeted by the Taliban’s counsel, who represented al-Haramayne in Chechnya, being greeted by the Taliban’s counsel, who praised Sheik Abu Omar for his aid in helping out in the war against the Russians in Chechnya. An elite Russian unit monitoring communications in the war heard a conversation from Georgia saying that al-Haramayne must avoid being identified as the ‘inciter of Jihad.’
The Russian FIS estimates that al-Haramayne contributed $50 million to the cause and also helped send fighters with operational experience in Bosnia and Kosovo to Chechnya. . . .
12a. The program highlights a frightening article about apparent U.S. support for a Georgia-based jihadi conference. (This article was a major element of discussion in FTR #710 .) Rich with fossil fuels, the Caucasus region has long been the focal point of hostile activity by foreign interests looking to secure those resources for themselves, wresting the area away from Russia and/or the former Soviet Union. In FTR #646 , we looked at the Bush administration’s close national security connections to the Georgian republic, resulting in a security agreement with that state, concluded on the eve  of Obama’s inauguration.
One can but wonder if petroleum constituencies in the West are looking to use Muslim Brotherhood-connected elements  to foment the independence of those regions. The areas are also pivotal in the transit of heroin, in addition to logistical support for the war in Afghanistan.
In turn, it can be safely surmised that Russia will not give these areas up.
An analysis published Monday by Defense & Foreign Affairs offers some corroboration for the Georgia-hosted, U.S.-approved jihadi confab in December, the mention of which seemed to upset some readers.
Here are the relevant excerpts from the 16-page analysis, which is subscription-only and therefore not linkable:
Meanwhile, Georgia is actively seeking to exploit the spread of jamaats [jihadist mini-societies] in the North Caucasus in order to go after the Russian pipelines in hope of ensnaring the US into actively supporting a new confrontation with Russia. In early December 2009, Tbilisi organized a high-level meeting of jihadists groups from the Middle East and Western Europe in order “to coordinate activities on Russia’s southern flank.” The Georgian Embassy in Kuwait, for example, arranged for travel documents for jihadists from Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. (There is a large and very active Chechen/Circassian community in Jordan since the 19th Century that is heavily represented in the intelligence services and the military.) In Tbilisi, Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs Lordkipanadze was the host and coordinator. The meeting was attended by several Georgian senior officials who stressed that Saakashvili himself knew and approved of the undertaking. The meeting addressed the launch of both “military operations” in southern Russia and ideological warfare. One of the first results of the meeting was the launch, soon afterwards of the Russian-language TV station First Caucasian.
The jihadists of the North Caucasus — including the Arab commanders in their midst — came out of the early December 2009 meeting convinced that Tbilisi is most interested in the spread of terrorism. The meeting was attended by, among others, Mohmad Muhammad Shabaan, an Egyptian senior commander who is also known as Seif al-Islam and who has been involved in Caucasus affairs since 1992. He took copious notes. According to Shabaan’s notes, the Georgian government wants the jihadists to conduct “acts of sabotage to blow up railway tracks, electricity lines and energy pipelines” in southern Russia in order to divert construction back to Georgian territory.
Georgian intelligence promised to facilitate the arrival in the Caucasus of numerous senior jihadists by providing Georgian passports, and to provide logistical support including the reopening of bases in northern Georgia. Russian intelligence was not oblivious of the meeting. Seif al-Islam and two senior aides were assassinated on February 4, 2010. The Russians retrieved a lot of documents in the process. Moscow signaled its displeasure shortly afterwards when the presidents of Russia and Abkhazia signed a 50-year agreement on a Russian military base in order to “protect Abkhazia’s sovereignty and security, including against international terrorist groups”.
A major issue still to be resolved is the extent of the US culpability.
The same analysis recalls when this misguided approach was used in the Balkans, and outlines how, in order to not alienate Muslims while we tried to contain terror from the Middle East, we fortified terror in the Balkans and jump-started the global jihad:
Initially, the US-led Western intervention in the former Yugoslavia was aimed first and foremost to salvage NATO (and with it US dominance over post-Cold War Western Europe) from irrelevance and collapse. As well, the support for the Muslims of Bosnia became the counter-balance of the US confrontation with jihadism in the Middle East. Anthony Lake, US President Bill Clinton’s National Security Adviser, formulated the logic for the US-led intervention on behalf of the Muslims. The US national interest “requires our working to contain Muslim extremism, and we have to find a way of being firm in our opposition to Muslim extremism while making it clear we’re not opposed to Islam. If we are seen as anti-Muslim, it’s harder for us to contain Muslim extremism. And if we stand by while Muslims are killed and raped in Bosnia, it makes it harder to continue our policy,” Lake argued. That in the process the US would end up partnering with, supporting and arming, the very same jihadist forces Clinton was seeking to contain meant nothing to Washington. The only thing Washington cared about was the image of a US rallying to the rescue of a Muslim cause.
Note that in the 90s the U.S., like Britain, permitted and facilitated terrorist networks to operate in Bosnia and Kosovo for the purpose of Serb-killing, and along with Germany we trained Albanian and Middle Eastern terrorists in Albania. Sure enough, the same decade saw U.S. officials participating in a December 1999 meeting in Azerbaijan very similar to the December 2009 meeting in Tbilisi, where “programs for the training and equipping of mujahedin from the Caucasus, Central and South Asia, and the Arab world were discussed and agreed upon.” The mention of this meeting comes in as the analysis gives background on how we decided to support terrorism against Russia:
By 1999, the US had given up on reconciling Azerbaijan and Armenia in order to construct pipelines to Turkey, and instead Washington started focusing on building pipelines via Georgia.
For such a project to be economically viable, the Russian pipelines would have to be shut down. Hence, in early October 1999, senior officials of US oil companies and US officials offered representatives of Russian “oligarchs” in Europe huge dividends from the proposed Baku-Ceyhan pipeline if the “oligarchs” convinced Moscow to withdraw from the Caucasus, permit the establishment of an Islamic state, and close down the Baku-Novorossiysk oil pipeline. Consequently, there would be no competition to the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline. The “oligarchs” were convinced that the highest levels of the Clinton White House endorsed this initiative. The meeting failed because the Russians would hear nothing of the US proposal.
Consequently, the US determined to deprive Russia of an alternate pipeline route by supporting a spiraling violence and terrorism in Chechnya....The Clinton White House sought to actively involve the US in yet another anti-Russian jihad as if reliving the “good ol’ days” of Afghanistan, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, seeking to support and empower the most virulent anti-Western Islamist forces in yet another strategic region.
In mid-December 1999, US officials participated in a formal meeting in Azerbaijan in which specific programs for the training and equipping of mujahedin from the Caucasus, Central and South Asia, and the Arab world were discussed and agreed upon. This meeting led to Washington’s tacit encouragement of both Muslim allies (mainly the intelligence services of Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia) and US “private security companies” (of the type that did Washington’s dirty job in the Balkans while skirting and violating the international embargo the US formally supported) to assist the Chechens and their Islamist allies to surge in spring 2000. Citing security concerns vis-à-vis Armenia and Russia, Azerbaijan adamantly refused to permit training camps on its soil.
Now, just to keep our — including my — heads straight, let’s remind ourselves that this exercise that Robert Spencer was good enough to let me engage in on these pages was not a defense of Russia; it was not meant to start an argument about how bad or how not-that-bad Russia is. The point is that foreign relations in a mad world require finding enough common ground with not-so-great states so that we can work together where we can work together. It’s to minimize the messiness of things. Why, when we had Russia in its historically most maleable form, did we insist on provoking and provoking and provoking? Why did we make a bad situation like Russia worse when we had an opportunity to make it better? As with all problematic countries that we nonetheless find areas of cooperation with, we narrowed even those areas by dealing with the Russians in the bad faith that had been their trademark. Simultaneously, we moved away from picking the lesser evil in a given conflict, and started siding with the greater.
It’s a surreal situation indeed when the actions of my savior country put me in the position of having to “defend” Russia, whose people my parents thank their lucky stars to not have to live among anymore. I myself am a self-proclaimed Russophobe; I just had no idea how much more pathological America’s Russophobia is. So for someone who is loath to visit even Brighton Beach, I find myself in a surprising position here, pointing out where we went wrong and shoved Russia back into old behaviors.
Infuriatingly predictably, one of the comment posters suggested that the line I’m taking here is one that’s paid for by Russia. The same “tip” was offered to Robert by a fellow blogger — in that tone of providing “some friendly, professional, and cautionary advice.” The likes of which I’m all too familiar with by now. (One Wall St. Journal fixture advised me, “Your views on this [the Balkans] are deeply misjudged...You’re not doing your career any favors.” Thanks. Good thing I don’t have a career, then.) It certainly would be nice if anyone paid me for anything I do, but it wasn’t to be in this lifetime.
Regardless, it shouldn’t seem strange for someone to be pointing out that our foreign policy is being guided by people with a stronger anti-Russian agenda than anti-jihad agenda. And notice where this kind of thinking has gotten us. Take the past two decades of Western policy and media coverage in the Balkans, which were based on information that made its way into reporters’ notebooks directly from the Ministry of Information of the Bosnian Government run by the fundamentalist Muslim wartime president Alija Izetbegovic. The template was used again when politicians, reporters, NGOs and human rights organizations dutifully repeated what was coming out of the KLA-run newspapers and other propaganda organs of the Kosovo separatists. And so in service to consistency, having gotten into this hole, we’ve kept digging. With our Yugoslavia intervention, as the Defense & Foreign Affairs analysis points out, we’ve ended up “demonizing the Serbs and the world of Eastern Christianity as a whole.” Such that we’ve arrived at a place where the word “Byzantine” is now used to mean primitive or uncivilized. While the Muslim world and Islamic heritage represent the height of culture, tradition, heritage and civilization.
One interesting thing about the reactions to calling the U.S. on its aggressive alienation of Russia via, for example, the use of jihadists is the sense of outrage and shock at the suggestion that America would support these violent groups, followed immediately by a defense or justification of such tactics (e.g. “we *should* help the Chechens against the Russians”). Meanwhile, these oh-so-incendiary allegations happen to coincide with overtly stated intentions and policies. (See the late Senator Tom Lantos and his ilk applauding the creation of a U.S.-made Muslim state in Europe, which the jihadists should “take note of,” Lantos hoped.) . . .
13. As the New York Times continues in “Warren Report Mode” (the Gray Lady published that pernicious document), its Cold War style journalistic blitzkrieg against Russia continues. (We note in passing that Russia is no longer Communist.) In an op-ed piece about the next target of supposed Russian aggression, the author casually ascribes the 1999 assassination of Armenian leaders, including the prime minister, to Russian conspiratorial process.
In FTR #182 , we noted the history of the Dashnags (there are various spellings). An Armenian fascist and ultra-nationalist group, the Dashnags collaborated with the Third Reich, Ukrainian fascist elements and the Christian Mobilizers of Gerald L.K. Smith. The latter was a prominent American fascist whose organization was among the ideological tributaries that fed the milieu of the Aryan Nations.
. . . . Three times in the 1990s, Armenia and Azerbaijan signed peace agreements, but Russia found ways to derail Armenia’s participation. (In 1999, for example, a disgruntled journalist suspected of having been aided by Moscow assassinated Armenia’s prime minister, speaker of Parliament and other government officials.) . . .
14. In FTR #182 , we noted the history of the Dashnags (there are various spellings). An Armenian fascist and ultra-nationalist group, the Dashnags collaborated with the Third Reich, Ukrainian fascist elements and the Christian Mobilizers of Gerald L.K. Smith. The latter was a prominent American fascist whose organization was among the ideological tributaries that fed the milieu of the Aryan Nations.
We access a segment of FTR #182 .