Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.
The tag 'Soviet Union' is associated with 62 posts.

FTR #1054, FTR #1055 and FTR #1056 Interviews #23, #24 and #25 with Jim DiEugenio about “Destiny Betrayed”

These are the twenty-third, twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth (and concluding program) in a long series of interviews with Jim DiEugenio about his triumphal analysis of President Kennedy’s assassination and New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison’s heroic investigation of the killing.

The first interview begins with a telling editorial written for “The Washington Post” by former President Harry Truman.

Destiny Betrayed by Jim DiEugenio; Skyhorse Publishing [SC]; Copyright 1992, 2012 by Jim DiEugenio; ISBN 978-1-62087-056-3; pp. 378-379.

. . . . On December 22, 1963, Harry Truman wrote an editorial that was published in the Washington Post. The former President wrote that he had become “disturbed by the way the CIA had become diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of government.” He wrote that he never dreamed that this would happen when he signed the National Security Act. he thought it would be used for intelligence analysis, not “peacetime cloak and dagger operations.” He complained that the CIA had now become “so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue–and a subject for Cold War enemy propaganda.” Truman went as far as suggesting its operational arm be eliminated. He concluded with the warning that Americans have grown up learning respect for “our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over out historic position and I feel hat we need to correct it.” . . . .

Former CIA Director (and then Warren Commission member) Allen Dulles visited Truman and attempted to get him to retract the statement. He dissembled about then CIA chief John McCone’s view of the editorial.

The focal point of the first two programs is the dramatic changes in U.S. foreign policy that occurred because of JFK’s assassination. Analysis in FTR #1056 continues the analysis of Kennedy’s foreign policy and concludes with riveting discussion of the striking policy undertakings of the Kennedy administration in the area of civil rights. Jim has written a marvelous, 4-part analysis of JFK’s civil rights policy.

Discussion of JFK’s foreign policy and how his murder changed that builds on, and supplements analysis of this in FTR #1031, FTR #1032 and FTR #1033.

Lyndon Baines Johnson reversed JFK’s foreign policy initiatives in a number of important ways.

When the United States reneged on its commitment to pursue independence for the colonial territories of its European allies at the end of the Second World War, the stage was set for those nations’ desire for freedom to be cast as incipient Marxists/Communists. This development was the foundation for epic bloodshed and calamity.

Jim details then Congressman John F. Kennedy’s 1951 fact-finding trip to Saigon to gain an understanding of the French war to retain their colony of Indochina. (Vietnam was part of that colony.)

In speaking with career diplomat Edmund Gullion, Kennedy came to the realization that not only would the French lose the war, but that Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh guerrillas enjoyed great popular support among the Vietnamese people.

This awareness guided JFK’s Vietnam policy, in which he not only resisted tremendous pressure to commit U.S. combat troops to Vietnam, but planned a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam.

Perhaps the most important change made after JFK’s assassination was Johnson’s negation of Kennedy’s plans to withdraw from Vietnam.

LBJ cancelled Kennedy’s scheduled troop withdrawal, scheduled personnel increases and implemented the 34A program of covert operations against North Vietnam. Executed by South Vietnamese naval commandos using small, American-made patrol boats, these raids were supported by U.S. destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin, which were electronically “fingerprinting” North Vietnamese radar installations.

The electronic fingerprinting of North Vietnamese radar was in anticipation of a pre-planned air war, a fundamental part of a plan by LBJ to involve the United States in a full-scale war in Southeast Asia.

Destiny Betrayed by Jim DiEugenio; Skyhorse Publishing [SC]; Copyright 1992, 2012 by Jim DiEugenio; ISBN 978-1-62087-056-3; pp. 368-371.

. . . . Clearly now that the withdrawal was imminent, Kennedy was going to try and get the rest of his administration on board to his way of thinking. Not only did this not happen once Kennedy was dead, but the first meeting on Vietnam afterwards was a strong indication that things were now going to be cast in a sharply different tone. This meeting took place at 3:00 p.m. on November 24. . . . Johnson’s intent was clear to McNamara. He was breaking with the previous policy. The goal now was to win the war. LBJ then issued a strong warning: He wanted no more dissension or division over policy. Any person who did not conform would be removed. (This would later be demonstrated by his banning of Hubert Humphrey from Vietnam meetings when Humphrey advised Johnson to rethink his policy of military commitment to Vietnam.) . . . . The reader should recall, this meeting took place just forty-eight hours after Kennedy was killed. . . .

. . . . Therefore, on March 2, 1964, the Joint Chiefs passed a new war proposal to the White House. This was even more ambitious than the January version. It included bombing, the mining of North Vietnamese harbors, a naval blockade, and possible use of tactical atomic weapons in case China intervened. Johnson was now drawing up a full scale battle plan for Vietnam. In other words, what Kennedy did not do in three years, LBJ had done in three months.

Johnson said he was not ready for this proposal since he did not have congress yet as a partner and trustee. But he did order the preparation of NSAM 288, which was based on this proposal. It was essentially a target list of bombing sites that eventually reached 94 possibilities. By May 25, with Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater clamoring for bombing of the north, LBJ had made the decision that the U.S. would directly attack North Vietnam at an unspecified point in the future. But it is important to note that even before the Tonkin Gulf incident, Johnson had ordered the drawing up of a congressional resolution. This had been finalized by William Bundy, McGeorge Bundy’s brother. Therefore in June of 1964, Johnson began lobbying certain people for its passage in congress. . . .

National Security Memorandum 263

. . . . Johnson seized upon the hazy and controversial events in the Gulf of Tonkin during the first week of August to begin he air war planned in NSAM 288. Yet the Tonkin Gulf incident had been prepared by Johnson himself. After Kennedy’s death, President Johnson made a few alterations in the draft of NSAM 273. An order which Kennedy had never seen but was drafted by McGeorge Bundy after a meeting in Honolulu, a meeting which took place while Kennedy was visiting Texas. . . .

. . . . On August 2, the destroyer Maddox was attacked by three North Vietnamese torpedo boats. Although torpedoes were launched, none hit. The total damage to the Maddox
was one bullet through the hull. Both Johnson and the Defense Department misrepresented this incident to congress and the press. They said the North Vietnamese fired first, that the USA had no role in the patrol boat raids, that the ships were in international waters, and there was no hot pursuit by the Maddox. These were all wrong. Yet Johnson used this overblown reporting, plus a non-existent attack two nights later on the destroyer Turner Joy to begin to push his war resolution through Congress. He then took out the target list assembled for NSAM 288 [from March of 1964–D.E] and ordered air strikes that very day. . . .

. . . . For on August 7, Johnson sent a message to General Maxwell Taylor. He wanted a whole gamut of possible operations presented to him for direct American attacks against the North. The target date for the systematic air war was set for January 1965. This was called operation Rolling Thunder and it ended up being the largest bombing campaign in military history. The reader should note: the January target date was the month Johnson would be inaugurated after his re-election. As John Newman noted in his masterful book JFK and Vietnam, Kennedy was disguising his withdrawal plan around his re-election; Johnson was disguising his escalation plan around his re-election. . . .

In addition to noting that Hubert Humphrey, contrary to popular misconception, was an opponent of Johnson’s war strategy, we note that Robert McNamara was also opposed to it, although he went along with the Commander in Chief’s policies.

After detailed discussion of the human and environmental damage inflicted on Vietnam and the strategy implemented by LBJ after Kennedy’s assassination, the discussion turns to Johnson’s reversal of Kennedy’s policy with regard to Laos.

The fledgling nation of Laos was also part of French Indochina, and Jim notes how outgoing President Eisenhower coached President-Elect Kennedy on the necessity of committing U.S. combat forces to Laos.

Again, Kennedy refused to commit U.S. ground forces and engineered a policy of neutrality for Laos.

Destiny Betrayed by Jim DiEugenio; Skyhorse publishing [SC]; Copyright 1992, 2012 by Jim DiEugenio; ISBN 978-1-62087-056-3; p. 54.

. . . . At his first press conference, Kennedy said that he hoped to establish Laos as a “peaceful country–an independent country not dominated by either side.” He appointed a task force to study the problem, was in regular communication with it and the Laotian ambassador, and decided by February that Laos must have a coalition government, the likes of which Eisenhower had rejected out of hand. Kennedy also had little interest in a military solution. He could not understand sending American troops to fight for a country whose people did not care to fight for themselves. . . . He therefore worked to get the Russians to push the Pathet Lao into a cease-fire agreement. This included a maneuver on Kennedy’s part to indicate military pressure if the Russians did not intervene strongly enough with the Pathet Lao. The maneuver worked, and in May of 1961, a truce was called. A few days later, a conference convened in Geneva to hammer out conditions for a neutral Laos. By July of 1962, a new government, which included the Pathet Lao, had been hammered out. . . .

Whereas JFK had implemented a policy affording neutrality to Laos–against the wishes of the Joint Chiefs, CIA and many of his own cabinet, LBJ scrapped the neutralist policy in favor of a CIA-implemented strategy of employing “narco-militias” such as the Hmong tribesmen as combatants against the Pathet Lao. This counter-insurgency warfare was complemented by a massive aerial bombing campaign.

One of the many outgrowths of LBJ’s reversal of JFK’s Southeast policy was a wave of CIA-assisted heroin addicting both GI’s in Vietnam and American civilians at home.

LBJ also reversed JFK’s policy toward Indonesia.

In 1955, Sukarno hosted a conference of non-aligned nations that formalized and concretized a “Third Way” between East and West. This, along with Sukarno’s nationalism of some Dutch industrial properties, led the U.S. to try and overthrow Sukharno, which was attempted in 1958.

Kennedy understood Sukarno’s point of view, and had planned a trip to Indonesia in 1964 to forge a more constructive relationship with Sukharno. Obviously, his murder in 1963 precluded the trip.

In 1965, Sukarno was deposed in a bloody, CIA-aided coup in which as many as a million people were killed.

Of particular interest in connection with Indonesia, is the disposition of Freeport Sulphur, a company that had enlisted the services of both Clay Shaw and David Ferrie in an effort to circumvent limitations on its operations imposed by Castro’s Cuba:

Destiny Betrayed by Jim DiEugenio; Skyhorse publishing [SC]; Copyright 1992, 2012 by Jim DiEugenio; ISBN 978-1-62087-056-3; pp. 208-209.

. . . . In Chapter 1, the author introduced Freeport Sulphur and its subsidiaries Moa Bay Mining and Nicaro Nickel. These companies all had large investments in Cuba prior to Castro’s revolution. And this ended up being one of the ways that Garrison connected Clay Shaw and David Ferrie. This came about for two reasons. First, with Castro taking over their operations in Cuba, Freeport was attempting to investigate bringing in nickel ore from Cuba, through Canada, which still had trade relations with Cuba. The ore would then be refined in Louisiana, either at a plant already in New Orleans or at another plant in Braithwaite. Shaw, an impressario of international trade, was on this exploratory team for Freeport. And he and two other men had been flown to Canada by Ferrie as part of this effort. More evidence of this connection through Freeport was found during their investigation of Guy Banister. Banister apparently knew about another flight taken by Shaw with an official of Freeport, likely Charles Wight, to Cuba. Again the pilot was David Ferrie. Another reason this Freeport connection was important to Garrison is that he found a witness named James Plaine in Houston who said that Mr. Wight of Freeport Sulphur had contacted him in regards to an assassination plot against Castro. Considering the amount of money Freeport was about to lose in Cuba, plus the number of Eastern Establishment luminaries associated with the company–such as Jock Whitney, Jean Mauze and Godfrey Rockefeller–it is not surprising that such a thing was contemplated within their ranks. . . .

LBJ reversed Kennedy’s policy vis a vis Sukarno. It should be noted that Freeport had set its corporate sights on a very lucrative pair of mountains in Indonesia, both of which had enormous deposits of minerals, iron, copper, silver and gold in particular.

Destiny Betrayed by Jim DiEugenio; Skyhorse publishing [SC]; Copyright 1992, 2012 by Jim DiEugenio; ISBN 978-1-62087-056-3; pp. 374-375.

. . . . Shortly after, his aid bill landed on Johnson’s desk. The new president refused to sign it. . . .

. . . . In return for not signing the aid bill, in 1964, LBJ received support from Both Augustus Long and Jock Whitney of Freeport Sulphur in his race against Barry Goldwater. In fact, Long established a group called the National Independent Committee for Johnson. This group of wealthy businessmen included Robert Lehman of Lehman Brothers and Thomas Cabot, Michael Paine’s cousin. . . . Then, in early 1965, Augustus Long was rewarded for helping Johnson get elected. LBJ app[ointed him to the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. This is a small group of wealthy private citizens who advises the president on intelligence matters. The members of this group can approve and suggest covert activities abroad. This appointment is notable for what was about to occur. For with Sukarno now unprotected by President Kennedy, the writing was on the wall. The Central Intelligence Agency now bean to send into Indonesia its so called “first team.” . . . .

. . . . Suharto now began to sell off Indonesia’s riches to the highest bidder. Including Freeport Sulphur, which opened what were perhaps the largest copper and gold mines in the world there. . . . Freeport, along with several other companies, now harvested billions from the Suharto regime. . . .

Yet another area in which JFK’s policy outlook ran afoul of the prevailing wisdom of the Cold War was with regard to the Congo. A Belgian colony which was the victim of genocidal policies of King Leopold (estimates of the dead run as high as 8 million), the diamond and mineral-rich Congo gained a fragile independence.

In Africa, as well, Kennedy understood the struggle of emerging nations seeking freedom from colonial domination as falling outside of and transcending stereotyped Cold War dynamics.

In the Congo, the brutally administered Belgian rule had spawned a vigorous independence movement crystallized around the charismatic Patrice Lumumba. Understanding of, and sympathetic to Lumumba and the ideology and political forces embodied in him, Kennedy opposed the reactionary status quo favored by both European allies like the United Kingdom and Belgium, as well as the Eisenhower/Dulles axis in the United States.

Destiny Betrayed by Jim DiEugenio; Skyhorse publishing [SC]; Copyright 1992, 2012 by Jim DiEugenio; ISBN 978-1-62087-056-3; pp. 28-29.

. . . . By 1960, a native revolutionary leader named Patrice Lumumba had galvanized the nationalist feeling of the country. Belgium decided to pull out. But they did so rapidly, knowing that tumult would ensue and they could return to colonize the country again. After Lumumba was appointed prime minister, tumult did ensue. The Belgians and the British backed a rival who had Lumumba dismissed. They then urged the breaking away of the Katanga province because of its enormous mineral wealth. Lumumba looked to the United Nations for help, and also the USA. The former decided to help, . The United States did not. In fact, when Lumumba visited Washington July of 1960, Eisenhower deliberately fled to Rhode Island. Rebuffed by Eisenhower, Lumumba now turned to the Russians for help in expelling the Belgians from Katanga. This sealed his fate in the eyes of Eisenhower and Allen Dulles. The president now authorized a series of assassination plots by the CIA to kill Lumumba. These plots finally succeeded on January 17, 1961, three days before Kennedy was inaugurated.

His first week in office, Kennedy requested a full review of the Eisenhower/Dulles policy in Congo. The American ambassador to that important African nation heard of this review and phoned Allen Dulles to alert him that President Kennedy was about to overturn previous policy there. Kennedy did overturn this policy on February 2, 1961. Unlike Eisenhower and Allen Dulles, Kennedy announced he would begin full cooperation with Secretary Dag Hammarskjold at the United Nations on this thorny issue in order to bring all the armies in that war-torn nation under control. He would also attempt top neutralize the country so there would be no East/West Cold War competition. Third, all political prisoners being held should be freed. Not knowing he was dead, this part was aimed at former prime minister Lumumba, who had been captured by his enemies. (There is evidence that, knowing Kennedy would favor Lumumba, Dulles had him killed before JFK was inaugurated.) Finally, Kennedy opposed the secession of mineral-rich Katanga province. . . . Thus began Kennedy’s nearly three year long struggle to see Congo not fall back under the claw of European imperialism. . . . ”

In the Congo, as in Indonesia, LBJ reversed JFK’s policy stance, and the corporate looting of the Congo resulted under General Joseph Mobutu, himself a beneficiary of the piracy.

Destiny Betrayed by Jim DiEugenio; Skyhorse Publishing [SC]; Copyright 1992, 2012 by Jim DiEugenio; ISBN 978-1-62087-056-3; pp. 372-373.

. . . . But in October and November [of 1963], things began to fall apart. Kennedy wanted Colonel Michael Greene, an African expert, to train the Congolese army in order

to subdue a leftist rebellion. But General Joseph Mobutu, with the backing of the Pentagon, managed to resist this training, which the United Nations backed. In 1964, the communist rebellion picked up steam and began taking whole provinces. The White House did something Kennedy never seriously contemplated: unilateral action by the USA. Johnson and McGeorge Bundy had the CIA fly sorties with Cuban pilots to halt the communist advance. Without Kennedy, the UN now withdrew. America now became an ally of Belgium and intervened with arms, airplanes and advisers. Mobutu now invited Tshombe back into the government. Tshombe, perhaps at the request of the CIA, now said that the rebellion was part of a Chinese plot to take over Congo. Kennedy had called in Edmund Gullion to supervise the attempt to make the Congo government into a moderate coalition, avoiding the extremes of left and right. But with the Tshombe/Mobutu alliance, that was now dashed. Rightwing South Africans and Rhodesians were now allowed to join the Congolese army in a war on the “Chinese-inspired left.” And with the United Nations gone, this was all done under the auspices of the United States. The rightward tilt now continued unabated. By 1965, Mobutu had gained complete power. And in 1966, he installed himself as military dictator. . . . Mobutu now allowed his country to be opened up to loads of outside investment. The riches of the Congo were mined by huge Western corporations. Their owners and officers grew wealthy while Mobutu’s subjects were mired in poverty. Mobutu also stifled political dissent. And he now became one of the richest men in Africa, perhaps the world. . . .

In FTR #1033, we examined JFK’s attempts at normalizing relations with Cuba. That, of course, vanished with his assassination and the deepening of Cold War hostility between the U.S. and the Island nation, with a thaw of sorts coming under Barack Obama a few years ago.

There is no more striking area in which JFK’s murder reversed what would have been historic changes in America’s foreign policy than U.S.-Soviet relations.

JFK had implemented a ban on atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, bitterly opposed by the Pentagon, In a June, 1963 speech at American University, JFK called for re-evaluating America’s relationship to the Soviet Union, and cited the U.S.S.R’s decisive role in defeating Nazi Germany during World War II.

JFK was also proposing joint space exploration with the Soviet Union, which would have appeared to be nothing less than treasonous to the Pentagon and NASA at the time. After JFK’s assassination, the Kennedy family used a backchannel diplomatic conduit to the Soviet leadership to communicate their view that the Soviet Union, and its Cuban ally, had been blameless in the assassination and that powerful right-wing forces in the United States had been behind the assassination.

Perhaps JFK’s greatest contribution was one that has received scant notice. In 1961, the Joint Chiefs were pushing for a first strike on the Soviet Union–a decision to initiate nuclear war. JFK refused, walking out of the discussion with the disgusted observation that “We call ourselves the human race.”

In FTR #’s 876, 926 and 1051, we examined the creation of the meme that Oswald had been networking with the Cubans and Soviets in the run-up to the assassination. In particular, Oswald was supposedly meeting with Valery Kostikov, a KGB official in charge of assassinations in the Western Hemisphere.

This created the pretext for blaming JFK’s assassination on the Soviet Union and/or Cuba. There are indications that JFK’s assassination may well have been intended as a pretext for a nuclear first strike on the Soviet Union.

JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters by James W. Douglass; Touchstone Books [SC]; Copyright 2008 by James W. Douglas; ISBN 978-1-4391-9388-4; pp. 242-243.

. . . . As JFK may have recalled from the National Security Council meeting he walked out of in July 1961, the first Net Evaluation Subcommittee report had focused precisely on “a surprise attack in late 1963, preceded by a period of heightened tensions.” Kennedy was a keen reader and listener. In the second preemptive-war report, he may also have noticed the slight but significant discrepancy between its overall time frame, 1963-1968, and the extent of its relatively reassuring conclusion, which covered only 1964 through 1968. . . .

. . . . In his cat-and-mouse questioning of his military chiefs, President Kennedy had built upon the report’s apparently reassuring conclusion in such a way as to discourage preemptive-war ambitions. However, given the “late 1963” focus in the first Net Report that that was the most threatening time for a preemptive strike, Kennedy had little reason to be reassured by a second report that implicitly confirmed that time as the one of maximum danger. The personally fatal fall JFK was about to enter, in late 1963, was the same time his military commanders may have considered their last chance to “win” (in their terms) a preemptive war against the Soviet Union. In terms of their second Net Report to the President, which passed over the perilous meaning of late 1963, the cat-and-mouse game had been reversed. It was the generals who were the cats, and JFK the mouse in their midst.

The explicit assumption of the first Net Report was “a surprise attack in late 1963, preceded by a period of heightened tensions.” The focus of that first-strike scenario corresponded to the Kennedy assassination scenario. When President Kennedy was murdered in late 1963, the Soviet Union had been set up as the major scapegoat in the plot. If the tactic had been successful in scapegoating the Russians for the crime of the century, there is little doubt that it would have resulted in “a period of heightened tensions” between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Those who designed the plot to kill Kennedy were familiar with the inner sanctum of our national security state. Their attempt to scapegoat the Soviets for the President’s murder reflected one side of the secret struggle between JFK and his military leaders over a preemptive strike against the Soviet Union. The assassins’ purpose seems to have encompassed not only killing a President determined to make peace with the enemy, but also using his murder as the impetus for a possible nuclear first strike against that same enemy. . . .

With the GOP and Trump administration openly suppressing voting rights of minorities, African-Americans in particular, the stellar efforts of JFK and the Justice Department in the area of civil rights is striking. JFK’s civil rights policy was exponentially greater than what had preceded him, and much of what followed.

The conclusion of the discussion in FTR #1056 consists of Jim’s discussion of his marvelous, 4-part analysis of JFK’s civil rights policy.


FTR #1036 Interview #6 with Jim DiEugenio about “Destiny Betrayed”

The sixth of a planned long series of interviews with Jim DiEugenio about his triumphal analysis of President Kennedy’s assassination and New Orleans DA Jim Garrison’s heroic investigation of the killing, this program continues analysis of the development of the legend (intelligence cover) of Lee Harvey Oswald.

(Listeners can order Destiny Betrayed and Jim’s other books, as well as supplementing those volumes with articles about this country’s political assassinations at his website Kennedys and King. Jim is also a regular guest and expert commentator on Black Op Radio.)

In FTR #1035, we set forth the suspicious circumstances surrounding Oswald’s “defection” to the Soviet Union:

• A number of aspects of his tenure the Soviet Union suggest that, not only was he there as a spook, but the Soviets knew that he was there to spy. Among the noteworthy aspects of his Soviet sojourn that are set forth in this program:
• Oswald was given a hardship discharge with just a few months remaining on his enlistment tour. He got this in an inordinately short amount of time. He was supposed to take care of his mother, and yet his brother Robert was there to care for her, making Lee’s presence there unnecessary.
• Oswald booked his steamship passage from the International Trade Mart in New Orleans, headed up by Clay Shaw, who was the focal point of Jim Garrison’s trial.
• Oswald ostensibly was going to Europe to attend Albert Schweitzer College, an obscure Swiss institution that the Swiss police required two months to locate.
• He defected to the Soviet Union from Helsinki, Finland. His stay there raises several questions, including the fact that he stayed at the Torni Hotel, a five-star, luxury hotel.
• After leaving the Torni Hotel, he stayed at the Hotel Klaus Kurki, another high-end institution. How Oswald was able to pay for his stay at these institutions is a mystery–he did not have enough money in his Marine Corps pay checks to do this.
• His selection of Helsinki is significant, also, because the Soviet Embassy there was the only one that could issue a travel visa to the Soviet Union in a little more than a week. It was the only Embassy that could do this. How did Oswald come to know this?
After reviewing the curious aspects of the beginning Oswald’s “defection” to the Soviet Union, the program notes many aspects of his stay in the U.S.S.R. that strongly suggest he was there as an undercover intelligence operative.
After leaving from the curiously convenient departure point of Helsinki, Finland, Oswald met an agent from Intourist, the Soviet state travel agency. Once again, the circumstances surrounding Oswald’s stay in the Soviet Union are suggestive of an intelligence cover, a “legend.”

1. Meeting with his Intourist guide, Oswald indicated that he had secret information about U.S. air operations that he wished to share with Soviet intelligence.
2. After being denied residence in the U.S.S.R. Oswald was involved in an apparently “phony” suicide attempt, which was almost certainly an attempt to remain in the U.S.S.R. longer than his travel visa would have permitted. Were the Soviets on to him? It seems altogether probable.
3. Oswald was housed at the Metropole Hotel, which Soviet intelligence outfitted with sophisticated surveillance technology, indicating suspicion on their part.
4. Oswald was interviewed by U.S. Embassy officer Richard Snyder, who had strong links to U.S. intelligence, including a program at Harvard to vet students for intelligence-connected travel to the U.S.S.R. One of the students he oversaw was Zbigniew Brzezinski.
5. Snyder appears to have “handled” Oswald in such a way that he would never cease being a U.S. citizen. Once again, Oswald repeated his intent to give secret intelligence about U.S. air operations to Soviet intelligence, most likely a reference to the U-2 project.
6. Oswald was sent to Minsk, where he was put to work in a radio factory, after being afforded more-than-comfortable living circumstances by Soviet authorities.
7. Oswald submitted a detailed, 30-page paper on the radio factory that appears to have been an intelligence report on the installation.
8. Also while in the U.S.S.R., Oswald gave interviews to journalists, including Priscilla Johnson MacMillan, who was a “willing CIA asset.” In that interview, Oswald gave a performance which could only be described as a hackneyed manifestation of a stereotyped Marxist/Communist.
9. The handling of Oswald’s files in the corridors of U.S. intelligence are more than a little strange. Despite having threatened to open a treasonous breach in the security of U.S. air operations, no 201 file was opened on Oswald, and his documentation at Langley was routed to James Angleton’s files on the false defector program. This was unthinkable. As we will see in future discussion, the circumstances surrounding the FBI’s FLASH classification on Oswald–which would have sounded an alert upon this ostensible traitor’s re-entry into the U.S.–is also out of the ordinary. Recall the unusual treatment afforded State Department officer Otto Otepka in connection with inquiries into Oswald and the false defector program. This was highlighted in FTR #1035.
10. While in the U.S.S.R. he met Marina Prusakova (later Marina “Oswald”), who may very well have been a Soviet intelligence agent.
11. Marina lived with her uncle, who was an officer with the MVD, the Soviet equivalent of the FBI.
12. Marina interacted with Robert Webster, another apparent “phony” defector from the U.S. to the U.S.S.R. Webster had worked for the CIA-linked RAND corporation. It is highly unlikely that she would have interacted with both Oswald and Webster as a matter of coincidence.
13. Marina also discussed having entertained Afghanistan’s ambassador to the Soviet Union, again, indicative of a probable intelligence link on Marina’s part.
14. Further burnishing Marina’s probable intelligence connections is the fact that she was proficient in the English language, both spoken and written. The notion that she would have needed an interpreter, as she is alleged to have required in post-assassination inquiries.
15. Marina’s probable intelligence connection and the probability that she was assigned to Oswald dovetails with the situation of Richard Case Nagell. While in Japan, Oswald came in contact with Richard Case Nagell, a deep-cover intelligence officer assigned to play a double agent. Eventually, Nagell was assigned by his [ostensible] Soviet handlers to kill Oswald, whom they felt was going to be a fall guy for a plot to kill JFK, and use that as pretext for a war either against the U.S.S.R. and/or Cuba. Unable to talk Oswald out of engaging in the associations with which he was connected, Nagell–who had infiltrated the New Orleans anti-Castro Cuban milieu in which Oswald was entrenched, shot up a Texas bank in order to get himself put in prison, saying he did not want to become a traitor. Nagell is the focal point of the remarkable book The Man Who Knew Too Much by Dick Russell, who was interviewed in FTR #54.
16. The rapidity and ease with which Oswald and Marina were granted permission to leave the Soviet Union together also suggests that she may have been performing an intelligence function. Normally, it might have taken some years for a Soviet woman who had married an American to obtain permission to emigrate.

After getting back to the United States, the connections and activities of the Oswalds continue to be “passing strange,” IF one takes the legend of the so-called assassin at face value.

Having threatened to commit treason by disclosing classified information about U.S. air operations, (the U-2 being the salient item), Oswald is met not by the CIA, not by the FBI, but by Spas T. Raikin, the Secretary General of the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations. Originally called the Committee of Subjugated Nations when it was formed by Adolf Hitler in 1943, the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations became, in turn, an integral part of the Reinhard Gehlen spy outfit, a key element of the former World Anti-Communist League, and an important part of the Republican Party. It is unthinkable that he would not have been de-briefed by U.S. intelligence and the FBI. In fact, Jim mentions that a former CIA officer Donald Deneselya told the House Select Committee on Assassinations that the CIA did, in all likelihood, debrief Oswald. The Agency, however, sought to distance itself from the JFK assassination fall guy.

When the supposed Marxist traitor returned to the U.S., he was embraced by the virulently anti-Communist White Russian community in the Dallas/Fort Worth are, themselves with close links to the Gehlen milieu.
Among the people with which the Oswalds networked in Texas were:

1. Max Clark and his Wife, the former Princess Sherbatov, a member of the Romanov Royal family!
2. Peter Gregory.
3. George Bouhe, who will figure prominently in our next program.
4. George de Mohrenschildt, who we will examine at length in our next interview. De Mohrenschildt was part of the family that manged the Nobel Oil Fields for the Czar; was the cousin of Baron Konstantin Maydell, in charge of Abwehr operations in the United States for a time (Abwehr was German military intelligence); an associate of George H.W. Bush; a longtime CIA asset; a petroleum geologist.


FTR #1035 Interview #5 with Jim DiEugenio about “Destiny Betrayed”

The fifth of a planned long series of interviews with Jim DiEugenio about his triumphal analysis of President Kennedy’s assassination and New Orleans DA Jim Garrison’s heroic investigation of the killing, this program begins analysis of the development of the legend (intelligence cover) of Lee Harvey Oswald.

(Listeners can order Destiny Betrayed and Jim’s other books, as well as supplementing those volumes with articles about this country’s political assassinations at his website Kennedys and King. Jim is also a regular guest and expert commentator on Black Op Radio.)

This week’s discussion begins with a synopsis of the career of James Jesus Angleton, the long-time CIA chief of counterintelligence. Long pre-occupied with the matter of defectors from the Soviet Union, Angleton undertook a program of running false defectors to the U.S.S.R. in order to gain better intelligence about that nation.

The number of “defectors” to the Soviet Union expanded exponentially, leading State Department officer Otto Otepka to query the CIA as to which of them were genuine defectors, and which were actually left-cover spooks. One of the defectors about which he inquired was Lee Harvey Oswald, and a CIA reply about Oswald was marked “SECRET.”

Otepka’s career nosedived after this.

Destiny Betrayed by Jim DiEugenio; Skyhorse publishing [SC]; Copyright 1992, 2012 by Jim DiEugenio; ISBN 978-1-62087-056-3; pp. 164-165.
. . . . He was first taken off of sensitive cases. Stories began to appear in the press that his job could be eliminated. He was asked to take another position in State but he declined. He was then called before a Senate Committee to explain his methods for issuing security clearances. This happened four times in less than three years. He still would not resign or suspend his defector investigation. Spies, phone taps, and listening devices were then planted in his office. His office started to be searched after hours and his trash was scoured for any of his notes. Even his house was being surveilled. Otepka could not understand what was happening to him. He could only conclude that the sensitive study of American defectors hidden in his safe was behind it all. That safe was later drilled into after he was thrown out of his original office and reassigned. Whoever drilled it then used a tiny mirror to determine the combination. The safecracker then removed its contents. On November 5, 1963 Otepka was formally removed from his job at State. Later on, author Jim Hougan asked him if he had been able to figure out if Oswald was a real or false defector. Otepka replied, “We had not made up our minds when my safe was drilled and we were thrown out of the office.” Just two and a half weeks after his forcible departure from State, Oswald, the man he had studied for months on end, was accused of killing President Kennedy. . . .

Against the background of the false defector program, we begin analysis of Oswald, the Marxist Marine.

As we have discussed in other programs and posts, in his teens, Oswald was part of a Civil Air Patrol unit commanded by David Ferrie, the long-time intelligence officer and the first focal point of Jim Garrison’s investigation. (As chronicled by Daniel Hopsicker, that same unit also contained Barry Seal, the longtime CIA pilot and a key player in the Iran-Contra related drug trafficking.)

Interestingly and significantly, as Oswald and his fellow CAP cadets were gaining operational access to military bases–suggesting some significant connections to military and CIA by leader Ferrie–Oswald began to express and pursue alleged Communist/Marxist/Soviet inclinations to some high school peers. At the same time, he was also giving voice to a desire to join the military.

Eventually, Oswald joined the Marines. During his tenure in the Marine Corps, his pro-Marxist/pro-Soviet leanings and his security status both escalated:

1. Training at Keesler Air Force Base in Mississippi, Oswald got a Security Clearance.
2. He eventually was stationed at Atsugi Air Force Base in Japan, from which the CIA-connected U-2 spy plane flew. Bear in mind that Oswald’s Marxist/Communist professions continued apace during this time.
3. Oswald was actually in charge of physical security for the U-2 at one point in his tour of duty at Atsugi–remarkable for a self-professed Marxist.
4. While in Japan, he came in contact with Richard Case Nagell, a deep-cover intelligence officer assigned to play a double agent. Eventually, Nagell was assigned by his [ostensible] Soviet handlers to kill Oswald, whom they felt was going to be a fall guy for a plot to kill JFK, and use that as pretext for a war either against the U.S.S.R. and/or Cuba. Nagell is the focal point of the remarkable book The Man Who Knew Too Much by Dick Russell, who was interviewed in FTR #54.
5. CIA officer, anti-Castro lynchpin and future Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt also turned up in Japan at the same time as Oswald, operating in close proximity to the U-2 operations.
6. During his Marine Corps tenure, Oswald stated to associate David Bucknell that he would go to the Soviet Union on an undercover intelligence operation and return a hero. Bucknell stated that Oswald was no Communist.
7. Another Marine associate of Oswald’s–Jim Botelho–also said Oswald was no Communist and that, if he had been, Botelho would have taken violent action against him.
8. Oswald had access to sensitive radar information pertaining to the U-2 project and also knew the radio codes for his base. After his “defection” to the U.S.S.R., he was the talk of the base. Nonetheless, the radio codes were not changed.
9. The lone associate of Oswald who corroborated his dubious Marxist credentials–Kerry Thornley–turned up later in New Orleans, networking with Oswald and the other players in Oswald’s apparent pro-Castro activities. We will cover this in future broadcasts.
10. While in the Marines, Oswald developed a proficient command of the Russian language–a difficult tongue to master. He appears to have attended the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California.
11. Oswald was a lousy shot in a branch of the service–the Marines–that placed a premium on marksmanship. Labeled a “shitbird” by his fellow Marines for his lack of proficiency with a rifle, Oswald lacked the extraordinary marksmanship required to do what he allegedly did in Dallas.

The circumstances of Oswald’s “defection” to the Soviet Union are suspicious as well:

1. Oswald was given a hardship discharge with just a few months remaining on his enlistment tour. He got this in an inordinately short amount of time. He was supposed to take care of his mother, and yet his brother Robert was there to care for her, making Lee’s presence there unnecessary.
2. Oswald booked his steamship passage from the International Trade Mart in New Orleans, headed up by Clay Shaw, who was the focal point of Jim Garrison’s trial.
3. Oswald ostensibly was going to Europe to attend Albert Schweitzer College, an obscure Swiss institution that the Swiss police required two months to locate.
4. He defected to the Soviet Union from Helsinki, Finland. His stay there raises several questions, including the fact that he stayed at the Torni Hotel, a five-star, luxury hotel.
5. After leaving the Torni Hotel, he stayed at the Hotel Klaus Kurki, another high-end institution. How Oswald was able to pay for his stay at these institutions is a mystery–he did not have enough money in his Marine Corps pay checks to do this.
6. His selection of Helsinki is significant, also, because the Soviet Embassy there was the only one that could issue a travel visa to the Soviet Union in a little more than a week. It was the only Embassy that could do this. How did Oswald come to know this?


August, 1944: The Cold War Begins in Earnest

Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty has written about an August, 1944 mission in which he participated that indicated that the beginning of the Cold War was underway well before VE Day: ” . . . .On August 23, 1944, the Romanians accepted Soviet surrender terms and in Bucharest the OSS rounded up Nazi intelligence experts and their voluminous Eastern European intelligence files and concealed among a trainload of American POW’s who were being quickly evacuated from the Balkans via Turkey. Once in ‘neutral” Turkey, the train continued to a planned destination at a site on the Syrian border, where it was stopped to permit the transfer of Nazis and POW’s to a fleet of U.S. [Army] Air Force planes for a flight to Cairo. I was the chief pilot of that flight of some thirty aircraft . . . .” We note that it was in August of 1944 that the famous “Red House” meeting at which the Bormann flight capital network realized under the auspices of Aktion Adlerflug was launched.


FTR #1009 The Deep Politics of Habsburg Redux and The Russia-Gate Psy-Op

In recent programs, we examined complex interactions between a group of European politicians dubbed “The Hapsburg Group,” former Trump campaign manager/ former adviser to former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovuyuch and probable U.S. intelligence officer Paul Manafort, and the Ukrainian government. In turn, members of the Habsburg family–the Royal House of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire–have been active throughout Europe and in their former principality of Ukraine.

In this program, we examine the deep politics manifesting in the Ukraine/Habsburg redux/Liechtenstein dynamic.

Before delving into the development of this power political relationship, we review the involvement of the Habsburgs in European integration and the incorporation of Ukraine into the Western orbit:

1.– Members of the Habsburg dynasty have been involved in the context in which Lee Harvey Manafort and the Habsburg Group were operating–European integration in order to ease Ukraine into the Western, rather than the Russian orbit. ” . . . . Georg von Habsburg, the 32-year-old-grandson of Emperor Karl I, to the posi­tion of Hungary’s ambas­sador for Euro­pean Integration. In neigh­bour­ing Aus­tria, the tra­di­tional heart of Hab­s­burg power, Georg’s brother, Karl, 35, was recently elected to rep­re­sent the coun­try in the Euro­pean par­lia­ment. In addi­tion to this, he serves as the pres­i­dent of the Aus­trian branch of the Pan-European movement. . . . .”
2.– Jumping forward some 14 years from our previous article, we see that a Habsburg princess was anointed as Georgia’s ambassador to Germany. Note that [now former] Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili endorsed her. Saakashvili became, for a time, the governor of the Ukrainian province of Odessa! Note, also, the role of the Habsburgs in the final phase of the Cold War: “. . . . The heirs to the Hab­s­burg emper­ors helped speed the down­fall of the Soviet empire, par­tic­u­larly by arrang­ing the cross-border exo­dus from Hun­gary to Aus­tria in the sum­mer of 1989 that punched the first big hole in the iron cur­tain. . . .”
3.– Karl von Habsburg has been active in Ukraine for some years before establishing a radio station. Karl von Habsburg is the head of the UNPO. Note the Ukrainian orientation and influence of Wilhelm von Habsburg, in World War I through the World War II eras, as well as his anti-Soviet activism: ” . . . . A mil­i­tary offi­cer by train­ing, Wil­helm sup­ported Ukraine’s inde­pen­dence strug­gle dur­ing World War I. He fought with Ukrain­ian troops against the Rus­sians, and had schemed and cajoled a myr­iad of politi­cians to sup­port his monar­chial aspi­ra­tions. Almost until his death at the hands of the Sovi­ets in 1948 – he was snatched off the streets of Vienna and trans­ported to a prison in Kyiv for work­ing as an agent against the Soviet Union – Wil­helm believed this slice of the family’s empire could be his. . . .”
4.– Fast-forwarding again some five years from our previous two articles and one year after the EuroMaidan coup we see that actions speak louder than words, and Karl’s new Ukrain­ian radio sta­tion says a lot: “Since 20 Jan­u­ary, a truly Euro­pean radio sta­tion [Note this–D.E.] is broad­cast­ing in Ukraine, its main spon­sor, Karl-Habsburg Lothrin­gen, told EurAc­tiv in an exclu­sive interview . . . . Karl Habsburg-Lothringen is an Aus­trian politi­cian and head of the House of Hab­s­burg. Since 1986, he has served as Pres­i­dent of the Aus­trian branch of the Paneu­ro­pean Union. . . .”
5.– As we noted, “Plan B” for Ukraine might be termed “Plan OUN/B.” Otto von Habsburg formed the European Freedom Council with Jaroslav Stetzko, the wartime head of the Ukrainian Nazi collaborationist government that implemented Third Reich ethnic cleansing programs in Ukraine. The EFC was closely aligned with the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations, headed by Stetzko. The ABN, as we have seen in the past, is a re-naming of the Committee of Subjugated Nations, a consortium of Eastern European fascist groups formed by Hitler in 1943.”. . . . The Hapsburg monarchy helped guide the leadership in their former possessions. The Freedom Council was formed by Otto von Hapsburg and Jaroslav Stetzko at a conference in Munich on June 30-July 2 1967, as a coordinating body for organizations fighting communism in Europe. EMP H.R.H. Otto von Hapsburg was honorary chairman of the European Freedom Council, based in Munich, during the 1980s and allied to the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations (ABN). . . .”

The foundation of the U.S. intelligence/Hapsburg/Underground Reich concatenation dates to the period immediately after World War I: ” . . . . . . . . The Hapsburgs would desert Germany in return for an American commitment. Subsidized by the United States—which brought over to Europe the President’s close adviser Professor George D. Herron to impart Wilson’s vital imprimatur—this updated Hapsburg sovereignty must commit in advance to eradicating the Bolsheviks. A revitalized Austro-Hungarian buffer zone to fend off Soviet penetration of the Balkans turned into a lifelong chimera for Dulles, and spurred his devotion over the many years to some manner of ‘Danubian Federation.’ . . . .”

This relationship gained momentum during the Second World War, with approaches by the Third Reich to Allied as a Nazi defeat began to take shape.

One of the concepts central to understanding an extension of the U.S. intelligence/Hapsburg anti-Communist alliance is the concept of “The Christian West”–explained in the description for AFA #37: ” . . . . When it became clear that the armies of the Third Reich were going to be defeated, it opened secret negotiations with representatives from the Western Allies. Representatives on both sides belonged to the transatlantic financial and industrial fraternity that had actively supported fascism. The thrust of these negotiations was the establishment of The Christian West. Viewed by the Nazis as a vehicle for surviving military defeat, ‘The Christian West’ involved a Hitler-less Reich joining with the U.S., Britain, France and other European nations in a transatlantic, pan-European anti-Soviet alliance. In fact, The Christian West became a reality only after the cessation of hostilities. The de-Nazification of Germany was aborted. Although a few of the more obvious and obnoxious elements of Nazism were removed, Nazis were returned to power at virtually every level and in almost every capacity in the Federal Republic of Germany. . . .”

Of paramount significance for our purposes is a “Christian Wester” accommodation apparently involving Prince Egon Max von Hohenloe, who married into the Habsburg family. Operating out of Lichtenstein and traveling on a Lichtenstein passport, von Hohenloe served as an intermediary between U.S. intelligence and Walter Schellenberg, in charge of overseas intelligence for the SS. (Schellenberg was also on the board of directors of International Telephone and Telegraph and became a key operative for the postwar Gehlen organization.)

Allen Dulles’s strategic outlook embraced and shaped much of what appears to underlie the Habsburg/OUN/Western intelligence activity with regard to Ukraine: ” . . .Pronouncements alternated with rich meals in a Liechtenstein chateau; Hohenlohe bit by bit exposed his quasi-official status as a spokesman for SS elements with in the German government who now looked beyond the ‘wild men’ in control. What casts a longer shadow is the outline of Allen’s geopolitical ideas. The peace he has in mind, Dulles indicates, must avoid the excesses of Versailles and permit the expanded German polity to survive, Austria included and possibly at least a section of Czechoslovakia, while excluding all thought of ‘victors and vanquished . . . . as a factor of order and progress.’ . . . . The resultant ‘Greater Germany’ would backstop the ‘formation of a cordon sanitaire against Bolshevism and pan-Slavism through the eastward enlargement of Poland and the preservation of a strong Hungary.’ This ‘Federal Greater Germany (similar to the United States), with an associated Danube Confederation, would be the best guarantee of order and progress in Central and Eastern Europe.’ . . . . ”

A former Abwehr officer alleges that he attended a meeting in Spain between Abwehr head Wilhelm Canaris, Donovan and Stewart Menzies, chief of MI6–British Intelligence. ” . . . . . . . . An Abwehr officer, F. Justus von Einem, later claimed to have sat in on a carefully prepared meeting at Santander in Spain in the summer of 1943 during which both Menzies and Donovan agreed to Christian Wester terms as recapitulated by Canaris personally. If this exchange occurred, Donovan kept it quiet. . . .”

Interesting perspective on why Donovan would have “kept it quiet can be gleaned from the account of the frequently lethal attempts by four different authors to write the account of the OSS from the organization’s microfilmed files. We remind listeners, in this context, that major intelligence services have possessed toxins that will kill without leaving a trace for a very long time. ” . . . . Professor Conyers Read, the Harvard historian, produced many draft chapters before Donovan himself asked him to stop work, because he felt the director’s papers were still too sensitive. Read did not resume his work, for death intervened. [#1–D.E.] One of Donovan’s wartime majors, Corey Ford, then began work on the project in the mid-1950’s, producing a draft manuscript of what was really a biographical history of Donovan and the OSS, but again death intervened before Ford could complete his volume. [#2–D.E.]

After Donovan’s death in 1959, the project was taken over by Whitney Shepardson, Donovan’s chief of secret intelligence during World War II. For the third time, the author died before completing the work. [#3–D.E.] Then came the fourth attempt, this time by Cornelius Ryan, the author of The Longest Day. . . . the work was stopped before it really began; a middle-rank official at the CIA managed to stop the project because he believed the book contemplated by Ryan would be too controversial. When he found himself denied access to the director’s files, Ryan was compelled to abandon the project temporarily. Then he, too died before it was possible to resume work. [#4–D.E.]. . .”

Program Highlights Include:

1.– A 1923 business luncheon meeting between William Donovan and Adolf Hitler: ” . . . . As early as 1923, he [Donovan] materialized in Berchtesgaden to share a beer in the Gastzimmer of a modest pension with Adolf Hitler. The clammy young rabble-rouser ranted to the sympathetic attorney that he, unlike the family dog, could not be beaten by his miserable father until he wet the carpet. . . . .”
2.– Donovan’s role providing political and economic intelligence to J.P. Morgan to facilitate American investment bankers’ $2 billion investment in European infrastructure. ” . . . . He was quietly approached by representatives of the preeminent firm of J.P. Morgan and Sons. The country’s most influential investment bankers were reconnoitering the market for a $2 billion package of securities around Central and Eastern Europe. . . .”
3.– Comparison between the functional role of key Wall Street lawyers who “graduated” to assuming decisive posts in U.S. intelligence and their subsequent espionage activities. ” . . . . Donovan’s profession was relevant, and it is equally no accident that all three load-bearing protagonists throughout this work—Bill Donovan, Allen Dulles, Frank Wisner—achieved status in America by way of important Wall Street partnerships. In many ways, a trusted corporate attorney accomplishes substantially for his clients what today’s one-stop national intelligence factory goes after for its patron: he puts the deals together, he damps down crises and flaps, he keeps the process as confidential as possible. He finds out everything he an and resorts to every means imaginable to shape the outcome. He proceeds by the case system, and preferably one emergency at a time. Furthermore, an intelligence service concocted by lawyers—men accustomed not merely to spotting the problems but also to defining them to their clients and recommending appropriate action—is far more likely than a traditional military intelligence staff to reach in and condition policy. Attorneys have a seductive way of subordinating their clients, of insinuating their legerdemain until they become the strategic entanglements. And thus it develops that in many strategic entanglements the lawyers have at least as much control over the outcome as elected officials. . . .”


FTR #993 Update on Ukraine (Preparations for WWIII?)

Highlighting recent, alarming aspects of the Ukraine crisis, the broadcast underscores how past and present may signal the beginning of World War III in a manner not unlike how fractious events in the Balkans triggered the First World War.

With Ukraine now receiving U.S. arms, including modified stinger anti-aircraft missiles, the Nazi “punisher” battalions in that country’s East may be in a position to trigger one or more provocations that could lead to conflict between nuclear-armed Russia, NATO and the U.S.

Since the Donbass militias have no air force, the stingers would appear to be deployed in the event of a wider, Ukraine/Russia war.

Nazi elements active in the Maidan coup spawned the Azov and other “punisher” units. With more information surfacing that indicates that the Maidan sniper shootings were a provocation-derived event, the possibility that Svoboda and Pravy Sektor-linked elements could drive developments in the Donbass toward World War III is one that deserves more attention than it will receive.

A frightening development, virtually unreported in the U.S., concerns unilateral moves by the Poroshenko government to move away from the Minsk peace plan and to rebrand the conflict in Eastern Ukraine as “occupation” by an “aggressor” Russia.

This appears to pave the way for a wider, deeper conflict which could, ultimately, draw in the U.S. and NATO: ” . . . . According to [Dmitri] Kiselyov, the new law, which awaits Poroshenko’s signature, makes preparations for war and includes language indicating a bellicose new approach to the conflict. The mission in Donbass is no longer described as an ‘anti-terrorist operation.’ Rather, the mission now is to send armed forces against ‘military formations of the Russian Federation’ in Donbass.

Military headquarters are established to coordinate the operation to be waged in Donbass. While up until now the self-declared republics of Donetsk and Lugansk were considered under the Minsk Accords as negotiating parties, now there are only ‘occupation administrations’ of the Russian Federation on these territories, with Russia identified as an ‘aggressor.’ . . . .”

The danger of Poroshenko seeking to play the “war card” to distract from Urkaine’s dire economic circumstances and his own failed government are real. Conflict with Russia could also deflect from Trump’s and the GOP’s failures at home: ” . . . . On the economic front, the European Union has refused to extend 600 million euros of credit to Ukraine due to corruption. The International Monetary Fund recently refused a tranche of $800 million over failure to introduce reforms. Meanwhile, in 2019 Ukraine is due to start repaying earlier loans. This will come to $14 billion a year, which amounts to half the state budget of Ukraine.

Due to dire economic conditions, Poroshenko and other government officials in Kiev have become deeply unpopular, and with diminished chances for electoral success may see war as politically advantageous. . . .”

The Trump administration just approved the sale of sniper rifles and, more significantly, anti-tank Javelin missiles to Ukraine. This should be evaluated against the background of the recent moves by Kiev (increasing the danger for an escalated conflict) as well as  the activities of Kurt Volker, the “ex”-CIA officer, NATO functionary, George W. Bush State Department official and Atlantic Councicl Senior advisor serving as the Trump administration’s point-man in Ukraine.

Might anti-aircraft missiles be next? As the article below notes, the Donbass separatists don’t actually have an air force, so it would be a curious decision to start sending them anti-aircraft weapons. ” . . . . The proposed transfer — which also would include antiaircraft arms that would be defined as defensive weaponry — comes as fighting between Ukrainian troops and Russian-backed separatists. . . . The utility of antiaircraft weaponry, for example, is unclear, as the Russian-backed rebel army has no air force. The war is fought along a line of trenches that has not moved much since February 2015. . . .”

According to a report back in June, the Pentagon recently modified shoulder-fired stinger missiles to shoot small down drones that are difficult for regular Stinger missiles to hit. It’s not at all inconceivable that the anti-aircraft weapons the Pentagon and State Department have in mind are those Stinger missiles, modified for the purpose of shooting down separatist drones.

Also keep in mind that the shoulder-launched stringer missiles are among the weapons that terrorists would love to obtain and the Ukrainian troops getting trained on these systems may include the neo-Nazis fighting in Ukraine’s army getting trained by US military advisors like the Azov batallion. ” . . . . The American training at the Yavoriv base in western Ukraine is focused on forging a disciplined, professional military from the mix of volunteer groups that first fought the Russian incursion, rather than placing bets on any high-tech weapons systems. . . .”

When you read that, remember that the “mix of volunteers groups” includes neo-Nazis, including the Azov Battalion.

In other words, if Stinger missiles really are part of the military package, and just not yet announced, those little nightmares could easily end up in neo-Nazi hands and the US military could even be the ones training them on how to use them. We’ll see if that’s how it plays out, but we can’t rule it out.

The arms sales described above are being realized under the supervision of Trump’s new point man for Ukraine, “ex”-CIA, State Department and NATO functionary Kurt Volker. From Volker’s Wikipedia entry: ” . . . . Volker began his career in foreign affairs as an analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency in 1986. . . . In July 2005, Volker became the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, serving in that position until he was appointed United States Permanent Representative to NATO in July 2008 by President George W. Bush. . . . and a Senior Advisor at the Atlantic Council since October 2009. . . . .”

We note that the arms sales to Ukraine effected on Volker’s watch come after the removal of John Conyers (D-MI), one of the most vociferous Congressional opponents of arming and training the Azov Battalion and similar Nazi units.

Next, we take stock of how Conyers, “The Kremlin’s Man in Congress,” was removed following a gambit by “Alt-Right” blogger, Trump ally and misogynist Mike Cernovich to finance the solicitation of professionally damaging information about political opponents. “. . . . In November, the Trump-backing social media agitator Mike Cernovich offered to pay $10,000.00 for details of any congressional sexual harassment settlements, and said on Twitter that he would cover the expenses of ‘any VICTIM of a Congressman who wants to come forward to tell her story.’ Shortly before posting that offer, a source provided Mr. Cernovich with a copy of a sexual harassment settlement that led in December to the resignation of Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan, until then the longest-serving member of the House. . . .”

In FTR #981, we examined the Ukrainian fascist foundation of much of the “Russia-Gate” psy-op,” following that with detailed examination of the possibility that Paul Manafort may have actually been working as a U.S./Western intelligence asset or agent, deliberately precipitating the Maidan sniper fire that sounded the death knell for the Yanukovich regime.

This program updates the boiling sewer that is Ukraine, utilizing information from German Foreign Policy (which feeds along the lower right-hand page of this website.) We take note of several key points:

1.–Corruption in Ukraine remains rampant and “rule by oligarch” continues unabated under Poroshenko, an oligarch himself and the former finance minister for Yanukovich.
2.–Supporters of Maidan have been highly critical of the continuation of this grotesque status quo.
3.–Among the perpetrators of ongoing, institutionalized corruption in Ukraine has been the son of Arsen Avakov, the interior minister and a patron of the Nazi Azov Battalion. ” . . . . Corruption continues at high levels. For example, the case of Interior Minister Arsen Avakov’s son, who sold backpacks to the army at six times their normal price, allegedly causing damage in the six-digit euros. . . .”
4.–Investigation of Avakov, jr’s activities has been [predictably] interdicted. ” . . . .When the National Anti-Corruption Bureau searched the man’s house, the National Guard, under the responsibility of the interior minister intervened and halted the search – under the pretext of having to vacate the building because of a bomb threat. . . .”
5.–The two article series sets forth greater detail on the sniper shootings at the Maidan, which look more and more to be a provocation. ” . . . . In February 2016, Maidan activist Ivan Bubenchik confessed that in the course of the massacre, he had shot Ukrainian police officers. Bubenchik confirmed this in a film that had attracted international attention.[10] . . . .”
6.–An Italian TV documentary alleges that ethnic Georgian snipers were involved in the Maidan shootings, further indicating that the Maidan sniper shootings were a possible provocation. (The documentary does come from a Berlusconi-controlled outlet, however it dovetails credibly with other available information. UNA-UNSO, the latest iteration of the UPA was very active in the caucasus and Chechens have been working with Pravy Sektor and elements associated with the Azov Battalion. As discussed in FTR #850, former Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili became the governor of Odessa province and is very close to Ihor Kolomoisky, another patron of the Azov Battalion.) “In an Italian TV documentary on the February 20, 2014 Maidan massacre, serious accusations were made against several politicians in Ukraine. . . .  In the documentary, three Georgians, incriminating themselves for their own participation, report that some of the leaders of the protests, who are today members of Kiev’s parliament, had supplied weapons to the snipers, who, at the time, indiscriminately killed policemen and demonstrators. Officially, this massacre is still being attributed to Ukrainian repressive organs or to unspecified Russians. The Georgians also report that the current speaker of the parliament, Andriy Parubiy, was often seen in the hotel, from where the snipers were firing that day. As ‘Maidan Commander,’Parubiy had been in charge of controlling armed gangs on that square. The man, whose real role at the time remains unclear, was a guest at a conference held by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation and a speaker at NATO events. . . .”
7.–Parubiy was one of the main organizers of the Orange Revolution, which brought Viktor Yuschenko to power and installed OUN/B derivative organizations in power in Ukraine, sort of a “pre-Maidan” Maidan.” . . . .  Following his retirement from the party, this experienced protest activist became one of the main organizers of the 2004 ‘Orange Revolution.’  . . .”
8.–Andriy Parubiy was the first defense minister of the Ukraine interim government and a member of the OUN/B-redux Svoboda Party. His role in the events dovetails with the possible participation of fascist and Nazi snipers who were to participate in the Azov Battalion. “. . . . The Georgians’ accusations also implicate, at least indirectly, the ‘Commander of the Maidan,’ Andriy Parubiy. Parubiy comes from the Ukrainian fascist scene. In the early 1990s he was one of the founders of the extreme right-wing Social National Party of Ukraine. Since 1996, he was the leader of its militarist street fighting subsidiary ‘Patriot of Ukraine.’ Following his retirement from the party, this experienced protest activist became one of the main organizers of the 2004 ‘Orange Revolution.’ In 2013, he assumed the same function at the Maidan, where he was responsible for none other than security and the ‘self-defense units,’ which were often made up of heavily armed thugs. In the Italian TV documentary, it was reported that Parubiy was going in and out of Hotel Ukraina, from where numerous deadly shots were being fired. Parubiy, claims that the hotel from which these shots were being fired – which was firmly under the Maidan demonstrators’ control – had been taken over ‘by snipers who arrived from Russia and who were controlled by Russia.’ . . .”

We conclude with another example of just what the contemporary Ukrainian political establishment is manifesting. Ukraine’s official understanding of its own WWII history and the Holocaust had another manifestation of Orwellian historical revisionism. This time it was by Poroshenko reinforcing the Orwellian revision. ” . . . . As we reported back in October, Ukrainian media outlet Radio Svoboda — the Ukrainian arm of the US Government-funded arm of RFERL — posted a picture from the US Holocaust Museum. It is an image of Polish Jews being deported to a death camp. There was just one problem. Radio Svoboda claimed the picture was from 1949 of Ukrainians being deported to Siberia. In fact, so effective was Radio Svoboda’s forgery that President Poroshenko himself tweeted it claiming it showed Ukrainians being deported. . . . Today it emerged that a major Ukrainian media outlet has struck again. In a December 20th article about the horrors of the NKVD (Soviet forerunner of the KGB), media outlet “Ukrinform” also borrowed a picture from the US Holocaust Museum, this time of Ukrainian Auxiliary Policemen shooting a Jewish child and mother — and fraudulently claimed it was actually of the NKVD shooting people. The caption reads in translation: ‘Atrocities of the Chekhists: the execution of a mother and child by the NKVD’. . . .”

Program Highlights Include:

1.–Review of the possible role of Nazi hacker, Glenn Greenwald associate and Ukraine resident Andrew “Weev” Auerenheimer in the high-profile hacks: ” . . . . [Peter W.] Smith also reached out to ‘Guccifer 2.0’—an alias the U.S. intelligence community has linked to Russian state hackers—and was advised to seek the help of a white nationalist hacker who lives in Ukraine. . . . [Pax] Johnson said he also suggested that Smith get in touch with Andrew Auernheimer, a hacker who goes by the alias “Weev” and has collaborated with Johnson in the past. . . .” We note that Charles C. Johnson, an associate of Mike Cernovich, was involved with this maneuver.
2.–Review of Atlantic Council fellow Dmitri Alperovitch (co-founder and chief technology officer of Crowdstrike, the cyber-security firm that led the charge to attribute the high-profile hacks to Russia. Kurt Volker is also closely affiliated with the Atlantic Council. ” . . . . Dmitri Alperovitch is also a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. . . . The connection between [Crowdstrike co-founder and chief technology officer Dmitri] Alperovitch and the Atlantic Council has gone largely unremarked upon, but it is relevant given that the Atlantic Council—which is is funded in part by the US State Department, NATO, the governments of Latvia and Lithuania, the Ukrainian World Congress, and the Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk—has been among the loudest voices calling for a new Cold War with Russia. As I pointed out in the pages of The Nation in November, the Atlantic Council has spent the past several years producing some of the most virulent specimens of the new Cold War propaganda. . . . ”


Update on Ukraine, Maidan Snipers

In FTR #982, we highlighted indications that the Maidan sniper shootings may have been a provocation and that Paul Manafort may have encouraged the bloodshed. Among the perpetrators of ongoing, institutionalized corruption in Ukraine has been the son of Arsen Avakov, the interior minister and a patron of the Nazi Azov Battalion. ” . . . . Corruption continues at high levels. For example, the case of Interior Minister Arsen Avakov’s son, who sold backpacks to the army at six times their normal price, allegedly causing damage in the six-digit euros. . . .” “In an Italian TV documentary . . . . three Georgians, incriminating themselves for their own participation, report that some of the leaders of the protests . . . . had supplied weapons to the snipers, who, at the time, indiscriminately killed policemen and demonstrators. . . . The Georgians’ accusations also implicate, at least indirectly, the ‘Commander of the Maidan,’ Andriy Parubiy. Parubiy comes from the Ukrainian fascist scene. In the early 1990s he was one of the founders of the extreme right-wing Social National Party of Ukraine. Since 1996, he was the leader of its militarist street fighting subsidiary ‘Patriot of Ukraine.’ Following his retirement from the party, this experienced protest activist became one of the main organizers of the 2004 ‘Orange Revolution.’ In 2013, he assumed the same function at the Maidan, where he was responsible for none other than security and the ‘self-defense units,’ which were often made up of heavily armed thugs. In the Italian TV documentary, it was reported that Parubiy was going in and out of Hotel Ukraina, from where numerous deadly shots were being fired. . . .”


Gehlen Org Role in 1953 East Berlin Uprising?

An episode of the early Cold War (I) was an uprising in East Berlin in 1953. At least part of the revolt may have been spurred by Nazi (and CIA) spymaster Reinhard Gehlen, about whom we have spoken and written so often. “Some of the provocateurs captured by the Communist authorities were too well equipped with blueprints for sabotage to have managed the business alone,” the intelligence historian Andrew Tully has written. “Rioters had in their pockets plans for blowing up railroad bridges and railway terminals, and detailed floor plans of governmental buildings. They had forged food stamps and fake bank drafts to be used to spread confusion in the food-rationing system and to disrupt East German bank credits. It seemed indisputable that they were getting their espionage pay checks from the CIA’s top German spy . . . Reinhard Gehlen.” . . . . All of the contents of this website as of 12/19/2014–Dave Emory’s 37+ years of research and broadcasting–as well as hours of videotaped lectures are available on a 32GB flash drive. Dave offers his programs and articles for free–your support is very much appreciated.


Information Versus Confirmation

Over the years, we  have noted peoples’ reluctance and/or inability to adjust their views and perspectives in light of new information that would mandate such a correction. We have conceptualized that dynamic as “Information versus Confirmation.” Rather than having their views governed by information, many people’s outlooks are inclined in the direction of input that confirms their prejudices or views. Information presented in The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles and Their Secret World War by Stephen Kinzer frames this dynamic in the context of contemporary cognitive and social psychological theory. All of the contents of this website as of 12/19/2014–Dave Emory’s 37+ years of research and broadcasting–as well as hours of videotaped lectures are available on a 32GB flash drive. Dave offers his programs and articles for free–your support is very much appreciated.


“Sachsenhausen:” Bernie Sanders’ Neo-Liberal Buddy Jeffrey Sachs

We have noted Bernie Sanders’ many “interesting connections” in–among other programs–FTR #953. One of Sanders’ economic advisers during the 2016 campaign is now a member of the Sanders Institute, having formerly been a major architect of the economic disaster that befell post-Cold-War Russia under Yeltsin. All of the contents of this website as of 12/19/2014–Dave Emory’s 37+ years of research and broadcasting–as well as hours of videotaped lectures are available on a 32GB flash drive. Dave offers his programs and articles for free–your support is very much appreciated.