With a new Cold War gaining momentum and charges of Russian interference in the U.S. election, this program takes stock of information pointing in the other direction. After reviewing previous discussion of why the DNC, John Podesta and NSA “hacks” do not withstand scrutiny, the broadcast sets forth information indicating that Ukrainian fascists and related elements may well be the authors of a “cyber false-flag” operation.
Not only is the so-called “evidence” characteristic of a relatively clumsy false-flag operation–albeit one conducted on the internet–but the so-called “experts,” link to the milieu of the Reinhard Gehlen “Org.”
The joint CIA/FBI/NSA declassified version of the Intelligence Report on Russian hacking came out. There is no substantive detail in the report:“ . . . . To summarize, the report says that the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency believe that Russian hackers—directed ultimately by Vladimir Putin—hacked email accounts belonging to the Democratic National Committee and to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and then passed the material they obtained on to WikiLeaks through a third party. This was done, the report asserts, because the Russians believed that Donald Trump would be friendlier to their country’s interests, as president, than Hillary Clinton. And … that’s about it. Not counting intro pages or appendices, the report is five pages long and does not include any description of the actual evidence that Russian actors were responsible for the DNC/Podesta hacks (an assertion that’s supported by publicly available evidence analyzed by third parties) or the assertion that Putin ultimately directed the release of hacked material in order to help elect Donald Trump (an assertion that’s harder to verify independently). . . . .”
The Bitly technology used in the hacks enabled the entire world to see what was going on! This strongly indicates a cyber-false flag operation: ” . . . . Using Bitly allowed ‘third parties to see their entire campaign including all their targets— something you’d want to keep secret,’ Tom Finney, a researcher at SecureWorks, told Motherboard. It was one of Fancy Bear’s ‘gravest mistakes,’ as Thomas Rid, a professor at King’s College who has closely studied the case, put it in a new piece published on Thursday in Esquire, as it gave researchers unprecedented visibility into the activities of Fancy Bear, linking different parts of its larger campaign together. . . .”
It should be noted that while this report is signed off on by the CIA, NSA, and FBI, the FBI never examined the DNC’s hacked server. Instead, according to the DNC, the job was outsourced to CrowdStrike! Neither the FBI, nor any other U.S. government entity has run an independent forensic analysis on the system! ” . . . Six months after the FBI first said it was investigating the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s computer network, the bureau has still not requested access to the hacked servers, a DNC spokesman said. No US government entity has run an independent forensic analysis on the system, one US intelligence official told BuzzFeed News. . . .The FBI has instead relied on computer forensics from a third-party tech security company, CrowdStrike, which first determined in May of last year that the DNC’s servers had been infiltrated by Russia-linked hackers, the U.S. intelligence official told BuzzFeed News. . .’CrowdStrike is pretty good. There’s no reason to believe that anything that they have concluded is not accurate,’ the intelligence official said, adding they were confident Russia was behind the widespread hacks. . . It’s unclear why the FBI didn’t request access to the DNC servers, and whether it’s common practice when the bureau investigates the cyberattacks against private entities by state actors, like when the Sony Corporation was hacked by North Korea in 2014. BuzzFeed News spoke to three cybersecurity companies who have worked on major breaches in the last 15 months, who said that it was “par for the course” for the FBI to do their own forensic research into the hacks. None wanted to comment on the record on another cybersecurity company’s work, or the work being done by a national security agency. . . .”
The FBI claims that the DNC denied them access to the servers! Right! Note the prominence of CrowdStrike in this imbroglio. More about them below. ” . . . . The FBI struck back at the Democratic National Committee on Thursday, accusing it of denying federal investigators access to its computer systems and hamstringing its investigation into the infiltration of DNC servers by Russia-backed hackers. ‘The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated. This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information,’ a senior law enforcement official told BuzzFeed News in a statement. ‘These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier.’ . . . The warring statements are the latest twists in an extraordinary standoff between the Democrats and federal investigators that reached a fever pitch over the bureau’s probe into Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s private email server. . . . The FBI announced it was investigating the hack of the DNC’s servers in July, after a third-party computer security firm, Crowdstrike, said it had evidence of Kremlin-backed hackers infiltrating its system. . . .”
The DNC responded to the FBI’s counter-assertion by reasserting that it’s giving the FBI full access to whatever it requested. If there’s a problem with the FBI getting access to that server, it’s a problem between the FBI and Crowdstrike: ” . . . The FBI had previously told lawmakers on the Hill that the DNC had not allowed federal investigators to access their servers. After BuzzFeed News reported on Wednesday that the DNC claimed FBI agents had never asked for the servers, congressional officials pressured the FBI for answers. A senior law enforcement official issued a public statement on the matter Thursday night. ‘Someone is lying their ass off,’ a US intelligence official said of the warring statements. But officials with the DNC still assert they’ve ‘cooperated with the FBI 150%.They’ve had access to anything they want. Anything that they desire. Anything they’ve asked, we’ve cooperated,’ the DNC official said. ‘If anybody contradicts that it’s between Crowdstrike and the FBI.’ . . .Without direct access to the computer network, another US intelligence official told BuzzFeed, federal investigators had been forced to rely on the findings of the private cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike for computer forensics. From May through August of 2016, the Democratic National Committee paid Crowdstrike $267,807 dollars for maintenance, data services and consulting, among other things, according to federal records. . . .”
An important article underscores that many tech experts disagree with the government’s so-called analysis: ” . . . . Yet despite the scores of breathless media pieces that assert that Russia’s interference in the election is ‘case closed,’might some skepticism be in order? Some cyber experts say ‘yes.’ . . . Cyber-security experts have also weighed in. The security editor at Ars Technica observed that ‘Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks,’ the government report ‘largely restates previous private sector claims without providing any support for their validity.’ Robert M. Lee of the cyber-security company Dragos noted that the report ‘reads like a poorly done vendor intelligence report stringing together various aspects of attribution without evidence.’ Cybersecurity consultant Jeffrey Carr noted that the report ‘merely listed every threat group ever reported on by a commercial cybersecurity company that is suspected of being Russian-made and lumped them under the heading of Russian Intelligence Services (RIS) without providing any supporting evidence that such a connection exists.’ . . .”
CrowdStrike–at the epicenter of the supposed Russian hacking controversy is noteworthy. Its co-founder and chief technology officer, Dmitry Alperovitch is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, financed by elements that are at the foundation of fanning the flames of the New Cold War: “In this respect, it is worth noting that one of the commercial cybersecurity companies the government has relied on is Crowdstrike, which was one of the companies initially brought in by the DNC to investigate the alleged hacks. . . . 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. . . . ”
There was an update back in December from the German government regarding its assessment of the 2015 Bundgestag hacks (attributed to “Fancy Bear” and “Cozy Bear,” as mentioned in the Sandro Gaycken post above) that it attributed to APT28 and Russia: while it asserts the hacks did indeed take place, the leaked documents were later determined to be an insider leak (via Google translate). “ . . . . According to the report, federal security authorities are convinced that not hackers had stolen the 2420 documents published by the Internet platform Wikileaks in early December. There was certainly no evidence that the material had been stolen in the cyber attack on the Bundestag in 2015, it was called into security crises. . . . ”
Another article details at length the skepticism and outright scorn many cybersecurity experts feel concerning the report. ” . . . . Did the Russian government hack the DNC and feed documents to WikiLeaks? There are really two questions here: who hacked the DNC, and who released the DNC documents? These are not necessarily the same. An earlier intrusion into German parliament servers was blamed on the Russians, yet the release of documents to WikiLeaks is thought to have originated from an insider.  Had the Russians hacked into the DNC, it may have been to gather intelligence, while another actor released the documents. But it is far from certain that Russian intelligence services had anything to do with the intrusions. Julian Assange says that he did not receive the DNC documents from a nation-state. It has been pointed out that Russia could have used a third party to pass along the material. Fair enough, but former UK diplomat Craig Murray asserts: ‘I know who the source is… It’s from a Washington insider. It’s not from Russia.’ [We wonder if it might have been Tulsi Gabbard–D.E.]  . . . .”
Exemplifying some of the points of dissension in the above-linked story: ” . . . . Cybersecurity analyst Robert Graham was particularly blistering in his assessment of the government’s report, characterizing it as “full of garbage.” The report fails to tie the indicators of compromise to the Russian government. ‘It contains signatures of viruses that are publicly available, used by hackers around the world, not just Russia. It contains a long list of IP addresses from perfectly normal services, like Tor, Google, Dropbox, Yahoo, and so forth. Yes, hackers use Yahoo for phishing and maladvertising. It doesn’t mean every access of Yahoo is an ‘indicator of compromise’.’ Graham compared the list of IP addresses against those accessed by his web browser, and found two matches. ‘No,’ he continues. ‘This doesn’t mean I’ve been hacked. It means I just had a normal interaction with Yahoo. It means the Grizzly Steppe IoCs are garbage. . . .”
The source code used in the attacks traces back to Ukraine! ” . . . . In conjunction with the report, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security provided a list of IP addresses it identified with Russian intelligence services.  Wordfence analyzed the IP addresses as well as a PHP malware script provided by the Department of Homeland Security. In analyzing the source code, Wordfence discovered that the software used was P.A.S., version 3.1.0. It then found that the website that manufactures the malware had a site country code indicating that it is Ukrainian. [Note this!–D.E.] The current version of the P.A.S. software is 4.1.1, which is much newer than that used in the DNC hack, and the latest version has changed ‘quite substantially.’ Wordfence notes that not only is the software ‘commonly available,’ but also that it would be reasonable to expect ‘Russian intelligence operatives to develop their own tools or at least use current malicious tools from outside sources.’ To put it plainly, Wordfence concludes that the malware sample ‘has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence.’ . . .”
The program concludes with a frightening piece of legislation signed into law by Barack Obama in December. It is an ominous portent of the use of government and military power to suppress dissenting views as being “Russian” propaganda tools! “. . . . The new law is remarkable for a number of reasons, not the least because it merges a new McCarthyism about purported dissemination of Russian ‘propaganda’ on the Internet with a new Orwellianism by creating a kind of Ministry of Truth – or Global Engagement Center – to protect the American people from ‘foreign propaganda and disinformation.’ . . . As part of the effort to detect and defeat these unwanted narratives, the law authorizes the Center to: ‘Facilitate the use of a wide range of technologies and techniques by sharing expertise among Federal departments and agencies, seeking expertise from external sources, and implementing best practices.’ (This section is an apparent reference to proposals that Google, Facebook and other technology companies find ways to block or brand certain Internet sites as purveyors of ‘Russian propaganda’ or ‘fake news.’) . . .”
Program Highlights Include: review of information from previous programs linking the disinformation about the high-profile hacks to the milieu of Ukrainian fascism; review of Alexandra Chalupa’s role in disseminating the “Russia did it” meme; review of “Eddie the Friendly Spook” Snowden’s role in the disinformation about the high-profile hacks; the implementation of a frightening new law authorizing the Pentagon and other government agencies to act to counter any information seen as “Russian propaganda.”
One of the nicknames Mr. Emory has bestowed upon “Eddie the Friendly Spook” Snowden is “The Obverse Oswald.” Whereas Lee Harvey Oswald was a U.S. intelligence officer infiltrated into the Soviet Union, repatriated and infiltrated into leftist organizations, given a “left cover” and then framed for the assassination of J.F.K. (and killed before he could exonerate himself), Snowden has been infiltrated into Russia and portrayed as a hero. Snowden, like Oswald, is involved in an “op.”
Just as Oswald was “painted Red,” Russia appears to have been framed in the U.S. media for the hack of the Democratic National Committee and the non-hack of NSA cyberweapons by the so-called Shadow Brokers.
In this first of two programs, we review the process of “painting Oswald Red,” by way of gaining historical perspective on the Snowden “op” and the framing of Russia for the high-profile hacks in the New Cold War.
After reviewing particulars concerning the framing of Russia for the hacks, we detail the framing of Lee Harvey Oswald and the Soviet Union for the assassination of Stephan Bandera, the head of the fascist Ukrainian OUN/B.
Supposedly executed by the KGB, the killing was almost certainly done by the West, with the BND being the most likely agency involved.
Elements of the W.A.C.C.F.L. (the forerunner of the World Anti-Communist League) disseminated the disinformation that Oswald was trained by the same KGB sub-group that managed Bogdan Stashynsky, the killer of Bandera.
After Oswald returned to the U.S., he was infiltrated into the Fair Play For Cuba Committee (he was its only New Orleans member). Oswald’s alleged pro-Castro stance received considerable exposure as a result of an interview he did with WDSU in New Orleans. That interview, arranged by the Information Council of the Americas, featured Oswald discussing his Marxist sympathies and his “defection” to the Soviet Union.
The Information Council of the Americas had close links to the U.S. intelligence community. The net effect of the painting of Oswald Red was to motivate liberals and President Johnson to cover-up the truth concerning the assassination, out of fear that if the American public believed that Kennedy was killed as a result of a Communist conspiracy, it could lead to a Third World War.
Program Highlights Include: Oswald’s WDSU gaffe in which he disclosed his relationship with the U.S. government while in the U.S.S.R.; the highly unlikely fact that alleged K.G.B. operative Stashynsky had the broken key to Bandera’s apartment in his possession when he went to trial two years later; the equally unlikely proposition that the other half of the broken key was still in the lock of Bandera’s apartment two years later!
In July of 2015, Donald Trump tweeted a campaign ad that featured a picture of uniformed Waffen SS troopers in the lower right-hand corner. A photograph of Waffen SS-clad World War II reenactors, the picture was blamed on an intern. This has become a familiar sort of dodge by Trump when caught tweeting openly racist, anti-Semitic and/or pro-Nazi material–“Who, me?” “. . . . In an almost impossibly bizarre coincidence . . . . George’s brother John [Cairns] is also a stock photographer, and took the image of Nazi reenactors that was accidentally used in a flier for the campaign of North Carolina state legislator Tim Spear in 2010.. . . “
Keyed by the victory of a Crimean Tatar singer in the Eurovision song contest–she sang about their deportation by Stalin in 1944–the Crimean Tatars are in the political spotlight again.
Agitating and conspiring alongside OUN/B fascist heirs Pravy Sektor in Ukraine, the Crimean Tatars have become something of a cause celebre in the course of collaborating to destabilize Crimea and Russia. What has been eclipsed by the current controversy is the long history of Crimean Tatar collaboration with the Third Reich, initially, and then Western intelligence.
Utilized as a wedge against the former Soviet Union, the Crimean Tatars were enlisted in the anti-Soviet Promethean League in the period between the two world wars and subsequently turned to the Third Reich as sponsors and allies, seeing the Nazi armies as their ticket to autonomy. Throughout this almost century-long odyssey, the Crimean Tatars have served alongside the Ukrainian fascists of the OUN/B and its successor organizations. ” . . . Berlin began forging plans for winning over Soviet linguistic minorities (‘Volksgruppen’) to collaborate with the Nazis in the war against Moscow. The attention of strategists in the German Foreign Ministry and in the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories fell on the approx. 200,000 Crimean Tatars. The idea was encouraged by the hope that, with the Tatar’s help, officially neutral Turkey could also be won over to enter the war. Ankara saw itself as the protective power for Turkic-speaking minorities, including the Tatar linguistic group on the Crimean Peninsula. . . . The Battle Group D began immediately to recruit Crimean Tatar volunteers for the war against the Soviet Union. In December 1941, this battle group had massacred more than 13,000 people – 11,000 Jews and over 800 Roma – in Simferopol (Crimea). . . .”
Following military defeat in the Second World War, the Crimean Tatars and their primary sponsor in the Ostministerium–Gerhard von Mende–continued their work apace under the auspices of Frank Wisner and Allen Dulles’s CIA and the Gehlen organization, both in its CIA incarnation and after it’s incorporation as the BND, the intelligence service of the Federal Republic of Germany. The Crimean Tatar/Ukrainian fascist collaboration has continued into the post-Maidan period.
Program Highlights Include: Review of Crimean Tatar/Pravy Sektor blockading of road traffic into Crimea; review of Crimean Tatar/Pravy Sektor collaboration in the sabotage of Crimea’s electric grid; contemporary German political liaison with dissident Crimean Tatars; Turkey’s ongoing support for the Crimean Tatars, part of Erdogan’s “neo-Ottoman”/Pan-Turkic policy; von Mende’s use of Third Reich collaborator Edige Kirimal during the Cold War; review of the UNA-UNSO’s collaboration with Chechens and other Caucasian Islamists following the breakup of the Soviet Union.
The spokesman–and apologist–for the Nazi Azov Battalion in Ukraine is Roman Zvarych. Zvarych was the personal secretary to Jaroslav Stetsko–the head of the World War II Nazi collaborationist OUN/B government. Azov is now receiving U.S. government funding. All of the contents of this website as of 12/19/2014–Dave Emory’s 35+ 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.
A recent article further develops the activities of Volodymyr Viatrovych, appointed as head of the Institute of National memory by Viktor Yuschenko, re-appointed by Petro Petroshenko, and serving with the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute (HURI) in between. All of the contents of this website as of 12/19/2014–Dave Emory’s 35+ 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.
Highlighting the links between the OUN/B and the assassination of JFK, the broadcast underscores the disinformation linking the alleged KGB assassination of Stephan Bandera with Lee Harvey Oswald. Supposedly trained as an assassin by the same KGB units that allegedly killed Bandera, Oswald was “painted red” in order to deflect blame for the assassination onto the Soviet Union. The disinformation linking the Bandera assassination with the killing of Kennedy was largely disseminated by elements that were to coalesce as the World Anti-Communist League a few years later. Both the OUN/B elements in the United States and key figures in the cover-up of the JFK assassination track back to the Crusade For Freedom, a covert operation that precipitated the formation of a Nazi branch of the GOP. Program Highlights Include: Senator Thomas Dodd’s role in spreading the KGB killed Kennedy disinformation; Dodd’s links to the American Security Council; the role of OUN/B functionary Lev Dobriansky in disseminating the Oswald/KGB/Bandera killing disinformation; the roles of Ronald Reagan, Allen Dulles, Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush in both the Crusade For Freedom activities and the events in Dallas in 1963.
Pravy Sektor associate Valentyn Nalyvaichenko had been the head of the SBU (the Ukrainian intelligence service) since the Maidan Coup, up until his ouster in June of 2015. Not surprisingly, he had operated the organization along the lines of the OUN/B. Previously, he had served in that same capacity under Viktor Yuschenko, seeing the outfit as a vehicle for rewriting Ukraine’s history in accordance with the historical revisionism favored by the OUN/B. Very close to Pravy Sektor head Dymitro Yarosh, Nalyvaichenko employed Yarosh while serving in the Ukrainian parliament. Yarosh claims that the two collaborated on “anti-terrorist” operations conducted against ethnic Russians. The bulk of the program consists of the reading of a review of a recent book about OUN/B leader Stephan Bandera. The encapsulation of the book sets forth the tangled, bloody history leading up to the formation of the OUN/B and the evolution of the organization into a Third Reich ally.
Continuing discussion and analysis from FTR #868, this program underscores the possible role of Swedish and Scandinavian fascists overlapping both WACL and Sapo, the Swedish intelligence service. Involved with escape networks forged to aid the international flight from justice of fascists and Nazis, the principals in these networks exhibited behavior around the time of the Palme killing that is suggestive. Worth noting in this regard is the late Stieg Larsson’s investigation of the Palme killing, which pointed in the direction of some of the same figures examined in the Kruger essay. The program concludes with an examination of the Bofors munitions firm and its corporate links to Third Reich industry and the postwar Bormann capital network, with which it may well be affiliated.
The first of two programs highlighting the unsolved 1986 assassination of Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, the broadcast features a 1988 article by the brilliant freelance Danish journalist Henrik Kruger, author of “The Great Heroin Coup: Drugs, Intelligence and International Fascism.” Through this examination of the intersected networks that Kruger has termed (in “The Great Heroin Coup”) “The International Fascista,” we are able to observe the elements of Operation Condor, key individuals and institutions comprising the former World Anti-Communist League, individuals and organizations underlying “the Strategy of Tension” in Italy, as well as the cast of characters that managed the Iran-Contra machinations. Long the focal point of death threats and assassination attempts, Palme had earned the lethal ire of fascists in North and South America, as well as Europe. The failure to solve the killing, despite the passage of almost 30 years and some very strong evidentiary tributaries, underscores the gravitas of the forces that destroyed Palme. Kruger’s article also serves as something of an “in vitro” window into many of the political networks we have examined over the years.