Current Concerns
P.O. box 223
CH-8044 Zurich
+41-44-350 65 50

October 23, 2014
The monthly journal for independent thought, ethical standards and moral responsibility The international journal for independent thought, ethical standards, moral responsibility,
and for the promotion and respect of public international law, human rights and humanitarian law
Current Concerns  >  2007  >  No 9, 2007  >  Washington’s “Fifth Column” in Russia [printversion]

Washington’s “Fifth Column” in Russia

Chess champion Gary Kasparov, his comrades and supporters in the west

by Hans-Werner Klausen, Germany

Defiance of all rules on sovereignty
“A strange practice has developed in international relations since Washington, relying on “freedom and demo­cracy”, set up a number of foundations and think tanks in order to intervene in the internal affairs of foreign countries in defiance of all the rules on ­sovereignty.”
Peter Scholl-Latour: Russland im Zangengriff, Putins Imperium zwischen Nato, China und Islam, ISBN 10: 35-490726-51, p. 110

Ever since the murder of the journalist Anna Politkovskaya and the mysterious death of the former secret service office Litvinenko, the western media have turned up the heat in their campaign against the Russian president Vladimir Putin that has never actually ceased since the arrest of the oligarch Chodorkovski in autumn 2003.
For many commentators there can be no doubt: The Kremlin is to blame. Peter Scholl-Latour is one of the few who raise his voice in protest, pointing out that while Putin might be a Chekist, he isn’t stupid. Politkovskaya was murdered immediately before Putin’s visit to Germany, with Litvinenko following immediately before the summit between Russia and the EU. There is no doubt that these deaths did not benefit Putin. As part of the anti-Russian campaign, considerable publicity was given to a rather disappointing anti-Putin demonstration on 16 December 2006 in Moscow (attracting just over 2,000 protesters, not exactly impressive in the light of the 18 million inhabitants of the Moscow region), with its most prominent speaker, the chess player Gary Kasparov. For this reason, it is appropriate to look eastwards.

Anger of the western imperialists at collapse of oil deal

The campaign against Russia began with the arrest of Chodorkovski. Rainer Rupp in the “Junge Welt”: “The vehemence of the vicious propaganda campaign against Putin reflects the anger of the western imperialists that he thwarted their plans to acquire Russian raw materials cheaply. Ever since Putin prevented the fraudster and Yukos boss Michail Chodorkovski from selling the oilfields grabbed by the overnight billionaire (roughly one half of the Russian oil reserves) to the west in a gigantic deal, the fronts have been clear. Following the wild privatisation orgies under US fan Boris Yeltsin, Putin has since taking power gradually returned the Russian resources to state control. The western imperialists are furious at this suppression of capitalist ‘human rights’, and so they take every opportunity to sell Chodorkovski and now Litvinenko to the western public as martyrs and victims of ‘Putin the Terrible’. ”(“Junge Welt”, 20.12.2006)

Neocon attack on Russia

On 28 September 2004 an open letter was published by 115 Europeans and Americans against Putin’s policies. The signatories included neocons, liberal imperialists and greens.1 In December 2004, Washington succeeded in making further progress in drawing a circle around Russia with the “Orange Revolution” in Kiev. On 12 August 2005, the then director for Russia and ­Foreign Programmes of the Carnegie Foundation (Carnegie Endowment for Internatio­nal Peace), Anders Aslund (who also signed the open letter of 28 September 2004) a report entitled “Putin’s Decline and America’s Response”. This sets out recommendations for the US administration basically suggesting that the US should finance a further revo­lution, this time in Russia. “The US should insist on effective international monitoring of elections. … The best monitors have proven to be nongovernmental organisations. … The US can assist in setting up indepen­dent exit polls for elections. The most effective protests in the region have been those led by student activist organisations such as Otpor in Serbia, Kmara in Georgia, Subr in Belarus and Pora in the Ukraine. Their techniques are well-known and can and should be disseminated in Russia.”2 The neocon ideologist Robert Kagan (cofounder of the neo­con central organ Weekly Standard and of the Project for the New American Century) is, incidentally, employed at the Brussels office of the Carnegie Foundation (one of the financiers of NGOs). Kagan’s wife Victoria Nuland was deputy advisor for national security in the office of Vice President Cheney from 2003 to 2005, and has been US ambassador to the Nato since 2005. Her official biography states: “A career Foreign Service Of­ficer, she was Principal Deputy National Security Advisor to Vice President Cheney from July 2003 until May 2005 where she worked on the full range of global issues, including the promotion of democracy and security in Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Lebanon and the broader Middle East.”3

Russian support for US interests

In November 2005, the US Congress approved four million dollar in the 2006 budget for the development of political parties in Russia. It’s hardly surprising in the light of this decision and the Aslund report that the Russian Duma adopted a new law on im­proving the monitoring of NGO activities at the end of 2005.
Aslund identified the former prime minister Michail Kasyanov as his ideal candidate for a leading role in the movement against Putin. Kasyanov, a man with excellent contacts to Yeltsin and oligarchs such as Bere­sovski and Chodorkovski’s deputy Leonid Nevzlin, was prime minister from January 2000 to February 2004. In 2005 he announced that he intended to stand in the presi­dential elections in 2008. Kasyanov founded his own party, the Popular Democratic Union, and formed an alliance with the United Popular Front of the former world chess champion Gary Kasparov. The Heinrich-Böll Foundation, generally ­favourable to the anti-Putin opposition, wrote about Kasyanov: “In the eyes of most people, his image continues to be closely linked with the economic crisis and corruption of the Yeltsin presidency.”4
Gary Kasparov (who describes himself as a “Russian citizen and cosmopolitan”) is the only personality in the pro-west anti-Putin opposition who enjoys nationwide popularity. Most liberal politicians did everything they could to make themselves unpopular during the Yeltsin era. In contrast, Kasparov, born in 1963 in Baku on the Caspian Sea as Garik Weinstein, is only known as a chess genius. Kasparov, who in 2004 predicted the inevitability of a crisis in the system in the Ukraine in 2006, has his own political organisations with the “All Russian Civic Congress” and the “United Civic Front”. The liberal politician Irina Chakamada, presidential candidate in 2004, is also a member of the Civic Congress. In the meantime, the leaders of the established liberal parties – the Union of Right Forces (SPS) and the Yabloko Party (under Grigori Yavlinski) – have not shown any inclination to acknowledge Kasparov as their new leader. Instead, Kasparov has other comrades.

Kasparov – US citizen and member of neocon think tanks

Kasparov, who holds both US and Russian nationality, urged the exclusion of Russia from the G8 summit on 16 December 2006. Similar demands had previously been raised by the neocon “Prince of Darkness” Richard Perle and the neocons’ favourite sena­tors Jon McCain and Joseph Lieberman. On 2 December 2006, Kasparov published an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Chessboard Endgame. Obsessed with Iraq, we’ve lost sight of the rest of the world” (the “we” means the USA).5 In it, Kasparov urged Washington to take a harder line against Russia, and on the Iraq war said “However, if you attack Iraq, the potential to go after Iran and Syria must also be on the table.” – the same war propaganda as can be heard from Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, William Kristol or Frank Gaffney.
Kasparov is allied with the neocons not only in ideology but also in organisational terms. He is a member of the National Security Advisory Council (NSAC) of the mili­tarist think tank Center for Security Policy (CSP) led by Frank Gaffney (protégé of Richard Perle). The Council’s members include politicians, neocon intellectuals, former govern­ment officials, retired generals and admirals (most of them no doubt linked to the mili­tary and industrial complex by consultancy contracts), and representatives of the armaments industry. Its honorary chairmen are the Republican Senator Jon Kyl (a friend of the Christian right) and James Woolsey (2002 to 2005 chairman of the board of the “human rights organisation” Freedom House, Vice president of consultants Booz Allen Hamilton [one of the largest government contractors], proponent of the “4th World War”, head of the CIA from 1993 to 1995.6 As head of Freedom House, Woolsey had been one of the men behind the Orange Revolution.

Manipulators of the “revolutions” in Belgrade, Tiflis und Kiev

Shortly before the G8 summit, Kasparov and Kasyanov organised an anti-Putin conference in Moscow under the name Drugaya Rossia (Other Russia), attended by western diplomats and representatives of well-known western organisations (Council on Foreign Relations, National Endowment for Democracy, Project on Transitional Democracies, Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, Carnegie Foundation etc.). Bruce Jackson of the Project on Transitional Democracies (one of the most important figures in the neocon and militarist networks and, like Kasparov, a member of the National Security Advisory Council at the CSP) organised an address of solidarity by western personalities for the conference.7 The conference was sponsored by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED, a “private” organisation financed from the US budget, as independent of the US government as the Comintern was of the Soviet Union) and by the Soros Foundation. Both bodies were supporters of the “revolutions” in Belgrade, Tiflis und Kiev. The conference was attended by neither the leaders of Jabloko and the Union of Right Forces nor those of Syuganow’s Communist Party of the Russian Federation. Instead there came the leader of the National Bolshevist Party of Russia (NBP), Edward Limonov (whose party flag recalls that of the Nazis, except that the white circle in the red flag contains not a swastika but a hammer and sickle), and anti-semites such as Victor Anpilov of the Stalinist Trudovaya Rossia or Sergei Glazev (former chairman of the Rodina Party). This variegated crowd indicates the desperate situation of Kasparov, Kasyanov and their western supporters. Men like Bruce Jackson, Richard Holbrooke from the Council on Foreign Relations, Carl Gershman from the National Endowment for Democracy or Reinhard Bütikofer from the Greens, who participated in the conference, would in better days certainly never have sat at the same table as Limonov or Anpilov. Limonov’s National Bolshevists (who use provocation to attract the necessary publicity) were responsible for the stewards at the conference and intoned their favourite chant “Stalin-Beria-Gulag”.

March of the political valuta prostitutes

A comprehensive alliance spanning from Kasparow to Limonow and Anpilow was brought about by the Druggaja Rossija Conference, albeit without the Alliance of the right-wing forces or Jawlinskis Jabloko. The Kasparow-Kasjanow-Limonow-Anpilow-­Alliance (Wladimir Ryshkow from the small Republican Party of Russia also joined in) organized the “March of the Discontented.” With barely 2,000 participants it was cordoned off by 8,000 members of the Security Forces. Members of the Russian Youth Movement organized a counter protest march. They displayed a banner reading: “We greet the March of the Valuta Prostitutes”. They also used other means in their attempt to disrupt the march.  National Bolsheviks, who at the end of the rally, in violation of police regulations, tried to march through the city center, were arrested. The rally, which was to take place from 12 noon until 2 p.m., lasted exactly one hour, i.e. from 12.30 until 1.30.
The Western Media raised their voices against the huge police presence and the arrests made on December 16th.  We should remind ourselves that Liminow’s National Bolshevik Party was often referred to as the neo-nazi or extreme right-wing party in the German Media, and that Liminow’s supporters seeking to  draw attention to themselves, indulged in militant activities and used ­methods familiar to the western neo-nazi scene, as well as to the so-called auto­nomous group scene.  In addition, Liminow as well as Anpilow campaigned for resorting to violence to overthrow the government.
Were the autonomous block, the neo-nazis, or the Stalinists to join forces in Germany, how would the government react? Having asked this questions, it needs to be answered.

Prevent import of rotten fruit

The campaign against Chodorkowski by the Russian government was at that time an effective blow. Kasparow’s big campaign on the other hand was a flop, and the crisis he prophe­sized for 2006 didn’t come about. Wladimir Putin’s political agenda underlies the national interest of his country. The majority of Russians are aware of this, and for this reason they stand behind their president.
Since Putin came to power, the Russian economy has continued to improve. Unemployment figures are lower than in Germany.
Wages and salaries are increasing, and in contrast to the Jelzin era, they are paid out. The oil fields as well as the gas supplies are once more under Russian ownership, and in other strategically important branches of the national economy the state has strengthe­ned its position. Agricultural land is under Russian ownership and can only be leased. It cannot be purchased by companies. Russia has modern weapons and has freed itself of foreign debt. Furthermore, it has a considerable amount of reserve assets. The Kremlin doesn’t adhere to Washington’s demands in foreign affairs issues, it pursues its own interests. Russia doesn’t need “democratizing” by the US or EU-NGOs.
A “democracy” according to the aims of The National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House, George Soros, various Think Tanks, or the German political parties trust funds would give criminal oligarchs and western banks and large corporations the freedom to plunder Russia and its people.
The Russians already experienced that type of “democracy” under Jelzin. If Washington fails to force Russia to change its political course, Kasparow and Kasjanow, together with their western supporters, will make further attempts to destabilize Russia’s undertakings. They can rest assured their attempts will meet the approval of the green do-gooders in Germany.
The oranges in the Ukraine have proved to be foul fruit and it would be wise for Russia’s political leaders in charge of national security issues if they could prevent the import of this type of foul fruit.


1    An Open Letter to the Heads of State and Government of the European Union and Nato, http://www.newamericancentury.org/russia-20040928.htm
2    http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/pb41.aslund.FINAL1.pdf
3    Source: Biography, Victoria Nuland, United States Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato), http://nato.usmission.gov/Bio/Ambassador_Nuland.htm
4    http://www.boell.de/downloads/jahresberichte2006/Pol_Jb_Russland_2005_2006.pdf 
5    http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009331
6    List of members of the National Security Advisory Council at the CSP: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=static&page=nsac,
List of former members who held government offices under George W. Bush http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=static&page=nsac-gvtsvc
7    An Open Letter to the G-7-Leaders “The Other Russia”, http://www.charter97.org/eng/news/2006/07/18/leader, List of forthcoming participants of the conference “Drugaja Rossija”, http://www.theotherrussia.ru/eng/list/. See also: Justin Raimondo: Russia’s Fifth Column. An unnatural alliance: Russian ‚liberals, commies, and neo-Nazis unite against Putin, antiwar.com/justin/
Source: www.berlinerumschau.com, 21 december 2006

Different Tools to Promote “Democracy”

The United States gives high priority to helping democracy and human rights advocates in Europe and Eurasia succeed and consolidate their successes. The United States continued to engage governments of the region toward this end, often with other democratic allies and in multilateral forums, and employed a variety of tools to deliver tangible support to democracy and human rights efforts in 2006. These tools included training for officials, media, democratic parties, and NGO advocates; monitoring of elections and criminal justice proceedings; capacity building of civil society groups and government structures; and technical and legal assistance, grants, and exchanges. […] , elections were an intensive focus of U.S. support during the past year. The United States promoted democratic political processes and the administration of fairly-contested elections by, for example, supporting political party development in Belarus, empowering voters‘ groups – including women ­activists and youth – in Serbia, and assisting international election monitoring efforts in Ukraine. In preparation for Armenia’s elections in 2007 and 2008, the U.S. supported efforts to improve election systems, update voter lists, educate the public on voting and democratic principles, and strengthen political parties. The United States is providing similar support, through political party training, training for mass media representatives on covering political issues, and voter education initiatives, in support of free and fair elections in Russia for the Duma in December 2007 and for president in March 2008.[…] The United States also provided technical assistance and grant support to Russian civil society groups, NGO resource centers, think tanks, labor unions, and watchdog organizations to sustain their active participation in society.

Source: Extract from Europe and Eurasia in Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record 2006, released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor of the U.S. Department of State, April 5, 2007

NGOs as a Device for Foreign States

Wladimir Putin:  In Russia, the non-governmental organizations are in operation. Indeed we have introduced a new governmental system for them. There is little difference between our system and that in place in other countries. For the time being we have had no comment from the non-governmental organizations themselves. We actually didn’t refuse anyone permission to register. There were two or three cases with formal issues, and these non-governmental organizations are working on correcting their byelaws etc. When it came down to it, nobody was rejected. Everyone is contributing and will also continue to do so.
What are our major concerns? I can tell you and I believe it’s easy to comprehend. If these non-governmental organizations are basically financed by foreign governments, we view this as a device for foreign powers to impose their political agenda on our country. That’s the first thing. Secondly, there are rules and regulations in every country for the financing of an election campaign. Via the non-governmental organizations, the financing comes from government sources in foreign countries.
How does this work? Is this a normal democracy in any way?
It’s a latent type of financing, concealed from society. What is democratic about it? Can you answer that question? No. You can’t. And you will never find an ­answer. Because this isn’t democracy, but the influencing of one state by another.
We are interested for the people of Russia to take care of their own interests, and for them to criticize the authorities and to help find their mistakes, and to rectify political policies according to the interest of the people. That is, without doubt, our goal.
And we will support the Russian people and the non-governmental organizations.

Source: The Discussion following Putin’s speech at the Security Conference in Munich on the 10th February 2007.
Translated by Novosti, published 14 February, 2007

The US-American Revolution-Limited Liability Company

Almost unanimously, the world paid homage to the rebellion of a young East European nation that not only wanted to free itself of the shackles of its own tyrants and exploiters, but above all, it also wanted to break free from the Putin lobby interfering in its affairs.
It’s nothing short of a miracle that night after night this huge gathering remained steadfast and strong in their attempt to bring their noble ideals to the forefront, despite having to contend with inadequate food supplies and bitterly cold temperatures.
Surprisingly, Western TV cameras avoided filming the 1500 heated tents, where warm meals were distributed free of charge. Reporters were reluctant to mention the dubious, if not shady activities involved, including bribery, in the time and effort required to raise money. Money which in turn was used to strengthen the backbone of the organized frenzy.
Deprived of this type of background information, it was many months before newspaper readers, not to mention TV viewers, were informed by way of detailed and exemplary reports in renowned newspapers about the schemes of the American donation organizations – institutes, foundations and government bodies who made no attempt to conceal their subversive meddling.  
At this point in time, information was also brought to light on what Spiegel magazine termed Revolutions Ltd., an international squad deployed by the US Secret Service to dispose of “uncooperative” regimes.

Source: Peter Scholl-Latour, Russland im Zangengriff, Putins Imperium zwischen Nato, China und Islam, p.386