In terms of safety, how does Sputnik V’s stack up against Pfizer’s shot and other mRNA vaccines? It’s difficult to say. Russia does not have a VAERS-like database for reporting suspected adverse events among the general public. In fact,there is no regularly updated, publicly available data on any post-vaccination complications in Russia. It seems the Russian government’s position is that they do not exist. But doctors and lawmakers tell a different story, one supported by an informal database of suspected vaccine-linked deaths. Undeterred, authorities have compared these concerned citizens to “terrorists” and are now threatening “anti-vax” doctors with fines and even prison time, in essence making any medical professional who questions the vaccine a suspected criminal in the eyes of the Russian government.
SOME people like Jews and some do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.
Disraeli, the Jew Prime Minister of England, and Leader of the Conservative Party, who was always true to his race and proud of his origin, said on a well-known occasion: “The Lord deals with the nations as the nations deal with the Jews.” Certainly when we look at the miserable state of Russia, where of all countries in the world the Jews were the most cruelly treated, and contrast it with the fortunes of our own country, which seems to have been so providentially preserved amid the awful perils of these times, we must admit that nothing that has since happened in the history of the world has falsified the truth of Disraeli’s confident assertion.
Good and Bad Jews
The conflict between good and evil which proceeds unceasingly in the breast of man nowhere reaches such an intensity as in the Jewish race. The dual nature of mankind is nowhere more strongly or more terribly exemplified. We owe to the Jews in the Christian revelation a system of ethics which, even if it were entirely separated from the supernatural, would be incomparably the most precious possession of mankind, worth in fact the fruits of all other wisdom and learning put together. On that system and by that faith there has been built out of the wreck of the Roman Empire the whole of our existing civilization.
And it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested, would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical.
There can be no greater mistake than to attribute to each individual a recognizable share in the qualities which make up the national character. There are all sorts of men — good, bad and, for the most part, indifferent — in every country, and in every race. Nothing is more wrong than to deny to an individual, on account of race or origin, his right to be judged on his personal merits and conduct. In a people of peculiar genius like the Jews, contrasts are more vivid, the extremes are more widely separated, the resulting consequences are more decisive.
At the present fateful period there are three main lines of political conception among the Jews. two of which are helpful and hopeful in a very high degree to humanity, and the third absolutely destructive.
First there are the Jews who, dwelling in every country throughout the world, identify themselves with that country, enter into its national life and, while adhering faithfully to their own religion, regard themselves as citizens in the fullest sense of the State which has received them. Such a Jew living in England would say, “I am an English man practising the Jewish faith.” This is a worthy conception, and useful in the highest degree. We in Great Britain well know that during the great struggle the influence of what may be called the “National Jews” in many lands was cast preponderatingly on the side of the Allies; and in our own Army Jewish soldiers have played a most distinguished part, some rising to the command of armies, others winning the Victoria Cross for valour.
The National Russian Jews, in spite of the disabilities under which they have suffered, have managed to play an honorable and useful part in the national life even of Russia. As bankers and industrialists they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia’s economic resources, and they were foremost in the creation of those remarkable organizations, the Russian Co-operative Societies. In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholder of friendship with France and Great Britain.
In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.
There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews, it is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd) or of Krassin or Radek — all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.
‘Protector of the Jews’
Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people. Wherever General Denikin’s authority could reach, protection was always accorded to the Jewish population, and strenuous efforts were made by his officers to prevent reprisals and to punish those guilty of them. So much was this the case that the Petlurist propaganda against General Denikin denounced him as the Protector of the Jews. The Misses Healy, nieces of Mr. Tim Healy, in relating their personal experiences in Kieff, have declared that to their knowledge on more than one occasion officers who committed offenses against Jews were reduced to the ranks and sent out of the city to the front. But the hordes of brigands by whom the whole. vast expanse of the Russian Empire is becoming infested do not hesitate to gratify their lust for blood and for revenge at the expense of the innocent Jewish population whenever an opportunity occurs. The brigand Makhno, the hordes of Petlura and of Gregorieff, who signalized their every success by the most brutal massacres, everywhere found among the half-stupefied, half-infuriated population an eager response to anti-Semitism in its worst and foulest forms.
The fact that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship are excepted by the Bolsheviks from their universal hostility has tended more and more to associate the Jewish race in Russia with the villainies, which are now being perpetrated. This is an injustice on millions of helpless people, most of whom are themselves sufferers from the revolutionary regime. It becomes, therefore, specially important to foster and develop any strongly-marked Jewish movement which leads directly away from these fatal associations. And it is here that Zionism has such a deep significance for the whole world at the present time.
A Home for the Jews
Zionism offers the third sphere to the political conceptions of the Jewish race. In violent contrast to international communism, it presents to the Jew a national idea of a commanding character. it has fallen to the British Government, as the result of the conquest of Palestine, to have the opportunity and the responsibility of securing for the Jewish race all over the world a home and centre of national life. The statesmanship and historic sense of Mr. Balfour were prompt to seize this opportunity. Declarations have now been made which have irrevocably decided the policy of Great Britain. The fiery energies of Dr. Weissmann, the leader, for practical purposes, of the Zionist project. backed by many of the most prominent British Jews, and supported by the full authority of Lord Allenby, are all directed to achieving the success of this inspiring movement.
Of course, Palestine is far too small to accommodate more than a fraction of the Jewish race, nor do the majority of national Jews wish to go there. But if, as may well happen, there should be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown, which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event would have occurred in the history of the world which would, from every point of view, be beneficial, and would be especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire.
Zionism has already become a factor in the political convulsions of Russia, as a powerful competing influence in Bolshevik circles with the international communistic system. Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally, and Dr. Weissmann in particular. The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes of a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal. The struggle which is now beginning between the Zionist and Bolshevik Jews is little less than a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.
Duty of Loyal Jews
It is particularly important in these circumstances that the national Jews in every country who are loyal to the land of their adoption should come forward on every occasion, as many of them in England have already done, and take a prominent part in every measure for combating the Bolshevik conspiracy. In this way they will be able to vindicate the honor of the Jewish name and make it clear to all the world that the Bolshevik movement is not a Jewish movement, but is repudiated vehemently by the great mass of the Jewish race.
But a negative resistance to Bolshevism in any field is not enough. Positive and practicable alternatives are needed in the moral as well as in the social sphere; and in building up with the utmost possible rapidity a Jewish national centre in Palestine which may become not only a refuge to the oppressed from the unhappy lands of Central Europe, but which will also be a symbol of Jewish unity and the temple of Jewish glory, a task is presented on which many blessings rest.
As we saw earlier, since the times of Alexander II, the Tsars opposed the creation of a central bank by the Rothschilds; as it happened in England (Bank of England) and France (Bank of France), of which the Rothschilds were the major shareholders.  From that moment on, the Romanov family would suffer a series of… “accidents”.
Alexander II would be the first. After many failed assassination attempts (of which the first came in 1866; just three years after the dispute with the Rothschilds over the American Civil War), in 1881, three men awaited between the crowds for Alexander’s royal carriage from Manezh. The first man threw a bomb at the carriage; which was bulletproof. Alexander was unhurt, but he abandoned the carriage due to the explosion. At that time, the second man threw another bomb at Alexander’s feet. This time he was hit; and he fell on the street bleeding to death, with his legs torn away, his stomach ripped open, and his face mutilated. A third man would be detained minutes after, carrying a third bomb; which was not necessary; Alexander II died that same night. All three detainees belonged to the Narodnaya Volya party,  which already carried seven assassination attempts until that date.  One of the members of that organisation was a young man by the name of Aleksandr Ulyanov; he was the older brother of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (best known as Lenin),  who would later be financed by Jacob Schiff, through Trotsky, not only to start the revolution, but for quite a few years more after it was over. 
Alexander III succeeded to the throne that same year, and the Jews were blamed for the assassination; which caused an anti-Semitic wave throughout Russia, to which the new Tsar added stronger anti-Semitic policies. Aleksandr Ulyanov also attempted to assassinate Alexander III, for which he was sentenced to death and hanged in 1887. Alexander III died in 1894 due to kidney failure, which was later linked to the blunt trauma suffered at the Borki train disaster of 1888.  And there wouldn’t be anything unusual about Alexander’s death; if it wasn’t for the fact that the Borki train disaster consisted in a roof from one of the cars (casually the royal car) falling down exactly over the Tsar and injuring him; while no one else from his family was hurt. None of the three investigations carried out agreed on the direct cause of the crash.  Though, it seems that the Rothschilds were the ones that financed the Russian railroad network.  Nicholas II succeeded to the throne after Alexander III died.
But there is far more to this story. Alfonse de Rothschild was investing in Russian oil, which in the 1860s was already emerging as the European rival to the American monopoly of Standard Oil (owned by Rockefeller). In the early 1880s the Rothschild family had nearly two hundred refineries at work in Baku, Russia’s oil rich region. Though, by the mid 1880s the Baku-Batum railroad proved to be inadequate to transport the volume of oil produced. Another route was needed, and came in the form of the recently opened Suez Canal. Palestine was suddenly of interest to the Rothschilds as it provided access to the Suez Canal.  Benjamin Disraeli (Prime Minister of Britain) turned to the Rothschilds for the cash advance needed to buy shares in the Suez Canal Company. 
At the same time, Tsar Nicholas II instituted more anti-Semitic pogroms and discrimination against Jews; and many emigrated. The British Rothschilds were very concerned with this wave of Jewish immigrants into Western Europe and Britain. One potential solution considered to the problem of increased Jewish immigrants in Britain was to institute restrictions on immigration. However, this would likely backlash, in the sense that it would be viewed as comparable to expulsion. So, Edmond Rothschild began his personal campaign to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine in order to create a release valve for Jewish immigrants to put their political action behind a new cause, and to promote them emigrating to Palestine, and out of Western Europe.  His proposal for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine served major economic interests of the Rothschilds and of the British Empire, so, Rothschild bought the Suez Canal for the British, which was the primary transport route for Russian oil. Palestine, thus, would be a vital landmass as a protectorate for British and Rothschild imperial-economic interests. In 1895, the Rothschilds, then one of the world’s leading producers and distributors of oil, co-sign an agreement with America’s Standard Oil to divide up world markets. It never took effect, presumably because of the opposition of the Tsar Nicholas II.  And we all know what happened to the last Tsar: he was executed with all his family in 1918 by Lenin’s Bolsheviks; funded by the bankers.
The Brutal Murder of Tsar Nicholas II and his Family
The U.S. State Department published a three-volume report in 1931 stating that Jewish-owned German banks conspired to send large sums of money to Lenin, Trotsky, and other Bolshevik luminaries to overthrow the Tsar.
In the nineteenth century, the Tsar began to discover that Jews were fomenting revolution and began to establish policies in an attempt “to russify the Jews through conversionist assimilation.”
Historian Erich E. Haberer writes that this was largely forced assimilation, but Jewish scholar Benjamin Nathans seems to show that it was not forced; since the tsarist government wanted the Jews to integrate, they produced a number of academic programs that would be suitable to Jews. One of them was the university, “the setting in which selective Jewish integration achieved its most dramatic success.”
When the Tsar was governing Russia, Jacob Schiff plotted against the government, supplied millions of dollars to the Japanese to overthrow the Russian government, and called Russia “the enemy of all mankind.” Incredibly, Paul Johnson only mentions the idea that a number of Jews, including Jacob Schiff, sought to overthrow the Tsar’s government, and on another occasion mentions Schiff in a positive light.
Instead, Johnson tells us that during the tsarist government, “Everything was done to prevent Jews getting to university.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, the tsars were against subversive movements, in which revolutionary Jews played a major role. But they were not so much interested in marginalizing all the Jews in Russia, otherwise they would not have adopted programs for assimilation. Johnson’s History of the Jews seems to confirm this point; he writes that in Poland, Hungary, and Romania in the 1920s,
“The local Communist Parties had been largely created and run by Non-Jewish Jews…Jewish Bolsheviks were numerous in the Cheka (secret police), as commissars, tax inspectors and bureaucrats. They took a leading part in the raiding parties organized by Lenin and Trotsky to gouge grain out of hoarding peasants. All these activities made them hated.”
Leon Blum wrote in 1901 that “the collective impulse” of the Jews “leads them towards revolution; their critical powers drive them to destroy every idea, every traditional form which does not agree with the facts or cannot be justified by reason.”
Well, the fear that Jewish revolutionaries would want to usurp Russia’s traditional values had always been a concern of the tsars—not because the tsars were inherently anti-Semitic, but because the traditional government in Russia, which was built on the Western intellectual tradition, despised subversive activities such as Communism and Marxism.
Jews were about four percent of the Russian population at the turn of the twentieth century, yet they not only dominated the Russian Revolution but initiated the movement. Johnson writes, “It is true that Jews were prominent in the Bolshevik party, in the top echelons as well as among the rank and file: 15-20 percent of the delegates were Jewish.” He moves on to say,
“One list showed that, of thirty-one top Soviet leaders, all but Lenin were Jews [Johnson’s book came out in 1987; later documents revealed that Lenin was also a Jew]; another analyzed the members of the Petrograd Soviet, showing that only sixteen out of 388 were Russians, the rest being Jews, of whom 265 came from New York’s East Side. A third document showed that the decision to overthrow the Tsar’s government was actually taken on 14 February 1916 by a group of New York Jews including the millionaire Jacob Schiff.”
Yet Johnson plays down this involvement by saying that “these were Non-Jewish Jews.”191 Referring to the Revolution in an essay entitled “The Relentless Cult of Novelty,” Alexander Solzhenitsyn called it “the most physically destructive revolution of the 20th century” that sought “to sweep away all religions or ethical codes, to tear down, overthrow, and trample all existing traditional culture.” Jewish historian Steven Beller said,
“It is well known that the leadership of the socialist party in Austria before and after the First World War was heavily Jewish. This was also the case for the group of theorists collectively known as the Austro-Marxists, the most interesting group of political theorists to emerge from the liberal bourgeoisie in Vienna. Of the major theorists in Austro-Marxism only Karl Renner was not of Jewish descent.”
This is also true of those who conspired against the tsarist government. In fact, the U.S. State Department published a three-volume report in 1931 stating that Jewish-owned German banks conspired to send large sums of money to Lenin, Trotsky, and other Bolshevik luminaries to overthrow the Tsar.
Jewish financiers such as Jacob Schiff in the United States and Max and Paul Warburg in Germany poured millions of dollars into the Bolshevik movement. Schiff is said to have given $20 million dollars to the regime—a sum equivalent to billions of dollars today. Even The Jewish Encyclopedia calls communism and socialism Jewish phenomena.
The culmination of all this is the death of Tsar Nicholas II. This is where Michael Walsh’s in-depth analysis comes in.
Michael Walsh: Across Russia’s vast eleven time zones Church bells toll as the nation evokes the centennial of the horrific and senseless slaughter of Nicholas II, Tsar of Imperial Russia, his wife, their five beautiful children, and staff. Dubbed Azrael’s abattoir the ritualistic and racist nature of their family’s diabolical end is marked in countless ways in every village and city.
Before the outbreak of the 1914 ~ 1918 war Warsaw shops patronised by the Jewish community furtively sold greeting cards the message of which would be lost on most Gentiles. Each greeting card carried the image of the tzadik. This image depicts a Talmudic Jew with Torah in one hand and a white fowl in the other. The bird’s head is a facsimile of Imperial Russia’s Tsar Nicholas II. Below this image is the inscription in Hebrew: “This is a sacrificial animal so is my cleansing; it will be my replacement and cleansing the victim.”
This message relates to the Yom Kippur atonement ritual in which the live sacrifice is swung about the head before being slaughtered by the shechita method; the creature’s blood being drained. This greeting card is a copy of American (Jewish) greeting cards first discovered in the United States in 2007.
The ritual slaughter of Tsar Nicholas II was the dream of many Jews. This curiosity is dismissed by palace media as being due to the Tsar’s alleged anti-Semitism. In fact, his anti-Semitism was hardly unique; many heads of state were outspoken in their criticism of the Jewish community.
Upon their being arrested the revolutionary Yakov Sverdlov ordered the slaughter of Tsar Nicholas II, his entire family, and all assistants. Regicide was a cherished ambition for this Jewish revolutionary. This is proven by the text of leaflets written by Yakov Sverdlov. These were published May 19, 1905, a date that marks the birthday of Nicholas II. The text on the leaflets: “Struck your hour, the last hour of you and all yours! This is a terrible judgment, the revolution is coming!”
The decision to massacre Russia’s Imperial family was taken by the Ural authorities. The decision is consistent with the stated demands of Yakov Sverdlov, Chairman of the Central Executive Committee of Soviets of Workers ‘and Soldiers’ Deputies.
The massacre’s organisers and accompanying guards were militants involved in the organisation of the future Communist party, R.S.D.L.P. Its 1905 genesis was in the Urals, when the group was under the direction of Yakov Sverdlov. At the time of the slaughter, the aforementioned were the main participants in the massacre of the Romanovs.
Long before the Wall Street-inspired 1917 coup that delivered Tsarist Russia to mostly American corporate interests, Yakov Sverdlov and Bolshevik insurrectionists served prison sentences or were otherwise exiled in Siberia. Militant Yakov Sverdlov was exiled to Turukhansk as was Josef Stalin, Julius Martov (Tsederbaum), and Aron Solts.
The malevolent Yakov Sverdlov gathered around him the most aggressive and ruthless elements of this loose-knit association of brigands. Yakov Sverdlov was reputed to be pathologically sadistic. Such were the gratuitous cruelties inflicted on those he regarded as expendable that even fellow party members already accustomed to extreme violence were appalled.
On the eve of the 1905 Revolution and during his exile Sverdlov formed an organisation known as The Battle Squad of the People Weapons (BONV). This sinister terrorist group slaughtered indiscriminately in ways that would make today’s ISIS terrorists appear docile by comparison. The band’s victims included anyone thought to be in the pay or sympathetic towards Tsarist Russia.
The victims of Yakov Sverdlov and his band of brigands: Slaughtered at Ipatiev house. 1st row: Nicholas II and his family (Olga, Maria, Tsar Nicholas II, Tsarina Alexandra, Anastasia, Alexei, and Tatiana), surgeon to Tsar Eugene Botkin and Royal chef Ivan Kharitonov, maid Anna Demidova and the Tsar’s valet Colonel Alexei Trupp.
The band increased its wealth following constant attacks on banks, post offices, cash desks, trains and shops. “They were desperate murderers” writes Eduard Hlystalov who describes the marauders leader as ‘the frail bespectacled Yakov Sverdlov.’
Philippe (Shaya-Isay Fram) Goloshchyokin, personal and plenipotentiary ambassador of Yakov Sverdlov, dealt with all the gang’s organisation detail. The Ural region was soon to become Yakov Sverdlov’s personal fiefdom. The revolutionary placed those he considered loyal to him in government positions throughout the Urals region.
‘Under the protection of the Tsar’s personal bodyguards, the train carrying the soon to be martyred family departed Tobolsk on April 26, 1918, to arrive in Tyumen during the evening of April 27. On April 30 the train from Tyumen arrived in Yekaterinburg, where Vasily Yakovlev signed over a delivery of the Imperial couple and their daughter Maria to the Head of Ural Council Alexander Beloborodov.
As the Bolsheviks increased their hold on Russia confidence was such that it was decided that the children, the ill Alexei and his sisters Olga, Tatiana and Anastasia were to re-join their mother, father, and sister Maria in Yekaterinburg. The children left Tobolsk in May 1918. Tsarevich Alexei and his three sisters arrived in Yekaterinburg on 23 May 1918, accompanied by a group of servants and officials of the royal retinue.
On July 16, 1918, the day before the massacre, there arrived in Yekaterinburg a special train consisting of a locomotive and a single passenger carriage. The few other passengers included one person in the black attire of a Jewish rabbi with his face disguised. The rabbi was greeted by Shaya Isaakovich Goloshchekin and accorded with maximum respect as might a visiting dignitary. The rabbi was accompanied by protection of six soldiers. Upon being directed to the basement of Ipatiev house the rabbi traced cabalistic signs on the wall: “The Tsar sacrificed, the kingdom destroyed! About this notifies all peoples.”
Leading executioners of the Imperial family whose Jewish names appear in brackets. Left to right: Top (Yankel Solomon Movshevich Sverdlov) Yakov Sverdlov, Philippe Goloshchyokin (Shaya-Isay Fram Goloshchekin) and Pyotr Voykov (Pinhus Wainer). Bottom row: Alexander Georgievich Beloborodov (Vaisbart Yankel Isidorovich), Konstantin Myachin (Vasily Yakovlev) and Georgy Safarov (Voldin).
Yakov Yurovsky supervised the Imperial family’s assassination. He was responsible for administering the coup de grâce and afterwards searching the bodies. Pyotr Voykov (Pinhus Wainer) took part in the shooting and assisted in carrying out the coup by bayoneting their victims. Later, he was delegated to destroy the family’s remains by a combination of dismemberment and the use of sulphuric acid.
The scrawled writing was afterwards found on the walls of the room in which the Imperial family was slaughtered. These were translated and transcribed by German-Jewish poet Heinrich Heine (1797-1856). The lines appear on the wall which the Imperial family had their backs to whilst being gunned down. There was also writing discovered near the basement window of Ipatiev House.
Belsatzar ward in selbiger Nacht / Von seinen Knechten umgebracht or in English ‘Belsatzar was, on the same night, killed by his slaves.’
In the Old Testament story, the King of the Gentiles, Belshazzar, saw ‘the writing on the wall’ foretelling his destruction (Daniel 5) and he was killed as punishment for his offenses against Israel’s God.
In a clever play on the original Heine quotation the unknown writer, almost certainly one of the killers, substituted Belsatzar for Heine’s spelling Belsazar, in order to signal even more clearly his intended symbolism. The Heine inscription described the racial / ethnic nature of the murders: ‘A Gentile king had just been killed as an act of Jewish retribution.’
According to the guard’s recollection, the Empress and Grand Duchess Olga with others during the massacre made a vain attempt at crossing themselves. Yakov Yurovsky reportedly raised his gun at Nicholas’s torso and fired; the Tsar fell dead after which his killer shot the schoolboy son of the Tsar and Tsarina.
An assortment of killers then began shooting chaotically until all the intended victims had fallen. Several more shots were fired and the doors were then opened to disperse the smoke and fumes. A few of the martyrs survived the carnage. These unfortunates were stabbed to death with bayonets by Peter Ermakov. It was necessary for him and others to use bayonets as with the doors now open there was a need to keep the noise of the carnage muted.
The last martyrs to die were Tatiana, Anastasia, and Maria. Between them, the sisters were carrying a little over 1.3 kilograms of diamonds sewn into their clothing. This had given them a degree of protection from the gunshots. These young women and girls were bayoneted to death.
Olga sustained a gunshot wound to the head. Maria and Anastasia were said to have crouched up against a wall covering their heads in terror until they were shot down. The Jewish revolutionary Yakov Yurovsky personally killed Tatiana and Alexei. Tatiana died from a single bullet through the back of her head. Alexei received two bullets to the head, one behind the ear after the executioners realised he had not been killed by the first shot. Anna Demidova, Alexandra’s maid, survived the initial onslaught but was stabbed to death against the back wall while trying to defend herself with a small pillow that was filled with precious gems and jewels.
While the bodies were being placed on stretchers, one of the girls, possibly Anastasia, cried out and covered her face with her arm. Ermakov grabbed Alexander Strekotin’s rifle and bayoneted her in the chest. When it failed to penetrate the young woman’s torso he pulled out his revolver and shot her in the head.
Some of Pavel Medvedev’s stretcher bearers had by now begun to rifle through the victims’ clothes for valuables. On seeing such activity Yakov Yurovsky demanded that they surrender looted items or be shot.
In the hasty burial of the bodies, several jewels like these topazes were overlooked by Yurovsky’s murderers and eventually recovered by White Army investigator Nikolai Sokolov in 1919
The attempt to completely destroy the Imperial family’s remains began the following day. This operation was assisted by Yakov Yurovsky and carried out under the direction of Pyotr Voykov (Pinhus Wainer). The occasion was supervised also by Goloshchyokin and Beloborodov.
Pyotr Voykov recalled that dreadful scene with an involuntary shudder. He said that when this work was completed the dismembered cadavers were thrown down a forest mine. Upon this appalling scene of carnage was poured gasoline and sulphuric acid. In a vain attempt to destroy all evidence of the massacre the parts were afterwards allowed to burn for two days.
Pyotr Voykov afterwards recounted: “It was a terrible picture. We, the participants of the burning corpses were downright depressed about this nightmare. Even Yurovsky, in the end, could not resist and said that even those few days and he would have gone mad.” (Besedovsky G. Z. ‘On the Road to Thermidor’ M., 1997. S.111-116).
Soon after the massacre, Yekaterinburg was liberated by the White Armies. An aim of the liberating armies was to discover the mystery of the Imperial Russian family’s disappearance. To carry out his investigations the White Army’s delegated investigator, Nikolai Sokolov dressed as a peasant in order that he drew as little attention to himself as possible. It was at this point that the reward for the assassination of the Imperial family posted by Wall Street banker Jacob Schiff was settled. Jacob Schiff (1847~1920) is the Jewish-American banker whose financial clout funded the 1904 ~ 1905 Japanese in war against Tsarist Russia. Schiff’s apologists and palace historians say the banker’s generosity was on account of the alleged anti-Semitism of Tsar Nicholas II.
On the basis of the material brought before it the White Army’s official investigator Nikolai Sokolov drew the following conclusions: ‘the corpses were brought to the mine under the cover of darkness in the early morning of July 17, 1918. Clothing was roughly cut (damage is found on buttons, hooks, and eyes). The corpses were then dismembered and completely destroyed by fire and sulphuric acid.
At the same time, the bodies of those executed were heated with fat added to by lead from bullets. To explain the later finding of jewels Nikolai Sokolov explained that according to the testimony of the witness Tyegleva the Grand Duchess secretly sewed jewelry in her clothing. The princesses had also secreted gems in their apparel, some of which went unnoticed during the disposal of the family’s remains.
When the mine shaft was later excavated there were discovered much jewelry. From the torn brassieres a rain of pearls and precious stones cascaded. Some jewelry, mostly earrings, and pendants lay unnoticed in the surrounding grass. Despite the discovery of the jewelry the executioners and body disposal team worked quickly to finish their work with their paying attention to individual items. Witnesses reported the movement of cars and trucks, carts and riders near Ganina Yama 15 km north of Yekaterinburg. This area during the period July 17 to 19, 1918 was cordoned off by Red Guards. Nikolai Sokolov writes that during these days were also heard grenade explosions.
Ganina Yama (Ganya’s Pit or Ganina hole). Investigator Nikolai Sokolov at the site of a bonfire. Nikolai Sokolov devoted his life to collecting documents and evidence relating to the murder of the Romanovs.
Nikolai Sokolov later managed to find two orders drawn up by Pyotr Voykov on July 17, 1918. These orders had been placed with a local drugstore named Russian Society. Each order bore the requirement to issue employee Commissariat Zimin with sulphuric acid. The first order was for 5lbs with 3lbs more placed in the second jar. In total, Zimin was issued 11lbs of sulphuric acid for which was paid 196 roubles and 50 kopecks. According to Nikolai Sokolov, the sulphuric acid was delivered to the mine on 17 and 18 July.
At the mine itself traces of two large fires were discovered. Here, dozens of objects have since been discovered that relate to the murdered Imperial family. Many items were burned or otherwise destroyed. Nothing was spared of the Tsar’s family; even their pet dogs were slaughtered.
Nikolai Sokolov. To carry out his investigations the Nikolai Sokolov dressed in peasant in order that he draws as little attention to himself as possible.
Following the massacre of the Imperial family, the German-born Jacob Schiff celebrated the funding of the 1917 Bolshevik coup which had brought about regime change in Russia. Schiff had personally underwritten a substantial reward for the murder of the Russian royal family.
This Jewish banker’s investment funded a tyranny which, at the time of its collapse in 1990, is estimated to have directly or indirectly led to a loss of life estimated between 70 and 100 million mostly European Christians. Thus, Jacob Schiff appears to have achieved the dubious distinction of being the biggest killer in the history of humankind.
On the night of the New York celebrations a letter penned by the banker was read out to the ecstatic attendees.: “Will you say for me to those present at tonight’s meeting how deeply I regret my inability to celebrate with the Friends of Russian Freedom the actual reward of what we hoped for and striven for these long years.” ~ Jacob Schiff, New York bankers, ‘Kuhn, Loeb & Co. Quote: New York Times, March 24. 1917.
From this point on the insurrection was to continue until 1922. Soon after the expulsion of the White Armies corporate America and Europe moved in to plunder the assets of the nation that was before the coup Imperial Russia.
Yekaterinburg bore the name of Sverdlovsk from 1924 to 1991. The street and Ipatiev House where the Imperial family was placed under house arrest before their slaughter was renamed Sverdlov Street. In this grim building, Imperial Russian Emperor Nicholas II, his family and members of his household staff, were massacred. In 1991 a decision was made that this city’s name be returned to its original name of Yekaterinburg.
The Russian President Vladimir Putin during his tenure has atoned for the crimes carried out by the Bolsheviks. Throughout the Russian Federation now appear monuments dedicated to the memory of the Gulag network of slave camps. Ipatiev House was razed to the ground during the Soviet period in 1977. Since, on the ruins of the demolished house, stands Yekaterinburg’s Church of the Blood Cathedral.
In addition to the cathedral the Church of St. Nicholas (the Tsar has since been canonised) has been built at the Romanov Monastery. This holy place of pilgrimage is situated close to where the Tsar and his family’s remains were discovered at Ganina Yama.
About Author: Michael Walsh, an international journalist and broadcaster, was voted Writer of the Year by the Euro Weekly News Group of Newspapers. The author of 48 book titles, Walsh was the leader of the British Movement from 1968 to 1984. He now lives in Spain. Some of his books include Witness to History, Life in the Reich, Ransacking the Reich, The Red Brigands, Slaughter of a Dynasty, etc
 Erich E. Haberer, Jews and Revolution in Nineteeth-Century Russia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 9.  Benjamin Nathans, Beyond the Pale: Jewish Encounter with Late Imperial Russia (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002), 201-202.  Naomi Wiener Cohen, Jacob H. Schiff: A Study in American Jewish Leadership (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 1999), 38.  Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (New York: Harper Perennial, 1987), 459.  Ibid., 369.  Ibid., 424.  Ibid., 451-452, 452-53.  Ibid., 458.  Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 204), 105.  Johnson, A History of the Jews, 459.  Alexander Solzhenitsyn, “The Relentless Cult of Novelty,” Catholic Education Resource Center.  Steven Beller, Vienna and the Jews, 1867-1938: A Cultural History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 17.  http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/forrel.asp.  See Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy (Cutchogue, NY: Buccaneer Books, 1976).  Cyrus Adler and Isidore Singer, ed., The Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Funk-Wagnalls, 1901-1906), 583-585.
Two destinies are pulling on West Asia from two opposing visions of the future.
As devotees of the rules-based order laid out by Zbigniew Brzezinski 40 years ago strive to uphold their dystopic model of dividing populations to feed endless wars, a more optimistic program of cooperation is being ushered in by China’s ever-evolving Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
While many nations have jumped on board this new paradigm with enthusiastic support, others have found themselves precariously straddling both worlds.
Turkey plays footsie with great powers
Chief among those indecisive nations is the Republic of Turkey, whose leader was given a harsh wake up call on 15 July, 2016. It was on this date that Russian intelligence provided Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan the edge needed to narrowly avoid a coup launched by followers of exiled Islamist leader Fetullah Gulen.
The timing of the coup has been subject to much speculation, but the fact that it occurred just two weeks after Erdogan’s letter of apology to Putin went public was likely not a coincidence. The apology in question referred to Turkey’s decision to shoot down a Russian fighter jet flying in Syrian airspace in November 2015, killing a soldier and very nearly activating NATO’s collective security pact.
For years instrumental in providing weapons and logistical support to ISIS in both Iraq and Syria (via Operation Timber Sycamore), it is possible Erdogan was tiring of being used to further western interests in the Levant, when it had its own, quite different, aspirations in those territories.
Whatever the case, since that fateful day, Turkey’s behavior as a player in West Asia took on an improved (though not entirely redeemed) character on a number of levels. Chief among those positive behavioral changes is Ankara’s participation in the Astana process with Tehran and Moscow to demilitarize large swathes of Syria. Turkey then purchased Russian S400 medium-long range missile defense systems, and has recently advanced plans to jointly produce submarines, jet engines and warships with Russia, while also accelerating the construction of a nuclear reactor built by Rosatom.
That said, old habits die hard, and Turkey has been caught playing in both worlds, providing continued support for the terrorist-laden Free Syrian Army and Al Qaeda offshoot Hayat Tahrir Al Sham in Syria’s Idlib governorate. Turkey now has a total of 60 military bases and observation posts that provide protection for these and other militant groups in the country’s north.
The Middle Corridor option
On an economic level, Turkey’s ambition to become a gateway between Europe and Asia along the New Silk Road also indicates Erdogan’s resolution to break from his previous commitments to join the European Union and engage more intricately with the East.
Turkey’s 7500 km Trans-Caspian East-West Middle Corridor is an ambitious project that runs parallel to the northern corridor of the BRI connecting China to Europe.
This corridor, which began running in November 2019, has the benefit of cutting nearly 2000 km of distance off the active northern corridor and provides an efficient route between China and Europe. The route itself moves goods from the north-eastern Lianyungang Port in China through Xinjiang into Kazakhstan, the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey and on to Europe via land and sea routes. Erdogan has previously stated that “the Middle Corridor lies at the heart of the BRI” and has called to “integrate the Middle Corridor into the BRI.”
Other projects that are subsumed by the Middle Corridor include the $20 billion Istanbul Canal which will be a 45km connection between the Black and Marmara Seas (reducing traffic on the Bosporus) as well as the Marmara undersea railway, Eurasian Tunnel, and the third Istanbul Bridge.
Without China’s increased involvement, not only will these projects fail to take shape, but the Middle Corridor itself would crumble into oblivion. Chinese trade with Turkey recently grew from $2 billion in 2002 to $26 billion in 2020, more than 1,000 Chinese companies have investment projects throughout the nation, and Chinese consortiums hold a 65 percent stake in Turkey’s third largest port.
Restraining Ankara’s options
These projects have not come without a fight from both internal forces within Turkey and external ones. Two major Turkish opposition parties have threatened to cancel the Canal Istanbul as a tactic to scare away potential investors at home and abroad. And internationally, financial warfare has been unleashed against Turkey’s economy on numerous levels.
Credit ratings agencies have downgraded Turkey to a ‘high risk’ nation, and sanctions have been launched by the US and EU. These acts have contributed to international investors pulling out from Turkish government bonds (a quarter of all bonds were held by foreign investors in 2009, collapsing to less than 4 percent today) and depriving the nation of vital productive credit to build infrastructure. These attacks have also resulted in the biggest Turkish banks stating they will not provide any funding to the megaproject.
Despite the fact that Chinese investments into Turkey have increased significantly, western Financial Direct Investments (FDIs) have fallen from $12.18 billion in 2009 to only $6.67 billion in 2021.
Dialing down its Uyghur project
As with Turkey’s relations with Russia, Erdogan’s desperate need to collaborate with China in the financial realm has resulted in a change of policy in his support for Uyghur extremists. Of the 13 million Chinese Uyghurs, 50,000 live in Turkey, many of whom are part of a larger CIA-funded operation aimed at carving up China.
For many years, Turkey has provided safe haven to terrorist groups like the East Turkmenistan Islamic Movement, which cut its teeth fighting alongside ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Operatives affiliated with the World Uyghur Congress, funded by the US National Endowment for Democracy and based in Germany, have also found fertile soil in Turkey.
In 2009, Erdogan publicly denounced China for conducting a genocide on Muslims living in Xinjiang (long before it became de rigueur to do so in western nations). After Turkey’s 2016 failed coup, things began to change. In 2017, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu stated: “We will absolutely not allow in any activities in Turkey that target or oppose China. Additionally, we will take measures to eliminate any media reports targeting China.”
There are many parallels to Turkey’s protection of radical Islamic groups in Idlib, but Ankara’s protection of radical anti-China Uyghur groups was more gradual. However, recent significant moves by Erdogan have demonstrated good faith, including the 2017 extradition treaty signed with China (ratified by Beijing though not yet by Ankara), an increased clampdown on Uyghur extremist groups, and the decision to re-instate the exclusion order banning World Uyghur Congress president Dolkun Isa from entering Turkey on 19 September, 2021.
Might the INSTC bypass Ankara?
Not only is Turkey eager to play a role in China’s BRI and secure essential long term credit from Beijing – without which its future will be locked to the much diminished fortunes of the European Union – but Ankara has also factored the growing International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC) into its calculus.
A multimodal corridor stretching across a dozen nations, the INSTC was launched by Russia, India and Iran in 2002 and has been given new life by China’s BRI. In recent years, members of the project have grown to also include Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Ukraine, Syria, Belarus, Oman and Bulgaria.
While Turkey is a member of the project, there is no guarantee that the megaproject will directly move through its borders. Here too, Erdogan is keen to stay on good terms with Russia and its allies.
The Middle Corridor loses its shine Up until now, Turkey’s inability to break with zero-sum thinking has resulted in the self-delusion that Turkey’s Middle Corridor would be the only possible choice China had to move goods through to Europe and North Africa.
This perception was for many years buoyed by the war across the ISIS-ridden region of Syria and Iraq (and the relative isolation of Iran), which appeared to ensure that no competing development corridor could be activated.
However, Iran’s entry into the BRI as part of its 25-year Comprehensive Strategic Partnership struck with China in March, and its ascension to full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in September, has provided an attractive new east-west alternative route to the Middle Corridor.
This potential branch of the New Silk Road connecting China with Europe via Iran, Iraq and Syria into the Mediterranean through Syria’s port of Latakia provides a unique opportunity to not only reconstruct the war-torn West Asian nations, but to also create a durable field of stability after decades of western manipulation.
This new route has the additional attraction of incorporating Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and other Arab states into a new strategic dynamic that connects Eurasia with an African continent desperate for real development. As of this writing, 40 sub-Saharan African nations have signed onto China’s BRI.
The first glimmering light of this new corridor took form in a small but game-changing 30 km rail line connecting the border city of Shalamcheh in Iran with Basra in Iraq. Work began this year, with its $150 million cost supplied by the semi-private Mostazan Foundation of Iran.
Foreseeing a much larger expansion of this historic connection, Iran’s ambassador to Iraq stated: “Iraq can be connected to China through the railways of Iran and increase its strategic importance in the region … this will be a very big change and Iran’s railways will be connected to Iraq and Syria and to the Mediterranean.”
Ambassador Masjidi was here referring to the provisional agreement reached among Iran, Iraq and Syria in November 2018 to build a 1570 km railway and highway from the Persian Gulf in Iran to the Latakia Port via Iraq.
Already, Iran’s construction-focused investments in war-torn and sanction-torn Syria have grown immensely, boosting estimated trade between the two nations with an additional $1 billion over the next 12 months.
Indicating the higher development dynamic that is shaping the Iraq–Iran railway, Iraq’s Prime Minister stated in May 2021 that “negotiations with Iran to build a railway between Basra and Shalamcheh have reached their final stages and we have signed 15 agreements and memorandums of understanding with Jordan and Egypt regarding energy and transportation lines.”
Indeed, both Egypt and Jordan have also looked east for the only pathway to durable peace in the form of the New Silk Road. The trio of Egypt, Jordan and Iraq began setting the stage for this Silk Road route with a 2017 energy agreement designed to connect the electricity grids of the three nations and also construct a pipeline from Basra to Aqaba in Jordan followed by a larger extension to Egypt.
Iraq and the New Silk Road In December 2020, Iraq and Egypt agreed on an important oil for reconstruction deal along the lines of a similar program activated earlier by former Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul Mahdi and his Chinese counterpart in September 2019. The latter project was seriously downgraded when Mahdi stepped down in May 2020, and although PM Mustafa Al-Kadhimi has begun to repair Chinese relations, Iraq has not yet returned to the level of cooperation reached by his predecessor.
To date, the only major power that has shown any genuine concern for Iraq’s reconstruction – and been willing to invest actual resources toward it – has been China.
Despite the trillions of dollars wasted by the United States in its brutal invasion and occupation of the country, not a single energy project has been built by US dollars there. In fact, the only power plant constructed after 2003 has been the Chinese-built 2450 mW thermal plant in Wassit which supplies 20 percent of Iraq’s electricity. Iraq requires at least 19 GW of electricity in order to supply its basic needs after years of western bombardment strategically targeting its vital infrastructure.
To this day, hardly any domestic manufacturing exists in Iraq, with 97 percent of its needs purchased from abroad, and entirely with oil revenue. If this dire situation is to be reversed, then China’s oil-for-construction plan must be brought fully back online.
The kernel of this plan involves a special fund which will accumulate sales of discounted Iraqi oil to China until a $1.5 billion threshold is reached. When this happens, Chinese state banks have agreed to add an additional $8.5 billion, bringing the fund to $10 billion to be used on a full reconstruction program driven by roads, rail, water treatment, and energy grids, as well as soft infrastructure like schools and healthcare.
Where the western economic models have tended to keep nations underdeveloped by emphasizing raw material extraction with no long-term investments that benefit its citizenry, creating no manufacturing capabilities or an increase in the powers of labor, the Chinese-model is entirely different, focusing instead on creating full spectrum economies. Where the former is zero sum and a closed system, the latter model is win-win and open.
If Turkey can find the sense to liberate itself from the obsolete logic of zero sum geopolitics, then a bright future will await all of West and Central Asia.
There is no reason to believe that the Middle Corridor will in any way be harmed by the success of an Iran–Iraq–Syria Silk Road corridor, or by its African extensions. By encouraging the development of collaborative relations, large scale infrastructure, and full-spectrum economic networks, abundance can be created in these regions to offset the underdevelopment and stagnation of recent years.
The Inquiry, which included Walter Lippmann as well, met to assemble the strategy for the postwar world. According to The Anglo-American Establishment by Carroll Quigley, Col. House, along with Walter Lippmann, J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie, were all members of the Round Table. Like his son, J.P. Morgan Jr., J.P. Morgan belonged to the American branch of the Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem (SOSJ), part of the Russian Tradition of the Knights Hospitaller, which evolved from the Knights of Malta. In 1893, the Russian Ambassador to the United States, Prince Cantacuzene, Russian Admiral Grand Duke Alexander Michaelovich (1866 – 1933) and Russian Transportation Commissioner Colonel A. Cherep Spiridovich (1867 – 1926), the former head of the Okhrana, who wrote a biography of Rasputin, introduced the Russian SOSJ White Cross at the Chicago World’s Fair to American civic leaders. The Grand Duke was the son of Grand Duke Michael Nikolaevich of Russia, the youngest son of Nicholas I of Russia, and Grand Duchess Olga Feodorovna. Grand Duke Alexander directed the assassination of the spiritualist monk Gregori Rasputin in late 1916. The men directly involved in the murder of Rasputin were the Grand Duke’s sons, son-in-law, cousin and a member of British MI6.
The SOSJ was legitimately continued outside of Russia by Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich of Russia (1876 – 1938), son of the Russian SOSJ Grand Prior, Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich of Russia (1847 – 1909). Kirill was the legal heir to the Russian throne as he was third in line behind the heir of Russia’s last Tsar, Nicholas II. Kirill was the son of Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich of Russia, a grandson of Emperor Alexander II and a first cousin of Nicholas II. Kirill married his paternal first cousin, the granddaughter of Queen Victoria, Princess Victoria Melita of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Their granddaughter, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, is the current claimant to the headship of the House of Romanov.
Grand Duke Kirill assisted Richard Teller Crane of Chicago with plans to organize the American White Cross in New York City. Richard Teller Crane I (1832 – 1912) was the founder of R.T. Crane & Bro., a Chicago-based manufacturer, later Crane Co.. He was also a member of the famous Jekyll Island Club (aka The Millionaires Club) on Jekyll Island, Georgia, whose members came from many of the world’s wealthiest families, most notably the Morgans, Rockefellers, and Vanderbilts.
The American White Cross was designed for intelligence gathering operations. In 1901, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) headquartered in Rome, and Cardinal Gibbons, announced that an American Grand Priory would be started solely for the American Catholic members of a fraternal organization called the “Knights of St. John” which had been started about 1880 in imitation of the old order. In 1904, the American White Cross First Aid Society was started in Chicago by civic leader Mrs. Potter Palmer, Roman Catholic Cardinal Gibbons, the industrialist Andrew Carnegie, representatives of the U.S. Army and Edward Howe, formerly the American Red Cross Field Superintendent. A similar arrangement existed in England between the Venerable Order of St. John of Jerusalem and the British Red Cross.
An early and prominent member of the American White Cross was Wall Street lawyer William Nelson Cromwell (1854 – 1948). Future CIA chief Allen Dulles would later work for the law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell, founded in 1879 by Cromwell and Algernon Sydney, which gained renown for its business and commercial law practices and its impact on international affairs. The firm advised John Pierpont Morgan during the creation of Edison General Electric (1882) and later guided key players in the formation of U.S. Steel (1901). American Grand Priory leaders, Nicholas Murray Butler, President of Columbia University, Archer Huntington, founder of the Hispanic Society of America, William Nelson Cromwell, Wall Street lawyer and Francis C. Nicholas, founder of the American International Academy, are among those who crafted the American Grand Priory into an intelligence organization. Some results of their careers include the founding of the Republic of Panama and the successful purchase and construction of the Panama Canal. They were also responsible for the founding of the Pan-American “Organization of American States” and directly influenced the founders of the Central Intelligence Agency. Cromwell was responsible for the success of, among many other projects, McCormick Harvester, Carnegie’s U.S. Steel Corporation and the Panama Canal. He became Grand Prior of the American SOSJ in 1912.
An epidemic of political assassinations and the abortive Russian Revolution of 1905 prompted the expansion of the Order into the United States. In 1905, Count Alexis Ignatiev, Commander of the SOSJ Chevalier Guards, was assassinated in Russia. Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich was also assassinated. These events hastened the development of a permanent presence of the Knights of St. John in America. Cherep Spiridovich, President, was among the coordinators of this expansion. The American Grand Priory also had a history of cooperation with members of the monarchist and anti-Semitic Russian Black Hundred’s Movement due to their association with Cherep Spiridovich. As an intelligence operative, he was handled by the Russian Ambassador to the U. S., Baron Rosen.
In 1909, Grand Duke Vladimir was assassinated in Russia, and his son, Grand Duke Kirill, thereby became Grand Prior of the SOSJ Russian Grand Priory. William Nelson Cromwell became American Grand Prior in 1912, and meetings thereafter were usually held at his offices in the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. The name of the hotel is ultimately derived from the town of Walldorf in Germany, the ancestral home of the prominent German-American Astor family who originated there. Others prominent in the OSJ at this time included John Jacob Astor until his death on the Titanic, J.P. Morgan, his son J.P Morgan, Jr. and the extended Cornelius Vanderbilt and Chicago Crane families. The Chicago Crane family affiliation with the White Cross eventually led, in 1941, to their daughter Frances’ marriage to OSJ Hereditary Knight Commander Belosselsky-Belozersky, in New York City. Charles R. Crane, son of R.T. Crane, became a philanthropist, diplomat, and, unfortunately, a financial supporter of the first Russian revolution of 1917.
The American Grand Priory leaders were mostly socially prominent Protestant Episcopalians from New York City and Chicago. There was also a small group of American descendants of Catholic Jacobites, who were still followers of the old Stuart Pretender to the throne of England and Scotland. The Pretender at the time was Queen Mary IV of Bavaria (1849 – 1919), and an army physician and OSJ member Edgar Erskine Hume was among those who later considered Mary’s successor, Bavarian Crown Prince Rupprecht (1869 – 1955), as his “rightful sovereign.” The American Grand Prior, William Nelson Cromwell, and Dr. Francis C. Nicholas had had contact with Spanish Knights of St. John during years of preparation work for the American Panama Canal project. Interaction with the Spanish knights was also the result of Americans meeting Spanish knights during the Spanish-American War from 1898 to 1900, and later during the Mexican civil wars. The remnant Castellany of Guadalajara, Mexico, of the Spanish Order of St. John the Baptist joined the American Grand Priory with their monarchist Pretender, Don Agustin Yturbide. King Alphonso XIII of Spain was the protector of the remnants of the Spanish Order which was given a papal blessing as late as 1879. He expanded his association to the SOSJ in America.
According to SOSJ’s own history, “The American Grand Priory was peopled with the scions of Wall Street and the ‘Eastern Establishment.’ These men and women, many of them active or reserve officers in the military, worked with the fledgling western military intelligence communities and made the Grand Priory the first civilian foreign intelligence organization in the United States.” As a result of the “success” of SOSJ international ventures, President Wilson and Col. House had created “The Inquiry” at the American Grand Priory headquarters on upper Broadway in New York City in 1917, which became the internationalist advisory Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in 1921.
From the book, Ordo ab Chao, by David Livingstone.
Blaming cyber attacks on governments has become routine, but has it resulted in accountability, punishment, or reduction in hostile cyber activities?
In the ongoing cyber tete-a-tete between nation states, the digital domain has been used to conduct an array of operations including network exploitation, data theft, network disruption, and network destruction. Additionally, states have used the cyber domain and the tools therein (e.g., social media, chat rooms, bulletin boards, blogs) to enable other more traditional operations of statecraft such as propaganda, disinformation, and social/political influence operations. Long considered difficult to attribute, governments are more confident in publicly identifying the states they believe are responsible for covert cyber activities against them. In an effort to strengthen such claims, levying legal indictments against the individuals responsible—often foreign nationals with a direct tie to a government or a military—has become popular. The United States in particular has engaged in this practice, executing indictments for cyber activities since 2014 against state actors with direct or tangential ties to foreign governments.
The tactic seemed practical at first, bringing formal charges against suspected government actors, and by extension, implicating that government for supporting, or at least, giving tacit approval of, the activities. The May 2014 indictment against five actors tied to the People’s Liberation Army appears to have had direct influence in China and the United States agreeing not to not to hack each other for commercial advantage in 2015. For a brief period after, this seemed to work with a noticeable reduction in the volume of Chinese theft of intellectual property. However, this was short lived with China allegedly resuming normal level of cyber operations in 2018.
Still, proponents of the indictment strategy have pointed out that an important gain was made—persuading China to curb its previous levels of data theft; in essence, the indictment appeared to have influenced a state’s cyber behavior. While it did not last, it could be argued that even the momentary success suggested that the approach was viable and just needed adjustment for to accomplish strategic deterrence. After all, shortly after the 2014 China-U.S. agreement was made, China entered into similar understanding with Russia in 2015, and ultimately led the G20 (including China) to make a comparable arrangement in November 2015. Many G20 nations were among those that China had also targeted via its global cyber espionage and intellectual property theft operations.
Unsurprisingly, these agreements have not deterred commercial cyber theft, nor more traditional cyber espionage activities, particularly from China that likely views industrial cyber theft a national security imperative for the country’s continued economic development. As long as China sees economic strength as essential to its emergence as a global leader, supporting Chinese companies that are important to accomplishing this goal could be perceived as less about commercial advantage and more about preserving its national interests. This is an important nuance to keep in mind when understanding why China continues to do what it does. Countries finally began to see the futility in trying to make certain countries like China honor these agreements in 2019 when 27 governments signed a joint statement to advance responsible state behavior in cyberspace. Notably, neither China nor Russia were signatories.
Where diplomatic overtures have thus failed, the U.S. has resorted to indictments and has since levied them against official and non-official actors linked to Iran, North Korea, and Russia. As of this writing, these indictments have not yielded the obvious objective—state deterrence from conducting the crimes for which they have been charged. However, this raises the hopeful question—if deterrence wasn’t the primary objective, have indictments achieved what was truly intended? Certainly, indictments could be foils used to further other U.S. political or economic objectives. If so, their influence may not be readily seen as instrumental to achieving seemingly unrelated strategic goals.
Another likely objective is to get on record that a particular government is responsible for illicit cyber activity, thereby letting the world know of its culpability. This seems to be closer to the mark. Prior to May 2014, attribution made in public was mostly accusatory and based on speculation and suspicion, or at least without providing classified evidence to strengthen claims. Indictments have since changed that paradigm, purposefully made for global consumption and to make it clear who the charging state believes to be behind a specific incident. Since there is little hope that any of these individuals will be extradited to the United States, indictments seem less about arrest and prosecution and more about demonstrating capability to identify culprits by detailing their operations. Simply, punishment does not appear to be the primary motive.
Other states have now joined the public attribution bandwagon. In March 2020, Chinese computer security company Qihoo 360 reported that the CIA had been conducting an 11-year cyber espionage campaign against Chinese organizations and in April identified South Korean cyber espionage activity targeting Chinese health organizations for COVID-19 information. Qihoo 360 works closely with the Chinese government, which has prompted concerns with companies like Microsoft collaborating with the company. Although not an official arm of the Chinese government, its stature as a global cyber security leader and a primary supplier of security and monitoring equipment to the People’s Republic of China raises the question of how the company could be used as the voice for leadership. Iran, too, is no stranger to calling out perpetrators of cyber attacks, citing the United States and Israel for various cyber attacks. Even North Korea blamed the United States for knocking it off the Internet, after the former had accused North Korean hackers of attacking Sony in November 2014.
It remains to be seen if or when other foreign governments will step up to the next level and levy cyber indictments against other countries. It is likely that they will wait and see how the United States fares with this approach and if any favorable results are realized. The recent removal of two Russian companies from indictment set forth by special counsel Robert Mueller illustrates a potential impediment to indictment strategy, further raising the question of its effectiveness at deterring future cyber incidents by state and/or state-related entities. One of the companies challenged the charges, hiring a law firm to defend it, marking the first time a defendant has been willing to go to court on a cyber-related indictment. The potential threat of exposing classified information was one reason provided for this result. The fact that the charges were dropped may encourage other indicted individuals and entities to follow suit, potentially derailing the strategy, reducing it to an exercise in making formal attribution.
Cyber operations were once clandestine and mysterious; now, states are emboldened to pull back the curtain and sanitize them in the public spotlight. What remains consistent for now is that public attribution—whether via accusation, indictment, or naming and shaming—has done little to change state behavior, decrease volume of activity, or deter future activity. It’s clear that any one approach—whether it be a legal action, economic influence, a retaliatory strike, or diplomatic engagement—is not a silver bullet, and should not be done independently of each other if any progress is to be made in how cyber space is used for and against states. They must be done in concert and in proportion to the inciting incident, and with a quantifiable, reachable, goal in mind. Absent that, the stakes are not high enough to incite the change that’s often talked about but never done. Perhaps states should consider the fable of the shepherd boy who called wolf before making public attribution. Calling wolf frequently does not get the volume of support to stop the threat; rather, it numbs ears so that they don’t listen and ignore signs that that pack is closing in.
The last thing the complex, work-in-progress drive towards Eurasian integration needs at this stage is this messy affair between Iran and Azerbaijan in the South Caucasus.
Let’s start with the Conquerors of Khaybar – the largest Iranian military exercise in two decades held on its northwestern border with Azerbaijan.
Among the deployed Iranian military and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) units there are some serious players, such as the 21st Tabriz Infantry Division, the IRGC Ashura 31 battalion, the 65th Airborne Special Forces Brigade and an array of missile systems, including the Fateh-313 and Zulfiqar ballistic missiles with ranges of up to 700 kilometers.
The official explanation is that the drills are a warning to enemies plotting anything against the Islamic Republic.
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei pointedly tweeted that “those who are under the illusion of relying on others, think that they can provide their own security, should know that they will soon take a slap, they will regret this.”
The message was unmistakable: this was about Azerbaijan relying on Turkey and especially Israel for its security, and about Tel Aviv instrumentalizing Baku for an intel drive leading to interference in northern Iran.
Further elaboration by Iranian experts went as far as Israel eventually using military bases in Azerbaijan to strike at Iranian nuclear installations.
The reaction to the Iranian military exercise so far is a predictable Turkey–Azerbaijani response: they are conducting a joint drill in Nakhchivan throughout this week.
But were Iran’s concerns off the mark? A close security collaboration between Baku and Tel Aviv has been developing for years now. Azerbaijan today possesses Israeli drones and is cozy with both the CIA and the Turkish military. Throw in the recent trilateral military drills involving Azerbaijan, Turkey and Pakistan – these are developments bound to raise alarm bells in Tehran.
Baku, of course, spins it in a different manner: Our partnerships are not aimed at third countries.
So, essentially, while Tehran accuses Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev of making life easy for Takfiri terrorists and Zionists, Baku accuses Tehran of blindly supporting Armenia. Yes, the ghosts of the recent Karabakh war are all over the place.
As a matter of national security, Tehran simply cannot tolerate Israeli companies involved in the reconstruction of regions won in the war near the Iranian border: Fuzuli, Jabrayil, and Zangilan.
Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdullahian has tried to play it diplomatically: “Geopolitical issues around our borders are important for us. Azerbaijan is a dear neighbor to Iran and that’s why we don’t want it to be trapped between foreign terrorists who are turning their soil into a hotbed.”
As if this was not complicated enough, the heart of the matter – as with all things in Eurasia – actually revolves around economic connectivity.
An interconnected mess
Baku’s geoeconomic dreams are hefty: the capital city aims to position itself at the key crossroads of two of the most important Eurasian corridors: North-South and East-West.
And that’s where the Zangezur Corridor comes in – arguably essential for Baku to predominate over Iran’s East-West connectivity routes.
The corridor is intended to connect western Azerbaijan to the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic via Armenia, with roads and railways passing though the Zangezur region.
Zangezur is also essential for Iran to connect itself with Armenia, Russia, and further on down the road, to Europe.
China and India will also rely on Zangezur for trade, as the corridor provides a significant shortcut in distance. Considering large Asian cargo ships cannot sail the Caspian Sea, they usually waste precious weeks just to reach Russia.
An extra problem is that Baku has recently started harassing Iranian truckers in transit through these new annexed regions on their way to Armenia.
It didn’t have to be this way. This detailed essay shows how Azerbaijan and Iran are linked by “deep historical, cultural, religious, and ethno-linguistic ties,” and how the four northwestern Iranian provinces – Gilan, Ardabil, East Azerbaijan and West Azerbaijan – have “common geographical borders with both the main part of Azerbaijan and its exclave, the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic; they also have deep and close commonalities based on Islam and Shiism, as well as sharing the Azerbaijani culture and language. All this has provided the ground for closeness between the citizens of the regions on both sides of the border.”
During the Rouhani years, relations with Aliyev were actually quite good, including the Iran‑Azerbaijan‑Russia and Iran‑Azerbaijan‑Turkey trilateral cooperation.
A key connectivity at play ahead is the project of linking the Qazvin‑Rasht‑Astara railway in Iran to Azerbaijan: that’s part of the all-important International North‑South Transport Corridor (INSTC).
Geoeconomically, Azerbaijan is essential for the main railway that will eventually run from India to Russia. No only that; the Iran‑Azerbaijan‑Russia trilateral cooperation opens a direct road for Iran to fully connect with the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).
In an optimal scenario, Baku can even help Iranian ports in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman to connect to Georgian ports in the Black Sea.
The West is oblivious to the fact that virtually all sections of the INSTC are already working. Take, for instance, the exquisitely named Astara‑Astara railway connecting Iranian and Azerbaijani cities that share the same name. Or the Rasht‑Qazvin railway.
But then one important 130km stretch from Astara to Rasht, which is on the southern shore of the Caspian and is close to the Iranian–Azeri border, has not been built. The reason? Trump-era sanctions. That’s a graphic example of how much, in real-life practical terms, rides on a successful conclusion of the JCPOA talks in Vienna.
Who owns Zangezur?
Iran is positioned in a somewhat tricky patch along the southern periphery of the South Caucasus. The three major players in that hood are of course Iran, Russia, and Turkey. Iran borders the former Armenian – now Azeri – regions adjacent to Karabakh, including Zangilan, Jabrayil and Fuzuli.
It was clear that Iran’s flexibility on its northern border would be tied to the outcome of the Second Karabakh War. The northwestern border was a source of major concern, affecting the provinces of Ardabil and eastern Azerbaijan – which makes Tehran’s official position of supporting Azerbaijani over Armenian claims all the more confusing.
It is essential to remember that even in the Karabakh crisis in the early 1990s, Tehran recognized Nagorno‑Karabakh and the regions surrounding it as integral parts of Azerbaijan.
While both the CIA and Mossad appear oblivious to this recent regional history, it will never deter them from jumping into the fray to play Baku and Tehran against each other.
An extra complicating factor is that Zangezur is also mouth-watering from Ankara’s vantage point.
Arguably, Turkey’s neo-Ottoman President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who never shies away from an opportunity to expands his Turkic-Muslim strategic depth, is looking to use the Azeri connection in Zangezur to reach the Caspian, then Turkmenistan, all the way to Xinjiang, the Uyghur Muslim populated western territory of China. This, in theory, could become a sort of Turkish Silk Road bypassing Iran – with the ominous possibility of also being used as a rat line to export Takfiris from Idlib all the way to Afghanistan.
Tehran, meanwhile, is totally INSTC-driven, focusing on two railway lines to be rehabilitated and upgraded from the Soviet era. One is South-North, from Jolfa connecting to Nakhchivan and then onwards to Yerevan and Tblisi. The other is West-East, again from Jolfa to Nakhchivan, crossing southern Armenia, mainland Azerbaijan, all the way to Baku and then onward to Russia.
And there’s the rub. The Azeris interpret the tripartite document resolving the Karabakh war as giving them the right to establish the Zangezur corridor. The Armenians for their part dispute exactly which ‘corridor’ applies to each particular region. Before they clear up these ambiguities, all those elaborate Iranian and Tukish connectivity plans are effectively suspended.
The fact, though, remains that Azerbaijan is geoeconomically bound to become a key crossroads of trans-regional connectivity as soon as Armenia unblocks the construction of these transport corridors.
So which ‘win-win’ is it?
Will diplomacy win in the South Caucasus? It must. The problem is both Baku and Tehran frame it in terms of exercising their sovereignty – and don’t seem particularly predisposed to offer concessions.
Meanwhile, the usual suspects are having a ball exploiting those differences. War, though, is out of the question, either between Azerbaijan and Armenia or between Azerbaijan and Iran. Tehran is more than aware that in this case both Ankara and Tel Aviv would support Baku. It is easy to see who would profit from it.
As recently as April, in a conference in Baku, Aliyev stressed that “Azerbaijan, Turkey, Russia and Iran share the same approach to regional cooperation. The main area of concentration now is transportation, because it’s a situation which is called ‘win‑win.’ Everybody wins from that.”
And that brings us to the fact that if the current stalemate persists, the top victim will be the INSTC. In fact, everyone loses in terms of Eurasian integration, including India and Russia.
The Pakistan angle, floated by a few in hush-hush mode, is completely far-fetched. There’s no evidence Tehran would be supporting an anti-Taliban drive in Afghanistan just to undermine Pakistan’s ties with Azerbaijan and Turkey.
The Russia–China strategic partnership looks at the current South Caucasus juncture as unnecessary trouble, especially after the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit. This badly hurts their complementary Eurasian integration strategies – the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Greater Eurasian Partnership.
INSTC could, of course, go the trans-Caspian way and cut off Azerbaijan altogether. This is not likely though. China’s reaction, once again, will be the deciding factor. There could be more emphasis on the Persian corridor – from Xinjiang, via Pakistan and Afghanistan, to Iran. Or Beijing could equally bet on both East-West corridors, that is, bet on both Azerbaijan and Iran.
The bottom line is that neither Moscow nor Beijing wants this to fester. There will be serious diplomatic moves ahead, as they both know the only ones to profit will be the usual NATO-centric suspects, and the losers will be all the players who are seriously invested in Eurasian integration.
Nord Stream 2 is a $12 billion pipeline bringing the Arctic Russian gas under the Baltic Sea to Germany. Doesn’t seem that hot-button right. I mean, it’s a progressive initiative that is expected to double the Russian gas supply to Germany, Europe’s largest economy. It’s a little more complicated than that. The reality is that Russia already supplies 40% of the EU’s total gas supply – just behind Norway. The new pipeline is reportedly touted to increase that amount by as much as 55 billion cubic meters per annum. That project has thus permeated a prospect of EU’s dependence on Russia, majorly spearheaded by the Russian-arch-rival United States. Another hurdle is that the pipeline is effortlessly skipping Ukraine to supply gas to Germany. With the Moscow-Ukraine Transit agreement expiring in 2024, it is estimated that the pipeline would cost Kyiv an annual loss of $1.5 billion in transit fees. Thus, brewing geopolitical aggravation and monopolizing concerns misting Russia, the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline is much more complicated than I initially assumed; until I dabbled with each perspective in detail.
U.S. provocations in the East are likely to continue and only Beijing knows how much more it will take before there is an explosion.
In July there were senior representatives of the Washington Administration bouncing about the globe like a bunch of ping-pong balls, lecturing in one place, suborning in another and announcing everywhere that the U.S. wants a “Rules-Based International Order”, as Secretary of State Blinken told China last March.
Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin was one of the bouncing balls, and before arriving in Vietnam stopped off in Singapore where on July 27 he declared “We will not flinch when our interests are threatened. Yet we do not seek confrontation.” On the same day, the British aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth (18 U.S.-supplied problem-ridden F-35 strike aircraft, 8 of them British, 10 U.S. Marine Corps), arrived at Singapore en route for the South China Sea to confront any Chinese forces it might meet. (Certainly, the UK carrier group is a joke that could not fight its way out of a paper bag, but it’s the presence that is intended to send the message.) Next day, when Austin arrived in Vietnam, the guided-missile destroyer USS Benfold trailed its coat in the Taiwan Strait in what the U.S. Navy called a “routine” transit that “demonstrates the U.S. commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific.”
As can be seen on the site Marine Traffic, the Taiwan Strait is packed all day and night with transiting commercial ships from countless countries, and the right of passage is guaranteed. There is no need whatever for any U.S. guided missile destroyer to “demonstrate freedom and openness.” It was obvious that the Benfold — the seventh U.S. warship to transit the Strait so far this year — had been sent to attempt to provoke China to take action.
Washington has been open about its aggressive China policy, and the State Department’s official notification is that “Strategic competition is the frame through which the United States views its relationship with the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The United States will address its relationship with the PRC from a position of strength in which we work closely with our allies and partners to defend our interests and values.” The embrace of challenge could not be clearer, and the Defence Department fully agrees, declaring that U.S. National Defence Strategy is “To restore America’s competitive edge by blocking global rivals Russia and China from challenging the U.S. and our allies” and “To keep those rivals from throwing the current international order out of balance.” In other words, so far as Washington is concerned, U.S. global hegemony is here to stay because it is regarded as beneficial for the world — and above all for America.
But there are some countries that would disagree, including, quite understandably, the People’s Republic of China which objects to such condescending policy statements as “When it is in our interest, the United States will conduct results-oriented diplomacy with China on shared challenges such as climate change and global public health crises.” The world needs diplomacy, not tub-thumping policies that confine international negotiations to national interests, and it was regrettable that one of the bouncing balls visited China to deliver yet another lecture on how that country’s government should behave.
It had been hoped that the visit to China by Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman might open some doors to constructive dialogue, but such was not to be. On July 25-26, as the State Department later announced, “the Deputy Secretary and State Councillor Wang had a frank and open discussion about a range of issues, demonstrating the importance of maintaining open lines of communication between our two countries.” Ms Sherman, according to the State Department, “underscored that the United States welcomes the stiff competition between our countries . . .” but this sort of platitude is entirely at variance with the overall tenor of her presentation to State Councillor Wang and Vice Foreign Minister Xie Feng.
As reported by the New York Times, she was mega-critical of China on counts of alleged human rights abuses and “also raised China’s demands over Taiwan, its military operations in the South China Sea, and the accusations last week by the United States and other nations that China’s Ministry of State Security was behind the hacking of Microsoft email systems and possibly other cyberattacks.” She declared that “This is very serious — that the Ministry of State Security would assist criminals to hack Microsoft and potentially others,” adding that “many” countries had joined the United States in saying that “such behaviour is absolutely irresponsible, reckless and has no place in our world.”
Ms Sherman had of course been told what to say at the meeting, presumably approved at the highest level, and it is apparent that Washington had no intention whatever of engaging in meaningful dialogue but was intent on showering China with insults.
It is yet to be understood in Washington that insults, sanctions and aggressive military manoeuvres do not have positive effects on the nations against whom they are directed. They invariably result in anger, resentment and retaliation of some sort. It is as yet unknown for retaliation to take the form of direct military action, because Washington’s targets are generally so weak as to be incapable of such riposte, but in the case of modern China, U.S. pressure and Chinese strength are rising to the extent that this is now a distinct possibility.
On July 28 the newly-appointed Chinese ambassador to the U.S., Qin Gang, said he believes “the door of China-U.S. relations, which is already open, cannot be closed” but no matter Beijing’s good intentions there are many in Washington who want to slam that door because they are confident that the national policy of “blocking global rivals Russia and China from challenging the U.S. and our allies” will succeed.
But it won’t.
During the disastrous visit by Deputy Secretary Sherman to China, Vice Foreign Minister Xie Feng said bluntly that the Biden administration’s policies are nothing but a “thinly veiled attempt to contain and suppress China,” which was an extension of Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s cautionary statement that “The United States always wants to exert pressure on other countries by virtue of its own strength, thinking that it is superior to others. However, I would like to tell the U.S. side clearly that there has never been a country in this world that is superior to others, nor should there be, and China will not accept any country claiming to be superior to others. If the United States has not learned how to get along with other countries on an equal footing by now, then it is our responsibility, together with the international community, to give the U.S. a good tutorial in this regard.”
And if the U.S. does not moderate its policy of outright and usually arrogant confrontation in every sphere it is likely that the tutorial will begin very soon. Washington forgets that no matter how much some segments of the Chinese population may disagree with aspects of their government’s policies and performance, they are a proud people who strongly object to their country being insulted and treated as a maverick obstacle to world development. It seems that U.S. provocations in the East will continue and only Beijing knows how much more it will take before there is an explosion.
Target sectors: Multiple, including government, international financial organization, and aerospace and defense organizations, as well as high tech, construction and engineering, telecommunications, media, and insurance.
Overview: APT31 is a China-nexus cyber espionage actor focused on obtaining information that can provide the Chinese government and state-owned enterprises with political, economic, and military advantages.
In the modern world, a multipolar model is clearly taking shape – almost taking shape. It replaced the unipolarity that was marked after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and especially the USSR. And the unipolar world, in turn, replaced the bipolar one, in which the Soviet camp geopolitically and ideologically opposed the capitalist West. These transitions between different
It is difficult to conceive that all the elements of a perfect storm in the three central Balkans statelets have been planted fortuitously, without the guidance of a single strategic concept or operational centre.The outgoing “high commissioner” of Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia and Herzegovina Valentin Inzko’s Parthian shot threatens to unravel the restless raj he has haughtily ruled since 2009, amply rewarded for his generous efforts with an annual salary of half a million euros.For several years Inzko has been threatening to impose in Bosnia a “Srebrenica genocide denial” law, relying on his presumed prerogatives under the Dayton peace agreement, unless that is the local lawmakers got his hint and passed the prescribed law motu propio. But of course as a lawyer Inzko should be well aware that in conditions of coercion there can be no motu propio. That knowledge did not prevent him, however, precisely from the exercise of coercion just days before his heartily desired departure, as if he deliberately wanted the coda to his rule to symbolize the general lawlessness of his office ever since it was set up in 1996, supposedly as a temporary measure to facilitate peace and reconciliation in a strife riven land. In the event, the “temporary measure” making Bosnia a full-fledged NATO protectorate has been in effect for a quarter of a century, and with no end in sight, but with increasingly determined resistance by Security Council members Russia and China.Inzko’s decree was just another in a long train of routine humiliations for the supposedly independent and sovereign state of Bosnia and Herzegovina.Like all previous occupiers of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Inzko and his NATO brethren have found the Serb element a very hard nut to crack. In the present situation, the contentious issue is the foreign cabal’s insistence that Bosnian Serbs, whose political embodiment is one of the country’s two entities, the Republic of Srpska, humbly admit that they committed genocide on their Muslim neighbours in July of 1995. Either that, or stop denying that they did, which is practically the same thing. Except for some usual suspects from the ranks of local Western-financed NGOs few takers have been found, which infuriates the international overseers immensely. Moreover, due to Bosnia’s post-Dayton constitutional structure a “national interest” issue such as this cannot be given legislative effect without a consensus of all three constituent ethnic groups. Republic of Srpska’s determined opposition to the self-incriminating Srebrenica genocide denial initiative has effectively squashed all attempts to pass such a law using regular legislative procedures. That is when “high representative” Inzko stepped in to do the job.Pointedly, Milorad Dodik, the Serbian representative in Bosnia’s collective presidency, commented that the imposition of this law is the “final nail in the coffin” of the failed state of Bosnia. (He would have said “the final straw” had he been talking in English, which he does not speak.) He was obviously alluding to the title of a book by Bosnian Serb academic, Prof. Nenad Kecmanovic, “Bosnia, the impossible state,” which takes a very dim view of its subject’s viability.The principal points in the current controversy are the unreasonably long persistence of the office of the “high representative” in Bosnia (supposedly he “represents” the European Union, of which Bosnia is not even a member) and the actual extent of his powers.Putting and keeping their man on the vice-regal throne in Sarajevo (individual officials have changed over the last 25 years but the general political direction of their office has invariably remained the same) is invested with obvious geostrategic logic, which is to secure the empire’s Balkan rear for the Ostfront, when the time to open it is deemed ripe. In the meantime, by hook and by crook the empire and its local “high representatives” have pursued obstinately three single-minded goals. These are to dismantle the loose confederation agreed upon in Dayton in favor of a centralised state ruled by their satraps from Sarajevo, to incorporate Bosnia into the crumbling European Union, and to make it join the NATO alliance. A fundamental obstacle to the achievement of all those goals is an empowered Republic of Srpska, with its stubbornly retrograde population whose unanimous affections in their entirety flow in the opposite direction, to … well, you know who, but it is neither Brussels, London nor Washington.In that context, the actual powers under the Dayton peace agreement of the “high representative,” whose task is to make all the above happen, are a core issue. Those powers, it seems, have largely been based on an insolent bluff, the so-called “Bonn powers” supposedly delivered to the Bosnian viceroy at a meeting of Western Alliance officials in Germany in the late 90s, much akin to the fraudulent Donatio Constantini and other similar medieval swindles. The entire fraudulent scheme was debunked in detail and with great effectiveness by British academic John Laughland some time ago. But alas! Balkan politicians do not seem to have grasped Dr. Laughland’s memo because they are not very fluent in English. Besides, their not wholly unjustified inferiority complex makes them susceptible to the most preposterous claims, especially when they are delivered by stern Western officials in pin striped suits, to whose impertinent demands “Yes, bwana” is always the only possible answer.Inzko’s imposition in Bosnia of a country-wide Srebrenica genocide denial law, in clear defiance of the Serb half of the country, is already provoking exactly the sort of destabilising reactions that were probably envisaged by those who inspired it. There is talk of the Serb entity walking out of Bosnia and Herzegovina, not recognising the credentials of Inzko’s successor, not enforcing Inzko’s arbitrary decree on its territory, and so forth. In short, the planned exacerbation of Bosnia’s permanent crisis has so far been an outstanding success.Add to that the recent “Srebrenica denial” spat in neighbouring Montenegro which further undermined the already wobbly post-Djukanovic government and the campaign in Serbia, clearly inspired by Western services and their agents of influence, to further discredit the unsavoury current regime and nudge it closer to recognizing Kosovo secession in return for a let-up on the political pressure, and all the ingredients for a toxic Balkan brew have been assembled.A “Balkan Spring,” perhaps a bit late in the year, but probably welcome any time, may well be in the early implementation stage. It is difficult to conceive that all the elements of a perfect storm in the three central Balkans statelets have been planted fortuitously, without the guidance of a single strategic concept or operational centre.
By Alliance for Natural Health Global Research, July 11, 2021Alliance for Natural Health 7 July 2021 All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch. *** How a little-known rule could alter your […]
This is a story by the Guardian’s Moscow correspondent Andrew Roth about a police raid on some online journalists in Moscow. The journalists run a website called “project” (проект in Russian). They were planning to publish a story (and have now published) about the secret wealth of a government Minister. Previous stories have included an […]
The 19th century had robber barons. In this millennia we had this minor crime known as the 2008 financial crisis. The perpetrators went unpunished because of their friends in high places. Washington is run by the most clever and intelligent godfathers: sociopaths who are experts at hiding behind ethics in order to appear good and […]
Take a look at this new hashtag #nato2030 all over the massive worldwide, globalist think-tanks and foundations as they “define NATO’s role in 2030″…
Chatham House – New Ideas for NATO 2030
NATO has been a bedrock of security and stability for over 70 years. But today, it is facing an increasingly complex world full of new actors, threats and challenges. How can it guarantee that it will remain fit, united and adaptable in this new world? What hard decisions does it need to take to be fit for purpose in the next decade? In his first major policy speech of 2021, NATO Secretary-General, Jens Stoltenberg, outlines his vision for NATO to 2030 with recommendations from the NATO 2030 Young Leaders – a group he appointed to advise him on how the organization can meet the demands of a rapidly changing world. The event also features the culmination of a week-long policy hackathon that will see students from 10 universities ‘pitch for purpose’ on key strategic themes for NATO 2030: Turning the tide: NATO’s role in defending and re-shaping a values-based international order Full spectrum security: building resilience against economic security risks People first: protecting populations in modern-day conflicts Innovating innovation: next steps in technology cooperation Less is more: reducing military carbon emissions How will NATO continue to be a strategic anchor in uncertain times? How will it adapt to well-known threats such as terrorism and new risks that loom from pandemics and climate change particularly as emerging and disruptive technologies (EDTs) present both dangers and opportunities for its members? And what lessons can be drawn from NATO’s experience that can apply to other multilateral organizations?
GLOBSEC – The Future of Warfare
NATO leaders have asked the Secretary-General to lead a forward-looking reflection on NATO’s future, NATO 2030. As part of this effort, NATO seeks to strengthen its engagement with civil society, youth and the private sector. This is why NATO is launching the NATO 2030: NATO-Private Sector Dialogues. Facilitated by GLOBSEC, the dialogues will look to deepen the involvement of the private sector across the transatlantic sphere and galvanize their activity in advancing NATO’s collective security agenda. This initiative will begin with a conference on November 25th focusing on The Future of Warfare and the Role of New and Emerging Technologies that will bring together experts from the fields of technology, security, and public policy. Threats in the international security landscape have never been so diverse or so quick to materialize. From hypersonic delivery systems to the integration of machine-human teaming on the battlefield, quantum leaps in technological development and ultra-connectivity are transforming how nations assess national security threats as well as how they organize societies and engage with citizens. This interplay between technology, society, and conflict is only just beginning, and the Transatlantic community will need critical reflection leading to action to guarantee its peace and prosperity. Going forward, and into 2021, six NATO 2030 dialogues will explore how the private sector can contribute to addressing the most pressing technology-based security risks and contribute to increasing societal resilience across the Alliance. GLOBSEC is proud to have been selected by NATO to lead the engagement with the private sector on this high-profile project. We encourage you to follow GLOBSEC on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and our website where you can find the latest news on #NATO2030, as well as information about the upcoming conference. You can find all the information about the event here: https://bit.ly/3phVm1l
Munich Security Conference – NATO 2030 Youth Summit
Fourteen emerging leaders from across the Alliance were nominated as #NATO2030 Young Leaders at the NATO 2030 Youth Summit to assist #NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg with input to inform his recommendations for NATO 2030. Here, they introduce themselves and answer questions posed to them by incumbent heads of state, including Zuzana Čaputová, Boris Johnson, Kersti Kaljulaid, Angela Merkel, Mark Rutte, Pedro Sánchez and Justin Trudeau.
Atlantic Council – NATO 2030: Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on strengthening the Alliance in a post-COVID world
As COVID-19 accelerates existing global trends and tensions, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg discusses how the Alliance is embracing this new normal and preparing for the next decade and beyond. For more information, please visit: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/event… —————————— Subscribe for more! https://www.youtube.com/user/Atlantic… Driven by our mission of “shaping the global future together,” the Atlantic Council is a nonpartisan organization that galvanizes US leadership and engagement in the world, in partnership with allies and partners, to shape solutions to global challenges. Find out more about us by visiting: atlanticcouncil.org
German Marshall Fund – NATO 2030 – United for a New Era
Speakers: Marta Dassù, Senior Director, European Affairs, The Aspen Institute; Editor-in-Chief, Aspenia Thomas de Maizière, Member, German Bundestag Wess Mitchell, Vice Chairman, Board of Directors, Center for European Policy Analysis Moderator Ian Lesser, Vice President, The German Marshall Fund of the United States At their December 2019 meeting, NATO leaders invited Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg to lead a forward-looking reflection process to strengthen NATO’s political dimension. To support him in this process, Stoltenberg appointed a group of ten experts to answer a broad set of questions, including how to keep NATO strong militarily, more united politically, and how to engage the Alliance globally. In November 2020, the Reflection Group published their conclusions in a report titled “NATO 2030: United for a new Era.” Please join the co-chairs of the Reflection Group to discuss the analysis and recommendations of the report and to explore some of the key issues pertaining to the future of the Alliance.
SFU NATO Field School and Simulation Program- NATO2030 Hackathon
In on February 4th, 2021, a team of NATO Field School alumni participated in the first-ever NATO2030 Policy Hackathon, where they pitched innovative ideas to a wide NATO audience, including the Secretary General. The SFU team was the only Canadian university represented in the competition, and in the end an expert jury panel determined them to have won in their category, Reducing Military Carbon Emissions, and judged their presentation to be in 2nd place overall, tied with Harvard University.
Carnegie Europe – NATO in 2030: Adapting to a New World
With the changing nature of global security challenges, the coming decade will see NATO confronted by emerging world powers, climate change, and new disruptive technologies. Is NATO prepared for this future? Can it balance firm military commitments with political unity and a broader global mandate? Carnegie Europe is delighted to host a virtual discussion on the findings of the independent group supporting NATO 2030 (https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl20…), a forward-looking process initiated by the NATO Secretary General in March 2020. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg will give a keynote address, before group co-chairs Thomas de Maizière and Wess Mitchell are joined by Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer and Anna Wieslander for a discussion on the coming decade for NATO. Rosa Balfour will moderate. To submit a question for the event, please use the YouTube chat, email email@example.com, or tweet at @Carnegie_Europe using the hashtag #NATO2030. To receive invitations to similar events and alerts of new publications, register here: https://carnegieeurope.eu/resources/r…
Woodrow Wilson Center – Is NATO Prepared for the Future
How well is NATO prepared for the future? NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg asked former German Defense Minister Thomas de Maizière and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Wess Mitchell to co-chair an independent Reflection Group to take up the challenge.
American Council on Germany – Moving Towards NATO 2030
Dr. Thomas de Maizière, Member of the Bundestag (CDU) and former Defense Minister, and Dr. A. Wess Mitchell, Vice Chairman of CEPA and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Europe discuss the findings of the independent Reflection Group on the future strategic concept for NATO 2030, established by Secretary General Stoltenberg, which they chaired over the course of nine months in 2020.
European CFR – NATO in a Multipolar World
Discussion on the role of NATO in a world of revived geopolitical competition with a focus on the potential of the transatlantic alliance, organised by the European Council on Foreign Relations – Sofia office. The event took place on 16 December 2020 in a hybrid format with a connection from Sofia. Interview: “NATO 2030 – United for a New Era” – key takeaways, with • Marta Dassù, Board member, ECFR; Senior Advisor for European Affairs, The Aspen Institute Speakers: • Assen Agov, Journalist, Former Member of Parliament and Chair of the Foreign Policy Committee, Bulgarian National Assembly • Dzhema Grozdanova, ECFR Council Member; Former Chair of the Foreign Policy Committee, Bulgarian National Assembly • Dragomir Zakov, Ambassador, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Bulgaria to NATO Moderator: Vessela Tcherneva, Deputy Director and Head of Sofia office, ECFR
This is fairly trivial, but it is such an excellent example of how wokeness has conquered the collective brain of the Left that I can’t pass it by. It was flagged on N.S. Lyons’s excellent Substack newsletter, The Upheaval.
The absence of a persistent strategy to counter Israel’s human rights violations and to hold the settler colonial state accountable is of detriment to the Palestinian people, who remain shackled to humanitarian agendas.
Imagine for a moment if Hollywood, the mainstream media and the three-letter federal agencies spent as much time and cash in the war against pedophiles as they do in their perennial propaganda war against Russia.