THE NOVICHOK TALES, PART √-1, SECTION DEUX

(Overheard in the Kremlin by our secret source)

World Cup’s going well, Boss. Good one!

Yeah, but it makes me nervous when the Western media says good things about us. Doesn’t feel right.

Well, we could get them back to normal, Boss.

How?

Let’s do the novichok thing again. I know we got the formula wrong the last time but I just got the book from Amazon so we can make it properly this time.

What do you mean?

Well, we could put some in a syringe or something and drop it in the park and maybe someone would find it. Then they’d have to stop talking about what a great World Cup we put on and how everybody’s telling their friends how great Russia is.

Could be good for a laugh I suppose. You know, it’s really tiring organising elections around the world as well as writing all the scripts for the nightly news at home; I could use a good laugh. Always wanted to see Boris Johnson with his hair on fire. Do it.

OK Boss. Consider it done. And it’s a great distraction from the real plot.

Yes it is and isn’t that going well? What a brilliant idea to invent Durakchok and spray it around Western government offices. They’re getting stupider by the minute. And, in the long run, stupid loses.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 5 JULY 2018

THE MEETING. I don’t expect anything to be settled: the Russia/collusion/interference nonsense has to be exploded before Trump is free to do what should be done and Putin has no reason to ever trust the mere word of a US President. Like the Trump-Kim meeting, it will be a first step in a long journey. I do enjoy, though, that Trump cunningly made Bolton set up the meeting thereby revealing that neocons are for sale too and pre-empting their opposition to any improvement of US-Russia relations.

THE BEST ACCOLADE TRUMP COULD EVER WISH FOR. “‘He’s willing to destroy the world’: Billionaire investor and liberal donor George Soros blasts Trump’s presidency saying ‘everything that could go wrong has gone wrong‘” Hope so. DM readers agree.

WORLD CUP. A triumph. Russia has gained enormously I think. Money well spent. One Brit: “The British media should be ashamed of themselves for their clear propaganda against the Russian people. Absolutely class country.” Millions of people who were there or who had friends who were and told them what they saw will form a mighty bulwark against more anti-Russia lies. This video by an English father-son team has 90K views so far. Casual Russophobia will be harder to sell and the credibility of Western media has taken another hit.

RETIREMENT. The government plans to raise retirement ages: men from 60 to 65 by 2028 and women from 55 to 63 by 2034. This is causing some angst – and a dip in Putin’s popularity – but it makes sense as life expectancy rises across the board. Typical Western coverage based on out-of-date information.

RUSSIAN WEAPONS. It’s often pointed out that the US spends much more on defence than Russia but this is not really a very meaningful comparison: USA has 700+ foreign bases and 10 carrier battle groups; Russia 4 that I can think of and none. But there is another important difference: these days, to put it rudely, American weapons are made to make money, Russian weapons are made to work. Even the Pentagon has had to notice that the Mi-17 helicopter is better (and cheaper) than the Blackhawk, and the Iraqi Army appears to be replacing Abrams tanks with T90s (ditto). And, while the US has spent two decades bombing weak opponents, Russia is working on the big one: new tank tactics described.

US SECURITIES. In May Russia dumped half its US Treasuries. Speculation about What It Means.

DIPLOMACY. A very important difference between Moscow and Washington (at least pre-Trump) is that, while the latter decrees some countries to be unclean, Moscow keeps relations open with everybody. This piece shows how, bit by bit, Russia is coming close to some US allies.

RULINGS. Mercouris once argued (neither he nor I can find it now) that, when Russia presented its case in front of real courts that made real rulings that set real precedents, it didn’t do badly. A court has suspended the ruling that said Ukraine Naftohaz could seize some Gazprom European assets.

DEPRESSED? World Cup success got you down? Fearful of a Trump ‘peace deal’ with Putin? Worried NATO’s going to go pop? It’s time to play Skripalmania II! “…believes… thought to… thought to… thought to… almost certainly… believed…“. More sick people in Wiltshire! Commenters on both stories remain unconvinced. Gone to the well once too often, I guess.

AMERICA-HYSTERICA. The IG report has lots of meat in it but it was covered by a summary that contradicted some of the findings so its impact was blunted. But more is coming: Nunes is chewing away at it (watch the interview – a lot of dots connected). Clearly Trump has decided the story is dying, otherwise he wouldn’t have decided to see Putin.

STUPIDEST PIECE ABOUT WORLD CUP. “Russia’s National Team Is Too Russian, Which Is One Reason It Will Bomb out of the World Cup“.

QUEEN OF HEARTS’ RULES. I agree that the OPCW is no longer trustworthy after the British amendment was accepted. No more need for evidence or argument: go straight to “off with his head!”.

PUTIN DERANGEMENT SYNDROME. “Vladimir Putin has positioned himself as the leader of an authoritarian, white-supremacist and xenophobic movement that wants to break up the EU, weaken America’s traditional alliances and undermine democracy“. So much to do, so little time.

UKRAINE. More noticing of nazis from those (AC) who (NW) told us formerly it was only Russian propaganda: Atlantic Council and Newsweek. Washington’s wars end in one of three ways 1) ceremony in Tokyo Bay 2) helicopters off the Embassy roof or 3) walk away and pretend it never happened. I think we’re seeing the ground prepared for number 3. (It’s almost as if there’s a secret signal, isn’t it?)

© Patrick Armstrong Analysis, Canada Russia Observer

YES, PUTIN ONCE DREAMED THE AMERICAN DREAM

The other day, reading another extrusion of anti-Russia propaganda (here’s the first example that comes to hand) telling us that Putin and those misguided Russians who support him are wholly and obdurately opposed to America and All It Stands For, I was reminded of Charles Heberle’s contrary experience with Putin and Russia two decades ago.

I met Charles nine years ago in Washington on a trip Sharon Tennison organised. Charles wrote up the following account for Sharon’s website Russia, Other Points of View and I referred to it in my Sitrep 20100506. ROPV is now defunct but Charles still had a copy and I asked him for it so as to reprint it on my site to keep it on the record.

In essence, he was invited to teach Russians how to do it the American way and his program was fully supported by Putin (who had just become President); he believes, and the evidence indicates, that the whole idea might have originated with Putin. It is distressing how much has changed in the 18 years since his story begins.

In short, 18 years ago Putin thought so highly of American democracy in theory and in practice that he supported an American program to teach Russians how to be American-style democrats. From Putin’s perspective, the years since 2000 have seen NATO expansions, broken promises, regime change operations, wars, sanctions, accusations and propaganda, none of which well illustrate the program’s citizenship skills. I rather doubt that he would be so confident today that the American Revolution had succeeded but maybe I’m assuming too much. At any rate, Charles assures me that the program is still being practised in Russia and still has official support.

If you watch his video interview, you will see that the program, while undeniably grounded in the US Constitution, is not exclusively American: it is applicable to most societies. It is a training process, a drill – Charles was in the US Army – that generates situations that force the participants to speak and think for themselves, but (this is the kicker) not in some vapid and complacent “self-esteem” way, but with a humble understanding of their imperfections, The program makes them cooperate with others in a spirit of respect and understanding in order to get the job done. Which, when you think about it, are the requirements for a real democracy to work.

But the main point of my reprinting this is to show that Putin, rather than being the fundamentalist anti-American that the anti-Russia camp tells us that he is, started out supporting the inculcation of what he saw as American virtues (values, if you will: “subjects becoming citizens”) into Russia.

I reprint Charles Heberle’s account as he sent it to me.

**************************

Transforming Subjects into Citizens – an Experiment in Russia by Charles Heberle

Many people, when they hear that I have been working in Russia for 9 years, have asked me about the intentions of the Russians. Are they going back to Communism? Do they hate us? Why are they going back to dictatorship? Of course I have no way of knowing the real intention of the Russians, but I get glimpses of it from my experience there. I am writing this article to outline my personal experiences in Russia to help shed some light on these questions.

It started with an email out of the blue in January 2000. It said, “Hello I represent the non-governmental organizations of Northwest Russia. We are unhappy with what your government calls democracy. Our analysis over the past nine years shows us that it will just trade one elite for another. We have had quite enough of this. We want to be country of, by, and for the people. Can you help us?” I was floored. I spent the next 4 months in negotiations with this mystery person, ending with trip to St. Petersburg, Russia. When I arrived I had no idea what I was in for. I quickly learned, however, that Russians don’t do things by halves. The organization consisted of some of the leading intellectual lights of St. Petersburg. They had set up a front organization, researched every web site in the world to find those that purported to teach democracy, invited them to St. Petersburg, and set up a rigorous testing process to make sure they knew what they were doing and that what they were doing would work. I was immediately put through a test where I had complete run of a Russian school for a week and the director did anything I said. I already had developed and copyrighted a civic education program for schools in the USA, so I simply copied the training. This process continued for a year. During that time I spent about 8 weeks in St. Petersburg attending conferences, undergoing a thesis type defense where I was grilled by 5 professors for about two hours, and then more demonstrations in different types of schools. I passed.

They then gave me my mission statement. It was “To help us build a training program that will distill the attitudes, understandings, and skills learned by the American colonists from 1620 to 1775 that made the American Revolution successful where others failed.” They said they wanted to inculcate those values and understandings and skills in their people too so that democracy could flourish in Russia. They felt that until the populace at large was trained no democracy was possible. They feared that simply creating a democratic form of government and some NGOs to work in the field would lead to a “velvet oligarchy”, or worse. They wanted to be a “normal”, that is western, nation of, by, and for the people but could not afford to wait 150 years for their people to understand the process. They wanted me to help them build a training system that could change the mindset of the entire Russian populace from being “subjects” to becoming “citizens” in a generation.

They then sent me to a province near St. Petersburg where we could develop this program without great publicity and opposition and where it could be tested and tried before taking it nationwide. I spent two years there in the capital city giving classes to teachers and monitoring the development of the lesson plans which at that point were all for schools. They gave me the head teacher of the province as my team leader and we rapidly developed a volunteer corps of 200+ teachers who helped develop the program. The program was enthusiastically received and fully supported by the Minister of Education whom I briefed regularly on its progress. Then an election was held in 2003 and the Governor of the province was re-elected. The Minister called us in the next week and the teachers were asked why they supported our program. They said, “Because it is simple, but wise”. The Minister said, “Fine, you are no longer experimental, have a 5 year plan on my desk by Monday.” It was Friday. This resulted in the approval of an official far reaching plan that went way beyond schools and was to end up training the whole population.

The next year our city had a forum, sponsored by the Russian Foreign Ministry, to explore ways that democracy could be furthered through people to people contacts. I was a featured speaker and the Russian NGO that we had helped form was in charge of a sub-forum on civic education. The next day, at that sub-forum, we had a large number of people. I was asking my staff where they were all from and they pointed out all of the visitors from Russia and other countries, except one. I said, “Who is he, a new teacher here?” My team leader, with a look of concern on her face, said “We don’t know.” Having learned that, in Russia, everything is known, I was a little concerned too. At lunch I approached the man and, in my halting Russian, thanked him for coming. He replied in fluent English and said he was President Putin’s personal advisor on civic education. We then had lunch together and I explained what we were doing, that I was here at the invitation of Russia and if he had any suggestions or wanted us to do anything differently to please speak up. He said he was very pleased with what he was seeing and that it was exactly what Russia needed. We then talked about things military and it became clear that he had a lot of high level and formerly top-secret information about the breakup of the Soviet Union. Without talking about things that were Top Secret on our side when I learned them, I can only say that his knowledge was far above that of a foot soldier. I have no doubt that he had good connections within the Kremlin at some time or another. He closed the conversation by asking if I would like to meet then-President Putin’s close associate Sergei Ivanov some time, as he would be glad to arrange a meeting. I said thank you, no as I felt sure Mr. Ivanov had better things to do. At the end of the day he came up to me again and gave me his personal email and telephone number in Moscow and said to come and see him anytime and to call him if we ran into any trouble.

I visited him in Moscow later and asked why they could not fund me directly if they were pleased with the program. He said that Mr. Putin’s team was performing a delicate balancing act between competing factions in the Kremlin and that they had to appear scrupulously neutral. Any outright support of a program run by an American would be seized upon as favoring one side over the other, and so, while they appreciated my work, they could not be seen to support it outright. I said that if they could at least give us a small amount of support to show the locals, some of whom thought of the program as “American”, that it was approved. Within a month we got a call directly from the President’s office to tell us we had been awarded a small grant to promote civil discourse and improve race relations in the province. It came down through channels signed, V. Putin. There has never been any political opposition to the program since.

These specific events and the fact that there has been strong and continuing official support of the program from the start have convinced me that the Russians do want to become a democracy. They also want to do it the Russian way, which is to say plan it thoroughly, follow the plan, and do it on a large scale. Nowhere have I seen them deviate from this in action. Maybe their words are confusing sometimes, and no doubt aimed at a particular audience, but their actions over time are entirely consistent with the goal stated to me in St. Petersburg in 2000.

In retrospect it has become clear that the Russian group was started at the request of Mr. Putin, who had just become President. This accounts for the complete and continuing support of the Russian governments at all levels which is key to its success there and why it delivers so much value for dollar. We were able to train a whole province for one-fifth of what USAID spent on one city in southern Russia. The fact that our program was born out of frustration with the USA’s then and current methods of teaching democracy, which had failed for them, accounts for the fact that it has a completely different basis from the current approved USA methods of teaching democracy – one that is much more useful and effective because it is designed by a first world, highly educated, group of former dictatorial subjects who know their problems in achieving and see this as the best way to solve them.

This makes it extremely difficult to get our part of it funded by the bureaucracy here in the United States. Our goal now is to get additional seed funding from this Administration and/or private foundations to help the Russians expand the program to about 40 million people in NW Russia over 5 years, which would then solidify it. It would also give us a tried and true and extremely well-planned and documented program to use in other former dictatorships. As it were, our program (and Putin’s too, as I have learned) is an attempt to “reset” Russians so that, rather than being resentful subjects of an inimical power, they become participating citizens of a res publica. They all need this before they can become true democratic republics.

All these experiences and watching the Russian hierarchy from the inside convince me that they are serious about becoming a normal western country and have a long term plan for doing so. Thus the current reforms come as no surprise. If my experience is any guide, the Putin/Medvedev efforts are part of a continuum. Maybe someday it will be Russia that teaches the world how to build a democracy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 14 JUNE 2018

PUTIN PHONEIN. Russian, English; again I remind you that you don’t have to depend on “reliable” reports, you can see for yourself what he says. Putin said (with numbers to prove it) that he thought the economy was “moving in the absolutely right direction” and had “reached a trajectory of sustainable economic growth” albeit “modest”. He reiterated that only discussion, negotiations and taking nations’ interests into account can succeed in world affairs; he stressed again Russia was willing to talk but would defend its interests. Exactly what he has been saying for years. He couldn’t resist pointing out that Washington’s allies were finding out for themselves what happens when Washington does whatever it wants; as he had warned in Munich years ago would happen, Washington was “spreading its national jurisdiction to other countries” and Europe and Canada are now tasting the results. For the rest, it was, as usual, mostly domestic concerns with the customary “Batyushka, my roof is leaking” calls. I suppose it is a useful gauge of feeling in the country: several million messages are sent and filed by category so it’s a better way of taking the national pulse than polls that depend on pre-selected questions. It’s probably orchestrated to some degree but amuse yourself imagining your local leader doing it.

WORLD CUP. Starts today. Will be in 11 cities in European Russia. How will the Lügenpresse avoid reporting that all went well? As you recall, it never had to correct all the brown water, dead dog, doorknob and toilet lies at Sochi because the Ukraine coup occupied subsequent reporting space and the cognitive dissonance that I expected never happened. But I don’t see how they can avoid it this time.

WESTERN VALUES™. “‘Precision’ airstrikes kill civilians. In Raqqa we saw the devastation for ourselves” (Guardian) “US-led strikes on Raqqa may amount to war crimes, Amnesty says” (CNN) “US, Britain and France inflicted worst destruction ‘in decades’ killing civilians in Isis-held city of Raqqa, report says” (Independent) “Syria: Raqqa in ruins and civilians devastated after US-led ‘war of annihilation’ Amnesty Report. “Meticulous” says British commander. Photos.

AMERICA-HYSTERICA. The IG report is finally out. A conspiracy involving, inter alia, the US, British, Baltic and Ukrainian organs of state security to prevent Trump being elected and then, when he was, to bring him down. “We’ll stop it.” Serious stuff that will reverberate for a long time and lead investigators in many directions. I reiterate: there was no Trump-Russia collusion of any sort and there was no Russian government interference in the election of any sort. If Moscow had wanted to support a candidate it would have been Clinton: it had already bought her once and had plenty of kompromat on her. Mueller’s indictment of Concord et al is bunkum as is proven by his desperate manoeuvres to avoid having to show his “evidence”.

PROBLEMS WITH THE NARRATIVE. No conclusive evidence to blame Russia for MH17 says Malaysia Transport Minister; no evidence that Russia poisoned Skripals says German int source. What does Malaysia know? It’s been kept out of the inquiry. As to the Skripals, well the G(7-1) says “no plausible alternative explanation“. (Once you’ve dug the hole, I guess you have to plausibly live in it.)

KOREA. A start at dual suspension. Maybe Moscow contributed a bit: Lavrov met Kim on the 31st.

TODAY’S LAUGH. (But not actually very funny). “Today the Atlantic Council launched DisinfoPortal.org, an interactive online guide to track the Kremlin’s disinformation campaigns abroad”. It says it’s “reliable” several times, so I guess it must be.

SIGNS OF CHANGE? Bulgarian PM suggests returning to Turkstream. EU official says “Russia-bashing” must stop. New Italian government wants Russia sanctions ended and Russia into G(7±1). Trump wants Russia into it too. Nonetheless the G(7-1) communique continues to condemn Russia for its “failure to demonstrate complete implementation of its commitments in the Minsk Agreements.” (I actually asked the Canadian Minister to tell me what the “commitments” were – the word “Russia” doesn’t even appear in the agreement – but got no answer.) But Lexus and Vovan – they strike again!! – get the OSCE Secretary General to admit it’s Kiev that’s blocking it – more seeing what’s in plain sight.

UKRAINE. Freedom House notices what has been in plain sight for years: “Far-right extremism represents a threat to the democratic development of Ukrainian society.” Does this signify anything? Who knows? Propagandists don’t often change their line. But still: both Amnesty and Freedom House committing crimethink! Maybe something is changing.

© Patrick Armstrong Analysis, Canada Russia Observer

COMMENTS FROM THE LOCKED WARD

(Miscellaneous comments from pieces dealing with Russia I’ve collected. Most of them anonymous or with pseudonyms, they illustrate either rabid hostility to everything Russian or stone-dead ignorance of reality. I post from time to time when I see them, spelling mistakes and all.)

Comment on a Twitter feed

Babchenko killing was fake news. Putin resolves what he calls fake news by real killing, but here a real newsman beat him with a fake punch.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 31 MAY 2018

RUSSIA: REALITY AND ILLUSION. In my employed days (10 years ago this week!) we Russia hands would periodically be visited by someone from our Embassy who would tell us (expressing surprise) that Moscow was safe, interesting, the people “normal” and so on. I testily told one once that all he was telling us, who already knew this, was how bad Western (and Embassy) reporting was on the reality of Russia. Nicolai Petro has written a masterful piece on this persistence of an out-of-date and wrong-headed picture that is still the foundation of so much comment. “Paradigm blindness occurs when an event remains invisible because the observer has no context or expression for naming it. Simply put, Americans cannot talk about Russia as a democracy because there is no frame of reference for Russian democracy in their minds.” He sadly concludes that “Russophobia is a chronic condition for American elites” and that it is “a by-product of American exceptionalism”. You should read the original but Paul Robinson summarises it. I notice it all the time: to say “Russian elections” is to get a smile – “everybody knows” they don’t have them, ditto “Russian law” and so on. An inadvertently hilarious illustration of self-deception masquerading as analysis can be found here: “Our foreign policy successes have been far more numerous than our mistakes, and the benefits of American involvement around the globe far outweigh the shortcomings”, “Putin’s Moscow has sought to rebuild Russia’s prestige by challenging the United States in its Allies without moral constraint” and so on. In short: we bomb hospitals by mistake, Russians do it on purpose. Dangerous stuff to be thinking these days.

FOUR AT ONCE. Four Bulava ICBMs launched at once. That’s potentially 24 150kt warheads. Maybe it’s time to start paying better – and less self-delusory – attention to Russia.

OOPS. The Russians claim to have two Tomahawk missiles from Syria; they say they will study them so as to better counter them. This will not bother the Pentagon which denies that any such thing happened.

SPIEF. Took place last week. May prove to be an event of some significance depending on Europe’s reaction to Trump’s cancellation of the Iran agreement and tariffs. Serious meetings with Japan, France and the IMF, China and, a few days before with India and Germany. Interesting that, no matter what, they come to talk to Putin sooner or later, isn’t it? There’s a new world a-borning but it will take a while yet.

SANCTIONS. Oleg Deripaska has resigned as CEO of Rusal; the idea is that since the US has sanctioned him personally, the company can now function. But so long as the US sanctions random people for things Russia didn’t do, who can say? Washington currently involves 20 countries in sanctions; or is it more? You add it up. Once on the list, you never got off and Jackson-Vannik morphs into Magnitskiy.

MH17. Is back and just in time for the World Cup. Some old Bellingcat videos and a conveniently-just-discovered-somewhere-sometime 30-year old missile bit. Meanwhile Kerry’s “we observed it” is nowhere to be seen and Ukrainian radar was “down for maintenance“. Who knew that the mighty US intelligence structure all comes down to social media and one guy in the UK?

SKRIPALMANIA. “British Hostage Video Of Yulia Skripal Released“. But, as is argued here, maybe she bravely negotiated what she could say. I stick by what I said at the start and I am pleased to see that the readers of the Daily Mail (one of the few MTP outlets that still allows comments) are equally scornful. (PS: I especially enjoyed it when Lexus and Vovan got Johnson to promise: “evidence we many be able to produce in due course“. I thought they already had all the evidence). Craig Murray discusses.

SRIPAL KIEV. I don’t know what the point of this idiotic death and resurrection was, but be assured that Putin will continue to be blamed for it. Stupidest take (so far): “The Babchenko stunt may end up feeding the Kremlin spin machine“: those pesky Russians will use our lies to prove that we lie.

PHONE PRANKS. Lexus and Vovan, pretending to be the Armenian PM, talk to Boris Johnson; the Foreign Office say it was the “latest desperate attempt by the Kremlin to save face” and Johnson figured it out pretty quickly. “Quickly” in this case being 18 minutes. You have to wonder: can anyone with an accent and a story get to talk these people? Lexus and Vovan have done this many times.

NEW NWO. Is Trump alienating allies? I suggested he is on purpose; others notice it’s happening. Either way, people are starting to consider life without Uncle Sam ensconced in the guest bedroom.

UKRAINE. It’s not just “Putin trolls”: from an American Jewish publication: “Violent Anti-Semitism Is Gripping Ukraine — And The Government Is Standing Idly By“. The legacy of Nuland’s “Revolution of Dignity”: nazi recrudescence, war with Russia and – potentially worse – nuclear disaster.

© Patrick Armstrong Analysis, CanadaRussia Observer

COMMENTS FROM THE LOCKED WARD

(Miscellaneous comments from pieces dealing with Russia I’ve collected. Most of them anonymous or with pseudonyms, they illustrate either rabid hostility to everything Russian or stone-dead ignorance of reality. I post from time to time when I see them, spelling mistakes and all.)

For Vladimir Putin’s Russia is a gangster state in which opponents of his regime — whether inside or outside the country — are routinely executed.

Yet we have become so football-mad as a nation, despite our limited prowess, that few commentators or politicians dare to raise a squeak of protest that we should be taking part in Putin’s propaganda extravaganza…

Yesterday morning, we were told a Russian journalist called Arkady Babchenko had been dispatched in the Ukraine, seemingly by Russian agents. It soon transpired that Babchenko is alive and well, and that his apparent murder was a carefully conceived stunt by the Ukrainian government to expose his alleged Russian assassins.

Steven Glover, Daily Mail, 30 May 2018

WAS GEHLEN A FRAUD?

(First published at http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/05/was-gehlen-a-fraud-by-patrick-armstrong.html)

For some years I have wondered about Gehlen and I have written this up for SST in order to get the opinions of such a well-informed group on the two questions I ask at the end.

Reinhard Gehlen (1902-1979) was a German General Staff officer who in July 1941 was assigned as senior intelligence officer to the Fremde Heere Ost (Foreign Armies East) intelligence section of which he took command about a year later. In April 1945 he was fired (or more likely, seeing the way things were going, quit) and resurfaced in May, surrendering to the US Army and offering his knowledge and organisation to the victors. His offer was accepted, his past and the past of his group cleansed, and eventually the Gehlen Organisation became the nucleus of the West German intelligence organisation and he became its boss. Wikipedia tells us he was forced out of that position in 1968 because his organisation had been penetrated by the Soviets and because of “poor leadership”. For an anti-Soviet specialist, he did run a pretty sloppy outfit: vide Heinz Felfe, a Soviet agent who was brought into the Gehlen Organisation quite early in its history. He wrote a book in which he justified all this which I read years ago. Which all contributes to the question that I am asking you to comment on.

But before I get to the question, a vignette in a railway car in Finland. On 2 June 1942, a year after the German attack on the USSR, Hitler invites himself to Marshal Mannerheim’s 75th birthday celebration. The Finns record the first eleven minutes of their conversation before the Germans catch them and the recording exists. This bit sets the scene:

They have the most monstrous armament that is humanly conceivable (‘menschendenkbar’)…so…if anybody had told me that one state… if anybody had told me that one state can line up with 35.000 tanks (Hitler uses the word ‘tank’), I had said ‘you have gone mad’…

Hitler continues expressing his astonishment at the Soviet armaments industry, complaining that the Germans have only “good weather armament”. After other remarks indicating that he is beginning to realise that he is in a contest Germany cannot win, the recording ends.

All of which leads me to this observation: German intelligence on the Soviet military was poor.

If we look at the whole course of the war we see that almost all the surprises come from the Soviet side. While the initial attack surprised the Soviet leadership (although it did have quite a bit of intelligence of the coming attack), after that it’s almost always the Germans who are surprised. Hitler’s dumbfounded comments to Mannerheim shows there was no conception of the scale of Soviet industrial production, to say nothing of its surge capacity. David Glantz has convincingly argued that unexpected resistance in the Battle of Smolensk sealed the end of the hope of a quick victory. The appearance of unknown divisions in front of Moscow (thanks to a Soviet intelligence coup) in the winter of 1941 was a surprise. The Stalingrad counter-attack was a surprise. The Soviets almost seem to have been aware of the Kursk battle plans before the German front line commanders were and again the counter attack was a surprise. Operation Bagration, perhaps the biggest military operation in history, while the Germans were expecting something, was another shattering surprise.

So, in a word, the Russian military intelligence has many surprises to its credit while Gehlen’s FHO… not so many intelligence successes. (And taking Hitler’s rant to Mannerheim into account, not at the beginning either.)

The Americans and the other Western allies were delighted with Gehlen’s offer. Washington in particular had very little knowledge of the Soviets; indeed the FBI seems to have been only dimly aware that one of the most important Soviet defectors ever – Aleksandr Orlov – was living quietly in the USA. The British had some intelligence from earlier times from people like Bruce-Lockhart or Reilly but that was long out of date and it is unlikely that they had much in 1945. And, as we now know, British intelligence was practically a branch plant operation of Moscow Centre. Neither France nor Canada (Gouzenko was September and had nothing much to offer on the Soviet Army) would have had anything to offer. So they were very happy to take up Gehlen’s offer – a whole network of agents, knowledge, historical records, reputation and interrogation data: a treasure trove; offered for nothing except making the Nazi past disappear. One must assume that the Gehlen organisation became the primary source – if not the sole source – of information on the USSR’s military.

I can’t now find the reference but I remember being told by a specialist that there was an important meeting in the late 1940s chaired, as I recall, by Field Marshal Montgomery, that discussed what the nascent Western Alliance could do against a Soviet attack or military threat. The meeting assumed (I recall) that the Soviets could field 150 divisions on fairly short notice for an attack. The Western Allies couldn’t possibly muster anything like that number. The conclusion was that any attack from the USSR could only be stopped by nuclear weapons. Who could have been the source of the 150 division figure other than Gehlen?

Now it is true that, in whatever country the Soviet Army had ended the war, “elections” were held in which socialist or communist parties came to power and stayed in power. (Austria being an exception). There were at least two ways that one could understand this extension of Soviet power. One was that they were the actions of an expansionist hostile power that fully intended to go all the way to Cape Finisterre if it could and, if not prevented, would. In such an case the Western Allies would be fully justified in forming an defensive alliance to deter Soviet expansion. The other possible interpretation was that, after such a hard victory in so fearfully destructive a war, Moscow was determined that never again would its neighbours be used as an assembly area and start line for the forces of another Hitler. Such an interpretation would call for quite another approach from the Western Allies. We all know which of the two interpretations was followed by the Western Allies. And who else would have encouraged that interpretation than their new expert on all things Soviet?

So we find two extremely important founding Cold War decisions taken right at the start: that Moscow was expansionist and that the Soviet Army was so powerful that nuclear weapons gave the only hope of stopping them. Each decision might well have been taken without him but it is surely reasonable to see Gehlen’s hand in both.

So I have the following questions:

1. Did Gehlen actually know anything about the Soviet Armed Forces or was he basically winging it all along?

2. How influential was he in setting the course of the Cold War towards hostility and away from cooperation?

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 17 MAY 2018

PUTIN’S PRIORITIES. For those who think Putin dreams every night of conquering Estonia or re-creating the Empire, here’s his actual todo list: population growth; life expectancy; real wage growth; reduce poverty; housing; technology; economic growth; high-productivity export-oriented businesses. What Moscow wants is a quiet life to get on with making things better in Russia for Russians.

FOREIGN POLICY PRIORITIES. There is a certain amount of talk that Russia has “betrayed” Syria (or Donbass) or “backed down” or something. Apparently it should have turned on its military power and kept it going full throttle until victory. I believe this greatly oversimplifies reality; even childishly so. Moscow’s most important foreign policy priority is the preservation of Russia. In the face of Washington’s multi-faceted war against it, this is no easy task. While Russia is doing pretty well, one cannot forget the reality that Washington and its minions, while fading, still possess immense destructive military, financial and economic power. Therefore, prudence is essential. A direct shooting war would be disastrous for all; something that Moscow has little confidence that Washington understands. Moscow works to strengthen the multilateral system partly for its own sake (it knows the cost of “exceptionalism”) and partly as a countermove to Washington’s schemes. Moscow believes that the US in its self-appointed role as “upholder and defender of the liberal world order” aka “rules-based order” has an inbuilt tendency to produce chaos and destruction. It has come to this point of view by observation, not because it’s innately “hostile” or “predatory” or “malign”. It didn’t start out that way; here’s a reminder of what Putin once expected from the USA. This entails a continual effort to balance competing powers – not too much of this, not too much of that – in order to preserve a tenuous peace (we see this especially in the Middle East today). The Soviets had an concept: “the correlation of forces” – the attempt to take everything that could affect an outcome into consideration; you may be sure that Putin’s team is continually assessing it. To remind you of what he sees as his job: “I’m not your friend, I’m the President of Russia“.

CHURCH RESTORATION. When I was in Russia 20 years ago churches were being renovated everywhere. This shows some of the more dramatic restorations.

VICTORY DAY. Red Square parade. Immortal Regiment in Moscow, St Petersburg, Sevastopol, Surgut,

KERCH BRIDGE. Putin formally opened the road part. The “country that doesn’t make anything” has completed the longest bridge in Europe in two years. Newsweek, NYT and the Atlantic Council assure us it will fail and some random neocon wants Kiev to destroy it. Moscow has already thought of that.

SOCHI. Remember all that stuff about wasted money? It was always about more than the Olympic complex itself – the ski resort is doing well.

MEDITERRANEAN. Always, Putin says, there will be Kalibrs there. Newton’s Third Law.

PUTIN’S NEW WHEELS. Revealed at his inauguration last Monday. There will be other high-end luxury models. I can see them selling: twenty years of unrelenting hostility has (surprise!) made Russians more patriotic and it may become a fad for the rich to ditch their Mercs for “patriotic” cars.

AMERICA-HYSTERICA. Mueller’s grand indictment of miscellaneous Russian entities for interference (probably actually a commercial marketing scheme) was flimflam designed to keep the story going and he surely never expected to have to prove it. Well he has to: the catering company has produced lawyers and is demanding its day in court. And discovery. This should be a good laugh. Flynn’s sentencing for “lying” has been again postponed. And his Manafort case isn’t going well either. There’s no there there.

NEW NWO. Trump walks out of the JCPOA, scorning Europe’s pleas. Sanctions will follow and Washington will demand compliance from Europe (“secondary sanctions“). Will Europe knuckle under? Juncker, Merkel and Tusk talk tough but always before tough talk has preceded obedience: Washington’s sanctions on Russia have cost Europe a lot but it still dutifully signs up for more. But maybe (maybe) Washington has gone too far this time: we have a report that sanctions will be defied and US court rulings will be ignored. Brzezinski observed that for American global dominance “the most dangerous scenario” would be a grand “antihegemonic” coalition of Russia, China and Iran. He was confident it could be averted by a “a display of US geostrategic skill”. (!) His head would explode imagining a Russia-EU-China-Iran coalition.

© Patrick Armstrong Analysis, Canada Russia Observer