Gorbachev’s Ultimatum

Note the ominous warning from Gorbachev against Putin, the globalists’ bugbear: do not run for the presidency again or you will face a “velvet revolution.” In context, it could be seen as an ultimatum by the globalists. Since Yeltsin, matters have not gone at all as the globalist elite intended: Putin has been like the Bonaparte of the post-Soviet era, just as Trotsky accused Stalin of being the Bonaparte of the Bolshevik Revolution.[14] Putin halted the slide of Russia into globalization and has fought an ongoing battle with the oligarchs, whom those such as the National Endowment for Democracy portray as persecuted dissidents.

The globalists just cannot trust the Russians to keep to the script. Hence, the globalist think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations,[15] opines that “Russia is heading in the wrong direction.”[16] One of the CFR recommendations is to directly interfere with the Russian political process, urging US Congress to fund opposition movements by increased funding for the Freedom Support Act, in this instance referring specifically to the 2007-2008 presidential elections.[17] Authors of the CFR report include Mark F Brzezinski, who served on the National Security Council as an adviser on Russian and Eurasian affairs under Clinton, as his father Zbigniew served in the Carter Administration; Antonia W Bouis, founding executive director of the Soros Foundations; and James A Harmon, senior advisor to the Rothschild Group, et al.

The US “Establishment” has boasted of its subversive role in out-bolshying the bolshies. The US globalists had been working away subverting the Soviet bloc since the aftermath of World War II, when Stalin repudiated the wartime alliance and rejected US proposals for both the United Nations Organization and for the “internationalization” of atomic energy, which was seen by the Soviets to be a ruse for subordinating the USSR to the USA.[18] The result was the “Cold War.”[19] For several decades the USA launched an intensive subversive campaign that has been called the “cultural cold war,” via the CIA front, Congress for Cultural Freedom.[20] This, significantly, emerged from out of the pre-war Committee for Cultural Freedom founded by Professor Sydney Hook, “life-long Menshevik” (and recipient of the Congressional Medal of Freedom from President Reagan), and his academic mentor Professor John Dewey. Both had led the campaign to exonerate Trotsky at the time of the Moscow Trials.[21]

With the eclipse of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, the cause was taken up and conflated by a myriad of NGOs and “civil society” organization, with the backing of US Congress and official US agencies such as USAID and the State Department, precisely in the manner being undertaken presently in North Africa. In particular, the mantle of the anti-Soviet crusade was assumed by the National Endowment for Democracy, founded in 1983 by Tom Kahn of the AFL-CIO, an adherent of the post-Trotskyite Shachtmanite line, in keeping with the anti-Soviet, pro-US party line followed by many Trotskyites, including the Old Man’s widow Sedova, who supported the US in the Korean War, and viewed the USSR rather than the USA as the prime obstacle to “world revolution.”[22]

With Congressman George Agree, Kahn believed that the USA needed a means of supporting subversive movements against the USSR, aside from the CIA. Kahn was International Affairs Director of the AFL-CIO.[23] As the personal assistant to AFL-CIO president George Meany, Kahn was editor of Free Trade Union News, in which he continually attacked the Soviet Union. From 1977, in alliance with the League for Industrial Democracy,[24] Kahn built up an anti-Soviet network throughout the world in “opposition to the accommodationist policies of détente”.[25] There was a particular focus on assisting Solidarity in Poland from 1980.[26]

President George W. Bush, speaking to the NED conference in 2003 on the war in Iraq being a continuation of the “world democratic revolution” that started in the Soviet bloc, credited the USA with the destruction of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact: “The revolution under former president Ronald Reagan freed the people of Soviet-dominated Europe, he declared, and is destined now to liberate the Middle East as well.”[27]

Apart from the prescience of Bush in his prophesying the “spontaneous revolts” now taking place in the Middle East eight years before the tumult, the numerous scenes of Reagan and Gorbachev in moods of joviality take on more significant meaning: They were both having a good laugh at what was planned for the Soviet bloc.[28]

Gorbachev’s 1988 U.N. Speech

In 1988, Gorbachev gave the green light for the break-up of the Soviet bloc by stating before the UNO that the USSR would no longer defend pro-Soviet regimes. Analysts of the US National Security Archive have stated of Gorbachev’s speech:

Late October 1988 brought a major break with past Soviet positions, when Gorbachev decided to offer deep reductions in Soviet forces in Europe as a unilateral initiative, and to deliver a major address at the United Nations. Gorbachev conceptualized this speech as an “anti-Fulton, Fulton in reverse” in its significance – comparing it with the historic Winston Churchill “Iron Curtain” speech of 1946 in Fulton, Missouri, at the beginning of the Cold War. Gorbachev wanted his speech to signify the end of the Cold War, offering deep Soviet reductions in conventional weapons as proof of his policy. These reductions would address the most important Western concern about the threat of war in Europe, where the Soviets enjoyed significant conventional superiority. This move, in Gorbachev’s mind, would build trust and open the way for a very fast progress with the new American administration. His meeting with President-elect Bush and President Reagan would take place immediately after the U.N. speech.[29]

Gorbachev’s speech to the UNO reflected a palace coup that was taking place in the USSR, in opposition to the military, and involving only a small coterie:

Gorbachev seemed well aware of the potential opposition to his initiative both in the Politburo and in the Armed Forces – a very sensitive issue to handle. The decision making on the U.N. speech involved a very narrow circle of advisers…[30]

The “green light” for the “velvet revolutions” assiduously prepared by NED and others was overtly declared by Gorbachev before the UNO, Savranskaya and Blanton stating of this:

Gorbachev’s U.N. speech on December 7 explicitly endorsed the “common interests of mankind” (no longer the class struggle) as the basis of Soviet foreign policy and, significantly for Eastern Europe, declared “the compelling necessity of the principle of freedom of choice” as “a universal principle to which there should be no exceptions.” Gorbachev particularly surprised CIA and NATO officials with his announcement of unilateral cuts in Soviet forces totaling 500,000 soldiers, and the withdrawal from Eastern Europe of thousands of tanks and tens of thousands of troops. [31]

The intentions were unequivocal: Gorbachev and his coterie were globalists who were committed to bringing Russia into the “new world order” by scuttling the Warsaw Pact, and adhering to globalist aims. The reaction of the globalist press was expressed by The New York Times, which described Gorbachev as a “visionary.”[32] Sen. Daniel Moynihan called the speech “the most astounding statement of surrender in the history of ideological struggle.”[33]