A Portrait of Nuclear Blackmail
In his November, 1995 issue of Soviet Analyst, Christopher Story1 reported on what appears to be an explicit, blatant threat of nuclear attack coming from Russia against the United States.
This nuclear blackmail is done for a reason. It is to coerce the United States into "co-operation" with the Soviet Union, on the Soviet's terms, not ours, as is pointed out by Anatoliy Golitsyn in his book The Perestroika Deception. It is the threat of a "return to the cold war — or worse" if the United States does not "co-operate" with Soviet demands.
"Ready to Launch"
Despite President Yeltsin and President Clinton's repeated public statements that their missiles were no longer targeted at each other's cities and installations, Sergei Rogov, in the Russian Foreign Ministry's official journal, International Affairs [Vol. 7, 1995, p. 6], wrote:
"The two powers' strategic nuclear forces are still facing each other every day, every hour and every minute, ready to launch on warning against military, economic and political targets of the other side ... The United States and Russia still possess nuclear capabilities exceeding the level of mutual annihilation many times over."
It should be noted that this International Affairs publication carries an advertisement soliciting subscriptions by boasting that its readers will "keep informed of critical Soviet foreign, military and security policy issues".
Christopher Story points out that the only way Rogov's statement can be interpreted is that the Soviets admit unequivocally that they are ready to launch at any time.
If it is argued that the U.S. and Soviet missiles are still in their silos but not aimed at strategic targets, the danger is nonetheless grave, for it is a well-known fact that retargeting these monsters of destruction only takes a few minutes. What matters is, the Soviets have the "on line" technology and firepower to annihilate U.S. targets "many times over" at any given moment.
Appearing in the Russian Foreign Ministry's official journal, the statement must be taken as an explicit threat to obliterate the West from the face of the earth.
The Dialect Deception
Rogov is obviously a writer skilled in the art of sophisticated deception, the use of the dialect, dissemination of disinformation, and well aware of the true goals of the Perestroika program. As will be demonstrated, Rogov surrounds this veiled threat of a nuclear attack with disarming words and themes such as:
claims that Russia is a 2nd-rate weakling
(in order to lure the West into a false sense of superiority)
statements to encourage a "false peace".
(in order to lure the West into a false sense of security)
Russia's disappointment in the West not giving it everything it wants since its "conversion".
(in order to guilt our country into thinking that the U.S. is not being a good partner by providing the "ex-communist democratic converts" from Russia with all the economic, military, and political helps it demands.)
overtures of "convergence"
(on the Soviet' s terms, not ours)
the "end of (communist, world-dictatorship) ideology"
(so that the "Red threat" may appear to be a thing of the past, and that the West is "safe")
a "dialectic" approach to NATO
(in order to subvert it).
Poor, Weak, Defeated Russia?
In this article, Rogov writes:
"The new situation greatly restricts Russia's room for maneuver, for while it was the Soviet Union that lost the Cold War, the consequences of this defeat put a heavy burden on Russia as the 'continuing state and chief successor of the Union'.
"Like it or not, Russia is not competing with America in the economic field ... Russia is no first-rate partner for the United States.
"By leaving the initiative almost entirely to the Americans, we failed to ensure that the declared partnership was based on equality. The end result of our effort to meet the senior partner's requirements at all costs is that the United States heeds Russian interest less and less. Thus Russia is being pushed onto the periphery of U.S. geostrategic interests.
"The weaker Russia becomes politically, economically and militarily the more irresponsibly some of our politicians are carrying their great-power rhetoric as they try to out-Zhirinovsky Zhirinovsky."
In other words, as Christopher Story explains, what we have here is two familiar disinformation themes:
1) Russia lost the Cold War and the United States won. This falsehood only serves to inflate the arrogance of Western powers and media-men who float this theme themselves. Sun Tzu, the famous Chinese strategist whose writings are the mentor of the KGB since 1960, claimed "all warfare is based on deception" and this is reminiscent of Sun Tzu's aphorism to encourage the enemy's arrogance by feigning weakness. Russia further feigns weakness by claiming to view the United States as a "senior-partner", despite the fact that Rogov already admitted that Russia has the nuclear might to annihilate U.S. targets many times over.
2) A warning is served to the United States that if it does not co-operate, then it faces a return of the cold war through Zhirinovsky or forces even more extreme.
Note the wary look on the Holy Father as Gorbachev makes smiling overtures of peace while he and his Communist Party continue to build up their nuclear attack weapons to blackmail us into total enslavement and submission. We pay billions each year in tribute because we are asleep.
A False Peace
Rogov supposedly gives the assurance that there is no danger. He states:
"Today, neither Russia nor America perceives the other side as a clear and present danger."
Against this preposterous statement, it is argued that if the two sides do not view each other as a danger, why are there still nuclear missiles aimed at each other ready to be launched at a moment's notice. Story observes, "You do not conduct friendly business transactions with another party while pointing a machine gun at his head."
The "End" of Ideology
Rogov would have us believe that the "world dictatorship" ideology of Russia is no more. He says:
"The balance of ideology and military confrontation between Moscow and Washington inevitably detracts from the popular significance of relations between them. Today's multipolar world is dominated by non-ideological and non-military factors."
This, of course, is a boldface lie.
In The Perestroika Deception, Golitsyn explains that ideology has been abandoned only for presentational purposes. The absence of ideology is only a strategy on the Soviet's part. Golitsyn writes:
"Scratch these new, instant Soviet 'democrats', 'anti-Communists' and 'nationalists' who have sprouted out of nowhere, and underneath will be found secret Party members or KGB agents. The West will pay dearly for its failure to understand that perestroika is not a denial of Leninism but a radical, creative and effective application of the tactic, described by Lenin in 'Left-wing Communism — an Infantile Disorder'.
"In this document, Lenin wrote that true revolutionaries should not be afraid to discard revolutionary phraseology and adopt right-wing tactics to carry out revolutionary policy."
This, of course, is a means of lulling the "bourgeoisie to sleep" by presenting the falsehood that a genuine ideological "break with the past" has taken place, and that Russia is no longer the threat that it once was.
One of the most striking proofs that no break with the past has occurred comes from the often-forgotten November 1987 address of Mikhail Gorbachev to the Soviet Politburo in which he revealed the true purpose of Perestroika:
"Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about glasnost and perestroika and democracy in the coming years. These are intended primarily for outward consumption.
"There will be no significant internal change within the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep."2
Disarm the Americans
The language contained in Rogov's article goes hand-in-hand with Gorbachev's statement to disarm the U.S. through promotion of a false peace. But Rogov's reveals that this will be done by advancing from confrontation to demilitarization and on to "collective security" ... the final stage presupposing the complete demilitarization of the West and the pooling of security with Russia, which will neutralize Western power, giving Moscow total control.
In veiled language, Rogov admits this when he writes:
"The task (of transforming Russian Western relations in the area of security) has been accomplished in the main, but today there is need for something more, namely, a demilitarization of Russia-Western relations. The military component (nuclear and conventional alike) must be gradually and completely excluded in these relations. All eventual conflicts between Russia on the one hand, and the United States, the EU, individual European countries, must be devoid of military dimensions ... this stage of history is going to last long. What is likely to constitute the main content is the formulation of a durable partnership between Russia and Western security organizations, NATO among them. If this goal is reached, it will become possible to create a Euroatlantic security area or, in other words, the comprehensive collective security system which has long been discussed by our country as the highest goal of our foreign and defense policy."
The key phrase here, of course, is the call for "demilitarization of Russia-Western relations", and that this is "the highest goal of (Russia's) foreign and defense policy."
Notice that he does not say to demilitarize Russia, but to demilitarize the relationship by that they really mean to demilitarize the United States while keeping Russia militarily powerful.
Christopher Story expounds that this statement is of exceptional importance because it reconfirms that the supreme objective of Russian strategy is total disarmament of the West, which will give the Soviets free rein to impose their global dictatorship. Of special note is the phrase "this stage is going to last long", in other words, it will be incapable of removal.
The Subversion of NATO
In this article, Rogov laments that former Warsaw-Pact countries are being admitted to NATO, but Russia is still being denied entrance. Christopher Story points out that this protestation of Moscow is actually a brilliant strategy for it assures the expansion of NATO to include former Warsaw-Pact nations. NATO will admit these nations because of the seeming need to "protect" the "former Soviet satellites". But in fact, it serves to allow the wholesale penetration of NATO by surrogate-overt Communist States which the West has embraced as a result of the strategic deception.3
Rogov goes on to complain:
"Meanwhile Washington seems to be conceiving a new geopolitical strategy whose top priority is preservation of the system of military political alliances set up by the United States during the Cold War ...
"Following the liquidation of the Soviet Union, which had called for the simultaneous dissolution of the two military alignments in Europe, the new Russian leadership had expected to get a seat in the North American Alliance. But Russia was not invited to join the alliance.
"Although Russia is no longer regarded as a direct adversary of NATO, neither is it seen as an integral part of the West.
"The U.S. foreign policy priority now is the intention to enlarge Western community by admitting the former clients of the Soviet Union but not Russia. By late 1994, the Clinton Administration had made the decision that the Soviet Union's former Warsaw Treaty allies must be admitted to NATO not withstanding Moscow's objections.
"These developments create the impression that the West continues to play a zero-sum game with Russia and tries to consolidate its victory in the Cold War at the expense of the loser's interests."
This cry-baby monograph is nothing more than the reiteration of standard disinformation.
1) It postulates that Russia "lost the Cold War", and decided to co-operate with the West, but the West continues to take no account of Russia's interest (in other words, meet Russia's demands). However, Russia can hardly portray itself as a "loser" when it admits a threatening military stance to launch weapons of mass destruction at a moment's notice.
2) Rogov's reiteration that Russia had "expected to get a seat in the North American Alliance" and is now disappointed to have been denied that seat can now be used as a dialectic lever for further initiatives and provocations to equalize the fact that, as Rogov explains, "U.S. attack submarines maintain constant alert near our strategic submarine bases". Naval forces remain outside current collective accords. In other words, the Soviets can claim, "if you have submarines patrolling our shores, it's only fair that we can have submarines patrolling yours."
In fact, this is not just a possibility, it is a reality. Those who think that the Cold War is over and that Russia and the United States are the best of friends should well be aware that Russian submarines have been spotted off the U.S. Coast, as was reported in the June 23, 1995 edition of the Washington Times.
Why Not Face Facts?
If the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary was properly done, then Russia would have converted to a Catholic State, and there would be no need of painstaking examination of the writings coming from Russian strategists, nor would these writings contain the dangers, threats, disinformation, and Marxist dialectics found in them. Those who believe that the 1984 Consecration was properly executed, and that the present state of perestroika and glasnost constitutes the long-awaited conversion of Russia are always hard pressed to explain such difficulties pointed out in this article. Theirs is the pitiful task of trying to show that Russia really has converted, but all the devils aren't quite driven out yet.
It should be observed that the 1984 Consecration took place twelve years ago ... there should certainly be more signs of a genuine Catholic conversion by now. Also, there certainly should not be the constant threat of a "return to the Cold War". When Our Lady delivers the promised conversion, that conversion is for keeps.
The absolute urgency and necessity of the Collegial Consecration of Russia are the only explanations that fit the facts. Accepting the plain truth that Collegial Consecration has not been done frees us from having to perform mental somersaults and tragi-comical fits of illogic in order to reconcile the present "non-conversion" with the Promise of Our Lady of the conversion of Russia if it is properly consecrated. It also frees the way for the actual accomplishment of the Collegial Consecration of Russia, according to the specific requirements by the Queen of Heaven.
1. Christopher Story is publisher and editor of the London based Soviet Analyst, an intelligence commentary. He is also editor of The Perestroika Deception, by Anatoliy Golitsyn. Information about The Soviet Analyst may be obtained by writing to, World Reports Limited, Suite 1209, 280 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016-0802.
2. Mikhail Gorbachev — Speech to the Politburo, November 1987, as reported by Sir William Stephenson — formerly Sir Winston Churchill's Personal Representative and Director of British Security Co-ordination in the Western Hemisphere.
3. For proof that Warsaw Pact countries are still Red-dominated, see "Communism Thrives in 'Former' Warsaw Pact Nations" in this issue.