It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intel Agent Reveals How NATO Planned to Tear Russia Apart

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 08:10 AM
link   

According to secret documents obtained by a Russian intelligence service, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO planned to split Russia into several smaller parts, a former secret agent told Russia's Rossiya 1 broadcaster.


Sputnik, one of Russia's more reliable English language news source.

Reporters for Sputnik still struggle to find ways of presenting Kremlin propaganda without undermining their own journalistic principles. Although the headline makes a bald assertion, the actual text of the article retains editorial credibility by qualifying the story with appropriate attribution: "a former secret agent told Russia's Rossiya 1 broadcaster." In other words, Sputnik is accurately reporting that an anonymous "secret agent" made a claim on Rossiya 1 television, the state owned television network. An intelligent consumer of news will understand that Sputnik is distancing itself from the story. Rossiya 1 is direct state propaganda, and whoever the alleged "secret agent" is, he is certainly a government agent. (Even if he is just an actor hired to read the lines the Kremlin handed him.) RIA Novosti, who are also adopting this distancing strategy, identifies the alleged agent's alias, "Pavel Andreyevich," as an allusion to the hero of a Russian TV serial about a Cheka agent during the Civil War, "His Excellency's Adjutant."


The program was dedicated to the 95th anniversary of the Directorate S ("illegal" intelligence service) of the Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation (SVR).

The interview was conducted by Vesti v Subbotu anchor Sergei Brilev. The voice, face and name of the former agent were changed due to security reasons.


Can you imagine the United States celebrating the anniversary of the founding of CIA? Britain celebrating MI6? Russia takes pride in the activities of their foreign intelligence services. Apparently, this is the Cheka's anniversary. It has had many names over the years: Cheka, NKVD, NKGB, KGB.... With a former KGB officer running the country it is not surprising that the Kremlin would get all teary eyed about the Service. "Department S" really exists. It is responsible for placing agents under "deep cover," or "illegals." Anna Chapman is perhaps the best known alumnus from this program.

Of course, the supposed agent had his face and voice altered. This dramatic touch adds a bit of plausibility. The odd thing is that he is not saying anything that the government does not want people to hear. He is in no danger as a "whistleblower," and as a retiree, there is no danger of his cover being blown. It is entirely a theatrical trick.


"Pavel Andreyevich [the agent's alias] says that the NATO documents obtained by him signaled that the dissolution of the USSR was only the first stage," Brilev noted.

"And then [NATO planned] to create the Russian North-Volga Republic and then the Middle Volga Republic, and reduce the Russian state to the level and size of the Moscow principality," the intelligence veteran specified.


In other words, NATO was somehow going to dismember the Russian Federation and return it to the medieval Duchy of Muscovy. How it could possibly do that is not explained.


"We have these documents, they are now in the archive of our [Russian intelligence] service," the former agent stressed.


Of course they do. [/sarcasm] What sort of documents are they talking about here? Battle plans? A Rand feasibility study? A drunken email from a general? Why not publish them on WikiLeaks? In fairness, if the documents could only be obtained by someone under deep cover, releasing them could reveal operational details; ie; it could "blow someone's cover." There are legitimate reasons why news media do not publish un-redacted documents.

The story then goes on to reinforce the new narrative by providing real and alleged historical precedents:


In his book The Grand Chessboard published six years after the collapse of the USSR, a former US national security adviser and geostrategist, Zbigniew Brzezinski, insisted that "a more decentralized Russia would be less susceptible to imperial mobilization."


Note how the phrase "more decentralized" is equated with dismemberment. Brzezinski is referring to a more federalized system, in which provinces have more autonomy, and a larger voice in the federal government. As it is, everything is centralized in the hands of the President and his friends from the Lake. This makes it easier to organize and mobilize potential aggression against its neighbors.


"A loosely confederated Russia — composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far Eastern Republic — would find it easier to cultivate closer economic regulations with Europe, with the new states of Central Asia, and with [East Asia], which would thereby accelerate Russia's own development," the geostrategist claimed.

"Each of the three confederated entities would also be more able to tap local creative potential, stifled for centuries by Moscow's heavy bureaucratic hand," he added.


Again, federalism, not dismemberment. Note, also, the emphasis on economic opportunity. This is not a blueprint for conquest, it is an analysis of the shortcomings of the Russian Federation's top heavy centralized political system. But just to make sure you get the Kremlin's message:


Interestingly enough, before Brzezinski, the idea to sever Russia along the Ural Mountains thus dividing it into "European" and "Asian" (Siberia and the Far East) parts, was mulled over by Nazi Germany and its allies.


Yep, when all else fails:



To round things off, they remind the reader that the United States, Japan, and the European powers backed the Whites against the Bolsheviks during the Civil War. (See how it all ties in with the Pavel Andreyevich thing? Good fiction hangs together like that.)






edit on 29-6-2017 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-6-2017 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 08:16 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 


(post by DJW001 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 08:27 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

hm...I'm at the end of my work hours...so....maybe it's me.

What's your point here ?



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Just so there is no confusion, this thread walks the reader through the process of evaluating media reports, ie; news. Journalists report their sources accurately. Both Sputnik and RIA Novosti do so: they report that someone on a state owned network claimed that there were plans to dismember Russia. This is accurate, although the claimant does not provide any evidence. "Supporting" statement by a former US official do not actually support the claim, but are quoted to provide "weight" to the story. Gratuitous references are made to other important moments of the nationalistic victimhood narrative for emotional appeal.


(post by MarioOnTheFly removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Well, that escalated quickly...



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 08:32 AM
link   
**ATTENTION**

This thread is NOT in the mudpitt. You will abide by all Terms & Conditions, including civility and decorum, or you will be post banned.

There will be no other warnings.

~Tenth
ATS Super Mod



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nikola014
Let me get this straight.

NOW, you have a problem with anonymous sources?

Typical



I realize that English is not your native language. I distinctly say: " In fairness, if the documents could only be obtained by someone under deep cover, releasing them could reveal operational details; ie; it could "blow someone's cover." There are legitimate reasons why news media do not publish un-redacted documents."

I have no problem with anonymous sources if they are identified as such. The question is always how credible they are, and that is a function of the plausibility of the story and the journalist's track record of reporting accurately.

What is of interest to me here is how Russian journalists are trying to retain their integrity while reporting Kremlin propaganda.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 08:34 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001


I recall in a novel that I read which referred to a secret society and stated Putin and his father were members of. That his personal legend/history and especially his father's is completely fake.

Of course, I cannot remember the name of this secret society- nor the authors name- which apparently goes back to the last czar's time.

Are you aware of this 'society' or is it artist license? It 'seemed' somewhat a cross between the skulls and Masons. It was 'related'(?) to the Chekas or at least the Chekas were well infused with these guys, but separate.


Side note. I'm one half Ukrainian and the rest is 'white' Russian in lineage
. I have little use for either....



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: DJW001

still dont get it...

perhaps you could dumb it down for me...in a few child-like sentences.


Russian reporters try to distance themselves from bogus propaganda.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001




What is of interest to me here is how Russian journalists are trying to retain their integrity while reporting Kremlin propaganda.



oh...that's the point you were trying to make ? Whizzed right by me...

Carry on.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 08:40 AM
link   
***ATTENTION**

Apparently, staff weren't clear enough. You will remain ON TOPIC and be civil with each other. Any further off topic replies, or T&C violations will result in 72hr post bans.

DO not reply to this post, do not complain about staff actions in thread, you can PM me for more information if you wish to discuss it further.

Again, carry on, with the T&C in mind and the topic.

~Tenth



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: DJW001




What is of interest to me here is how Russian journalists are trying to retain their integrity while reporting Kremlin propaganda.



oh...that's the point you were trying to make ? Whizzed right by me...

Carry on.


There is more, of course. I pointed out that in an attempt to "sell" the Kremlin's new propaganda offensive, the press has dredged up some alleged historical precedents to bolster the case. We see this technique used on BBSs like this one. Old State Department cables will be brought up, out of context, to justify a claim that otherwise lacks evidence, for example.
edit on 29-6-2017 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Since we're not allowed to discuss anonymous sources, let's talk about the subject.

I really would not be surprised if NATO had plans to destroy Russian Federation, it's a normal thing to have against your enemy. I'm sure Russia has war plans against NATO as well.

Maybe this story could help explain why did NATO help create the civil war in Ukraine. Maybe it was just a starting point, a step to create some kind of domino effect, which would destabilise Russia. Luckily or not, depending on your perspective, Russia reacted immediately and put a stop on that plan.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

My last post on this subject...and honestly...tell me...do you really think that NATO has never considered it...or wouldnt want to split Russia ?

I would put my genitalia on fire that there were plans...or at least ideas by some people in the US/NATO administration at the time. If Operation Northwoods was drawn up and considered...really man.

And there would be a long line of people wanting to do it today...



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Nikola014


Maybe this story could help explain why did NATO help create the civil war in Ukraine. Maybe it was just a starting point, a step to create some kind of domino effect, which would destabilise Russia. Luckily or not, depending on your perspective, Russia reacted immediately and put a stop on that plan.


But Ukraine is not a part of the Russian Federation; on the contrary, it is Russia that is trying to dismember Ukraine. If NATO were trying to dismember the RF, it would focus on Muslim majority regions in Central Asia, and, of course, Siberia. There is practically no motion towards Siberian separatism, so it is safe to say these allegations are spurious.




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join