top spymaster explains how russian intelligence sees the us

Published on Russia Insider News (http://russia-insider.com)

Home > Top Spymaster Explains How Russian Intelligence Sees the US

Top Spymaster Explains How Russian Intelligence Sees the USAlexander Mercouris Thu, Nov 6 |

This is an edited version of an interview Nikolai Patrushev, the Secretary of Russias Security Council, gave to the officialgovernment newspaper Rossiskaya Gazeta.

Patrushev is one of Putin's most important advisors on national security. His position is similar in some ways to that of the USPresidents National Security Adviser.

As important about what Patrushev does, is who he was. He is Russias most senior intelligence official.

He has served continuously in intelligence since he joined the KGB in 1975 and was from 1999 to 2008 chief of Russias FSB the successor organization to the KGB. He left this post to become the Secretary to Russias Security Council.

One of Patrushevs key jobs is to collate intelligence information provided by Russias various intelligence agencies and toprovide it to Putin and to Russias other key foreign policy decision makers.

In this interview Patrushev gives insight into what Russias intelligence agencies are telling the Kremlin. Thus we learn thatRussian intelligence:

1. Did not expect Yanukovych to fall because of the Maidan protests;

2. Did however warn the Kremlin long ago that a pro-Western coup in Ukraine was only a question of time because of massiveUS subversion in the country.

We also get an idea of how Russian intelligence sees the world.

According to its view US hostility to Russia is an unvarying constant because Russia, irrespective of its system of government,resists US policies aimed at achieving world hegemony and because the US wants to control Russias immense naturalresources in order to seal its hegemony.

Russias ties to China and India and the emergence of the BRICS bloc have merely provoked the US to intensify its campaignagainst Russia. Events such as the war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, the rebellion in Chechnya in the 1990s, the Georgianattack on South Ossetia in 2008 and the February coup this year in Ukraine, are all simply manifestations of US policiestargeted at Russia.

One does not have to agree with every part of this view. For example the claim that the USSR collapsed because of a USengineered fall in oil prices as part of some carefully thought out US strategy of vulnerabilities, though widely believed and notjust in Russia, is a myth and serves as a typical case of a spymasters belief in external, conspiratorial causes for events thatactually had purely domestic, structural and sometimes even accidental causes.

Top Spymaster Explains How Russian Intelligence Sees the US 08.03.2015

http://russia-insider.com/en/print/859 1 / 6

Patrushev also undoubtedly overstates the degree of coherence in US policy and the extent to which US policy is always andinvariably hostile to Russia.

There is however much that is compelling about this view and it is easy to understand why within Russia it is becomingincreasingly influential.

From a Russian point of view it is not difficult to see US policy since the USSRs break up (eg. NATOs eastern expansion, thetearing up of the ABM Treaty and positioning of anti-ballistic missiles in eastern Europe, the US support for colour revolutionsin the countries of the former USSR, the US support for anti-government groups within Russia itself, the USs wars of interventionin many parts of the world and last but by no means least the ferocious US media campaign against Russia) as unremittinglyhostile towards Russia.

For the increasing number of Russians who hold this view (including its intelligence community) the US backed coup in Ukrainewas the final proof.

Russian Intelligence failed to Predict Yanukovychs February Overthrow

Our specialists were warning of the high probability of an escalation of the situation in Ukraine in the context of political andeconomic instability, particularly under external influence. At the same time it should be acknowledged that the probability of animminent instant seizure of power in Kiev with the support of militant groups of open Nazis was not considered at that time. Let meremind you that prior to the coup you mentioned, Moscow was implementing in full all its partnership commitments to Kiev.

We were constantly providing material and financial aid, without which Ukraine was in no condition to cope with economicdifficulties that had become chronic in nature. To support our neighbours, material and financial resources amounting to tens ofbillions of dollars were mobilized. Unfortunately for many people in Ukraine this aid became, in time, so customary that itsimportance for the countrys survival was simply forgotten.

Russian Intelligence Did Predict a Pro US Coup in Ukraine

As for longer-term predictions, the Ukraine crisis was an entirely expected outcome of systematic activity by the United States andits closest allies.

For the past quarter of a century this activity has been directed towards completely separating Ukraine and the other republics ofthe former USSR from Russia and totally reformatting the post-Soviet space to suit American interests. The conditions and pretextswere created for colour revolutions, supported by generous state funding.

Thus, Victoria Nuland, US assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, has repeatedly stated that during theperiod 1991 through 2013 Washington spent 5bn dollars on supporting the desire of the people of Ukraine for stronger, moredemocratic government.

According to figures from open sources alone, for instance US Congress documents, the total amount of state funding for variousAmerican programmes of aid to Ukraine in the period 2001 through 2012 came to at least 2.4bn dollars. That is comparable withthe annual budget of some small countries. The US Agency for International Development spent about 1.5bn dollars, the StateDepartment nearly half a billion, and the Pentagon more than 370m dollars.

According to congressional records, organizations such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Peace Corps, and the OpenWorld Centre took part in Ukrainian aid programmes, in addition to the well-known USAID and other departments. It is not hard toguess for whom and why American volunteers and staffers of diplomatic missions have been opening the world throughout the 23years since the breakup of the Soviet Union.

.. as a result of this activity..an entire generation was raised that is completely poisoned with hatred of Russia and with themythology of European values. It has not yet realized that these values, even in the positive sense of the term, are not actuallydesigned for Ukrainians. Nobody intends to set about boosting living standards in Ukraine or establishing these young people inEurope, which is itself having great difficulty coping with extremely serious challenges and threats.

The Coup in Ukraine is a Disaster First and Foremost for Ukraine itself

I think the sobering up of the Ukrainians will be harsh and painful. It remains to be hoped that this will happen relatively quickly, anda whole string of objective factors could promote that.

I would like to note another factor that is of fundamental significance. Irrespective of the subsequent development of events, thesignificance of the one for the other Russia and Ukraine will persist. Ukraine will simply not be able to develop successfullywithout Russia, whether anyone likes it or not.



whereas for Russia the total severance of .links would be a painful blow, for Ukraine it would be disastrous. It is noaccident that current President Petro Poroshenko was obliged, in the wake of his ousted predecessor, to raise the question ofpostponing the implementation of economic section of the already signed association agreement between Ukraine and the EU. It isto be expected that the victory euphoria of other Kiev rulers will also give way to more sober assessment of the real state of affairs.

US Policy towards Russia today simply continues US Policy towards the USSR during the Cold War

... if the catastrophe in Ukraine had not happened some other grounds would have been found to step up the policy ofcontainment of our country. This course has been pursued unswervingly for many decades; only the forms and tactics of itsimplementation change.

As you know, after World War II the confrontation between the USSR and the West headed by the United States took the form of acold war. The military-political component of this standoff was entrusted to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), formedon the initiative of the United States on 4 April 1949. An analysis of NATOs practical activity indicates that in creating the alliancethe United States was pursuing two main objectives.

First, a military bloc directed against the USSR was formed under American leadership.

Second, Washington forestalled the emergence in Western Europe of an autonomous grouping of states that could have competedwith the United States. It should be recalled that the territory of the United States itself, which essentially established unilateralmilitary control over the allies, is not included in NATOs zone of responsibility.

After the breakup of the USSR and the termination of the Warsaw Pact, which united Europes socialist countries and which bydefinition represented the main danger to NATO, not only was the bloc not disbanded, it began to expand even more in quantitativeand military terms.

The US Engineered the USSRs Collapse by Identifying its Points of Vulnerability

In the cold war period a whole string of ideological doctrines emerged in the West that served as justification for an anti-Sovietpolitical course. One of the authors of this kind of research was Zbigniew Brzezinski, an American political scientist and statesmanof Polish extraction. He established the so-called strategy of vulnerabilities in relation to the USSR, and under President Reaganthis became the basis of American policy towards our country.The identification and definition of vulnerabilities and the taskof organizing ways of converting them into substantial problems for the USSR were entrusted to the US Central IntelligenceAgency.is work, first and foremost economists but also experts from the business world who had real experience of business warswith competitors. As a result of large-scale analytical work, the USSRs vulnerabilities in the political, economic, ideological, andother spheres were defined and systematically studied.

Our countrys main vulnerability, as defined by the CIA, was its economy. After detailed modelling, the American experts identifiedits weakest link, namely the USSR budgets extremely high dependence on the export of energy resources. A strategy ofprovoking the financial and economic bankruptcy of the Soviet state was formulated, envisaging two interconnected objectives: thebringing about of a sharp reduction in revenue to the USSRs budget from foreign trade, combined with a substantial increase inexpenditure on resolving problems created from outside.

A reduction in world oil prices was envisaged as the main measure for reducing the income side of the budget. This wassuccessfully achieved by the mid-1980s when, as a result of US collusion with the rulers of a number of oil extracting countries, anartificial surplus of crude was created on the market and oil prices fell almost by a factor of four.

A growth in the Soviet Unions expenditure was provoked in several areas: the transition from the strategy of American oppositionto the USSR in Afghanistan to the strategy of dragging it deeply into the Afghan war; the incitement of antigovernmentdemonstrations in Poland and other states in the socialist camp with a view to provoking Moscow into additional expenditures onstabilizing the situation in Eastern Europe; the whipping up of the arms race, among other things by introducing the SDI [StrategicDefence Initiative] bluff, and so forth.

It should be said that at that time the Americans succeeded in achieving their objectives. The outcome of their activity was asubstantial excess in the USSRs expenditure over income, which ultimately provoked a profound economic crisis that extendedinto the political and ideological spheres. Shortsighted attempts by the Soviet leadership to alleviate the situation through foreignfinancial aid gave Washington additional levers of influence over Moscow. The recovery measures proposed by the West andimplemented through the IMF and the World Bank to liberalize foreign trade without a smooth transition from the previous monopolysystem led to the final collapse of the economy.

In the assessment of American experts, it was the strategy of vulnerabilities, which demonstrated the colossal effectiveness ofeconomic variety of cold war compared with hot war,that was decisive in promoting the elimination of the USSR and the WarsawPact.

The US Backed Coup in Ukraine and Sanctions are part of a US Strategy of Points of Vulnerability aimed at Russia



The coup detat in Kiev, accomplished with clear US support, followed the classical pattern tried and tested in Latin America,Africa, and the Middle East. But never before has such a scheme affected Russian interests so profoundly.

Analysis shows that by provoking Russia into retaliatory steps the Americans are pursuing the very same objectives as in the 1980swith regard to the USSR. Just like back then, they are trying to identify our countrys vulnerabilities. At the same time, incidentally,they are pursuing the objective of neutralizing European economic competitors who have, in Washingtons opinion, grownexcessively close to Moscow.

Washington has always sought to have levers of pressure on Russia. Thus, in 1974 the famous Jackson-Vanik Amendmentwas adopted, restricting trade relations with our country. It appeared to have completely lost its relevance immediately after thebreakup of the USSR, but it was still in force right up to 2012, when the so-called Magnitsky List was promptly adopted in its place.

The current sanctions are in the same category. The US Administrations activity in the Ukrainian sphere is taking place within theframework of an updated White House foreign policy course aimed at holding on to American leadership in the world by means ofthe strategic containment of the growing influence of the Russian Federation and other centres of power. In this context Washingtonis actively making use, on its own terms, of NATOs potential, seeking to use political and economic pressure to prevent anyvacillations on the part of its allies and partners.

Yugoslavia was a Dress Rehearsal and Russias Weaknesss under Yeltsin let it Happen

In the 1990s the Russian Federation, for well-known reasons of an internal and external nature, lost the dominant influence in theBalkans that the Soviet Union had enjoyed and embarked on the path of conciliation with the West. It was in the Balkans that theunilateral and totally uncompensated surrender by Russia of its positions in the international arena was manifested most distinctly. In1991-1996 the bodies that shaped our countrys foreign policy did not officially even have any such concept as national interest.They nurtured groundless expectations of gratitude for obedience from the Western partners and some kind of special benefit forour country from close and unconditional cooperation with the United States. In practice our American partners almost immediatelystopped taking us seriously and only gave us a condescending slap on the shoulder, so to speak, from time to time.

The NATO bloc, under cover of peacekeeping and without encountering serious objections from our side, operated increasinglyconfidently outside its own zone of responsibility, sought the rights to lease strategic infrastructure facilities for lengthy periods, andeffectively brought the organs of military command and control of a number of Balkan countries under its own control by variousmeans. The Alliances subunits became firmly established in the region. Other states taking part in peacekeeping missions,including Russia, set themselves no such objectives, having reconciled themselves to the role of junior partners and preferring not tosee the self-evident fact: The war in the Balkans could perfectly well be regarded as a rehearsal and a prologue to larger-scalesteps to redivide the world.

The US War on Terror Gave Russia only a Temporary Respite

Encouraged by the weakening and subsequent elimination of the USSR, American ruling circles did everything possible toensure dominance over the major sources of raw materials resources in our country and in Central Asia, as well as the transit routesfor their export. Washington planned to extend its sphere of direct influence to the regions of the Black Sea, the Caucasus, and theCaspian.

All these territories were named a US zone of strategic national interests. The only remaining obstacle to the realization of theAmericans plans to take complete control of the corresponding deposits and transport corridors was Russia, which preserved itsmilitary potential to inflict unacceptable damage on the United States.

American strategists saw the solution to this difficulty in the final collapse of the system of state power and the subsequentdismemberment of our country. The first region that was supposed to leave Russia was the North Caucasus.

Particular importance was attached to Chechnya, which declared its independence and was temporarily under the effective controlof the West. Extremists and their supporters in Russia were offered support by the special services of Britain, the United States,and allies in Europe and the Islamic world.

In these conditions the Russian leadership adopted a firm, principled stance of defending the unity of the state. Ultimately, as aresult of the firm political will displayed by Russian President Vladimir Putin and at the cost of enormous efforts, it proved possibleto stop attempts to detach Chechnya from Russia and then to consolidate the Republics place within the Federation.

After 11 September 2001 the world community recognized the terrorist threat as the main threat and a global threat, reaching theunderstanding that countering this threat requires common efforts. As a result there was, in particular, a slight weakening of theWests attacks on Russia because of its campaign against international terrorists in the Caucasus, while we did not object to theoperation by the Americans and their allies in Afghanistan. The announcement of the formation of a broad antiterrorist coalitionfollowed.



At that time Washington displayed a certain readiness to collaborate, although in actual fact it did not intend to abandon the policyof containment with regard to Russia. More and more new NATO facilities moved up to our borders. International law wassupplanted by the law of force (let us recall the aforementioned dismemberment of Yugoslavia, followed by Serbia, the occupationof Iraq, and the invasion of Afghanistan by the so-called coalition forces).

Russias post 1999 Revival and its forging Alliances with China, India and the other BRICS Has Alarmed the US

After 7-8 August 2008, when the Georgian leadership, with US support, attempted to annihilate South Ossetia, the world once againchanged substantially.

Everything was staked on surprise. The Georgian dictator believed that a military incursion on the opening day of the internationalOlympic Games would put Russia in a difficult position, and the Georgians, taking advantage of this, would carry out theirblitzkrieg. However, the Russian leadership reacted promptly to the sharp deterioration in the situation and the necessarymeasures were adopted to halt the aggression.

After the August events in the Caucasus, Washington was clearly alarmed by Russias obvious intention to take its place among theworld powers of the 21st century and uphold the principle of equal opportunities and full autonomy in global politics. And also toconvert the states financial income from the exploitation of natural resources into real economic and defence potential and humancapital.

The American leadership clearly also disliked the prospects of Russias collaboration with China and India, the introduction of thepractice of summits in the BRICS format, the successful activity of other organizations in which Russia occupies leading positions(the CSTO [Collective Security Treaty Organization], the SCO [Shanghai Cooperation Organization], and the EAEC [EurasianEconomic Community]), and the formation of the Customs Union.

In the context of the growing world financial and economic crisis, major new players in the international arena such as the PRC,India, Brazil, and Iran as well as the growing economies of Southeast Asia and South Korea became increasingly significant factorsfor the United States. Hence, incidentally, the emergence of new conceptual principles such as the American-Chinese specialpartnership, the strategic collaboration between the United States and India, the establishment of direct dialogue betweenWashington and Iran, and so forth.

Indications of the need to resume the beneficial dialogue with Russia on a whole range of issues began to emerge from the newadministration of President Barack Obama. This positive inclination on the part of the American authorities could only bewelcomed.

However, it soon became clear that Washington is not inclined towards real cooperation. It confined itself to mere statements offriendliness and the devising of certain negotiation tracks from which the benefit to Russia, in the end, proved almost zero. After awhile even totally nonbinding positive dialogues of this kind came to an end and the US attitude towards our country began onceagain to be reminiscent of cold war times.

The US aims to gain Control of Russias Energy, Food and Water Resources to Seal its Domination

specialists are certain that no real substitute for hydrocarbons as the basis of power generation will emerge in the next fewdecades. Furthermore the understanding prevails in the West that the total capacity of nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, and other powerstations will meet no more than one-fifth of world demand.

Nor should another important aspect be forgotten. In the modern world we can observe a steady growth in the shortage of food anddrinking water for the growing population of the planet. The absence of the most elementary means of existence pushes desperatepeople into manifestations of extremism and involvement in terrorism, piracy, and crime. This is one reason for the acute conflictsbetween countries and regions and also for mass migration.

The shortage of water and irrigated land is not infrequently the cause of friction, for instance, between the Central Asian republics.The problem of water resources is acute in a number of other countries in Asia and particularly in Africa.

Many American experts, in particular former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, assert that there are vast territories underMoscows power that it is incapable of exploiting and which therefore do not serve the interests of all humanity. Assertionscontinue to be heard about the unfair distribution of natural resources and the need to ensure so-called free access to them forother states.

The Americans are convinced that people must be thinking in similar terms in many other states, particularly those neighbouring onRussia, and that in the future they will, as is nowadays the custom, form coalitions to support the corresponding claims on ourcountry. As in the case of Ukraine, it is proposed to resolve problems at Russias expense but without taking its interests intoaccount.

The Threat to Russia from the US is Constant and Thaws Never Last

Even during periods of a relative thaw in relations between Russia (the USSR) and the United States, our American partners havealways remained true to such notions.



Therefore irrespective of the nuances in the behaviour of the Americans and their allies the Russian leadership still faces this taskas a constant: To guarantee the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Motherland, to defend and multiply its riches, and tomanage them correctly in the interests of the multiethnic people of the Russian Federation.

Source URL (retrieved on 03/08/2015 - 23:28): http://russia-insider.com/en/military_politics_ukraine_opinion/2014/11/10/08-50-10pm/top_spymaster_explains_how_russian

Links:[1] http://russia-insider.com/crowdfunding[2] https://twitter.com/share[3] //www.reddit.com/submit?url=http://russia-insider.com/military_politics_ukraine_opinion/2014/11/10/08-50-10pm/top_spymaster_explains_how_russian[4] http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://russia-insider.com/military_politics_ukraine_opinion/2014/11/10/08-50-10pm/top_spymaster_explains_how_russian&title=Top Spymaster Explains How Russian Intelligence Sees the US&topic=political_opinion



top spymaster explains how russian intelligence sees the us

Documents