Showing posts with label KGB. Show all posts
Showing posts with label KGB. Show all posts

Friday, May 31, 2013

The Boston Bombing & The KGB

Robert Sterling, Konformist.com

Almost immediately after the bombing at the Boston Marathon, many people on the Internet (most notably Alex Jones of Infowars.com ) proclaimed the event to be a "False Flag" operation masterminded by US intelligence.  This is certainly a plausible scenario, if one examines history.  Still, if you ask "Cui bono?" to the events in Boston, the idea that the bombing was a KGB operation to justify a deeper push in Chechnya seems plausible as well.  And if you dig a little deeper, the ulterior motive would appear to be oil.

Here is an article from National Journal titled "What You Need to Know About Chechnya":

http://www.nationaljournal.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-chechnya-20130419

The most important sentence of this entire report: "Today, Russia continues to maintain a vital interest in the region for economic reasons: Access routes from Russia to the Black Sea and Caspian Sea go through Chechnya, as do oil and gas pipelines connecting Russia with Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan."

This was a pretty important story from March that didn't get the coverage it deserved:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/03/21/russias-rosneft-surpasses-exxonmobil-to-become-worlds-biggest-oil-co/

Rosneft, the state-owned Russian oil company, became the biggest oil company in the world (exceeding ExxonMobil) after their latest huge acquisition of TNK-BP. The CEO of Rosneft, Igor Sechin, is a "former" KGB spy.

This Atlantic article doesn't conclude conspiracy (probably because, according to establishment thought, conspiracies by powerful organizations don't happen) but it does show all the dots that need to be connected:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/what-you-should-know-about-chechnya-as-the-boston-story-unfolds/275156/

Here's the most important quote:

"To allow the Boston attacks to cast all Chechens as violent religious zealots is exactly what Putin needs. That will allow him to keep his deadly arrangement going. The supreme irony of Putin's PR strategy is that most Chechens share the democratic values of a Western civilization that completely disregards, and misunderstands, their struggle."

So here's the general model: Rosneft, the state-owned Russian oil giant, has just become the world's biggest oil company through mass acquisitions. The end goal of the acquisitions is the big prize, the oil in the Caspian Sea, which Russia (like the US, Europe & China) wants to dominate. The problem, of course, is that Chechnya stands in the way of the oil. In order to get it, they must crush Chechnya. To stop any PR defense of Chechnyans, the bombing turns Chechnya into an officially sanctioned demon. Look for Putin to declare sympathy for America and support of the War on Terror, then launch an even bloodier offensive of Chechnya. Then look for Rosneft to make even huger and bigger deals over the Caspian oil.

Sunday, April 7, 2013

RIP: Boris Berezovsky


Here's the headline found in the London Telegraph: "Assassination fears over death of Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky."

Perhaps there is more than a tad of convenience in the establishment press when reporting the plausibility of murder involved in the death of Berezovsky.  After all, a primary suspect in his death would be Russian inteligence, as well as Russia's evil mastermind Vladimir Putin.  It's easier for the Western establishment to accuse Vlad of murder than point the finger at themselves or their allies, hence why similar suspicions involving the death of Hugo Chavez or Yasser Arafat are usually dismissed or suppressed.

That said, the evidence of foul play is hard to ignore.  From The Telegraph:

Berezovsky, an outspoken critic of Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, had long feared for his life and had survived repeated assassination attempts — although none in recent years. He had been due to be a witness at the inquest next month into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, the former KGB spy who was murdered in 2006 after being poisoned by radioactive polonium-210 in what is believed to have been a Kremlin-sanctioned assassination...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9950494/Assassination-fears-over-death-of-Russian-oligarch-Boris-Berezovsky.html

The World Socialist Web Site made a great case for suspicious minds:

According to official reports, there were indications of strangulation on Berezovsky’s neck, and a scarf was found near his body. The door to the bathroom in which he was found was locked on the inside and no suicide note has been found. So far no reference has been made in any press report to any rope having been found. His body was not dangling from the ceiling, but lying on the floor. The claim that his death was “consistent with hanging” is ambiguous, to say the least...

Berezovsky was a man with many enemies and few friends. The question of who had a motive to kill Berezovsky is best answered by asking, who didn’t?

In the aftermath of the announcement of Berezovsky’s death, the press immediately began to tell a story of a man driven to depression and suicide by the loss of wealth and power. The story is largely founded upon two pieces of evidence, both dubious.

A prepared press statement from Putin’s administration was immediately released, claiming that Berezovsky had sent a hand-written note to Putin apologizing and seeking to be re-admitted to Russia. And a Russian journalist claimed that she had conducted an interview with Berezovsky the day before his suicide in which he stated that he had lost interest in life.

Given the person of Boris Berezovsky and the circumstances of this death, these statements reek of well-timed leaks and serve to deepen suspicions of foul play, rather than to allay them...

http://wsws.org/en/articles/2013/03/26/bere-m26.html

Meanwhile, The London Daily Mail presented an alternative suspect in Berezovsky's death: British intelligence:

As speculation raged on  yesterday, an adviser to Putin even claimed Mr Berezovsky may have been killed by British security services.

Using the inflammatory rhetoric of the Cold War era, Sergei Markov said the tycoon was assassinated because he knew too much about Western plots to undermine Putin and planned to trade this knowledge for a return to Russia.

Mr Markov, a former Russian politician, said: ‘I cannot say no to the version that it was a murder committed by those who were scared Boris Berezovsky would go back to Putin’s side.

Mr Markov denied speculation that a Russian hit squad could have been sent to kill Mr Berezovsky. ‘After all, there are civilised politicians in the Kremlin,’ he added. ‘They do not use the methods of political murders.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2298614/Boris-Berezovsky-strangled-death-friends-claim-revealed-security-guard-left-hours-run-errands.html

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Yasser Arafat 'poisoned with Polonium'


Yasser Arafat may have been killed with a lethal dose of the highly radioactive substance Polonium, it has been claimed.
Adrian Blomfield, Middle East Correspondent
03 Jul 2012
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/9374010/Yasser-Arafat-poisoned-with-Polonium.html

Tests performed by a laboratory in Switzerland found significant traces of Polonium-210 on the late Palestinian leader's clothes, adding a new twist to a case that has obsessed the Arab world for years.

Polonium-210 is the same substance used to poison the Russian dissident Alexader Litvinenko in London.

The claims are likely to renew long-held Palestinian suspicions that the Israeli spy agency Mossad assassinated Arafat, who died in a Paris hospital in November, 2004.

The Institute de Radiophysique in Lausanne found elevated levels of the element on Arafat's personal effects. A urine stain in his underwear registered a level of 180 millibecquerels of Polonium-210, more than 20 times the dose to kill an average human being.

"I can confirm to you that we measured an unexplained, elevated amount of unsupported Polonium-210 in the belongings of Mr Arafat that contained stains of biological fluids," Dr Francois Bochod, the director of the institute, told Al Jazeera, the pan-Arab television station.

Al Jazeera sent Arafat's clothes to the institute for testing after obtaining them from his widow as part of a nine-month investigation into the revolutionary's death.

Many theories have been advanced in the past for the cause of Arafat's death, and his case notes – which are alleged to show that he had suffered cirrhosis – have never been released.

A former speech writer for President George W Bush claimed he had contracted Aids from a homosexual relationship with one of his guards, while aides of Arafat have alleged that he was poisoned by Mossad with Thallium, another radioactive element.

British police and doctors initially believed that Litvinenko, a former KGB officer who defected to London, was killed with Thallium, a misdiagnosis because Polonium-210 is harder to detect with normal hospital equipment.

Some of Arafat's symptoms, including vomiting, cirrhosis and coma, are compatible with Polonium-210 poisoning, which results in a long and agonising death. But it is not thought that Arafat suffered hair loss, which is thought to happen in half of cases of significant exposure to the element.

The dose allegedly ingested by Arafat was much smaller than the amount that killed Litvinenko, making it even harder to detect.

British police dealing with the Litvinenko case have alleged that only a sophisticated, state-backed intelligence agency could source Polonium-210 in a form that could be used to poison someone.

Monday, April 23, 2012

Former KGB chief a suicide, police say


Fri March 30, 2012
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/30/world/europe/russia-kgb-suicide/index.html

Former Soviet spy Leonid Shebarshin, who was very briefly head of the KGB, was found dead Friday in his apartment in Moscow, an apparent suicide, officials said.

The 76-year-old left a suicide note, the state-run news agency Itar-Tass reported Friday, citing city police. A weapon was found near the body, Investigation Committee spokesman Vladimir Markin said.

The contents of the note were not disclosed "in the interest of the investigation," according to police, the news agency said. Shebarshin was alone in the apartment, it added.

According to Itar-Tass, Shebarshin was born in Moscow in 1935. He served as an intelligence officer under diplomatic cover in Pakistan, India and Iran and took high-ranking positions in the KGB beginning in 1983. He was appointed deputy chairman in 1989. He led the KGB for one day only, on August 22, 1991, and retired the following month.

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Rock and Roll Conspiracy: Roy Wood vs. Harold Wilson

http://www.paranoidsonline.com/2010/12/rock-and-roll-conspiracy-roy-wood-vs.html
01 December, 2010
Rock and Roll Conspiracy: Roy Wood vs. Harold Wilson
Joan d'Arc
Paranoia Magazine

This article will outline the theory that British Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, was a deep cover communist operative at the time he redistributed the wealth of “glam rocker” and experimental musician, Roy Wood, and his band, The Move, with a libel suit which redirected Roy Wood’s royalties to the charities of Wilson’s choice. This redistribution of wealth continues at the time of this writing in 2010, and will continue in perpetuity on all income for Wood’s 1967 song “Flowers in the Rain.”

Libel is defined as “defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.” The law of libel originated in the 17th century in England. Currently, the cost of a libel case in Britain, according to a 2009 article in The Sunday Times, can run a million pounds, even though the damages at stake might be just 10,000 pounds. According to the article, “the freedom to criticise fairly and strongly is the cornerstone of debate and progress.” The libel laws in England are devastating to a free society.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/article6879284.ece
Harold Wilson, The Taxman

The song "Taxman" was written by Beatle, George Harrison, recorded in April and May of 1966, and released on the 1966 album Revolver. The song attacked the 95 percent income tax slapped onto high-income individuals in Great Britain by Harold Wilson’s Labour government, which continues to this day. "Taxman" was the Beatles' first overt political statement. Indeed, Harrison once stated, "'Taxman' was when I first realised that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes. It was and still is typical."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxman

"Taxman" marked the first time public figures were mentioned in a Beatles song, and it has been established that Harold Wilson was the “Taxman,” since his name is mentioned in the background vocals along with conservative leader, Edward Heath.

http://oldies.about.com/od/thebeatlessongs/a/taxman.htm

Roy Wood and The Move

On November 13, 2010, Roy Wood, founder of The Move, Electric Light Orchestra, Wizzard, and other bands, received a “Star” on the Birmingham Walk of Stars in his hometown of Birmingham. Wood told the crowd, "It’s fantastic to have your home town support you in this way. It is really really good. I'm just honoured, really. What can I say? It’s fantastic.”

With a little chuckle at the end of the interview, Wood slipped in the following remark:

“And at least people can walk all over me again.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-11750900?ref=nf

What in the world did Wood mean by this statement?

The Move, from Birmingham, England, was one of the leading British rock bands of the late 1960s and early 70s. They scored nine Top 20 UK singles in five years, but did not find success on the U.S. charts. Founder, Roy Wood, composed all the group's UK singles. Their early career was marked by a series of publicity stunts, such as taking an axe to televisions, cars, and busts of Hitler.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Move

The promotional campaign for the 1967 song, Flowers in the Rain, known as a “hippie anthem,” generated a libel suit that had major financial and personal repercussions for the song’s writer, Roy Wood, when the Move’s manager, Tony Secunda, unbeknownst to the band, produced a cartoon post card meant to be a “political satire” showing Prime Minister Harold Wilson in bed with his secretary, Marcia Williams. Wilson sued The Move for libel and the group was forced to pay all costs, plus all royalties earned by the song, to the charities of Wilson’s choice, among them, the Spastics Society and Stoke Mandeville Hospital.

The Move fired Secunda for this surreptitious publicity stunt. The ruling, however, remained in force even after Wilson's death in 1995, and remains in force to this day. It is thought to have cost Wood millions of pounds in royalties over the years. And the writer of the song doesn’t seem to be altogether forgiving 43 years after the event. According to Wood, the nasty post card had absolutely nothing to do with the band, either in content or intent. The members of the band did not draw the cartoon, which was purposely mailed to the Prime Minister. It only took Wilson about 11 days to file the libel suit.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowers_in_the_Rain)

In Roy Wood's words, the Move received "a longer sentence than the great train robbers.” And that’s for a cartoon post card. Following Harold Wilson’s death in 1995, Wood went to court to redirect the payments to charities of his preference, such as the Birmingham Children's Hospital. The response from Wilson’s solicitors was that they were unable to touch the original agreement, although clearly the list of charities had changed since then. According to the London Observer, The Harold Wilson Charitable Trust had “extended the range of beneficiaries to include, among others, the Oxford Operatic Society, Bolton Lads Club and the Jewish National Fund for Israel.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6960296.stm

This is what I would consider “walking all over him.” But is there more to the story about this “political stunt” gone awry?

Was Harold Wilson a Soviet Agent?

Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn has reportedly claimed that Wilson was a KGB operative and that former Labour Party leader, Hugh Gaitskell, had been assassinated by the KGB in order to replace Gaitskell with Harold Wilson. This claim, of course, has been disputed. The British spy agency MI5 investigated Wilson over several years and decided Wilson was never associated with the KGB. Indeed, Wilson himself claimed to be anti-communist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Wilson_conspiracy_theories

But the book Spycatcher begs to differ, proclaiming Wilson to have been a Soviet plant. The author of the memoir, former MI5 officer Peter Wright, claims he had been told that Wilson was a Soviet agent. The story, he wrote, came from none other than U.S. spymaster, James Angleton, himself. Angleton, head of the CIA's Counterintelligence Division during Wilson’s first reign (1964-1970), claimed he had heard from an unamed source (probably Golitsyn) that Wilson was a Soviet agent. Angleton offered more information if MI5 would guarantee to keep the allegations out of British “political circles.” The British spy agency, according to Wright’s memoir, refused to accept the restrictions on the use of his information. Thus, Angleton was reticent to supply any more information.

According to Wright, by the end of the 1960s, MI5 had received information that the Labour Party had “almost certainly” been penetrated by the Soviets. Two Czechoslovakian defectors named “Frolik” and “August” had named Harold Wilson amongst a list of Labour MP’s and trade unionists who were Soviet agents. (Wright, Spymaster)

A new book entitled, Defence of the Realm, a history of MI5 by Cambridge professor Christopher Andrew, says there were “worries about his relationships with Eastern European businessmen. His contact with KGB officers also raised concerns.” However, the book dismisses the longstanding claims of bugging and plots against Wilson. Wilson does, however, seem to have been “the only serving prime minister to have a permanent Secret Service file,” which was opened in 1945 when Wilson became an MP, “after communist civil servants suggested he had similar political sympathies.” (“MI5 kept file on former PM Wilson” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8288247.stm)

According to Wikipedia, ex-British spy Peter Wright claimed that he was confronted by two of his MI5 colleagues, who stated: "Wilson's a bloody menace and it's about time the public knew the truth," and "We'll have him out, this time we'll have him out." Wright said there had been a plan, approved by up to thirty officers, to leak “selective details of the intelligence about Labour leaders, especially Wilson, to 'sympathetic' journalists.” Their contacts in the press and trade unions would destabilise the Labour Government by spreading the idea that “Wilson was considered a security risk.” Wright has declined to let any government official see the files on Wilson and he states the plan was never carried out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Wilson_conspiracy_theories

Was the plan ultimately carried out by the manager of an obscure rock band from Birmhingham, The Move’s Tony Secunda? Were there any invisible tentacles behind this publicity stunt? Was MI5 possibly involved in this prank to take down Harold Wilson, and did this plot instead turn bizarrely on the band and the writer of the song? Perhaps this possibility is something that Roy Wood has turned over in his mind in the past 43 years.

Roy Wood the Rocker

Libel Reform

On January 27, 2010, the British government announced it would establish a working group to examine concerns that U.K. "libel laws are having a chilling effect on freedom of expression,” and enourage “predatory suits.” Such suits are not restricted to the United Kingdom’s borders and can easily affect US citizens. A British group called The Legal Project has provided information to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the potentially severe consequences of a U.K. default judgment on US victims of "libel tourism." http://www.legal-project.org/issues/uk-libel-law.

In August 2010, the British-based Libel Reform Campaign expressed concern that Britain's reputation is being damaged internationally due to what it calls "our restrictive, archaic and costly libel laws, which cost 140 times the European equivalent."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/aug/11/medialaw-barack-obama

Let’s welcome the U.K. into the 21st century!

On January 18, 2008, Wood was awarded an honorary doctorate by the University of Derby for his contribution to music. Although many voices in England are clamoring to make Roy Wood a knight, I would suspect at this point Roy Wood isn’t interested in a British knighthood. I think the appelation “Dr. Roy Wood” suits him better.

Where is Roy Wood now?

In the following interview, Wood claims he has “stuck himself away” in his private studio … “somewhere not easily accessible.” He tours England with his band, the Roy Wood Rock & Roll Band.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qLLQWHl9dc&NR=1

His websites are:

http://www.roywood.co.uk/news.html
http://www.themoveonline.com/news.html

Some of his hit songs:

Brontosaurus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai7ZGzUgHrU&feature=related

Video for Roy Wood’s solo hit in UK: Dear Elaine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w63MwFVrYZ8

Rock n Roll Winter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Duq5QDp6KqE&feature=related

Ball Park Incident
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILcp2U886cI&feature=related

Roy Wood on Boulders, Wake Up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR1ybuUg008

Roy Wood on Boulders, Song of Praise
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwhuqY5_AQ8

Look through the eyes of a fool
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxDSsIHzAFQ&feature=related

For more videos please search Youtube.

More great links about Roy Wood or by Roy Wood:

Roy Wood, Rock and Roll Oboeist and Grandfather of Glam

In this interview with the Telegraph, Roy tells how manager Don Arden ruined his career, how EMI in 2008 reissued the new Boulders CD without his permission or input, and that Bev Bevan is now touring as The Move and stealing his tunes!:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/3667317/Roy-Wood-was-the-grandfather-of-glam-rock.html

In 2009, Roy Wood became a guest editor at the Mercury Times, and penned this humorous article on daytime television in the UK:
http://www.sundaymercury.net/roywoodcampaign/roywoodcampaignnews/2009/05/10/move-and-elo-star-roy-wood-why-i-hate-daytime-tv-66331-23584403/

April 2009 article by Roy Wood at the Mercury Times on anti-binge drinking in UK:
http://www.sundaymercury.net/birmingham-blogs-comment/columnists/2009/04/12/rock-legend-roy-wood-writes-exclusively-for-the-sunday-mercury-66331-23362375/

Roy Wood reveals his secret shyness:
http://www.sundaymercury.net/news/midlands-news/2009/04/05/wizzard-and-move-pop-legend-roy-wood-reveals-his-secret-shyness-66331-23312909/

Roy Wood Campaign: Image Galleries on the Sunday Mercury:
http://www.sundaymercury.net/roywoodcampaign/

A cornucopia of interviews set up by a fan, and named after a Roy Wood song, Cherry Blossom Clinic:
http://www.cherryblossomclinic.freeserve.co.uk/

Retrospective article on The Move at Brumbeat:
http://www.brumbeat.net/move.htm
Musicology and Review: “Wood is one of the most gifted multi-instrumentalists in existence. Most of his solo albums are solo in the truest sense of the word - recorded entirely by himself, where he plays all the guitars, bass, drums, pianos, banjos, trombones, flutes, bagpipes, violins, accordion, and personally loops all the tapes he needs.”
http://starling.rinet.ru/music/roywood.htm

Roy Wood receives an honorary doctorate at University of Derby in 2009.
“Roy is widely recognised as one of the most significant British musicians of post rock and roll popular music history, contributing to Glam Rock, Rock, Progressive Rock, and Psychedelia.” Graduation pictures here!
http://www.derby.ac.uk/graduation/gallery/honoraries/roywood

More about Roy Wood’s work
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Roy_Wood

All This and World War II, song list, DVD or CD never released:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/All_This_and_World_War_II

Roy Wood - Lovely Rita and Polythene Pam: from the above film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5xbhu7mErg

Joan d'Arc may be reached at http://www.paranoiamagazine.com/

Thursday, October 1, 2009

Fresh doubts over Hitler's death after tests

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1216455/Fresh-doubts-Hitlers-death-tests-skull-reveal-womans.html

Fresh doubts over Hitler's death after tests on bullet hole skull reveal it belonged to a woman
By Mail Foreign Service
27th September 2009

Adolf Hitler may not have shot himself dead and perhaps did not even die in his bunker, it emerged yesterday.

A skull fragment believed for decades to be the Nazi leader’s has turned out to be that of a woman under 40 after DNA analysis.

Scientists and historians had long thought it to be conclusive proof that Hitler shot himself in the head after taking a cyanide pill on 30 April 1945 rather than face the ignominy of capture.

The piece of skull - complete with bullet hole - had been taken from outside the Fuhrer’s bunker by the Russian Army and preserved by Soviet intelligence.

Now the story of Hitler’s death will have to rewritten as a mystery - and conspiracy theorists are likely to latch on to the possibility that he may not have died in the bunker at all.

The traditional story is that Hitler committed suicide with Eva Braun as the Russians bombarded Berlin.

Although some historians doubted he shot himself and suggested it was Nazi propaganda to make him a hero, the hole in the skull fragment seemed to settle the argument when it was put on display in Moscow in 2000.

But DNA analysis has now been performed on the bone by American researchers.

'We know the skull corresponds to a woman between the ages of 20 and 40,' said University of Connecticut archeologist Nick Bellantoni.

'The bone seemed very thin; male bone tends to be more robust. And the sutures where the skull plates come together seemed to correspond to someone under 40.' Hitler was 56 in April 1945.

Mr Bellantoni flew to Moscow to take DNA swabs at the State Archive and was also shown the bloodstained remains of the bunker sofa on which Hitler and Braun were believed to have killed themselves.

'I had the reference photos the Soviets took of the sofa in 1945 and I was seeing the exact same stains on the fragments of wood and fabric in front of me, so I knew I was working with the real thing,' he said.

His astonishing results have been broadcast in the U.S. in a History Channel documentary titled Hitler's Escape.

According to witnesses, the bodies of Hitler and Braun were wrapped in blankets and carried to the garden just outside the bunker, placed in a bomb crater, doused with petrol and set ablaze.

In May 1945 a Russian forensics team dug up what was presumed to be the dictator’s body. Part of the skull was missing, apparently the result of the suicide shot. The remaining piece of jaw matched his dental records, according to his captured dental assistants. And there was only one testicle.

A year later the missing skull fragment was found on the orders of Stalin, who remained suspicious about Hitler’s fate.

Just how and when he died is now shrouded in mystery. Mr Bellantoni said it was unlikely the bone was Braun’s, who was 33.

'There is no report of Eva Braun having shot herself or having been shot afterwards,' he said. 'Many people died near the bunker.'

Unknown to the world, the corpse then believed to be Hitler's was interred in Magdeburg, East Germany.

There it remained long after Stalin’s death in 1953.

Finally, in 1970, the KGB dug up the corpse, cremated it and secretly scattered the ashes in a river.

Only the jawbone (which remains away from public view), the skull fragment and the bloodstained sofa segments were preserved in the deep archives of Soviet intelligence.

Mr Bellantoni studied the remains after flying to Moscow to inspect the gruesome Hitler trophies at the State Archive.
He was allowed only one hour with the Hitler trove, during which time he applied cotton swabs and took DNA samples.
The samples were then flown back to Connecticut.

At the university’s centre for applied genetics, Linda Strausbaugh closed her lab for three days to work exclusively on the Hitler project.

She said: ‘We used the same routines and controls that would have been used in a crime lab.’

To her surprise, a small amount of viable DNA was extracted.

She then replicated this through a process known as molecular copying to provide enough material for analysis.

‘We were very lucky to get a reading, despite the limited amount of genetic information,’ she said.

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

New Discoveries about Hemingway

http://www.dcdave.com/article5/090923.htm

New Discoveries about Hemingway… along with Some New Questions
By Hugh Turley
9-9-23

Ernest Hemingway had secret contact with Soviet intelligence agents, according to a recent book, Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America, by John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr, and Alexander Vassiliev.

The book is based largely upon newly released KGB records, but it draws upon his FBI file to show, as well, that during World War II Hemingway used his fishing boat the Pilar to hunt for German submarines for the U.S. government. He had a weakness for political intrigue, and he leaned heavily to the left.

Although there is no known record of Hemingway ever having passed along any secrets, one KGB correspondence notes that “…he repeatedly expressed his desire and willingness to help us.” The KGB gave him the code name, “Argo.”

Hemingway’s KGB contacts possibly cast a new light on the violent death of the famous author. FBI records show Hemingway was under surveillance, and shortly before his death he checked into the Mayo Clinic using the alias George Sevier.

In a letter to his son Patrick, Hemingway wrote that he was being treated for high blood pressure. Mayo’s Dr. Howard Rome kept the Minneapolis FBI office informed on Hemingway’s condition. Dr. Rome is the doctor who later performed a psychological autopsy of Lee Harvey Oswald for the Warren Commission.

On July 1, 1961, the night before he died, Hemingway dined at the Christiania Restaurant in Ketchum, Idaho. In her book, How It Was, his wife Mary wrote, “As we wedged into the small far-corner table, Ernest noticed a couple of men seating themselves at a small table farther inside and asked Suzie, our waitress…who those men were. ‘Oh, they’re a couple of salesmen from Twin Falls, I think,’ said Suzie. ‘Not on Saturday night,’ said Ernest, ‘They’d be home.’ Suzie shrugged. ‘They’re the FBI,’ Ernest muttered.”

The first official report of Hemingway’s death was a joint statement by the coroner Ray McGoldrick and the sheriff Don Hewitt, “Ernest Hemingway died this morning at about 7:30 at his home near Ketchum from gunshot wounds. His wife thinks it was accidental while he was cleaning his gun.”

The UPI reported, “Officials did not see any gun-cleaning equipment in the room.”

The following day the UPI said McGoldrick was asked if “self-inflicted gunshot wound in the head” on Hemingway’s death certificate meant he killed himself or died accidentally. McGoldrick responded, “I wasn’t there so I don’t know. Maybe the truth will never be known. No one saw it. The family is willing to let it go that way and that’s all right with me. The wife thinks it was an accident.”

The authorities did not interview Mrs. Hemingway until the day after they had reached their ambiguous conclusion. Her statement had been given through a friend. There was no coroner’s inquest and no autopsy.

Hemingway was shot in the five-by-seven foot front entrance hall of his home. Hemingway’s custom-made, .12 gauge, double barreled, Boss shotgun was near his body. Both barrels had been fired, and Mrs. Hemingway said she was awakened by a couple of banging sounds.

Boss shotguns are highly prized and can sell for tens of thousands of dollars. One known to have been made for Hemingway would have doubtless fetched a large premium. However, according to Carlos Baker in Ernest Hemingway: A Life Story, a family friend “cut the gun to pieces with a blowtorch and buried them in a secret place.”

When Hemingway, himself, was buried on July 5, The New York Times reported “there was still no official decision—and never may be—as to whether the death …had been an accident or suicide.”

Suicide eventually became the popular truth while the reality of FBI surveillance and his meeting with KGB agents remained unknown to the public. Was Hemingway paranoid and suicidal, or were those covert operatives with sinister plans at the restaurant that night?

Hyattsville Life and Times, August 2009.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Inside the Apocalyptic Soviet Doomsday Machine

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/17-10/mf_deadhand

WIRED MAGAZINE: 17.10
Inside the Apocalyptic Soviet Doomsday Machine
By Nicholas Thompson 09.21.09
The technical name was Perimeter, but some called it Mertvaya Ruka, Dead Hand.

Valery Yarynich glances nervously over his shoulder. Clad in a brown leather jacket, the 72-year-old former Soviet colonel is hunkered in the back of the dimly lit Iron Gate restaurant in Washington, DC. It's March 2009—the Berlin Wall came down two decades ago—but the lean and fit Yarynich is as jumpy as an informant dodging the KGB. He begins to whisper, quietly but firmly.

"The Perimeter system is very, very nice," he says. "We remove unique responsibility from high politicians and the military." He looks around again.

Yarynich is talking about Russia's doomsday machine. That's right, an actual doomsday device—a real, functioning version of the ultimate weapon, always presumed to exist only as a fantasy of apocalypse-obsessed science fiction writers and paranoid über-hawks. The thing that historian Lewis Mumford called "the central symbol of this scientifically organized nightmare of mass extermination." Turns out Yarynich, a 30-year veteran of the Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces and Soviet General Staff, helped build one.

The point of the system, he explains, was to guarantee an automatic Soviet response to an American nuclear strike. Even if the US crippled the USSR with a surprise attack, the Soviets could still hit back. It wouldn't matter if the US blew up the Kremlin, took out the defense ministry, severed the communications network, and killed everyone with stars on their shoulders. Ground-based sensors would detect that a devastating blow had been struck and a counterattack would be launched.

The technical name was Perimeter, but some called it Mertvaya Ruka, or Dead Hand. It was built 25 years ago and remained a closely guarded secret. With the demise of the USSR, word of the system did leak out, but few people seemed to notice. In fact, though Yarynich and a former Minuteman launch officer named Bruce Blair have been writing about Perimeter since 1993 in numerous books and newspaper articles, its existence has not penetrated the public mind or the corridors of power. The Russians still won't discuss it, and Americans at the highest levels—including former top officials at the State Department and White House—say they've never heard of it. When I recently told former CIA director James Woolsey that the USSR had built a doomsday device, his eyes grew cold. "I hope to God the Soviets were more sensible than that." They weren't.

The system remains so shrouded that Yarynich worries his continued openness puts him in danger. He might have a point: One Soviet official who spoke with Americans about the system died in a mysterious fall down a staircase. But Yarynich takes the risk. He believes the world needs to know about Dead Hand. Because, after all, it is still in place.

The system that Yarynich helped build came online in 1985, after some of the most dangerous years of the Cold War. Throughout the '70s, the USSR had steadily narrowed the long US lead in nuclear firepower. At the same time, post-Vietnam, recession-era America seemed weak and confused. Then in strode Ronald Reagan, promising that the days of retreat were over. It was morning in America, he said, and twilight in the Soviet Union.

Part of the new president's hard-line approach was to make the Soviets believe that the US was unafraid of nuclear war. Many of his advisers had long advocated modeling and actively planning for nuclear combat. These were the progeny of Herman Kahn, author of On Thermonuclear War and Thinking About the Unthinkable. They believed that the side with the largest arsenal and an expressed readiness to use it would gain leverage during every crisis.

The new administration began expanding the US nuclear arsenal and priming the silos. And it backed up the bombs with bluster. In his 1981 Senate confirmation hearings, Eugene Rostow, incoming head of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, signaled that the US just might be crazy enough to use its weapons, declaring that Japan "not only survived but flourished after the nuclear attack" of 1945. Speaking of a possible US-Soviet exchange, he said, "Some estimates predict that there would be 10 million casualties on one side and 100 million on another. But that is not the whole of the population."

Meanwhile, in ways both small and large, US behavior toward the Soviets took on a harsher edge. Soviet ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin lost his reserved parking pass at the State Department. US troops swooped into tiny Grenada to defeat communism in Operation Urgent Fury. US naval exercises pushed ever closer to Soviet waters.

The strategy worked. Moscow soon believed the new US leadership really was ready to fight a nuclear war. But the Soviets also became convinced that the US was now willing to start a nuclear war. "The policy of the Reagan administration has to be seen as adventurous and serving the goal of world domination," Soviet marshal Nikolai Ogarkov told a gathering of the Warsaw Pact chiefs of staff in September 1982. "In 1941, too, there were many among us who warned against war and many who did not believe a war was coming," Ogarkov said, referring to the German invasion of his country. "Thus, the situation is not only very serious but also very dangerous."

A few months later, Reagan made one of the most provocative moves of the Cold War. He announced that the US was going to develop a shield of lasers and nuclear weapons in space to defend against Soviet warheads. He called it missile defense; critics mocked it as "Star Wars."

To Moscow it was the Death Star—and it confirmed that the US was planning an attack. It would be impossible for the system to stop thousands of incoming Soviet missiles at once, so missile defense made sense only as a way of mopping up after an initial US strike. The US would first fire its thousands of weapons at Soviet cities and missile silos. Some Soviet weapons would survive for a retaliatory launch, but Reagan's shield could block many of those. Thus, Star Wars would nullify the long-standing doctrine of mutually assured destruction, the principle that neither side would ever start a nuclear war since neither could survive a counterattack.

As we know now, Reagan was not planning a first strike. According to his private diaries and personal letters, he genuinely believed he was bringing about lasting peace. (He once told Gorbachev he might be a reincarnation of the human who invented the first shield.) The system, Reagan insisted, was purely defensive. But as the Soviets knew, if the Americans were mobilizing for attack, that's exactly what you'd expect them to say. And according to Cold War logic, if you think the other side is about to launch, you should do one of two things: Either launch first or convince the enemy that you can strike back even if you're dead.

Perimeter ensures the ability to strike back, but it's no hair-trigger device. It was designed to lie semi-dormant until switched on by a high official in a crisis. Then it would begin monitoring a network of seismic, radiation, and air pressure sensors for signs of nuclear explosions. Before launching any retaliatory strike, the system had to check off four if/then propositions: If it was turned on, then it would try to determine that a nuclear weapon had hit Soviet soil. If it seemed that one had, the system would check to see if any communication links to the war room of the Soviet General Staff remained. If they did, and if some amount of time—likely ranging from 15 minutes to an hour—passed without further indications of attack, the machine would assume officials were still living who could order the counterattack and shut down. But if the line to the General Staff went dead, then Perimeter would infer that apocalypse had arrived. It would immediately transfer launch authority to whoever was manning the system at that moment deep inside a protected bunker—bypassing layers and layers of normal command authority. At that point, the ability to destroy the world would fall to whoever was on duty: maybe a high minister sent in during the crisis, maybe a 25-year-old junior officer fresh out of military academy. And if that person decided to press the button ... If/then. If/then. If/then. If/then.

Once initiated, the counterattack would be controlled by so-called command missiles. Hidden in hardened silos designed to withstand the massive blast and electromagnetic pulses of a nuclear explosion, these missiles would launch first and then radio down coded orders to whatever Soviet weapons had survived the first strike. At that point, the machines will have taken over the war. Soaring over the smoldering, radioactive ruins of the motherland, and with all ground communications destroyed, the command missiles would lead the destruction of the US.

The US did build versions of these technologies, deploying command missiles in what was called the Emergency Rocket Communications System. It also developed seismic and radiation sensors to monitor for nuclear tests or explosions the world over. But the US never combined it all into a system of zombie retaliation. It feared accidents and the one mistake that could end it all.

Instead, airborne American crews with the capacity and authority to launch retaliatory strikes were kept aloft throughout the Cold War. Their mission was similar to Perimeter's, but the system relied more on people and less on machines.

And in keeping with the principles of Cold War game theory, the US told the Soviets all about it.

The first mention of a doomsday machine, according to P. D. Smith, author of Doomsday Men, was on an NBC radio broadcast in February 1950, when the atomic scientist Leo Szilard described a hypothetical system of hydrogen bombs that could cover the world in radioactive dust and end all human life. "Who would want to kill everybody on earth?" he asked rhetorically. Someone who wanted to deter an attacker. If Moscow were on the brink of military defeat, for example, it could halt an invasion by declaring, "We will detonate our H-bombs."

A decade and a half later, Stanley Kubrick's satirical masterpiece Dr. Strangelove permanently embedded the idea in the public imagination. In the movie, a rogue US general sends his bomber wing to preemptively strike the USSR. The Soviet ambassador then reveals that his country has just deployed a device that will automatically respond to any nuclear attack by cloaking the planet in deadly "cobalt-thorium-G."

"The whole point of the doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret!" cries Dr. Strangelove. "Why didn't you tell the world?" After all, such a device works as a deterrent only if the enemy is aware of its existence. In the movie, the Soviet ambassador can only lamely respond, "It was to be announced at the party congress on Monday."

In real life, however, many Mondays and many party congresses passed after Perimeter was created. So why didn't the Soviets tell the world, or at least the White House, about it? No evidence exists that top Reagan administration officials knew anything about a Soviet doomsday plan. George Shultz, secretary of state for most of Reagan's presidency, told me that he had never heard of it.

In fact, the Soviet military didn't even inform its own civilian arms negotiators. "I was never told about Perimeter," says Yuli Kvitsinsky, lead Soviet negotiator at the time the device was created. And the brass still won't talk about it today. In addition to Yarynich, a few other people confirmed the existence of the system to me—notably former Soviet space official Alexander Zheleznyakov and defense adviser Vitali Tsygichko—but most questions about it are still met with scowls and sharp nyets. At an interview in Moscow this February with Vladimir Dvorkin, another former official in the Strategic Rocket Forces, I was ushered out of the room almost as soon as I brought up the topic.

So why was the US not informed about Perimeter? Kremlinologists have long noted the Soviet military's extreme penchant for secrecy, but surely that couldn't fully explain what appears to be a self-defeating strategic error of extraordinary magnitude.

The silence can be attributed partly to fears that the US would figure out how to disable the system. But the principal reason is more complicated and surprising. According to both Yarynich and Zheleznyakov, Perimeter was never meant as a traditional doomsday machine. The Soviets had taken game theory one step further than Kubrick, Szilard, and everyone else: They built a system to deter themselves.

By guaranteeing that Moscow could hit back, Perimeter was actually designed to keep an overeager Soviet military or civilian leader from launching prematurely during a crisis. The point, Zheleznyakov says, was "to cool down all these hotheads and extremists. No matter what was going to happen, there still would be revenge. Those who attack us will be punished."

And Perimeter bought the Soviets time. After the US installed deadly accurate Pershing II missiles on German bases in December 1983, Kremlin military planners assumed they would have only 10 to 15 minutes from the moment radar picked up an attack until impact. Given the paranoia of the era, it is not unimaginable that a malfunctioning radar, a flock of geese that looked like an incoming warhead, or a misinterpreted American war exercise could have triggered a catastrophe. Indeed, all these events actually occurred at some point. If they had happened at the same time, Armageddon might have ensued.

Perimeter solved that problem. If Soviet radar picked up an ominous but ambiguous signal, the leaders could turn on Perimeter and wait. If it turned out to be geese, they could relax and Perimeter would stand down. Confirming actual detonations on Soviet soil is far easier than confirming distant launches. "That is why we have the system," Yarynich says. "To avoid a tragic mistake. "

The mistake that both Yarynich and his counterpart in the United States, Bruce Blair, want to avoid now is silence. It's long past time for the world to come to grips with Perimeter, they argue. The system may no longer be a central element of Russian strategy—US-based Russian arms expert Pavel Podvig calls it now "just another cog in the machine"—but Dead Hand is still armed.

To Blair, who today runs a think tank in Washington called the World Security Institute, such dismissals are unacceptable. Though neither he nor anyone in the US has up-to-the-minute information on Perimeter, he sees the Russians' refusal to retire it as yet another example of the insufficient reduction of forces on both sides. There is no reason, he says, to have thousands of armed missiles on something close to hair-trigger alert. Despite how far the world has come, there's still plenty of opportunity for colossal mistakes. When I talked to him recently, he spoke both in sorrow and in anger: "The Cold War is over. But we act the same way that we used to."

Yarynich, likewise, is committed to the principle that knowledge about nuclear command and control means safety. But he also believes that Perimeter can still serve a useful purpose. Yes, it was designed as a self-deterrent, and it filled that role well during the hottest days of the Cold War. But, he wonders, couldn't it now also play the traditional role of a doomsday device? Couldn't it deter future enemies if publicized?

The waters of international conflict never stay calm for long. A recent case in point was the heated exchange between the Bush administration and Russian president Vladimir Putin over Georgia. "It's nonsense not to talk about Perimeter," Yarynich says. If the existence of the device isn't made public, he adds, "we have more risk in future crises. And crisis is inevitable."

As Yarynich describes Perimeter with pride, I challenge him with the classic critique of such systems: What if they fail? What if something goes wrong? What if a computer virus, earthquake, reactor meltdown, and power outage conspire to convince the system that war has begun?

Yarynich sips his beer and dismisses my concerns. Even given an unthinkable series of accidents, he reminds me, there would still be at least one human hand to prevent Perimeter from ending the world. Prior to 1985, he says, the Soviets designed several automatic systems that could launch counterattacks without any human involvement whatsoever. But all these devices were rejected by the high command. Perimeter, he points out, was never a truly autonomous doomsday device. "If there are explosions and all communications are broken," he says, "then the people in this facility can—I would like to underline can—launch."

Yes, I agree, a human could decide in the end not to press the button. But that person is a soldier, isolated in an underground bunker, surrounded by evidence that the enemy has just destroyed his homeland and everyone he knows. Sensors have gone off; timers are ticking. There's a checklist, and soldiers are trained to follow checklists.

Wouldn't any officer just launch? I ask Yarynich what he would do if he were alone in the bunker. He shakes his head. "I cannot say if I would push the button."

It might not actually be a button, he then explains. It could now be some kind of a key or other secure form of switch. He's not absolutely sure. After all, he says, Dead Hand is continuously being upgraded.

Great Moments in Nuclear Game Theory

Permissive Action Links
When: 1960s
What: Midway through the Cold War, American leaders began to worry that a rogue US officer might launch a small, unauthorized strike, prompting massive retaliation. So in 1962, Robert McNamara ordered every nuclear weapon locked with numerical codes.
Effect: None. Irritated by the restriction, Strategic Air Command set all the codes to strings of zeros. The Defense Department didn't learn of the subterfuge until 1977.

US-Soviet Hotline
When: 1963
What: The USSR and US set up a direct line, reserved for emergencies. The goal was to prevent miscommunication about nuclear launches.
Effect: Unclear. To many it was a safeguard. But one Defense official in the 1970s hypothesized that the Soviet leader could authorize a small strike and then call to blame the launch on a renegade, saying, "But if you promise not to respond, I will order an absolute lockdown immediately."

Missile Defense
When: 1983
What: President Reagan proposed a system of nuclear weapons and lasers in space to shoot down enemy missiles. He considered it a tool for peace and promised to share the technology.
Effect: Destabilizing. The Soviets believed the true purpose of the "Star Wars" system was to back up a US first strike. The technology couldn't stop a massive Soviet launch, they figured, but it might thwart a weakened Soviet response.

Airborne Command Post
When: 1961-1990
What: For three decades, the US kept aircraft in the sky 24/7 that could communicate with missile silos and give the launch order if ground-based command centers were ever destroyed.
Effect: Stabilizing. Known as Looking Glass, it was the American equivalent of Perimeter, guaranteeing that the US could launch a counterattack. And the US told the Soviets all about it, ensuring that it served as a deterrent.

Senior editor Nicholas Thompson (nicholas_thompson@wired.com) is the author of The Hawk and the Dove: Paul Nitze, George Kennan, and the History of the Cold War.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Putin hints that he could return to lead Russia

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6831459.ece

September 12, 2009
Vladimir Putin hints that he could return to lead Russia until 2024
Richard Beeston in Moscow

Vladimir Putin has given his strongest hint yet that he is considering a return to the Kremlin, a move that could allow the combative Russian leader to stay in power until 2024.

Speaking at the Novo-Ogaryovo official residence outside Moscow, Mr Putin insisted that swapping places with Dimitri Medvedev, the President, was no more sinister than the Labour leadership agreement in which Gordon Brown took Tony Blair’s job.

Mr Putin, who turns 57 next month, expounded on a range of domestic and foreign policy issues that left few in doubt that he remains Russia’s paramount leader, even though he officially occupies the number two position as Prime Minister.

Asked whether he would run again for the presidency, Mr Putin said that he would come to an accommodation with Mr Medvedev, just as the two men had done when Mr Putin stepped down in 2008.

“We will come to an agreement because we are people of the same blood and of the same political views,” he told foreign journalists and academics at the annual Valdai Discussion Club.

“According to the reality of the moment, we will make an analysis and take a decision. Did we compete in 2008? No. So we will not compete in 2012,” Mr Putin said.

This is the strongest hint he has given so far that he is considering returning to the Kremlin. Mr Putin stepped down after serving a maximum two terms as President and allowed Mr Medvedev to run largely unopposed in presidential elections last year.

His term ends in 2012 when new constitutional provisions will allow the next president to serve two six-year terms.

If the men complete this revolving-door manoeuvre Mr Putin could, in theory, be in power until 2024, when he would be 72. Although that is a decade older than most Russian men live, Mr Putin looked fit, alert and certainly confirmed what everyone in the country already knew — that he remains the real power in the land.

When asked who was in charge in Russia, Mr Putin insisted that Mr Medvedev was in control.

“We have nothing to prove to anyone,” he said. “If someone lives in a dream he needs to wake up, take a shower and look at reality. If you want to co-operate with Russia you need to know that it is the President who heads Russia.”

Anatol Lieven, a Russian expert at King’s College London, said that it did not matter whether Mr Putin or Mr Medvedev were president or prime minister. “What he is saying is that the political establishment will remain united and in power,” he said.

The prospect of Mr Putin dominating politics for another decade and a half will shock the liberal minority in the country where, under his rule, human rights and freedom of speech have been curtailed.

It would cause concern across Russia’s borders, where the Kremlin is in open dispute with Ukraine and Georgia, which is still suffering the effects of its war with Russian forces last year.

Many Russians, however, would be delighted with the prospect of having the most popular post-communist politician leading the country. Mr Putin is credited with restoring self-respect, rehabilitating the economy and restoring order after the chaos of the 1990s.

Relations between Russia and the US remain pivotal. Mr Putin said that a visit to Moscow in July by President Obama had improved the atmosphere.

He provided a long list of complaints about outstanding disputes with the Bush Administration regarding Russia’s failed attempt to join the World Trade Organisation and high-handed treatment by Condoleezza Rice, the former US Secretary of State.

Although Russia should be pleased that the Obama Administration is planning to shelve a plan by the former President Bush to base a missile defence system in Eastern Europe, there is still no sign that the two sides will complete a strategic nuclear weapons treaty by the end of the year, when the existing agreement expires.

Relations between Washington and Moscow could come under strain this month over Russia’s relationship with Iran. Russia is helping Iran to build a civilian nuclear reactor and has agreed to sell Tehran sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles.

The US, Britain and France fear that Iran is building a nuclear bomb secretly and are pressing for sanctions at the United Nations. Israel has warned that it may attack the nuclear facilities before Iran builds a nuclear weapon.

Mr Putin deflected questions about whether he had met Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, on a secret visit to Moscow on Monday.

He warned that any attacks against Iran would be counter-productive. “This would be very dangerous, unacceptable, this would lead to an explosion of terrorism, increase the influence of extremists,” he said, adding that he doubted airstrikes would achieve their objective.

Mr Putin added, however: “The Iranians should show restraint in their nuclear programme. We have told Iran that it has the right to a civilian nuclear programme but that it should understand what region of the world it is in.

“This is a dangerous region and Iran should show responsibility, especially by taking into account Israel’s concerns, all the more so after the absolutely unacceptable statements [by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President] about the destruction of the state of Israel.”

Judo and spying

— Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin Born October 7, 1952, in Leningrad

— Putin did well at school despite an impoverished upbringing. He became interested in judo and spy stories

— He applied to the KGB at the age of 17 but was told that he could not be considered until he had a degree. He graduated from Leningrad State University with a law degree in 1975

— He was a KGB agent in East Germany between 1985 and 1990

— He became Prime Minister in August 1999 and President in March 2000, standing down to become Prime Minister again in 2008

Sources: Times database, Reuters

Friday, January 2, 2009

Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html

DECEMBER 29, 2008
As if Things Weren't Bad Enough, Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S.
In Moscow, Igor Panarin's Forecasts Are All the Rage; America 'Disintegrates' in 2010
By ANDREW OSBORN

MOSCOW -- For a decade, Russian academic Igor Panarin has been predicting the U.S. will fall apart in 2010. For most of that time, he admits, few took his argument -- that an economic and moral collapse will trigger a civil war and the eventual breakup of the U.S. -- very seriously. Now he's found an eager audience: Russian state media.

In recent weeks, he's been interviewed as much as twice a day about his predictions. "It's a record," says Prof. Panarin. "But I think the attention is going to grow even stronger."

Prof. Panarin, 50 years old, is not a fringe figure. A former KGB analyst, he is dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry's academy for future diplomats. He is invited to Kremlin receptions, lectures students, publishes books, and appears in the media as an expert on U.S.-Russia relations.

But it's his bleak forecast for the U.S. that is music to the ears of the Kremlin, which in recent years has blamed Washington for everything from instability in the Middle East to the global financial crisis. Mr. Panarin's views also fit neatly with the Kremlin's narrative that Russia is returning to its rightful place on the world stage after the weakness of the 1990s, when many feared that the country would go economically and politically bankrupt and break into separate territories.

A polite and cheerful man with a buzz cut, Mr. Panarin insists he does not dislike Americans. But he warns that the outlook for them is dire.

"There's a 55-45% chance right now that disintegration will occur," he says. "One could rejoice in that process," he adds, poker-faced. "But if we're talking reasonably, it's not the best scenario -- for Russia." Though Russia would become more powerful on the global stage, he says, its economy would suffer because it currently depends heavily on the dollar and on trade with the U.S.

Mr. Panarin posits, in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces -- with Alaska reverting to Russian control.

In addition to increasing coverage in state media, which are tightly controlled by the Kremlin, Mr. Panarin's ideas are now being widely discussed among local experts. He presented his theory at a recent roundtable discussion at the Foreign Ministry. The country's top international relations school has hosted him as a keynote speaker. During an appearance on the state TV channel Rossiya, the station cut between his comments and TV footage of lines at soup kitchens and crowds of homeless people in the U.S. The professor has also been featured on the Kremlin's English-language propaganda channel, Russia Today.

Mr. Panarin's apocalyptic vision "reflects a very pronounced degree of anti-Americanism in Russia today," says Vladimir Pozner, a prominent TV journalist in Russia. "It's much stronger than it was in the Soviet Union."
Mr. Pozner and other Russian commentators and experts on the U.S. dismiss Mr. Panarin's predictions. "Crazy ideas are not usually discussed by serious people," says Sergei Rogov, director of the government-run Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies, who thinks Mr. Panarin's theories don't hold water.

Mr. Panarin's résumé includes many years in the Soviet KGB, an experience shared by other top Russian officials. His office, in downtown Moscow, shows his national pride, with pennants on the wall bearing the emblem of the FSB, the KGB's successor agency. It is also full of statuettes of eagles; a double-headed eagle was the symbol of czarist Russia.

The professor says he began his career in the KGB in 1976. In post-Soviet Russia, he got a doctorate in political science, studied U.S. economics, and worked for FAPSI, then the Russian equivalent of the U.S. National Security Agency. He says he did strategy forecasts for then-President Boris Yeltsin, adding that the details are "classified."

In September 1998, he attended a conference in Linz, Austria, devoted to information warfare, the use of data to get an edge over a rival. It was there, in front of 400 fellow delegates, that he first presented his theory about the collapse of the U.S. in 2010.

"When I pushed the button on my computer and the map of the United States disintegrated, hundreds of people cried out in surprise," he remembers. He says most in the audience were skeptical. "They didn't believe me."

At the end of the presentation, he says many delegates asked him to autograph copies of the map showing a dismembered U.S.

He based the forecast on classified data supplied to him by FAPSI analysts, he says. He predicts that economic, financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. When the going gets tough, he says, wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow. The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, and foreign powers will move in.

California will form the nucleus of what he calls "The Californian Republic," and will be part of China or under Chinese influence. Texas will be the heart of "The Texas Republic," a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence. Washington, D.C., and New York will be part of an "Atlantic America" that may join the European Union. Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. Panarin calls "The Central North American Republic." Hawaii, he suggests, will be a protectorate of Japan or China, and Alaska will be subsumed into Russia.

"It would be reasonable for Russia to lay claim to Alaska; it was part of the Russian Empire for a long time." A framed satellite image of the Bering Strait that separates Alaska from Russia like a thread hangs from his office wall. "It's not there for no reason," he says with a sly grin.

Interest in his forecast revived this fall when he published an article in Izvestia, one of Russia's biggest national dailies. In it, he reiterated his theory, called U.S. foreign debt "a pyramid scheme," and predicted China and Russia would usurp Washington's role as a global financial regulator.

Americans hope President-elect Barack Obama "can work miracles," he wrote. "But when spring comes, it will be clear that there are no miracles."

The article prompted a question about the White House's reaction to Prof. Panarin's forecast at a December news conference. "I'll have to decline to comment," spokeswoman Dana Perino said amid much laughter.

For Prof. Panarin, Ms. Perino's response was significant. "The way the answer was phrased was an indication that my views are being listened to very carefully," he says.

The professor says he's convinced that people are taking his theory more seriously. People like him have forecast similar cataclysms before, he says, and been right. He cites French political scientist Emmanuel Todd. Mr. Todd is famous for having rightly forecast the demise of the Soviet Union -- 15 years beforehand. "When he forecast the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1976, people laughed at him," says Prof. Panarin.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Death of billionaire Georgian leader 'is suspicious'

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3362061.ece

February 13, 2008
Death of billionaire Georgian leader in London 'is suspicious'
Tony Halpin in Moscow

An exiled Georgian billionaire who claimed less than two months ago that he was the target of an assassination plot has been found dead in London.

Police said that they were treating the death of Badri Patarkatsishvili, 52, as "suspicious". The businessman, who was Georgia's richest man and a close friend of the anti-Kremlin oligarch Boris Berezovsky, died of an apparent heart attack at his £10 million mansion in Leatherhead, Surrey, last night.

"As with all unexpected deaths it is being treated as suspicious. A post-mortem examination will be held later today to establish the cause of death," a Surrey police spokeswoman said.

Mr Patarkatsishvili, worth an estimated £6 billion, funded an opposition campaign against Georgia's pro-western leader Mikheil Saakashvili and stood against him in last month's presidential election. Georgia accused him of plotting a coup after airing a tape of him offering a $100 million bribe to a police chief to support opposition demonstrators.

Mr Patarkatsishvili hired Lord Goldsmith, the former Attorney General, to represent him as Georgian authorities mounted investigations into his business interests in the former Soviet republic.

Mr Berezovsky said that his former business partner had complained about his heart when the pair met earlier on Tuesday, but had not been ill.

Mr Patarkatsishvili lived in Russia between 1993 and 2001. He was wanted by Russian authorities on charges of theft from the country's largest car factory AvtoVAZ in the 1990s, which he ran with Mr Berezovsky.

He was also accused of plotting to arrange the escape from custody in 2001 of Nikolai Glushkov, deputy director of Aeroflot, Russia's national airline, who had been accused of fraud.

The man charged with breaking out Mr Glushkov was Andrei Lugovoy, who was arrested and jailed after the attempt failed. Mr Lugovoy is wanted by the British Crown Prosecution Service for the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, the dissident former Russian spy poisoned in London with radioactive polonium-210 in 2006.

Mr Lugovoy was responsible for protecting Mr Patarkatsishvili and Mr Berezovsky at the time as head of security at the Russian TV channel ORT, which the two men controlled.

Mr Patarkatsishvili remained good friends with Mr Lugovoy, a former KGB officer who is now a member of Russia's Parliament. The pair were seen socialising together in the Georgian capital Tbilisi shortly before Mr Litvinenko was poisoned.

Mr Litvinenko also had links with the Georgian businessman. Sources in Tbilisi have told The Times that he stayed at Mr Patarkatshvili's residence in Georgia en route to Turkey when he fled Russia to seek asylum in London in 2000.

Russian prosecutors claim that Mr Litvinenko also visited Mr Patarkatsishvili as well as Mr Berezovsky in London shortly before he was poisoned. They accuse Mr Berezovsky of involvement in the murder of the former Federal Security Service (FSB) agent as part of a plot to damage President Putin's international image.

Georgia's former Defence Minister, Irakli Okruashvili, accused Mr Saakashvili of encouraging him to kill Mr Patarkatsishvili in 2005, although he later retracted the claim.

The tycoon helped to finance the “Rose Revolution” that swept Mr Saakashvili to power in Georgia in 2003. But the two men later fell out and he accused the president of turning into a dictator.

When Georgian police used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse opposition street protests in November, special forces troops also stormed the studios of Imedi TV and forced it to shut down. Mr Patarkatsishvili founded the station and News Corporation, which also owns The Times, was managing it at the time of the incident.

Thursday, December 20, 2007

A Tsar Is Born

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/personoftheyear/article/0,28804,1690753_1690757_1690766,00.html

Tuesday, Dec. 04, 2007
A Tsar Is Born
By Adi Ignatius

No one is born with a stare like Vladimir Putin's. The Russian President's pale blue eyes are so cool, so devoid of emotion that the stare must have begun as an affect, the gesture of someone who understood that power might be achieved by the suppression of ordinary needs, like blinking. The affect is now seamless, which makes talking to the Russian President not just exhausting but often chilling. It's a gaze that says, I'm in charge.

This may explain why there is so little visible security at Putin's dacha, Novo-Ogarevo, the grand Russian presidential retreat set inside a birch- and fir-forested compound west of Moscow. To get there from the capital requires a 25-minute drive through the soul of modern Russia, past decrepit Soviet-era apartment blocks, the mashed-up French Tudor-villa McMansions of the new oligarchs and a shopping mall that boasts not just the routine spoils of affluence like Prada and Gucci but Lamborghinis and Ferraris too.

When you arrive at the dacha's faux-neoclassical gate, you have to leave your car and hop into one of the Kremlin's vehicles that slowly wind their way through a silent forest of snow-tipped firs. Aides warn you not to stray, lest you tempt the snipers positioned in the shadows around the compound. This is where Putin, 55, works. (He lives with his wife and two twentysomething daughters in another mansion deeper in the woods.) The rooms feel vast, newly redone and mostly empty. As we prepare to enter his spacious but spartan office, out walk some of Russia's most powerful men: Putin's chief of staff, his ideologist, the speaker of parliament—all of them wearing expensive bespoke suits and carrying sleek black briefcases. Putin, who rarely meets with the foreign press, then gives us 3 1/2 hours of his time, first in a formal interview in his office and then upstairs over an elaborate dinner of lobster-and-shiitake-mushroom salad, "crab fingers with hot sauce" and impressive vintages of Puligny-Montrachet and a Chilean Cabernet.

Vladimir Putin gives a first impression of contained power: he is compact and moves stiffly but efficiently. He is fit, thanks to years spent honing his black-belt judo skills and, these days, early-morning swims of an hour or more. And while he is diminutive—5 ft. 6 in. (about 1.7 m) seems a reasonable guess—he projects steely confidence and strength. Putin is unmistakably Russian, with chiseled facial features and those penetrating eyes. Charm is not part of his presentation of self—he makes no effort to be ingratiating. One senses that he pays constant obeisance to a determined inner discipline. The successor to the boozy and ultimately tragic Boris Yeltsin, Putin is temperate, sipping his wine only when the protocol of toasts and greetings requires it; mostly he just twirls the Montrachet in his glass. He eats little, though he twitchily picks the crusts off the bread rolls on his plate.

Putin grudgingly reveals a few personal details between intermittent bites of food: He relaxes, he says, by listening to classical composers like Brahms, Mozart, Tchaikovsky. His favorite Beatles song is Yesterday. He has never sent an e-mail in his life. And while he grew up in an officially atheist country, he is a believer and often reads from a Bible that he keeps on his state plane. He is impatient to the point of rudeness with small talk, and he is in complete control of his own message.

He is clear about Russia's role in the world. He is passionate in his belief that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a tragedy, particularly since overnight it stranded 25 million ethnic Russians in "foreign" lands. But he says he has no intention of trying to rebuild the U.S.S.R. or re-establish military or political blocs. And he praises his predecessors Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev for destroying a system that had lost the people's support. "I'm not sure I could have had the guts to do that myself," he tells us. Putin is, above all, a pragmatist, and has cobbled together a system—not unlike China's—that embraces the free market (albeit with a heavy dose of corruption) but relies on a strong state hand to keep order.

Like President George W. Bush, he sees terrorism as one of the most profound threats of the new century, but he is wary of labeling it Islamic. "Radicals," he says, "can be found in any environment." Putin reveals that Russian intelligence recently uncovered a "specific" terrorist threat against both Russia and the U.S. and that he spoke by phone with Bush about it.

What gets Putin agitated—and he was frequently agitated during our talk—is his perception that Americans are out to interfere in Russia's affairs. He says he wants Russia and America to be partners but feels the U.S. treats Russia like the uninvited guest at a party. "We want to be a friend of America," he says. "Sometimes we get the impression that America does not need friends" but only "auxiliary subjects to command." Asked if he'd like to correct any American misconceptions about Russia, Putin leans forward and says, "I don't believe these are misconceptions. I think this is a purposeful attempt by some to create an image of Russia based on which one could influence our internal and foreign policies. This is the reason why everybody is made to believe...[Russians] are a little bit savage still or they just climbed down from the trees, you know, and probably need to have...the dirt washed out of their beards and hair." The veins on his forehead seem ready to pop.

Elected Emperor

Putin has said that next spring, at the end of his second term as President, he will assume the nominally lesser role of Prime Minister. In fact, having nominated his loyal former chief of staff (and current Deputy Prime Minister) Dmitri Medvedev to succeed him as President, Putin will surely remain the supreme leader, master of Russia's destiny, which will allow him to complete the job he started. In his eight years as President, he has guided his nation through a remarkable transformation. He has restored stability and a sense of pride among citizens who, after years of Soviet stagnation, rode the heartbreaking roller coaster of raised and dashed expectations when Gorbachev and then Yeltsin were in charge. A basket case in the 1990s, Russia's economy has grown an average of 7% a year for the past five years. The country has paid off a foreign debt that once neared $200 billion. Russia's rich have gotten richer, often obscenely so. But the poor are doing better too: workers' salaries have more than doubled since 2003. True, this is partly a result of oil at $90 a barrel, and oil is a commodity Russia has in large supply. But Putin has deftly managed the windfall and spread the wealth enough so that people feel hopeful.

Russia's revival is changing the course of the modern world. After decades of slumbering underachievement, the Bear is back. Its billionaires now play on the global stage, buying up property, sports franchises, places at élite schools. Moscow exerts international influence not just with arms but also with a new arsenal of weapons: oil, gas, timber. On global issues, it offers alternatives to America's waning influence, helping broker deals in North Korea, the Middle East, Iran. Russia just made its first shipment of nuclear fuel to Iran—a sign that Russia is taking the lead on that vexsome issue, particularly after the latest U.S. intelligence report suggested that the Bush Administration has been wrong about Iran's nuclear-weapons development. And Putin is far from done. The premiership is a perch that will allow him to become the longest-serving statesman among the great powers, long after such leaders as Bush and Tony Blair have faded from the scene.

But all this has a dark side. To achieve stability, Putin and his administration have dramatically curtailed freedoms. His government has shut down TV stations and newspapers, jailed businessmen whose wealth and influence challenged the Kremlin's hold on power, defanged opposition political parties and arrested those who confront his rule. Yet this grand bargain—of freedom for security—appeals to his Russian subjects, who had grown cynical over earlier regimes' promises of the magical fruits of Western-style democracy. Putin's popularity ratings are routinely around 70%. "He is emerging as an elected emperor, whom many people compare to Peter the Great," says Dimitri Simes, president of the Nixon Center and a well-connected expert on contemporary Russia.

Putin's global ambitions seem straightforward. He certainly wants a seat at the table on the big international issues. But more important, he wants free rein inside Russia, without foreign interference, to run the political system as he sees fit, to use whatever force he needs to quiet seething outlying republics, to exert influence over Russia's former Soviet neighbors. What he's given up is Yeltsin's calculation that Russia's future requires broad acceptance on the West's terms. That means that on big global issues, says Strobe Talbott, president of the Brookings Institution and former point man on Russia policy for the Clinton Administration, "sometimes Russia will be helpful to Western interests, and sometimes it will be the spoiler."

Up from the Ruins

How do Russians see Putin? For generations they have defined their leaders through political jokes. It's partly a coping mechanism, partly a glimpse into the Russian soul. In the oft told anecdotes, Leonid Brezhnev was always the dolt, Gorbachev the bumbling reformer, Yeltsin the drunk. Putin, in current punch lines, is the despot. Here's an example: Stalin's ghost appears to Putin in a dream, and Putin asks for him help running the country. Stalin says, "Round up and shoot all the democrats, and then paint the inside of the Kremlin blue." "Why blue?" Putin asks. "Ha!" says Stalin. "I knew you wouldn't ask me about the first part."

Putin himself is sardonic but humorless. In our hours together, he didn't attempt a joke, and he misread several of our attempts at playfulness. As Henry Kissinger, who has met and interacted with Russian leaders since Brezhnev, puts it, "He does not rely on personal charm. It is a combination of aloofness, considerable intelligence, strategic grasp and Russian nationalism."

To fully understand Putin's accomplishments and his appeal, one has to step back into the tumult of the 1990s. At the end of 1991, just a few months after Yeltsin dramatically stood on a tank outside the parliament in Moscow to denounce—and deflate—a coup attempt by hard-liners, the Soviet Union simply ceased to exist. Yeltsin took the reins in Russia and, amid great hope and pledges of help from around the world, promised to launch an era of democracy and economic freedom. I arrived in Moscow a week later, beginning a three-year stint as a Russia correspondent.

I retain three indelible images from that time. The first: the legions of Ivy League—and other Western-educated "experts" who roamed the halls of the Kremlin and the government, offering advice, all ultimately ineffective, on everything from conducting free elections to using "shock therapy" to juice the economy to privatizing state-owned assets. The second: the long lines of impoverished old women standing in the Moscow cold, selling whatever they could scrounge from their homes—a silver candleholder, perhaps, or just a pair of socks. The third, more familiar image: a discouraged and embattled Yeltsin in 1993 calling in Russian-army tanks to shell his own parliament to break a deadlock with the defiant legislature when everything he was trying to do was going wrong.

Yeltsin bombed his way out of the threat of civil war and managed to hang on to power, but Russia was left hobbled. Virtually every significant asset—oil, banks, the media—ended up in the hands of a few "oligarchs" close to the President. Corruption and crime were rampant; the cities became violent. Paychecks weren't issued; pensions were ignored. Russia in 1998 defaulted on its foreign debt. The ruble and the financial markets collapsed, and Yeltsin was a spent force. "The '90s sucked," says Stephen Sestanovich, a Columbia University professor who was the State Department's special adviser for the new Independent States of the former Soviet Union under President Bill Clinton. "Putin managed to play on the resentment that Russians everywere were feeling." Indeed, by the time Putin took over in late 1999, there was nowhere to fall but up.

Path to Power

That Russia needed fixing was acknowledged by all. But how was it that Putin got the call? What was it that lifted him to power, and to the dacha in Novo-Ogarevo?

Putin's rise continues to perplex even devoted Kremlin observers. He was born into humble circumstances in St. Petersburg in 1952. His father had fought in World War II and later labored in a train-car factory. Putin's mother, a devout Orthodox Christian, had little education and took on a series of menial jobs. The family lived in a drab fifth-floor walk-up in St. Petersburg; Putin had to step over swarms of rats occupying the entranceway on his way to school. Putin's only ancestor of note was his paternal grandfather, who had served as a cook for both Lenin and Stalin, though there's no sign that this gave his family any special status or connections.

Putin describes his younger self as a poor student and a "hooligan." Small for his age, he got roughed by his contemporaries. So he took up sambo—a Soviet-era blend of judo and wrestling—and later just judo. From all accounts, he devoted himself to the martial art, attracted by both its physical demands and its contemplative philosophical core. "It's respect for your elders and opponents," he says in First Person, his question-and-answer memoir published in 2000. "It's not for weaklings."

It was the KGB that rescued Putin from obscurity—and turned the child into the man. Putin had begun to apply himself to schoolwork, and in 1975, during his senior year at Leningrad State University, he was approached by an impressive stranger who said, "I need to talk to you about your career assignment. I wouldn't like to specify exactly what it is yet." Putin, who had dreamed of becoming a spy, was intrigued. Within months he was being trained in counterintelligence. By the mid-1980s he was assigned to East Germany, where he worked undercover, pursuing intelligence on nato and German politicians. He was in Dresden, not Berlin where the action was, and probably would have been only a bit player in the Le Carré version of the cold war. But when the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, so did Putin's KGB career. As angry crowds moved on the local KGB headquarters, Putin and his colleagues feverishly burned files that detailed agents' names and networks—so much paper, he recalls in the memoir, that "the furnace burst." Then he slipped into the crowd and watched as the newly liberated mobs sacked the detested building. Within two years, he left the KGB altogether.

Putin's big break was a friend's introduction to Anatoli Sobchak, the liberal mayor of St. Petersburg, who was happy to bring in an intelligent, no-nonsense outsider to help push his reformist agenda. Putin ran the office that registered businesses and promoted foreign investment. He was responsible for ensuring that President Clinton's visit to the city in 1996 went smoothly—it was the first time American officials saw Putin in action. But later that year, Sobchak, damaged by a perception of ineffectiveness and rumors of corruption, lost his re-election bid. As Putin tells us at the dacha, as a member of the losing team, he was suddenly untouchable. "Nobody would hire me there," he says.

So Putin headed to Moscow. What transpired next seemed to Kremlin watchers as unlikely as Chauncey Gardiner's unwitting rise to power in the Jerzy Kosinski novel Being There. Although Putin often says that he had no connections when he arrived in the capital in mid-1996, he had several powerful allies who landed him work in the Kremlin. He became deputy to the head of Yeltsin's general-affairs department. Within two years he was asked to head the FSB, the spy-agency successor to the disbanded KGB. Putin, in his memoir, says he received a call out of the blue asking him to head to the airport to meet Russia's Prime Minister, Sergei Kirienko. Kirienko offered congratulations. When Putin asked why, he replied, "The decree is signed. You have been appointed director of the FSB." Then, in August 1999, Putin was named Prime Minister. It's a grand title, but it doesn't come with much security: Putin was Yeltsin's fifth Prime Minister in 17 months. But Putin did far better than survive; within four months a declining Yeltsin asked Putin to take over as acting President. Putin tells us he initially declined but that Yeltsin raised it again, saying, "Don't say no." By the last day of 1999 Putin was running the country.

We ask if it had ever occurred to Putin that history would place him in such a role. "It never occurred to me," he says. "It still surprises me."

Experts generally believe that Putin won Yeltsin's endorsement because he was competent, because he wasn't part of any of the major Moscow factions competing for power and because his KGB past gave him a source of authority. But they also widely assume that he made a deal with Yeltsin and his family: in return for Yeltsin's endorsement, Putin would not pursue corruption charges against the outgoing President and his relatives, despite the rumors that surrounded the family's dealings. It's impossible to verify, but neither Yeltsin, who died this year, nor his well-connected daughter Tatyana Dyachenko was ever a subject of public investigation (though Putin quickly fired her from her position as a Kremlin image consultant). Indeed, Putin's first decree guaranteed Yeltsin and his family immunity from such probes. Putin explains things to us this way: "Mr. Yeltsin realized that I would be totally sincere and would spare no effort to fulfill my duties and would be honest and see that the interest of the country could be secured." Eight years on, one can't help seeing a parallel with the latest maneuverings in the Kremlin: just as Yeltsin rewarded Putin for his loyalty, now Putin is doing the same for his anointed successor, Medvedev. There is already a new Putin joke: Putin goes to a restaurant with Medvedev and orders a steak. The waiter asks, "And what about the vegetable?" Putin answers, "The vegetable will have steak too."

Taking Control

Putin is no vegetable. In 1999, when he assumed the role of acting President, he was a relative unknown. It was his response to a Chechen rebel incursion in the Russian republic of Dagestan in the North Caucasus that quickly set him on a path toward national glory. Alexei Gromov, who has served with Putin as press secretary since he came to power, remembers being in the room when Putin told his wife Lyudmila that he was preparing to go on a New Year's Eve trip to the war zone to meet with the troops. She was worried about his safety and went along with him. In the end, the trip may have been no more than a calculated, if risky, photo op, but it was effective. Russians met their new leader and admired his courage and energy.

The following year Putin stepped up Russia's invasion of the breakaway republic of Chechnya. Rambo-style, he promised a quick and decisive victory, reiterating his earlier pledge to defeat enemy fighters "even in the toilet." Grozny, Chechnya's capital, was all but obliterated; Russia reassumed power and installed a puppet leader. Despite heartbreaking subsequent Chechen terrorist attacks—including a 2004 assault on a school in Beslan, North Ossetia, where 339 civilians, most of them children, were killed—Russians by and large admire Putin for drawing the line in the south. Having watched Eastern Europe and the Soviet republics slip from Moscow's grip, Russians were happy to keep Chechnya—even a bombed-out Chechnya—in the fold.

To the West, meanwhile, Putin was a mystery. Russia watchers debated endlessly: Was he a pro-Western reformer? (He had worked for Sobchak.) Or a hard-liner? (He was a career KGB man.) Yet just as 9/11 helped define President Bush, so did external challenges allow Putin to grow into a leader. His first steps on the world stage were tentative. His global coming-out had occurred in Auckland at a 1999 meeting of heads of apec (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) nations. Sestanovich, who was traveling with President Clinton, remembers meeting Putin at Clinton's hotel suite. "He seemed rodentlike," says Sestanovich, "like an overgrown summer intern." But Clinton was willing to work with him. Putin tells us how, at an apec dinner at which he was feeling somewhat lost, Clinton crossed the room past other world leaders and leaned down to talk to him. "Volodya," Clinton said, using the familiar form of the name Vladimir, "I suggest we walk out together from this room." Putin rose to his feet, and the two men strolled out together. "Everyone applauded," Putin recalls. "I will remember that forever." It was Putin's only sign of softness during the 3 1/2 hours we spoke.

Clinton was not the only American who found something to like about Putin. Two years later, in a line that has haunted him ever since, President Bush declared that he had looked inside Putin's soul. It was their first meeting, at a summit in Slovenia, and Bush said, "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy...I was able to get a sense of his soul." We ask Putin to return the favor, to describe what he has sensed of the U.S. President's soul. He declines to get personal. "I have a very good personal relationship with Mr. Bush," he says. "He is a very reliable partner, a man of honor."

The terrorist attacks on 9/11 provided Putin with another defining moment. He was one of the first world leaders to offer condolences and help to President Bush. That probably led the U.S. to back off from stridently criticizing the Chechnya adventure. But the initial shared objectives between Putin and the Bush Administration did not last. Putin strongly opposed America's invasion of Iraq and established Russia as a steady voice of opposition to Bush's adventure, demanding that decisions on Iraq be made at the U.N. (where Russia, of course, has Security Council veto power). America's occupation of Iraq has affirmed Putin's sense that he was right. "If one looks at the map of the world, it's difficult to find Iraq, and one would think it rather easy to subdue such a small country," Putin tell us. "But this undertaking is enormous. Iraq is a small but very proud nation." The debacle in Iraq plays into what is perhaps Putin's most cherished foreign-policy dictum: that nations shouldn't interfere in one another's affairs. And what that really means, of course, is that no one should interfere in Russia's affairs.

Another Putin joke: Putin and Bush are fishing on the Volga River. After half an hour Bush complains, "Vladimir, I'm getting bitten like crazy by mosquitoes, but I haven't seen a single one bothering you." Putin: "They know better than that."

A Ruthless Streak

Now that Putin has solidified his grip on power, he no longer seems overly concerned with courting Western approval. Despite a chorus of disapproving clucks from the West, Putin has shackled the press, muted the opposition, jailed tycoons who don't pledge fealty. In Russia this has been a terrible time to be a democrat, a journalist, an independent businessman. Just ask Garry Kasparov. The chess grandmaster—the highest-rated player of all time—is a far cry from stereotypically dysfunctional champions like Bobby Fischer. Kasparov has a keen political mind and a lively sense of humor. For years he has fought an increasingly lonely struggle as a democratic activist facing an uncompromising state. On Nov. 24, while holding a political rally in Moscow, he was arrested on a technicality and spent five days at Moscow's Petrovka 38 jail.

A week or so after Kasparov's release, we are sitting in Moscow's Cosmos Hotel, where he is taking part in a human-rights meeting. Assembled is a ragtag group of Russian activists, and here Kasparov is a star. (Even here his two bodyguards sandwich him whenever he walks about.) Unlike many of Putin's other critics, who seem fearful of chastising their leader openly, Kasparov isn't cowed. "Putin wants to rule like Stalin but live like Abramovich," he says, referring to Roman Abramovich, the billionaire Russian oil trader who owns London's Chelsea soccer team. "Putin's system is more like Mafia than democracy."

Putin's administration has blocked democrats like Kasparov from participating effectively in politics by making it all but impossible for them to meet the entry requirements. The President, in our discussion, routinely suggests that Kasparov is a stooge of the West because he spoke to the foreign press in English after his arrest. "If you aspire to be a leader of your own country, you must speak your own language, for God's sake," he says. Kasparov recently gave up his long-shot race for President.

Dmitri Muratov also knows the difficulties of life in the Putin era. A softspoken, heavyset man whose neatly trimmed beard is turning gray, Muratov is the editor in chief of Novaya Gazeta, a Moscow newspaper, published twice a week, with a reputation for pursuing tough investigative pieces. In the past seven years, three of his journalists have been murdered; all were looking into corruption and wrongdoing. After the third murder, Muratov decided to close the 14-year-old paper to avoid putting any other journalist at risk. But his staff talked him out of it. The paper is perpetually harassed by officials around the country, but, Muratov notes with a weary smile, "we're still alive."

The last of Muratov's journalists to die, Anna Politkovskaya, was shot in the elevator of her apartment building last year on Oct. 7. Alexander Litvinenko, a former FSB officer turned government critic living in London, accused Putin of sanctioning the killing. Within weeks, Litvinenko himself was dead too, killed by radiation poisoning from a mysterious dose of polonium 210. (Britain wants to charge a former KGB officer, Andre Lugovoy, who has just been elected to Russia's parliament, with the killing. He denies it, and Russian law prevents the extradition of Russian citizens.)

Muratov, for his part, doesn't know who ordered his journalists' killings. He says only that he blames "corruption," which has flourished during Putin's eight years.

Although few Russians seem to think Putin himself is corrupt, it is commonly believed that he is surrounded by business and political heavies who are amassing millions in payoffs. Indeed, if anything can bring him down, it may well be graft. As long as living standards rise, people are more likely to forgive the perception that officials are getting obscenely rich by demanding illicit payoffs. But if the economy stops growing—if the price of oil falls back to earth—Putin will face a challenge, whether from the masses in the streets or from military and civilian challengers.

One insider, who asked that his identity be protected, spelled out for us just one example of how the game is played, detailing the payments a prospective regional governor has to make to political bagmen in Moscow in order to get the Kremlin's nod for the post. For wealthier regions, such an endorsement can cost as much as $20 million, money that the politicians raise quietly from corporate "sponsors" that expect special treatment in return. The amount of money flowing to kingmakers in the Kremlin, in other words, is staggering.

When we ask about the view that he is surrounded by corrupt officials, Putin turns testy: "If you are so confident, then I presume you know the names and the systems and the tools...Write to us." As for Politkovskaya, who had been investigating policy failures and human-rights abuses in Chechnya when she was killed—and who authored the 2004 book Putin's Russia: Life in a Failing Democracy—Putin says he believes she was murdered by a provocateur to cast suspicion on his administration.

For all the attention the outside world pays to such cases, formal polls make it clear that within Russia, Putin's critics are in the minority. For every journalist distressed at the rollback of freedoms, there are scores of Russians who quietly applaud Putin's efforts to reassert stability. Once a year, when Putin takes phone calls from citizens around the country, tens of thousands of people try to get through. Listening to the calls, however screened and rehearsed they may be, one is struck by the ardor of the appeals to the President to get things done and by the broad range of information at Putin's fingertips. (A woman who lives on an island off Vladivostok complained about the local ferry service. Putin told her a bridge will soon be built to link the island to the mainland.)

Certainly life in Russia today is better than it has been for years. The stores are stocked with goods. The once worthless ruble is a genuine currency, strengthening against the dollar these days. Crime persists, but the cities are not as rough as in previous years.

And then there are the President's loudest and most visible defenders: members of Nashi (Ours, in Russian), the cultish pro-Putin youth movement. In mid-December, about 20,000 of the Nashi faithful from all over Russia gathered for a rally by the Kremlin walls to celebrate the recent victory of Putin's United Russia Party in elections to the parliament. From the stage, speakers, rock singers and rappers declared their patriotism and love for the President. A banner read, into the future with putin! Someone introduced Dasha, a 10-year-old member of Mishki (Bear Cubs), the new children's division of Nashi. "I love Russia," said Dasha. "I love teddy bears. I love Putin. Together we will win!"

I went to Nashi's Moscow headquarters a few days later and met with Lyubov Serikova, a pretty 22-year-old redhead from Russia's Chuvash Republic who is a rising star in the organization. She was thrilled with the recent election and credited Nashi with helping thwart an unnamed enemy's attempt to launch an "orange revolution" in Russia. Her world seemed conspiratorial, and she echoed Putin's own statements: those who run against the President were trying to bring the country down. Putin, she said, "has made Russia a leading country in just a few years."

When we finish talking, I take a look at an official Nashi poster hanging outside her office, which excoriates U.S. policies. It's reminiscent of Soviet-era propaganda with its non sequitur acceleration of hysteria: "Tomorrow there will be war in Iran. The day after tomorrow Russia will be governed externally!" But this is no fringe group. Putin frequently visits Nashi's training camps and meets with its leaders. And from there he sometimes launches anti-Western tirades, including a recent blast at London authorities who are demanding the extradition of the suspected killer of Litvinenko.

Putin's mission is not to win over the West. It is to restore to Russians a sense of their nation's greatness, something they have not known for years. This is not idle dreaming. When historians talk about Putin's place in Russian history, they draw parallels with Stalin or the Tsars. Putin, one can't stress enough, is not a Stalin. There are no mass purges in Russia today, no broad climate of terror. But Putin is reconstituting a strong state, and anyone who stands in his way will pay for it. "Putin has returned to the mechanism of one-man rule," says Talbott of the Brookings Institution. "Yet it's a new kind of state, with elements that are contemporary and elements from the past."

And there's plenty that could go wrong. The depth of corruption, the pockets of militant unrest, the ever present vulnerability of the economy to swings in commodity prices—all this threatens to unravel the gains that have been made. But Putin has played his own hand well. As Prime Minister, he is set to see out the rest of the drama of Russia's re-emergence. And almost no one in Russia is in a position to stop him. If he succeeds, Russia will become a political competitor to the U.S. and to rising nations like China and India. It will be one of the great powers of the new world.

Back at the dacha, with snow falling lightly outside, our dinner and discussion continue. Putin has been irritable throughout, a grudging host. Suddenly, at 10 o'clock, he stands and abruptly ends the evening. "We've finished eating, there's nothing more on the table, so let's call it a day," he declares. Actually, the main course (choice of sturgeon or veal) and dessert ("bird's milk" cake)—lovingly printed in gold ink on the prepared menu cards—haven't yet been served. The Russian President's brusqueness is jarring. Have our questions angered him? Bored him? Does he have another appointment? It's not clear. "Bye bye," says Putin—in English—as he walks briskly out of the room. The work of rebuilding Russia, apparently, is never done.

—with reporting by Yuri Zarakhovich and Dario Thuburn/Moscow