Blogs Away
JRN Blog
15 January 2005

 

 

Hold out baits to entice the enemy.

Feign disorder, and crush him.

Plotting Global Conquest

By J.R. Nyquist

 

What sort of madman or numbskull wants to take over the world? Considering what a mess the world is, how much rebellion is in it, how much folly, how much quarrelling and murder, how many races and religions and tribes – why would anyone want to take it over? Besides, there is no means of keeping it except to warmly embrace the world’s troubles and make them your own. Consequently, a sane man wouldn’t want the world. A wise man wouldn’t have it on a golden platter.

But men are fools, and sometimes they are insane. They often want to conquer, to dominate. Is this impulse so alien to the human condition that we can strike it from a list of our concerns? There is a type of person who climbs and pushes, whose self-importance must be affirmed, who always seeks status and power with ruthless abandon. There are governments that do the same thing, on an international level.

Maurice Shainberg’s autobiography describes the training he received as a young KGB officer in Moscow almost fifty years ago. According to Shainberg, “Our professors demonstrated the vast infiltration of communist agents all over the globe. The communist plan, based on Lenin’s teachings, was to take over the world without physical struggle. Our instructors drummed this into our heads.”

This reminds us of Sun Tzu’s words: “All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe that we are away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.”

Upon closer examination, the notion of taking over the world “without physical struggle” is something of a fig leaf with which to cover the naked facts of global conquest. It is elegant, indeed, to seem inactive and distant, to hold out baits to entice an enemy and feign disorder. But the final step is to “crush” the enemy. If there is no final, crushing blow, then the deception has been for nothing. 

Of course, it is a stroke of genius to argue that your intentions are peaceful, that your method is “non-violent,” that you intend to bring prosperity and happiness to mankind. Every totalitarian regime broadcasts its commitment to sweet nothings. Beneath the rhetorical candy, of course, the Soviet leaders accumulated huge stockpiles of nuclear and biological weapons. They didn’t do this because they expected to defeat the United States by peaceful means. The SS-27 road mobile ICBM is eloquent testimony to the fact that Moscow believes in brute force, that Lenin’s teaching was not a pacifist doctrine. In fact, Lenin was a disciple of Carl von Clausewitz. And here is what Clausewitz wrote about winning without fighting

Now, philanthropists may easily imagine there is a skillful method of disarming and overcoming an enemy without causing great bloodshed, and that this is the proper tendency of the Art of War. However plausible this may appear, still it is an error which must be extirpated; for in such dangerous things as War, the errors which proceed from a spirit of benevolence are the worst.

  A proper enemy is dangerous. He can kill you. Therefore, you must be prepared to kill him. According to Clausewitz, “It follows that he who uses force unsparingly, without reference to the bloodshed involved, must obtain superiority if his adversary uses less vigor in its application.” This is known as Clausewitz’s "theory of the utmost use of force." It helps explain the thinking behind Soviet Military Strategy, a staple text used to educate Soviet military officers in the 1960s and 70s. On page 312 of the RAND translation of this book it says: 

From the point of view of weapons, a third world war will be a missile and nuclear war. The massive use of nuclear weapons … will make the war unprecedentedly destructive and devastating. Entire states will be wiped off the face of the earth. Missiles carrying warheads will be the main instruments for attaining the war’s aims and for accomplishing the most important strategic and operational missions. Consequently, the leading branch of the armed forces will be the Strategic Missile Forces, and the role and mission of the other branches of the armed forces will be essentially changed. However, final victory will be attained only as a result of the combined efforts of all the branches of the armed forces.

This description of a future world war may sound like madness, but everything here is consistent with Clausewitz’s theory. The Soviet Union spent decades preparing for World War III. This war has already been justified, in advance, by describing the United States as an aggressor nation comparable to Nazi Germany. Even NATO is an alleged haven for scheming warmongers. According to Soviet Col. I. Sidel'nikov, “In the governing bodies of NATO there is a considerable number of people for whom the relaxation of tension is tantamount to a knife through the heart. The sinister stench of the ‘cold war’ suits them much better than the beneficial aroma of peaceful cooperation and good neighborliness among peoples.”

But consider what “peaceful cooperation” actually signifies. According to Shainberg, the KGB professors "constantly lectured us on the need to outflank the United States without a military struggle. Instead we would use superior strategy." He further explained that "the major thrust was always how to take over the United States." Shainberg stated: “Instead of tanks, we were taught to use intrigue. Instead of artillery, we were taught to use propaganda. Instead of bombs, we were taught to use intelligence.”

Thus in a pageant show a plot is made
And peace itself is war in masquerade. [Dryden]

Confirming the deceptive use of peace as a running theme in Soviet strategy, Czech defector Jan Sejna wrote as follows: “Soviet ambitions towards the United States were aimed at the extinction of Capitalism and the ‘socialization’ of America, which they believed would be the last surviving dinosaur of the Capitalist system. The main strategic goals on the road to their fulfillment were: the withdrawal of the U.S.A. from Europe and Asia; the removal of Latin America from the United States’ sphere of influence and its incorporation into the Socialist bloc; the destruction of the United States influence in the developing world; the reduction of American military power to a state of strategic inferiority; the advent to power in Washington of a transitional liberal and progressive government; and the collapse of the American economy.”

According to Sejna, the Soviet long-range plan involved destabilizing the United States through economic sabotage, terrorism and the constriction of raw materials. Quite naturally, some communists feared this plan might backfire. After all, if you destabilized the United States you might be opening the door to a right wing military takeover. The CPSU Central Committee Secretary Konstantin Katushev was dispatched to Prague in September 1967 to debrief the Czech leadership on this and other issues. Katushev admitted that America could “move to either [political] extreme” in a crisis. Despite this risk, he argued, “If we can impose on the U.S.A. the external restraints proposed in our Plan, and seriously disrupt the American economy, the working and the lower middle classes will suffer the consequences and they will turn on the society that has failed them. They will be ready for revolution.”

Part of the plan also involved separating Europe from America. According to Sejna, “Europe was the principle area in which to reduce U.S. influence in the free world. The Russians planned to play upon the nationalist, bourgeois prejudices of the leading European countries in order to convince them that Europe must strive to become a distinct entity separate from the United States. This mood must reach beyond any debate on the political union of Europe as envisaged in the Treaty of Rome.”

A plan to take over the world by destabilizing the United States and separating it from Europe may seem quite insane, but Sejna's testimony is supported by other sources. This brings us to KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, who wrote in 1984 that the Soviet long-range plan involved the false liberalization of the communist bloc. “If in a reasonable time ‘liberalization’ can be successfully achieved in Poland and elsewhere,” wrote Golitsyn, “it will serve to revitalize the communist regimes concerned. The activities of the false opposition will further confuse and undermine the genuine opposition in the communist world. Externally, the role of dissidents will be to persuade the West that the ‘liberalization’ is spontaneous and not controlled. ‘Liberalization’ will create conditions for establishing solidarity between trade unions and intellectuals in the communist and noncommunist worlds. In time such alliances will generate new forms of pressure against Western ‘militarism,’ ‘racism,’ and ‘military-industrial complexes’ and in favor of disarmament….” Golitsyn further stated:

If ‘liberalization’ is successful and accepted by the West as genuine, it may well be followed by the apparent withdrawal of one or more communist countries from the Warsaw Pact to serve as a model of a ‘neutral’ socialist state for the whole of Europe to follow. Some ‘dissidents’ are already speaking in these terms. [P. 336]

Golitsyn noted that Russia had many options for manipulating events in the Middle East, especially with regard to Iraq and Iran. “The overall aim,” Golitsyn wrote, “will be to bring about a major and irreversible shift in the balance of world power in favor of the [socialist] bloc….” [P. 337]

The suggested European option would be promoted by a revival of controlled ‘democratization’ on the Czechoslovak pattern in Eastern Europe, including probably Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union. The intensification of hard-line policies and methods in the Soviet Union … presages a switch to ‘democratization’ following, perhaps, Brezhnev’s departure from the political scene. Brezhnev’s successor may well appear to be a kind of Soviet Dubcek. The succession will be important only in a presentational sense. The reality of collective leadership and the leaders’ common commitment to the long-range policy will continue unaffected. [P. 338]

Golitsyn successfully predicted that the Communist Party’s role in the Soviet economy would be “apparently diminished.” Sweeping reforms would be instituted. But, he warned, “The party would … continue to control the economy from behind the scenes as before."

The ‘liberalization’ would be spectacular and impressive. Formal pronouncements might be made about a reduction in the communist party’s role; its monopoly would be apparently curtailed. An ostensible separation of powers between the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary might be introduced. The Supreme Soviet would be given greater apparent independence. The posts of president of the Soviet Union and first secretary of the party might well be separated. The KGB would be ‘reformed.’ Dissidents at home would be amnestied; those in exile abroad would be allowed to return, and some would take up positions of leadership in government. [P. 339]

This spectacular “liberalization,” however, “would be calculated and deceptive,” Golitsyn warned, “in that it would be introduced from above. It would be carried out by the party through its cells and individual members in government, the Supreme Soviet, the courts, and the electoral machinery and by the KGB through its agents among the intellectuals and scientists.” The Russian strategists would be in control of the process from beginning to end. According to Golitsyn, “The hitherto concealed coordination between [Moscow and Beijing] will become visible and predominant. The Soviets and the Chinese will be officially reconciled. Thus the scissors strategy will develop logically into the ‘strategy of one clenched fist.'"

What does this signify?

According to Soviet Military Strategy, p. 313: “The basic method of waging the war will be by massive missile blows to destroy the aggressor’s instruments for nuclear attack and, simultaneously, to destroy and devastate on a large scale the vitally important enemy targets making up his military, political and economic might, to crush his will to resist, and to attain victory within the shortest possible time.” The Soviet text also explains that “the methods of breaking up the opponents aggressive plans by dealing him a crushing blow will be of decisive significance for the outcome of the entire war. Hence, the main task of Soviet military strategy is working out means for reliably repelling a surprise nuclear attack by an aggressor.” 

How do you "reliably" repel a surprise nuclear attack? 

GRU defector Viktor Suvorov described a method known as “gray terror.” In a book titled Spetsnaz, he wrote:

[Widespread terrorist and sabotage operations in advance of World War III] are known officially in the GRU as the ‘preparatory period,’ and unofficially as the ‘overture.’ The overture is a series of large and small operations the purpose of which is, before actual military operations begin, to weaken the enemy's morale, create an atmosphere of suspicion, fear and uncertainty, and divert the attention of the enemy's armies and police forces to a huge number of different targets, each of which may be the object of the next attack.

The overture is carried out by agents of the secret services of the Soviet satellite countries and by mercenaries recruited by intermediaries. The principal method employed at this stage is "gray terror," that is, a kind of terror which is not conducted in the name of the Soviet Union. The Soviet secret services do not at this stage leave their visiting cards, or leave other people's cards. The terror is carried out in the name of already existing extremist groups not connected in any way with the Soviet Union, or in the name of fictitious organizations.

A few years ago Christopher Story of Soviet Analyst asked Suvorov if he thought the collapse of communism was part of a Soviet deception (as described by Golitsyn). Suvorov admitted this was obvious, though Western intelligence and military professionals didn't have a clue. Attempting to explain this, Suvorov said that Western officials were “stupid.” 

The Soviet “plan” for conquering the world, described by Shainberg, Sejna, Golitsyn and Suvorov, is not fictitious. There are many sources that confirm its existence, despite denials from Western officials like Henry Kissinger or academics like Edward Luttwak. The fact that we have no information about the Soviet plan from Soviet archives is a telling indication that the plan remains in effect.

In closing I will relate a conversation I had with Col. Stanislav Lunev in November 1998, in Washington, D.C. We were discussing methods by which a country might successfully launch a surprise nuclear strike without fearing retaliation. In the middle of this discussion, Lunev warned that if Arab terrorists were blamed for a nuclear attack on America I should not believe it. He said that Russia would be responsible, though Arabs would be blamed. He also said that within weeks or months of a supposed Arab nuclear attack on America the missiles from Russia would be launched. 

There are people in this world who relish the idea of America's downfall. They supposedly believe in a new form of civilization (i.e., socialism). For the sake of this unknown, untested ideal, they are willing to tell big lies. They are willing to annihilate entire countries. My challenge to the reader, in presenting the testimony of several defectors, is the suggestion that this testimony sheds light on recent events – in Europe, in the Middle East and Latin America. Consider the correspondence between what I have quoted and what is presently happening. Consider the military buildup of China, the advanced missile program announced by Russia, the communist putsch in Venezuela, the stealth communist government in Brazil, the communist takeover of Africa’s mineral wealth (in Angola, Congo and South Africa), the Russia-Saudi oil manipulations, the attack on the dollar, the terrorism of bin Laden, the emerging split between Europe and America and the Soviet-style rhetoric of the anti-war movement (which accuses the U.S. of imperialist aggression in Iraq). What we see is a pattern, fully consistent with an emerging "clenched fist."

 

Return to Main Page