Jeff Nyquist talks to Dariusz Rohnka

Part One

Dariusz Rohnka: Jeff, you belong to a very small group of American writers trying to understand the events of 1989-1991. What in your opinion was the decisive factor in the universal acceptance of the official version of events? Why is it that other interpretations aroused so little interest?

Jeff Nyquist: The decisive factor in the universal acceptance of the official version of the “fall of Communism” was the success of Soviet active measures in Western countries, along with the steady advance of socialist ideas within those countries.

Why were alternate interpretations disregarded? The West is addicted to comfort, to the flattery of public conceits, to obligatory economic optimism, and to the mistaken assumption that only popular regimes can endure. The West does not realize that dictatorship is the norm in human history while freedom is the exception. Therefore, the West was ready to assume that its way of life was bound to win. The Conservatives were eager to claim a victory for themselves, while the socialists were given the chance to advance their agenda without the stigma of the USSR.

DR: Myth of collapse of communism survived unscathed and unchallenged through the last 20 years. General perception is that not only was communism eradicated as a political force but also the concept of Soviet power as enemy disappeared. In its place we have instead the “axis of evil” or Islamic terrorism, and their ties with Moscow or Peking, both in the past and presently, are overlooked. What are the practical consequences of such persistent and effective disinformation?

JN: Soviet strategy entered a diversionary phase in 1989, with the following features. First, they took away the West’s concept of the enemy by removing the word Soviet. By September 2001 they succeeded in establishing a new enemy – al Qaeda. The practical consequence of this strategy is twofold: The Americans are engaged in a program of nuclear disarmament; and they have become diverted by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This means that the U.S. is no longer monitoring or countering the war preparations of Moscow’s new military bloc.

DR: Long term strategy, which has global triumph of communism as its ultimate goal, adopted under the guidance of Shelepin and Mironov in the Sixties, was perfected for decades. The so called “democratic opposition” was organised in Eastern Europe to take over “democratic” government. In Western Europe cooperation of Eurocommunists with Social-democratic parties of the Left brought EU into being. Could election of Barack Obama be seen as a similar development in the United States?

JN: The election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States signifies the end of the American Republic as a bulwark against socialism, and the end of America’s protective nuclear umbrella for the free world, which will soon face an unprecedented crisis. Barack Obama began his political career in the living room of an infamous American terrorist and communist named Bill Ayers. It was at Ayers’s home, in 1995, that Alice Palmer introduced Obama as the man who would take over her Illinois State Senate seat while she committed to run for U.S. Congress. Palmer’s ideology may be seen in the fact that she attended the 27th Congress of the Communist Party Soviet Union (which she wrote about in glowing terms afterward). Obama is clearly from the Communist dominated element within the Democratic Party. He is, indeed, the American equivalent of a Eurocommunist.

DR: You mentioned Bill Ayers who is not widely known outside the United States. It is difficult for non-Americans to comprehend how a person like him could play such a prominent part in American politics today? Could you please enlighten us?

JN: Ayers is not prominent, insofar as President Obama has publicly distanced himself from Ayers for obvious political reasons. This is done in a calculated way, in order to confuse the public. In fact, Ayers has been an ally and mentor to Barack Obama for many years. It is rumored that he wrote Obama’s first book. The very suspicion of such a connection should have disqualified Obama from the presidency. He does not deny visiting Ayers’s house or being the hand-picked successor of Alice Palmer. There is no question, in all of this, that Ayers and Palmer hail from a communist milieu. But most Americans today do not know what a communist is. Furthermore, the era of strong anti-Communism in America has been maligned in media reports, television documentaries and popular movies. It has been debunked generally as “McCarthyism,” which signifies injustice and paranoia. Of course, there are voices who are warning the American people about the connection between the former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers and Barack Obama, and a minority is troubled by the news. The majority, however, thinks nothing about it. They have been indoctrinated with the notion that people who talk about Communists in government are not credible, and even if it were true it wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing (as far as they know).

DR: The optimists would say that the American Republic has had its fair share of socialist Presidents and yet survived. What, in your opinion, makes Obama significantly worse than F.D. Roosevelt, J.F. Kennedy or that most famous of peanut farmers, Jimmy Carter?

JN: I don’t think it’s correct to describe Roosevelt, Kennedy or Carter as socialists. While Roosevelt flirted with socialists, he was not himself a socialist. Jimmy Carter was manipulated by socialists within his party but his anti-Soviet measures in the wake of the Afghan invasion were tougher than those of President Reagan (i.e., grain embargo and boycotting the 1980s Olympic Games in Moscow). Kennedy was stridently anti-Communist and his socialist pretences were little more than political posturing. The danger in these politicians was the way in which they pandered to the left, mixing traditional messages with concessions to socialism. In the case of Obama, we see a man who was groomed by actual Communists, like his boyhood mentor Frank Marshall Davis, or Bill Ayers – who is suspected as having ghost-written Obama’s first book. Obama is unlike any previous American politician, and there is every reason to suspect that he hates America’s free market system.

DR: In your Origins of the Fourth World War you start with the assumption of the inevitability of another global conflict. You see war as a constant and essential element of human history. If so conflict between the Soviets and China on one hand and the United States on the other, is inevitable. Are you convinced that this is the only possible scenario?

JN: In the triangular constellation of Russia, China and the United States we find decisive factors that make Russia and China allies of necessity. They are temporary allies, of course, because all alliances are temporary. The factors that make this alliance may be simplified as follows: First, Siberia and the deserts of Central Asia provide an enormous natural barrier between the two countries. It is plain to see that even if China defeated Russia, she would merely take control of Siberia. How many Chinese can be settled in Siberia? As for Central Asian oil and gas reserves, it is cheaper to buy oil and gas than to take these resources from a nuclear superpower. As for the Russians, their position in the Far East depends on the future status of Japan and South Korea (currently under the American umbrella). Here is where the most decisive factor comes into play; namely, the existence of the United States. If China attacked Russia, the United States would undoubtedly help Russia and penalize China. If Russia attacked China, the United States would help China and penalize Russia. This is the well-known pattern of American international behavior. If China wanted to overrun all of Russia, it would have to deal with the United States first. This is the real lesson which dictator states learned from studying World War II. They learned that America will not allow an aggressive power to dominate Europe or Asia unchecked.

The need to undermine the United States economically and internally has been a key aspect of Soviet and Chinese strategy since the death of Stalin. The Russian and Chinese leaders continue to show their commitment to overthrowing American power by their subtle campaign against the dollar, by their aid to anti-American dictators and movements around the world. The key point is, Russia and China cannot enjoy the dominance they otherwise would enjoy over Europe and Asia without the fall of the United States. Russian and Chinese strategists are very clear on this point. They understand their position perfectly. Even the Sino-Soviet split was used by the Chinese to break out of the West’s containment and achieve favored nation trading status with the U.S. This, in fact, was a policy for penetrating and damaging the U.S. position economically. And so it has proved to be the case.

DR: Does this mean that you do not expect the Kremlin and the Chinese politburo to continue with the charade of Sino-Soviet split to keep deceiving the West? Do you expect the conflict between Peking and Moscow to be “real” or merely for the show, i.e. to extract further concessions?

JN: The Sino-Soviet split ended long ago. In 2001 the Russians and Chinese signed a friendship treaty. Genuine conflict between the two countries is only likely if America is removed from the international scene as a major power.

DR: Should we accept the theory of inevitable armed conflict, we must consider relative military potential of both sides, even if our knowledge on the subject is only fragmentary. Is America prepared to repel an all out attack? If so how likely is that state of readiness to continue?

JN: The theory of inevitable armed conflict is not a theory. Armed conflict is always inevitable. How would it sound if I spoke of the “theory” that all men are mortal, or the “theory” that the earth will continue to turn on its axis? These are not theories at all. A philosopher may haggle on the fine points of theory, but every sensible person knows that those who came before us are dead, and those who come after us will die; that the earth will continue to turn on its axis. Furthermore, we know that history is punctuated by periods of war between major powers – between Athens and Sparta, between Rome and Carthage, between Christendom and Islam, etc. If you want to see who is going to fight, look at the major powers.

Today the strategic position of the leading countries is absolutely clear: In order to divide the world between them, Russia and China must destroy American power. If the dictator states fail to do this, they will not survive. Eventually, democracy and the imperatives of normal life will overtake them; for this is what America represents in the world. America has therefore relied on the common sense of humanity to recognize the superiority of free markets and free elections. Sadly, it has been a grave error to rely on “common sense” alone. The leading dictator states have turned to a more elaborate system of subversion. They know that common sense is easily confused. Their goal is not simply attained by a sudden nuclear strike against the United States. Decades of subversion and psychological warfare have already passed. At this late hour the United States has been undermined culturally, spiritually and politically. And now America is being disarmed by false diplomacy. We must not forget, as well, the promotion of anti-Americanism within America itself. Then there is economic warfare, as conducted through China’s trade policy and Russia’s manipulation of oil and gas prices (via its operatives in the Middle East and elsewhere). And do not forget the diversionary warfare technique of “gray terror”, as described by Viktor Suvorov in his book titled Spetsnaz and further illuminated in the testimony of Alexander Litvinenko (who named al Qaeda’s Ayman al-Zawahri as a longtime KGB agent). The Russians and Chinese have penetrated American banks, organized crime and politics. The poison has gone everywhere, and no effective antidote has been applied. After thousands of KGB-GRU operations against the United States, there is little chance that the U.S. nuclear umbrella will remain for much longer. The United States is in the process of disarming itself in a decisive way. Of course, there may be an attempt to oppose this disarmament. But such an opposition only introduces us to the fact that America is divided between an unwitting Soviet faction and a befuddled patriotic faction. In a civil war between these factions, the Russians and Chinese gain the advantage.

DR: How possible is it, bearing in mind the economic weakness of the developed world and the apparent readiness of the West to unilaterally disarm, that Soviet objectives could be achieved without armed conflict on a global scale?

JN: It is possible, but not likely. This is because the pre-condition of Moscow’s victory includes a severe slump in the global economy. This slump, while contributing to America’s displacement as global power, will necessarily lead to the destabilization of Europe and Asia. Wars will break out, and nationalism will re-emerge as a force. It is hard to say how things will play out, but the Russians will not be able to keep Europe under their thumb through peaceful means for long.

DR: You wrote some time ago about the Arctic Sea incident. Isn’t it just too puzzling for words? Why would the soviets use such complicated means of transport to Iran if they could have delivered the missiles via the Caspian Sea without anyone knowing? In that context doesn’t the Iranian connection look suspiciously like a smoke screen for something else?

JN: The Arctic Sea was obviously carrying secret cargo of strategic value. And you are right to say that the Iranian connection looks like a smokescreen. For those who do not understand the Russian General Staff’s operational method, I will quote the words of former GRU Colonel Stanislav Lunev: “If you ever hear that Arab terrorists have attacked an American city with nuclear weapons, don’t believe it.” He said it would be Russian special forces commandos conducting the attack. I asked him what followed this initial nuclear terrorism phase, and he said, “After a period of weeks or months the Russian missiles will come [to finish the job].” Instead of making an elaborate explanation I will list a few concepts: (1) A decapitation attack to eliminate all those with the authority to launch nuclear retaliation strikes; (2) diversionary attacks to conceal the identity of the real attackers; (3) disarming attacks to eliminate remaining nuclear weapons.

DR: Perhaps you could offer us an elaborate explanation after all, please?

JN: The public, generally, does not understand the concept of a nuclear war. Like all other forms of warfare there are tactics and strategies. It is not a simple affair of nuclear strike and counterstrike. Put yourself in the position of someone charged with winning a nuclear war. How do you defeat a nuclear-armed opponent? The key to winning a nuclear war is to eliminate the enemy’s nuclear weapons without allowing him to launch any in retaliation. In strict military terms, the nuclear strategist wants to paralyze his victim by attacking and eliminating the leadership of the target country, so that there is nobody left who can order a nuclear strike. Please keep in mind that only a handful of people in the United States can order the launch of nuclear missiles, and only they have the launch codes. Therefore, the attacker begins (1) with a decapitation attack under false colors. The attackers will seem to be Arab terrorists. In reality, however, they will be Russian or Chinese special forces commandos tasked with breaking the U.S. military’s chain of command. The diversionary attacks have already happened, and 9/11 was probably one of them (if we are to believe the testimony of Alexander Litvinenko and others). Finally, when there is no danger from American nuclear weapons, the main Russian missile forces can be used to destroy American missiles which will be sitting helpless in silos and in ports or air bases. The elimination of a society’s leaders is a temporary expedient, so that a brief window is opened for attacking the weapons themselves. Once the weapons are eliminated, America could not deter enemy attacks on her cities. Russia and China will then have strategic nuclear supremacy. No country will then be able to stop them. At that moment, the world will belong to them. The small arsenals of France, Britain and Israel would have no effective deterrent power. The Russians would demand their dismantling in the same way Sparta, in ancient times, demanded that defeated cities take down their fortifications.

16 Comments To "Triangular Constellation"

#1 Comment By Chris On 17 November 09 @ 10:53

#2 Comment By lynnie On 19 November 09 @ 1:09

#3 Comment By Serge Kabud On 2 December 09 @ 5:47

#4 Comment By michał On 2 December 09 @ 10:31

#5 Comment By Serge Kabud On 3 December 09 @ 12:42

#6 Comment By michał On 3 December 09 @ 9:14

#7 Comment By Serge Kabud On 4 December 09 @ 6:41

#8 Comment By michał On 4 December 09 @ 8:57

#9 Comment By Serge Kabud On 4 December 09 @ 9:33

#10 Comment By Serge Kabud On 4 December 09 @ 9:37

#11 Comment By michał On 4 December 09 @ 11:03

#12 Comment By michał On 5 December 09 @ 12:27

#13 Comment By ernest On 26 December 09 @ 4:14

#14 Comment By Dariusz Rohnka On 26 December 09 @ 7:55

#15 Comment By Johnd18 On 10 May 14 @ 12:46

#16 Comment By Johnk243 On 10 May 14 @ 12:50

---