MARCH 1, 1999
Old enemies
© 1999

As the national attention has been focused on the "egregious, reprehensible, indefensible" personal behavior of our national disgrace, dark forces work in the shadows to synthesize a threat far greater than a sexual predator in the oval office.

Russia and China have been conspiring (covertly and openly) to undermine the strength and viability of the United States of America. This claim is not the product of right-wing wacky paranoia. ... It is real, growing, and significant.

My friend and publisher, Joseph Farah, often suggests we "Connect the Dots." I have taken his advice and connected a variety of separate issues and interviews, and the conclusion is scary.

About a year ago, I interviewed Col. Stanislav Lunev regarding his book "Through the Eyes of the Enemy." When Lunev's book came out, most everyone focused on his claims of suitcase-size nuclear weapons he reported were already here in the United States. However, although it makes for a jazzy movie, the briefcase nukes are only one element in a long list of items which suggests to some experts, that Russia is preparing for a first-strike war.

When I first started hearing reports of a Russian precipitated first strike, my immediate reaction was "Bullfeathers!" Hell, Russia is in financial ruin, can't feed their people, can't pay the military, and couldn't find or field a full division anymore than they could find their collected derriere with both hands. That is the "conventional wisdom" I had come to believe. ... I was wrong, way wrong.

I recently interviewed a young intelligence researcher (Jeffrey Nyquist) who listed several ominous "dots" in the wake of more extensive interviews with Lunev:

Any one of the above elements alone might be rationalized, explained away, or spun as "no big deal." However, as you connect the dots, a sickening feeling grows.

David Hoffman of the Washington Post Foreign Service recently reported "a scandal over an offshore fund handling Russia's foreign currency reserves." He reported "a member of parliament charged that the Central Bank allowed the reserves to be used for buying and selling securities and then concealed the profits from the government." No, this isn't the Clinton cabal, this is the poor destitute Russians.

The Washington Post reports: "Nikolai Gonchar, an independent member of the lower house of parliament and of its budget committee, raised new questions at a news conference about the conduct of the Central Bank, although many details are still unclear.

"Gonchar charged that the Central Bank had set up an intricate scheme to exploit billions of dollars in Russia's national reserves by investing them secretly in high-yield Russian government bonds known as GKOs and concealing the profits from the parliament and government."

This reminded me of a novel (fiction) I had read 10 years ago. However, that was fiction. ... This is fact. It had previously been revealed the Central Bank had set up an offshore firm, Financial Management Co., known as Fimaco, based in Jersey, the Channel Islands, to handle Russia's foreign currency reserves. Wait a minute ... "reserves?" ... We have been led to believe Russia was down on its frozen bottom begging for charity sustenance. Well, according to one estimate, between 1993 to 1998, the offshore fund managed $37 billion. Yes, $37-Billion (with a B). The firm was a subsidiary of Eurobank of Paris, which (by the way) is currently 78 percent owned by the Central Bank.

This epiphany has sparked considerable controversy since it is highly unusual/strange/weird for a Central Bank to turn over management of a country's reserves to someone else (if it had). Additionally, questions are now being asked about whether the offshore accounts were used to primarily as a tool to mislead the International Monetary Fund and other international financial organizations about the size of Russia's reserves. Gee, they have lied about food, fuel, weapons, fur for winter clothing, and the entire table or organization of the military ... would Russia lie about establishing an offshore banking presence to hypothecate reserve funds? Damn straight they would ... and apparently are. "The case is the subject of a criminal investigation," the Post writes, " but Russia's chief prosecutor resigned after disclosing the existence of the offshore fund" And guess what? His replacement has not yet been named, and therefore, no criminal investigation has even started.

I remember Lunev telling me that the KGB is not dead. ... It is very much alive and well. According to Lunev, the alleged Russian Mafia, is in fact controlled by the former KGB. The nomenclature has changed, but the goals, objectives, tactics and mission remains the same today as it was during the Cold War.

I asked Nyquist if we (the United States) had imposed any requirements/restrictions on Russian aid. In other words, do we require anything from the Russians (any quid pro quo) other than receipt of our largess? The answer was a startling "No." At one point Russia had tried to sell our charity for a profit. We did scream about that, and it was supposed to stop. The financial scandal also could (and should) affect decisions anticipated this spring regarding whether to continue aid to Russia. Moreover, the State Duma, parliament's lower house, is engaged in a debate about whether to impose stronger controls on the Central Bank. Is the debate form over substance ... perception over reality?

According to Gonchar the Central Bank had, in effect, found a hidden method to take advantage of soaring yields on Russian government bonds. He reported the Central Bank realized huge profits on these security trades. Russian law requires the Central Bank to donate 50 percent of any profits it receives to the Russian federal budget.

The Washington Post reported: "Gonchar claimed that Eurobank and its subsidiary, Fimaco, had created a third company to carry out the scheme -- a Russian bank called Eurofinance. He said the major shareholders in Eurofinance were Eurobank and Fimaco. He further claimed that Eurofinance then served as the back door by which investments were made in the GKOs."

In one series of transactions, that makes Hillary Clinton's commodity trades look like chump change, he said, Fimaco earned $38 million in net profits. "I want to stress that under the existing laws, they were supposed to transfer half of this sum to the budget," he said. Then again, I guess that is contingent on the specific definition of "existing law," or what is meant by "transfer," and/or what specific "budget" is referenced. "This information was thoroughly concealed. Where has the profit gone to? The issue is a concrete one: We can and must find this money."

So, connect the dots: Stockpiling grain; continued foreign aid; slaughtering herds; increasing fuel production, stockpiling fuel; increasing fuel production; increased weapons development; growing their navy; fear of Y2K impact; China/Russia alliance; refusal of any and all inspections; denials and lies; money laundering and building vast underground cities.

Is this much ado about nothing, or the preamble to something real bad?