The Plan to Destabilize Russia with Islamic State Terror

A Russian think tank linked to Vladimir Putin has made the claim Islamic State operatives in northern Afghanistan are organizing a large-scale hybrid offensive against Russia through Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The Russians are taking the threat seriously. The director of the Center for Geopolitical Expertise Valery Korovin says Moscow should prepare for a large-scale offensive operations in Ukraine, Armenia, and a number of post-Soviet republics with large Muslim populations. Korovan believes the United States didn’t seize Afghanistan by rigging its military dictatorship in order to build democracy and civil society. This is a springboard for the creation of terrorist networks to be used for aggression against Iran and Russia and threaten financial projects initiated by China. The plan is not new or unique. Similar operations were organized by the CIA, British MI6, and Pakistani intelligence in the mid-1980s. They launched military operations from Afghanistan against civilians and military installations in Soviet-controlled Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. According to a Washington Post article in 1992, an ISIS general said there were dozens of cross border raids into Soviet territory. It’s well-known that then CIA director William Casey supported the raids. Reagan and the CIA put in extra effort to engineer terror. During a visit to secret training camps near the Afghan border in 1984, CIA director Casey told his Pakistani hosts they should take the Afghan war into the Soviet Union. Russia and Iran are at the top of the list of countries New York and London want to redesign from the bottom up in the service of their ultimate objective—a one world government ruled by unelected bureaucrats like those in the European Union and the United Nations. The EU was blueprinted during the reign of Hitler’s Third Reich. Russia, Iran, China, and others are now building alternative financial and trade systems, a move that will eventually kill off the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

*Follow us here at Newsbud Twitter

**Subscribe here at BFP-Newsbud YouTube Channel

Watch Episode Preview

Watch Members Only Full Episode Here

***Subscribing Members must be logged in to see the full video




Featured Video MP3 Audio Clip

***Subscribing Members must be logged in to listen to the audio


Show Notes

Special Service’s Agent: Attack on Russia is Being Prepared

US Helps Afghan Allies Launch Attacks into Soviet Union

Reagan Sharply Increases Covert Support to Afghan Rebels

CIA Director Secretly Visits Afghan Training Camps; Urges Spread of Violence into Soviet Union

Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.

Comments

  1. Theo Iskra says:

    This speaks true to the Heartland Theory and the Hegelian Dialectic. The U.S. will use the ISIS militants to destabilize Central Asia, move into the region militarily using ISIS as the pretext, and then stay there to astroturf the region to align it with U.S. Interests, keeping Russia and China in check, thus sabotaging the Russian and Chinese economic projects there. Eventually, if successful, the region will serve as a base to eventually destabilize, conquer, and partition Russia and China. Imperial conquest is like a virus or a cancer. The only way to stop it is to kill it, or expose it to its enemies: truth, justice, and peace.

    • William Field says:

      Excellent hypothasis Theo …& I might ad to this; & with it comes so much unnecessary waste,oppression & suffering…& who & how many benefit? And posit it is possible to put a arm of friendship & mutually beneficial trade around these people with concurrent “de-militarisation” …but that doesn’t sell arms or get totally compliant puppet regimes…

  2. steven hobbs says:

    Hey Curt,

    Thank you. Learned by detailed descriptions of political recruiting and induction of fighters. Loved the archived video footage and historical narrative. That held together great. Was bothered by the use of “radical” to describe fighters. The term is used so frequently as an aspersion.

    In the last sequence regarding neoliberalism, panopticon, and pepto-currency, I lost my way because I couldn’t decide on which rat hole to explore. Hegelian dialectic? Cool.

    Best,

Speak Your Mind