P. 10, AMERICAN
FREE PRESS * April 10, 2006...
Behind the Scenes
with Michael Collins Piper
launched by members of elite group
By Michael Collins Piper
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has, for all intents and purposes,
officially declared a new “Cold War” on Russia. Some
might say it was “just a coincidence” that this past
Dec. 7 — the momentous anniversary of Pearl Harbor —
the nation’s two most influential newspapers, The
Washington Post and The New York Times,
featured heavyhanded attacks on President Vladimir Putin of Russia.
This came at a time when the CFR was announcing the formation of
a new “bipartisan task force” to study U.S.-Russian
relations. And now, several months later, the CFR report is out
and its conclusions don’t bode well for Putin. The Russian
leader is clearly in the gun sights of the powerful international
interests often loosely described as “the New World Order.”
In truth, during the past several years, as Putin aggressively moved
against the billionaire oligarchs who were looting the Russian economy
(and then, in some instances, fleeing to Israel for refuge), the
U.S.-based major print and broadcast media began increasingly taking
shots at the Russian leader.
However, the fact that the most potent blasts at Putin just happened
to appear in tandem, on Dec. 7, struck many Russia-watchers as most
interesting and symbolic, to say the least.
The Washington Post featured an editorial
entitled “The Anti-Democracy Agenda” raising the question:
“Is Russia a partner of the United States in the war on terrorism?”
The Post then went on to assert “You wouldn’t know it
from the bitter campaign Moscow is waging to thwart President Bush’s
democracy agenda in Muslim Central Asia,” referring to Putin’s
support for Uzbek President
Islam Karimov and what the Post calls “an emerging Moscow-led
bloc of dictatorships” including Belarus, Turkmenistan and
The Post scored Putin for lending aid
to the leaders of these nations and then demanded an answer to this
query: “Is this the act of a partner, or an adversary?”
The Post said that it was time for President Bush “to stop
ducking that question.” Clearly, the Post’s answer to
the question was implicit in its question.
Meanwhile, on that same significant date, Dec. 7, The
New York Times offered its readers a remarkably similarsounding
op-ed piece entitled “Moscow’s Empty Red Square.”
Just a “coincidence,” of course.
The commentary, charging that Russia under Putin is “becoming
steadily less democratic,” was signed by the Democratic Party’s
2004 vice presidential candidate, former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.),
and the Republican Party’s 1996 vice presidential candidate,
And what is of particular interest to note is that this duo just
happened to be sharing the chairmanship of a task force on U.S.
policy toward Russia then just set in place by the CFR.
The powerful New York-based branch of the London-based Royal Institute
on International Affairs — which is funded by the Rothschild
family, who are major patrons of Israel — the CFR was, for
years, under the domination of the Rockefeller family. In recent
years, however, a major pro-Israel financier, Maurice “Hank”
Greenberg, has emerged as a key figure behind the CFR.
The CFR is spearheading this new unit to monitor — in fact,
pressure — Russia to follow the dictates of the United States
under the Bush administration’s push for global democracy,
a theme enunciated by Bush’s Soviet-born (but non-Russian)
intellectual mentor, Natan Sharansky. Currently a leading figure
in Israeli political affairs, Sharansky is the guiding force behind
the Bush foreign policy, having been so acknowledged as such by
In tackling Putin, Edwards and Kemp said, “Russia faces a
choice between entering the mainstream of the modern world, or trapping
itself in an eddy of reaction and isolation.”
The CFR spokesmen told Putin that he must shelve proposed legislation
that would crack down on domestic opposition. This comes at a time
when many Russian legislators and public opinion leaders have been
speaking openly about the power of domestic Zionist groups that
are viewed as troublesome for Russia, particularly because of their
international ties and their links to the billionaire oligarchs
and allied forces in Israel.
More recently, Edwards and Kemp and their so-called “bipartisan
task force” issued their official report, under CFR auspices,
echoing and formally enunciating the same themes they had already
outlined in their Dec. 7 attack on Putin in the Times.
The CFR report insists that the Bush administration take a hard
line toward Putin. The CFR’s task force said that Putin’s
policies may not be in the best interests of the United States.
The report said that “The very idea of ‘strategic partnership’
[between the U.S. and Russia] no longer seems realistic.”
In other words, the CFR has declared a new “Cold War”
And now, of course, on the heels of the release of this CFR report,
there are rumors (from sources unknown) that Russia may have fed
U.S. military secrets to the government of Saddam Hussein prior
to the U.S. invasion of the now-destroyed Arabic republic.
Such rumors, having received widespread attention in the major media
in America, only tend to feed the anti- Putin frenzy that has already
been triggered. However, before American patriots jump on the anti-Putin
and anti-Russia bandwagon, they should keep an eye on precisely
what forces are driving it.
(Issue #15, April 10, 2006, American