« Roll them up like a window shade ... | Main | Tomorrow is a big day for Space X. »

03 February 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Babak Makkinejad

I suggested to LeaNder, the Zionist Troll in these parts, to get out of her place and see the world - at the time believing that she was a German living in Germany. Likewise, I suggest you live your protected bubble in Spain and live in New Delhi for a few months; they live and die a zero sum game.


David #88, was interesting to go back to this memory hole. Or to look back from now into then.

But admittedly, I still don't understand why Mario Scaramella wanted to see Adrich Ames in 2006. What for? And how Judith Miller, I guess, could have helped in that. I only have this vague memory trail of emails exchanged between her David Kelly not long before his death.

From your article:
Shortly after the letter was sent Scaramella departed on a trip to Washington, where he appears to have got access to Aldrich Ames.

DH #88
As you can perhaps imagine, the fact that ‘Miller’ had featured in the conversations with Guzzanti both as a key contact, who could introduce Scaramella to Aldrich Ames (which is who ‘Heims’ clearly is), and with whom there had been meetings about ‘the three things that are needed’ made me inclined to take seriously what Karon von Gerhke said about his role.

But yes, how the "intelligence" on Iraq made it from Italy (SISMI related) via France, if I recall correctly to London was curious indeed.

But maybe you can help me to understand more then I admittedly do.


Pat, if I may still. I can of course address you as Colonel or Sir too. I also think that respect is something more subtle. And I can assure you, I respect you no matter if I use Colonel, Sir, or Pat.

I realize it invites people that may not share my basic standards.

We have not had a self declared communist on SST before although LeaNder in her youth may have come close to that exalted status.

I guess, I wasn't that even in my youth. Some of my closest friends were attracted to Anarchism though. I still have this distinct memory that a classmate got on my nerves during on math class when he tried to lecture me about Bakunin. That was maybe with sixteen. I realized he had lost the thread (understanding, the ability to follow) years ago. I changed seats after that experience.

This more general type, and a lot of my friends belonged into this category, labelled den real existierenden Kommunismus "Communism as system in reality" as Red Fascists.

I enjoyed English Outsider's feedback to our recent lurker, by the way. A little humor now and then is refreshing.

David Habakkuk


In response to 6.

Thanks for your kind words.

I fully agree that stupid Zionists are a major cause of the mess we find ourselves in. Unfortunately, one of the effects of the way that they were successfully suckered into clamouring for the toppling of Saddam, whose inevitable result was the creation of the ‘Shia Crescent’ is that we now have both the Zionist and Saudi ‘tails’ wagging the ‘dogs’ in the same direction, both in the United States and Britain.

Unfortunately, alike in the United States and Britain today there appears to be an inverse correlation among Jews between genuine intelligence and influence. It is symptomatic that Stephen F. Cohen, is now treated as a pariah for questioning the ‘Borgist’ line on Russia, while Julia Ioffe, who really is a silly girl, is invited to pontificate on that country at the Aspen Security Forum.

Also, the subsuming of Jewish identity in Zionism is something new. The opposition in Cabinet to the Balfour Declaration was led by Edwin Montagu, who had then just been appointed Secretary of State for India. He thought Zionism inherently antisemitic, and entitled the document in which he set out his case ‘Memorandum of Edwin Montagu on the Anti-Semitism of the Present (British) Government.’

(See http://www.balfourproject.org/edwin-montagu-and-zionism-1917/ .)

In 1922, Montagu would wreck his political career when he authorised the publication of a message from the Viceroy, Sir Rufus Isaacs, Marquis of Reading, also Jewish, advocating the revision of the harsh terms of the Treaty of Sevres which had been imposed on Turkey in 1920 – both men being concerned about the effects on Indian Muslim opinion.

David Habakkuk


In response to #68.

The decline in the ability of the MSM to do serious investigative journalism over the past decades has been astounding.

However, there are exceptions. For instance, there was a good BBC Radio ‘File on 4’ on ‘Chemical Weapons’ in January 2014, in which the reporter Alan Urry and the producer Paul Grant interviewed Hugh Gregg, who is Head of Laboratory at the OPCW, and he made clear that they had the technical capability to establish responsibility for incidents like Ghouta, and the obstacles to doing so were simply a question of mandate. This is the crucial point, which has never been adequately pursued.

(See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/07_01_14_fo4_chemicalweapons.pdf )

However, a lot of serious investigation is now done by informal groups collaborating on the internet, mining the wealth of ‘open source’ material there is available. Some of the participants involved turn out to have curious histories.

So since the appearance of a site called ‘Rootclaim’ back in 2016, it now appears overwhelming probable that the ‘sasa wawa’ who masterminded the highly successful ‘Who Attacked Ghouta?’ investigation is the Israeli high-technology entrepreneur and former Unit 8200 employee Saar Wilf. However, as Colonel Lang has repeatedly stressed, one has to judge the source and the information provided separately.

Because of the ‘crowdsourced’ nature of the venture, he was able to mine much more information than anyone could have done on his own – while there was no visible attempt to censor rational objections to the analysis.

(See https://www.rootclaim.comhttps://www.rootclaim.com">https://www.rootclaim.com">https://www.rootclaim.comhttps://www.rootclaim.com ; http://whoghouta.blogspot.co.uk .)

The ‘Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media’ can build on a lot of work, notably that done on the ‘A Closer Look at Syria’ site. A great deal of material has already been assembled on the ‘Talk: British involvement in Syria’ page, which also provides a lot of leads which can be pursued further.

(See http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Talk:British_involvement_in_Syria .)

The third originating member of the group, along with Paul McKeigue and Tim Hayward, is Piers Robinson, whose chair, at Sheffield, is in Politics, Society and Political Journalism. His research group has two research students who are already working on this material. I have seen some of the material produced by one of them, Jake Mason, and he really is working at the detail, which is what you need to do in this kind of research.

Ironically, this is what some academics who were conspicuously successful in Second World War intelligence did. Both the historian Hugh Trevor-Roper, who ran the collation and analysis of the material on German from Bletchley Park and other sources, and also Enoch Powell, who was a pivotal figure in military intelligence first in the Middle East and then South Asia, worked very hard at the detail.

So there is reason to hope that the site may be a magnet for academics who are interested in, as it were, doing investigative journalism. This has the potential very materially to help fill the gap left by the decline of the requisite interests and skills in the MSM.

It also may have the potential to make certain kinds of challenge to absurd conventional wisdoms acceptable. The powers-that-be can easily ignore the kind of material produced on ‘Who Attacked Ghouta?’ and ‘ACLOS’, however cogent it is, or indeed anything I write. A group of academics at respected universities may not be quite so easy to disregard.



I don't think even academics from "respected" universities will get much coverage if their findings challenge conventional wisdom. The only step that could have potential beneficial results is the vigorous enforcement of Robinson-Patman and the break up of the five media conglomerates to return to the media competition of the 60s.

David Habakkuk


It was not Judith Miller. It was someone called Marshall Lee Miller – see the quotation from Karon von Gerhke in #32.

In #53, Sid Finster said he knew Marshall Miller, as well as one of the Chalupas, and asked for an explanation of his role. It turns out that there are two Marshall Millers, who sound as though they could be father and son, so it would be possible that he knows the other one.

As to the one to whom Karon von Gerhke referred, I was able to confirm that there was such a person who, as she said, had been a law partner of the former CIA Director William Colby.

So, for instance, he surfaces in a 1984 report in the ‘Washington Post’, relating to his attempts to get hold of materials held by the CIA relating to Anglo-American attempts to get rid of the Enver Hoxha ‘régime’ in Albania, in which, I think wrongly, the Agency implied that the KGB might still have doubts about the loyalty of Kim Philby.

It is widely believed that he was the source of the information which allowed American and British agents sent into that country to be destroyed, although some have argued this is wrong. From the article:

‘Curiously, the affair was triggered by a former member of the U.S. intelligence community, Marshall Lee Miller. Miller once served in a senior position at the Defense Intelligence Agency and is now a law partner of former CIA Director William E. Colby. In addition to his intelligence and legal background, Miller is a recognized historian specializing in the Balkans and author of a book on Bulgaria.

(See https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1984/06/10/was-philby-a-phony-spynew-cia-affidavits-cast-doubt-on-his-loyalty-to-the-russians/75640cb5-56c1-403d-97a8-40042b79cb3f/?utm_term=.431325e26ab2 .)

As to Karon von Gerhke’s claim that Marshall Lee Miller was a lifelong friend of another former CIA Director, James Woolsey, from Yale days, I have not found confirmation in the public record, but have no doubt it is true.

If you look at the ‘Wikipedia’ entry on Colby, you can find some relevant background to what Scaramella might have been hoping to get from Aldrich Ames with the help of Miller and Shvets (he did not get it, clearly.)

(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Colby .)

In the conditions of the immediate post-war period, it was perfectly natural that Western intelligence agencies should be heavily involved in covert activities in Western Europe, in particular Italy. One purpose was to avoid the possibility of the communists coming to power by legal means – another to make contingency plans for resistance in the event of a Soviet invasion.

So Colby was heavily involved in covert activities in Italy in the ‘Fifties, having earlier been involved in ‘Operation Gladio’, in Sweden.

A problem is that, over time, unexpected consequences are liable to materialise.

In Italy, if one was looking for forces opposed to the communists, one was not going to be able to rely on pure, unblemished figures who had no connections to the Fascist dictatorship. A similar situation, obviously, arose with support for anti-Soviet insurgents in Ukraine and the Baltics. Of course Chrystia Freeland will insist that the notion that her grandfather was a Nazi collaborator is Russian propaganda, and she may very well believe it. But that is what he was.

In Italy, some of the people involved in ‘Gladio’ seem to have run rather spectacularly out of control.

At the same time, both before and after the collapse of the Soviet system, former KGB people coming to the West have commonly had strong vested interests in telling their audiences what these want to hear. The problem was compounded when a kind of ‘wall of money’ from Berezovsky and the Menatep oligarchs became available, as these, obviously, had the strongest possible incentives for disseminating the ‘return of Karla’ narrative.

A particularly interesting case is illustrated by the affidavit provided in Tel Aviv by Litvinenko in April 2006, to which I am afraid I also provided a link that did not work.

(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence">https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence">http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)

The affidavit describes how – according to this version in 2003 – he was introduced to Scaramella by the GRU defector Vladimir Rezun, aka ‘Viktor Suvorov’, and as a result spent five days in Naples in January 2004 providing the Italian with declarations.

These, which included the key document entitled ‘A Nuclear Suitcase from Moskow to Zurich’, were uncovered by David Loepp, and I provided them to Owen’s team back in September 2012.

If they had been produced in evidence, people might have realised that the presence of polonium in London in October-November 2006 might have something to do with the ‘information operations’ contests about ‘suitcase nukes’. So, not surprisingly, they were suppressed.

What I also told the team was that Rezun/Suvorov had got into an argument with two pre-eminent authorities on Soviet strategy in the Stalin years, Colonel David Glantz, the leading American expert on the war in the East in 1941-2, and the Israeli historian Gabriel Gorodetsky.

Having started out writing essentially diplomatic history, with a book published in 1984 on the Ambassadorship of Stafford Cripps in Moscow in 1940-2, in his subsequent work on the lead-up to the German attack Gorodetsky both drew on a mass of Russian archival material, and also on advice from a range of experts on Soviet military strategy.

As well as Colonel Glantz, these included Bruce Menning, whom Gorodetsky in the acknowledgements to his 1999 study ‘Grand Delusion: Stalin and the German Invasion of Russia’ describes as ‘the foremost expert on Soviet military planning.’ Both Glantz and Menning were instrumental in the creation of the ‘Soviet Army Studies Office’ at Fort Leavenworth, now the ‘Foreign Military Studies Office.’ It is still one of the first ‘ports of call’, if one wants informed Western commentary on Russian military thinking.

What provoked Gorodetsky’s work on the background to ‘Barbarossa’ was the restatement by Suvorov/Rezun, first in a 1985 article and then in his 1990 study ‘Icebreaker’, which was translated into Russian in 1992, of the claim that Stalin was ultimately responsible for the outbreak of the Second World War.

In essence, these writings attempted to defend a view held by the ‘appeasers’ at the time, and strongly championed by MI6, on the basis, supposedly, of ‘covert intelligence’, which was in essence that the ‘Popular Front’ and ‘collective security’ approaches advocated by Litvinov were an exercise in ‘reflexive control’ – to use TTG’s phrase.

Supposedly, both were underpinned by a long-term strategy to exploit ‘useful idiots’ in the West to finesse Germany and the Western powers into war.

This interpretation was combined by Rezun/Suvorov with the contention that Hitler only pre-empted an intended attack by Stalin.

How comprehensively Glantz and Gorodetsky demolished Suvorov/Rezun is apparent from a review of the ‘Grand Delusion’ study by the American historian Dr Truman Anderson.

(See http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/93 .)

Another irony, incidentally, is that Gorodetsky’s book is essentially a restatement of the view of Stalin’s foreign policy held at the time by the diplomats of the German Moscow Embassy. One of the threads he weaves into his account is the long and unavailing struggle waged by Werner von der Schulenberg, the German Ambassador in the period leading up to ‘Barbarossa’, to prevent Hitler embarking on a quite unnecessary and suicidal war.

In his book on the Cripps mission, Gorodetsky brought out that a very similar view was held by one of my late father’s teachers, the economic historian Sir Michael Moissey Postan, a Jewish refugee born in Bender, in what was then the Bessarabia Governate of the Russian Empire.

As head of the Russian section of the Ministry of Economic Warfare, Postan attempted to explain to idiots in the British Foreign Office that – precisely as Schulenberg had told Hitler – Stalin’s policy was dominated by fear of Germany, and that this could push him either to accommodation or confrontation with that country.

And he was just about the only person in British officialdom to argue – before the evidence from Bletchley Park made the conclusion inescapable – that Hitler was not simply engaged in ‘coercive diplomacy’ but actually intended to invade Russia.

What is at issue is not sympathy for communism. Rather obviously, Werner von der Schulenberg was no communist, and – as I can vouch for directly – Postan had no sympathy whatsoever for the Soviet system.

The point is rather that, in dealing with other countries, one needs to work with as an accurate an account as one can get of the past, as well as the present.

More and more evidence is suggesting that the antics of Christopher Steele and his associates are underpinned by views of key events in twentieth century history which are simply delusional.

You do not think that he and his like would read Gorodetsky, or Glantz, or Menning, do you? No, all the evidence suggests that people like Steele, and Dearlove, and Scarlett, and Sawyers, and Younger, preferred to listed to Suvorov/Rezun et al telling them what they want to hear.


INQ015669 INQ015671 Affidavit by Alexander Litvinenko and confirmation by Michael Cotlick 11/04/2006 16/03/2015


Is there a larger document of the hearing in which one could find out why this document was called on March, 16 2015? Do we learn there why he would give such an affidavit? And why in Israel?

Did the late Beresovsky at one point hire a lawyer in Israel since he spoke Russian and had translators available? No such services in London? Hard to believe. Or is Mikhael Kotlik acting as something like a solicitor to a barrister in London?

David Habakkuk

In reply to Alex #120.

Actually, the affidavit was not produced in evidence when Michael Cotlick appeared at the Inquiry on 16 March 2015.

Unfortunately, for some reason if one reproduces the link from the Inquiry website, it seems not to work. So the best thing to do is often to Google ‘The Litvinenko Inquiry’ and then trace the material on the relevant page. Where one has the reference number of a document, putting that into Google will find it.

On the ‘Hearings’ page, the testimony of Cotlick is indeed on 16 March 2015, Day 25 of the proceedings. In the list of items produced on the right hand side, you will see INQ020347, ‘AL documents’, which lists the affidavit which Litvinenko gave in Tel Aviv in April 2006, but the document itself is not produced.

It however you search for it in the Report, you will find that 4.82 explains that ‘There is also in evidence an Affidavit sworn by Mr Litvinenko in 2006 that provides an outline account of his dealings with the Mitrokhin Commission.’ It is specifically referenced again in 4.83(f), where Owen writes that:

‘Mr Litvinenko assisted Mr Scaramella by providing him with information. Their first meeting took place in Naples in January 2004 and lasted about five days. Mr Scaramella told me that they had a number of subsequent meetings at which Mr Litvinenko provided him with information. He thought that they met on three or four occasions in Italy and also on three or four occasions in London.’

What Scaramella told Owen is in the transcript for 18 March 2015, Day 27 of the hearing. A relevant excerpt:

‘Once we organised a formal meeting at the 17 International Maritime Organisation with him and other 18 people, from ECPP and from – so other senior discussant, so Oleg Gordievsky, Vladimir Bukovsky, so 20 staff at International Maritime Organisation, Mr Cohen and some senior expert of the ECPP.

‘So once it was just a meeting in London, just aimed to analyse Litvinenko’s statements, and other times it was just me and him, yes.’

Following this meeting, which was held on 26 July 2004, a dossier largely composed of material provided to it by the ‘Environmental Crime Prevention Programme’, Scaramella’s largely non-existent organisation, was sent from the Italian Embassy in London to the ‘Mitrokhin’ Commission, for which he worked. This kind of circular reporting is a rather familiar ‘information operations’ technique. It would fool some people.

Unfortunately, the link I provided in #88 got a full stop added to it, but if you follow the correct link – http://www.eurotrib.com/user/uid:1857/diary – you will find Scaramella refers to this document in his wiretapped conversations with Senator Guzzanti.

The full dossier was obtained by David Loepp in the ‘Historical Archives of the Senate of the Italian Republic, Mitrokhin Commission Archives’, where it is Document 341.2. It was attached by me in September 2012 to the first of a series of commentaries and submissions I sent to the Solicitor to the Inquest, Martin Smith, through until Owen’s conduct of the Hearings made it clear the proceedings were completely corrupt.

From the description of the ‘threat hypothesis’ in Scaramella’s presentation at the meeting, reproduced from the dossier:

‘At the end of the cold war nuclear devices were allocated by USSR in several coastal areas or dumped at sea. Also big ammount (sic) of waste to be used as weapons of mass destruction were released. Only in the Mediterranean sea more than 50 billions Curie of High Level Radioactive materials were dumped, in particular in the Sicily Street and in the Sicily Channel. Evidences confirms that telemines were dumped inside the waste material.’

And much of the rest is quite as ludicrous.

Just as Scaramella had suggested in his intercepted conversations with Senator Guzzanti, this garbage was endorsed by the much-lauded ‘dissident’, Vladimir Bukovsky, the KGB defector Oleg Gordievsky, the GRU defector Vladimir Rezun aka ‘Viktor Suvorov’, and the former CIA operative Louis Palumbo. The presence of the second and third of these is further evidence that MI6 was in this exercise up to the hilt, that of the last-named brings us back to the question of how far elements in the CIA were also.

The ‘statements’ which were to be ‘analyzed’ at this meeting are also included in the dossier. Although they are in Italian translation, the titles are given in English. They include – with authors: ‘From KGB to FSB’ (Litvinenko); ‘Organized Crime in Moskow’ (Litvinenko); ‘Red Brigades’ (Bukovsky); ‘Environmental Terrorism in Italy' (Litvinenko); ‘Russian Training of Al Qaida Members’ (Limarev) and ‘A Nuclear Suitcase from Moskow to Zurich’ (Litvinenko).’

It is against this background that one needs to look at the affidavit given by Litvinenko in April 2006. The central subject of this is, quite clearly, the same dossier which Karon von Gerhke referred to in the faxes to John Rizzo I quoted in #88, which were sent in October-December 2005.

A difference is that according to her faxes, the dossier was originally disseminated by the FSB to the CIA, who then send it on to British, French, Italian and Israeli agencies. According to the affidavit, it was sent to Italian, German, French and Israeli agencies, and had triggered an exchange of information between the last and the Russians.

Both agree that it accused Berezovsky of supplying Chechen insurgents with arms, but the affidavit is more specific about the mafia links supposed to be involved, pointing to Alimzhan Tokhtakhunov, nicknamed ‘Taiwanchik.’

The faxes from Karon von Gerhke were also submitted by me as evidence, and suppressed.

As to the reasons why such an affidavit was given in Israel, a crucial point is that there have long been disagreements both in Western intelligence agencies and in the Israeli about the wisdom of using jihadists as an instrument.

In December 2015 – ironically, just before Owen published his report – the former head of the Israeli National Security Council, Giora Eiland, published an article in the ‘Guardian’ entitled ‘Russia is right: fighting Isis is the priority for us all.’ At the start, he recalled:

‘About a dozen years ago, the head of a Russian thinktank visited Israel. As head of the National Security Council, I met him, along with several other senior defence officials, and we heard him say that the greatest threat to world peace was Islamic State. True, the name “Isis” wasn’t mentioned then, but the phenomenon that it represents was predicted with astounding accuracy. The Russian official warned about the formation of an Islamic caliphate in Iraq, which was in the process of disintegrating; he warned that this caliphate would try to take control of the Middle East and, from there, would send its long arms northward, via the Islamic former Soviet republics. At the same time, it would try to take advantage of the weakness of the west and would turn its attention to Europe. His conclusion was that Russia, the western powers and Israel shared a common enemy and it was in their utmost interests to join forces to defeat it. I heard similar messages when I met other Russian officials over the years. They also criticised the US’s war in Iraq – which they described as “imbecilic” – and which they said would only accelerate the arrival of a caliphate.’

(See https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/01/russia-fighting-isis-moscow-turkey .)

It was in January 2004, the same month that Litvinenko provided his material to Scaramella, that the Hutton Report, which effectively exonerated both Blair and the intelligence services in relation to that ‘imbecilic’ war, was published. In so doing, it ensured that one of the figures most responsible, Sir Richard Dearlove, would be succeeded as head of MI6 by another, Sir John Scarlett.

It was following this that, at some point that year, Christopher Steele, who had worked under Scarlett at the start of the ‘Nineties in Moscow, was appointed to head the Russia Desk. Whether it was before or after the July 2004 meeting I do not know.

Be that as it may a central preoccupation of Steele, and very likely Scarlett, was clearly with countering Russian ‘information operations’ which pointed towards the kind of radically different geopolitical strategy implicit in Eiland’s remarks. This was the background to the exchanges of accusations which went on both in public and in covert communications, alike in the United States and Western Europe and in Israel.

Obviously, Owen had to suppress the evidence as to what Scaramella, Litvinenko and Shvets had actually been up to, because had it been produced it might have occurred even to the ‘retards’ in the Anglo-American MSM that there was a more likely explanation for the smuggling of polonium into London than to use it to assassinate Litvinenko.

From the evidence I have presented in this thread, it is clear that the use of dubious claims about Mogilevich and the ‘Solntsevskaya Bratva’ which has now become central to the attempted ‘coup’ against Trump goes back a long way. Earlier, as I have brought out, both figured centre stage in the attempt to implicate Putin in WMD proliferation to jihadists – and the linked attempt to smear Romano Prodi as KGB/FSB agent.

To both of these, Steele was clearly central. In relation to his American collaborators, who seem to include most of the top leadership of the FBI, the question is what kind of ‘retard’ are they. It is possible that they are simply ‘useful idiots’, and really do believe everything he has told them.

It is also however possible that many of them actually know a good deal of the truth about the Litvinenko mystery and other matters which Owen, with the help of Martin Smith, who had previously been solicitor to the Hutton Inquiry, covered up. If they do, of course, this could provide them, as it clearly does their British counterparts, powerful reasons to consolidate their respective polities as what one might call ‘spookocracies.’

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad