Is Russia setting the stage for a nuclear apocalypse? [Part II]

By Douglas J. Hagmann, Director, & Sean Osborne, Military Affairs Specialist

Part I of this article

Preface

Our investigation into the Arctic Sea incident has taken some unexpected and incredibly complex twists and turns, uncovering information far beyond anything reported in the media or by officials speaking publicly about this incident. To be certain, raw clarity of the event is deliberately elusive and layers of secrecy shrouding the Arctic Sea are being constructed faster than they can be removed. Some who have attempted to shed light on this mystery by investigating the official Russian line have been threatened or forced to flee for their lives, such as Mikhail Voitenko, the editor of Sovfracht, an online maritime journal.

Mikhail Voitenko

Mikhail Voitenko

News regarding the Arctic Sea had been breaking at a rapid pace, although the Western media still had quite a lot of catching up to do when their focus was derailed by the sun setting on Camelot. Nearly all media accounts about the possibility of the Arctic Sea carrying suspicious and potentially dangerous cargo are meager in collective content and barely scratch the surface of this ongoing mystery. The mystery is as truly ongoing as the Arctic Sea vessel remains at sea somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean, under tow from Cape Verde as of this writing.

Our ongoing investigation into this incident has been extensive and exhaustive. Despite the comprehensive nature of our report, the final chapters have yet to be written. Nonetheless, during the course of our research and investigation into the incident of the Arctic Sea, we’ve uncovered - and in some instances inadvertently stumbled upon - the existence of government sponsored or sanctioned illegal activities on a global level. In this case, we believe we’ve identified a trail of multi-billion-dollar black-market nuclear sales to terrorists and foreign regimes by those within the Russian government. Most disturbingly, however, is that it appears that such activity not only involves individuals and groups within the Russian government, but appears to exist on a larger scale and involves even some within our own government.

During the course of this investigation, we have found what could be characterized as “a footprint” of an international network of weapons smuggling involving both conventional and non-conventional weaponry that is essentially hidden in plain sight. This network has been in existence for many years and is quite complex in its structure. As is necessary with this type of an operation, a concurrent infrastructure for money laundering is also in place. Much like one aspect of the now infamous Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) scandal, a covert financial network must be in place in order for the weapons smuggling to work, the sellers to be paid, and a method for the buyers to secretly remit payment.

This international infrastructure of weapons smuggling and money laundering has existed for many years, and seems to be constantly evolving into maturity. In fact, our investigative findings suggest that portions of the same network in use by those involved the Arctic Sea could be tied to a network of support and financing of the 9/11 attacks. We realize that such claims are extraordinary, and that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be considered legitimate.  Although we are not able to supply copies of bills of lading, hidden bank account numbers, or transaction dates, (at least  of this writing), we believe that we have uncovered enough evidence to satisfy the requirements of a “prima facie” case by definition.

Beginning with “Part II” of this report and henceforth, we will lay out the evidence we have obtained. We ask for patience in return, as this matter is quite complex and admittedly, difficult to follow at times. Nonetheless, we will do our best to connect the dots that include seemingly unconnected, random events, including but not limited to various international banking scandals, sudden deaths of individuals (private and government officials) involved or at the periphery of this network of corruption and conspiracy, corruption within the UN, Iran, Russia, rogue terrorist regimes, globalists and their elected puppets, and even the attacks of September 11, 2001.

In order to fully comprehend how the events involving the Arctic Sea vessel could even remotely have any link to 9/11, it is necessary to view the video or read the transcripts of the deposition of Sibel Edmonds, former FBI translator and whistleblower.

Interestingly, the deposition of Ms. Edmonds was brought about not by an inquest into the events of 9/11, but as a result of complaints filed by Ohio Second District Congresswoman Jean Schmidt of Cincinnati against independent candidate David Krikorian. In a rather ironic twist, her deposition was a product of a lawsuit filed by Schmidt over allegations made about contributions to her by the Turkish lobby.

To the best of her ability while still constrained by her security classification with the U.S. government, Ms. Edmonds provides critical insight into the domestic side of this clandestine network, but admittedly only a very narrow portion during her two-hour deposition. Although her testimony primarily relates to a Turkish group, our research and investigation found the template is the same for similar groups, countries and individuals on a global scale.

We have also found that some of those individuals “identified” by Ms. Edmonds have also appeared on our radar as well. These are the financiers and benefactors of ongoing wars and terrorism, while holding positions of political power either as elected or appointed officials, lobbyists, bankers, or their close associates.

edmondsdepoDuring her deposition, Ms. Edmonds skillfully manages to identify a number of U.S. officials, agencies, and industries who are involved with this network and ultimately dealing with terrorist regimes, either by choice or through compulsion. Such revelations actually stem from her very limited tenure within the FBI - mere months, in fact, yet she was able to identify threats to the U.S. from within. One reason such a feat is possible, aside from the hubris of those involved, stems from a veil of protection that has existed within our government for some time.  From the Warren Commission to the 9/11 Commission and lesser investigative bodies in between, appointments of “independent” investigators and prosecutors were selectively made, often by those targeted by the investigators themselves.

Therefore, the video deposition of Sibel Edmonds on 8 August 2009, available at The Brad Blog is required viewing in order to fully understand the network that ties the current events of the Arctic Sea with the attacks against America. If time permits, we recommend viewing the entire deposition. Alternatively, for a crash course in understanding how, for example, individuals within our own government might be compelled to help adverse foreign interests, visit The Brad Blog, scroll to the second panel (continuation of direct questioning) and advance to the six-minute mark. For the next several minutes, Ms. Edmonds describes the methodology used by foreign interests against those who can be easily compromised.

Unsurprisingly, Ms. Edmonds refers to the U.S. State Department at key times in her deposition. This is not by accident; her testimony provides a glimpse into the globalist leanings of key diplomats that have infiltrated that agency.

The Arctic Sea:  Part of a “serial of weapons proliferation?”

“State Secrets” & “State Secrets Privilege.” Remember those words, as they have been used many times to keep illegal activity of cabals within governments - our and others - hidden in plain sight.

It is reasonable to ask how we, as investigators not associated with or having the assets of the U.S. government could possibly uncover an international weapons smuggling operation having ties to a global network of rogue nations, terrorist regimes and even members of our own government when others are more equipped to do so or are given the task to do so have not done so. The simple answer is that in many cases, they have. Such information is routinely and effectively kept from public disclosure by invoking “State Secrets Privilege.”

Just as in the case involving 9/11 and the testimony of Sibel Edmonds’ regarding domestic elements of a global  network, an article published on 22 August 2009 by the Telegraph (UK) contains a vital statement that is buried in the next to the last paragraph:

“Crew members have told Russian news reporters that they have been told not to disclose state secrets,’ while well-informed Russian marine journalists have said they are now wary of commenting further on the case.”

That reference has been made on numerous occasions since that article appeared, and has been used to keep the details of an unsavory situation under wraps. It also explains the many discrepancies between the “obvious” and what is being disclosed by other countries, including Russia.

There is an old detective joke that ultimately ends with a suspect caught “red handed” uttering the statement “who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?” That statement is certainly applicable to this state-sponsored “black op” involving the Arctic Sea and its hidden cargo even as this report is being written.

To unlock at least some of the mysteries of the Arctic Sea, one must not be so myopic to confine the investigation to this specific vessel, its recent or present day erratic travels and alleged hijacking, nor to this one event. Doing so is akin to focusing on one piece of evidence at a complex crime scene and attempting to come up with a scenario that fits such a narrow focus. It simply does not tell the entire story, and in some instances, causes one to arrive at the wrong conclusions by an incorrect analysis of the evidence.

Further, by keeping one’s focus on the Arctic Sea is also like focusing an entire investigation on one victim and one crime scene of a serial crime spree. The events alone are much too narrow and misleading to provide an accurate picture of the enormity of the crime. This explains why some aspects of the Arctic Sea, when viewed outside of the context of an ongoing, larger and more complex global network do not seem to make sense. It is only when one understands the larger picture does the explanation of events relating to the Arctic Sea begin to conform to reason.

Having moved well beyond and discounting many of the scenarios published in the main stream media, our investigation readily determined that this was not an attack by pirates or what one would consider a typical hijacking by pirates, has nothing to do with drug smuggling, smuggling of traditional weapons, the Russian mafia (in its most obvious sense) or a commercial dispute.  That the media would even spend any time whatsoever on such explanations clearly illustrates their inept investigative ability, and provides a working example of the deliberate dissemination of misinformation or disinformation emanating from government officials.

Careful analysis of all available evidence - direct and indirect, tangible and anecdotal, combined with intelligence sources from three countries - indicates that the Arctic Sea is merely one “chess piece” in a high-stakes globalist game that continues to be played out on the world stage. This globalist game involves the quest for power and ultimate control by nations and nationalists in the darkest and deepest operational plans that few even realize exist. It exposes raw information that might hold answers to troublesome questions that surround the motives and clandestine activities of countries including but not limited to Russia and Iran, and even cabals structured within such organizations as the United Nations and NATO. Also, unlikely as it would seem, it connects certain agencies of our own government and certain officials - again, either willingly or through compulsion, to this globalist agenda.

The scenario played out -and continues to play out - like the plot of a Brad Thor novel. Therefore, unraveling the complex mystery of the Arctic Sea must be done one step at a time in order to understand the gravity of its implications and the potential global ramifications not only involving this ship and shipment, but other shipments as well as those individuals behind it.

First, one must ask what is so special about this ship and its cargo.

Mysterious Cargo

Perhaps the closest to anyone in the media answering the question about the ship’s cargo was detailed on August 26, 2009 in this report in the Asia Times by writer Cristina Batog. In that article, Batog cites a posting from a former Russian military officer identified as Vladimir Filin who operates a Russian language website based in the Ukraine. Filin postulates that the Arctic Sea was carrying four X-55 strategic cruise missiles intended for Iran. According to Filin, writes Batog, the missiles are to be used against Israel in an Iranian counterstrike. Sean Osborne, military affairs expert with the Northeast Intelligence Network, dismisses this theory in the following analysis:

“Most astute intelligence assets who track the proliferation of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems knew that the Islamic Republic of Iran received 12 Kh-55 ‘Granat” (X-55) 200kT nuclear cruise missiles from Russia via the Ukraine in 2001.  I originally reported that six Kh-55 were transferred to Iran and six went to the People’s Republic of China, but the fact that all 12 made it to Iran was subsequently confirmed.  As I noted in my original article [LINK], Janes Intelligence Digest reported ‘there is … mounting evidence to suggest that the sale of missiles to Iran was undertaken with the assistance of the Russian security services.’  [This report] would make sense if it reported the MV Arctic Sea was being utilized in the transfer of state-of-the-art the 200kT warheads for the 12 Kh-55s Iran already has.”

In other words, the cargo most likely consisted of tactical nuclear weapons, just not the type identified by that published report. Mr. Osborne further notes that tactical nuclear weapons are not subject to limits or legitimate monitoring under existing arms control agreements between the U.S. and Russia. Accordingly, they would be the most readily subjected to such black market proliferation. Combining that with the extensive work done on the bulkhead of the vessel, it is reasonable to identify such nuclear devices as the mysterious cargo.

missile1Further substantiation can be found within a March 5, 2009 report issued by the Federation of American Scientists, TNWs are “the most easy [for terrorists or proxies] to run away with.” Another report from NTI states, “Their (TNWs) small size and the absence of electronic locks or Permissive Action Links (PALs) on older versions contribute to their vulnerability to theft and unauthorized use.” The yield of TNWs has been estimated by the atomic scientific community to range from a 100 ton high explosive yield to “variable yield” weapons that range from the “tens to several hundreds of kilotons.”  The high-end of this range is multiple times of that which utterly destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The analysis provided by Mr. Osborne is the result of extensive intelligence collection based on his military and intelligence experience, and is consistent with the very latest information obtained from our intelligence assets in the United States, Great Britain and Israel. In fact, information obtained by this author during the very early hours of 27 August 2009 further confirms the specific nuclear nature of the cargo.

There is, however, one very important element contained within Filin’s postulations as reported by Ms. Batog.  That is that the various shipments of nuclear armaments and related material from Russia to Iran have been ongoing for the last several years despite the absence of any substantiating published reports. Our own intelligence sources have confirmed this as fact, which is consistent with our reference to serial weapons proliferation.

It is important not to confuse Iran’s own nuclear program with their black market activities. While there are reports that Iran’s indigenous nuclear program is rapidly progressing, there is little talk about the black market sales of nuclear equipment and technology to Iran and other terrorist regimes. Again, this is not by accident, but by design.

The key to understanding the many conflicting reports about the state of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, particularly the reports issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is to understand that the IAEA is an “independent” entity reporting under charter to the United Nations. A primer of the IAEA and the United Nations is beyond the scope or intent of this report, but information pertaining to each entity is integrated into this article due to the overlapping activities of some members and member states. In other words, the same individuals who are suspected as being involved in the black market of nuclear weapons and technology sales are embedded within the United Nations and its subgroups. The “actors” and the “watchers” are inextricably linked.

One has to look no further for an example than the global proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear technology since Mohamed ElBaradei assumed the role of Director General of the IAEA role on Dec. 1, 1997. Over the last few years, several experts working within the IAEA have complained about ElBaradei’s own agenda influencing the reports issued by that agency.

Under his watch, the A.Q. Khan network of nuclear technology was allowed to flourish, Pakistan, India and North Korea each aqkhandetonated nuclear bombs, and Iran’s development of a nuclear weapons program was permitted to grow nearly unfettered. Additionally, Libya admitted to a clandestine nuclear program in 2003, and a nuclear site in Syria - “undetected” by the IAEA, was discovered by - had to be leveled by Israel. More information about ElBaradei appears in this 2008 article published by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. That article references the IAEA’s “closing the book” on questions about Iran’s work on polonium 210-”which nuclear experts suspect Iran experimented with for use as an initiator for nuclear weapons.” It is important to remember that exposure to polonium-210 (over 95% of which is manufactured in Russia) is the same rare substance that poisoned Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko.

Therefore, the supposition that Russia is, and has been supplying Iran with nuclear technology and even arms in the forms of warheads under the noses of so many “watchdogs” should come as no surprise to anyone. The truth about Russia’s role in assisting Iran’s objectives to usher in the apocalypse will never come from Russia, or any of the lapdog agencies serving the globalists.

It is interesting and relevant to point out a recent assessment by the current Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Dennis Blair about Iran’s nuclear program. He states that intelligence suggests that Iran will not have nuclear weapons capabilities until 2013. Meanwhile, we find that Barack Hussein Obama appears to be “making nice” with Middle Eastern countries like Syria, a tactic that has ominous implications for Middle Eastern politics. These two news reports represent a larger picture - a bigger agenda at play that will put Israel at a severe disadvantage in the short term, and has the potential to forever change the political landscape of the Middle East. Considering the above, the agenda of the current administration in the global political arena is gradually becoming more transparent.

Meanwhile, back at sea…

Now, if one is to accept that the Arctic Sea was carrying nuclear cargo as identified within this report, then numerous other questions arise. The most basic question, of course, is what happened? What went wrong with the delivery of the cargo aboard this ship?  Reflecting a more prescient understanding of the situation, our intelligence sources have not only provided information shedding light on those questions, but offered insight into the larger picture. While many are busy seeking answers to a very specific line of inquiry, the larger picture, including one of diversion is going unnoticed to the delight of the architects of the globalist agenda.

Destination and interruption of delivery

What was the destination of the cargo, and what happened at sea?

A natural and logical destination would be the Islamic Republic Iran, based on extensive evidence of Russia’s facilitation of Iran’s nuclear program. Important and relevant background is detailed in an article written by Mr. Osborne on May 12, 2009 titled Iranian Nuclear-Capable Cruise Missile Threat. If that is indeed the case, then what happened, and was the ship actually hijacked?

Based on a combination of intelligence sources, open source reports and extensive analysis, it has been concluded that the Arctic Sea was on a state-sanctioned, covert mission originating within Russia by members of the previously referenced international cabal. Substantiating this conclusion is the extensive operational deception that was so obviously integral to the MV Arctic Sea’s mission, involving even deceiving the Russian Navy on the high seas while executing that mission which some members within the Russian government classified a “state secret.” This suggests that the mission of the MV Arctic Sea was “compartmentalized” at the highest levels, involving only a very small circle of “insiders” or “globalists” who were actually briefed on the ship’s cargo and mission.

The events pertaining to the actual “hijacking,” however, are less clear. According to one European intelligence source providing information to this agency, some members of the crew knew the hijackers, and one is actually related to a hijacker. News of this possible relationship was published by one news agency immediately after the names of the perpetrators were released. This same source stated that the hijacking was arranged from the onset, which appears to be corroborated by the apparent lack of force used at the time of the takeover.

Considering all of the oddities related to this alleged act of piracy, combined with information from our intelligence sources, it is not only reasonable but imperative to ask whether the ship was actually “hijacked.” One very plausible explanation, especially if the illicit cargo was indeed destined for Iran, is that the shipment was to be offloaded to an Iranian vessel in a more remote area of the Atlantic Ocean. The hijacking would provide the necessary cover for the Arctic Sea to be off its course with the automatic identification system (AIS) and other such equipment disabled.

Who then, were the hijackers?

Again, based on information from intelligence sources in addition to suggestions contained in more recent news articles, it is reasonable to suspect that the hijackers are actually Russian intelligence operatives from the Russian GRU, which is an agency that is directly involved in terrorist operations and “operations related to assassination or decapitation of senior US leadership via tactical nuclear weapons,” according to Sean Osborne of the Northeast Intelligence Network.

Mr. Osborne further states that it is his belief, based on various sources and analysis, that the “hijack” and the “rescue” of the MV Arctic Sea was nothing more than a Russian charade or a false flag operation.

“With the hijackers - i.e. Russian intelligence agents - being on board the entire time, there is no way that Moscow did not know where this ship was or where it was headed with its cargo at any given moment,” said Mr. Osborne.

Indeed. Based on information provided by our intelligence sources, combined with independent research, it is our collective contention that the “hijacking” of Arctic Sea was a rouse to provide the ship, crew and the sponsors of the illicit cargo enough time and a level of plausible deniability to offload the cargo at sea. There is, however, one troubling aspect that has yet to be discussed anywhere publicly extends beyond the less complicated hijack scenario.

A nightmare scenario

cumbre_vieja

An article written by Michael Anissimov published on 6 August 2006 titled “Six Places to Nuke for Multiplier Effect” provides some very disturbing scenarios about the “best” places to detonate a nuclear weapon for “maximum effect.”  In his article, Anissimov postulates the effects of a detonation at sea. Specifically, he writes “Knock off a chunk of Cumbre Viejo at La Palma in the Canary Islands,” which just happens to be the general area where the ship was found. Such an explosion would cause a massive tidal wave that would circle the earth three times, taking out coastal cities before dissipating. This tidal wave scenario is discussed in a CNN article at this link.

Out of the realm of possibilities? Considering the many odd events witnessed by the world in the last decade, who can honestly dismiss someone attempting this?

An analogy suitable for television

To better understand the actual hijacking and what follows, consider the following analogy. A Colombian drug kingpin, operating an international illegal drug network within a corrupt political government, sends a group of “mules,” or carriers, to deliver a large shipment of drugs into another country. Through multiple means, including blackmail, payoffs, threats and kickbacks, the drug kingpin has compromised members of the government at the highest levels, and is permitted to operate his illicit operation without fear of arrest. Aside from the nature of the cargo, that situation is analogous to the Arctic Sea.

At this point, we begin to consider divergent scenarios relative to the hijacking itself, such as:

  • At some level within the otherwise corrupt government, an agency tasked with drug enforcement measures did not get the “memo” that this kingpin, his mules and the shipment are not to be touched. Members of that agency make an arrest during shipment, and suddenly find themselves facing the wrath of their own government leaders for actually doing their job.
  • Alternatively, a rogue group of criminals aware of the shipment decide to take the shipment of drugs, or divert it for their own personal gain.
  • Another possibility is that the “mules” themselves arrange for the shipment to be hijacked, knowing that the hijackers would be sophisticated enough to disable the tracking devices on the vehicle. They did not expect someone from within the government to actually enlist the aid of an organization such as NATO, possessing greater electronic surveillance equipment, to assist in the tracking and recovery of the shipment.
  • Yet another possibility is that the hijacking served as a “cover story,” giving the ship and crew the necessary time and invisibility so that the cargo could be offloaded to the “purchaser” in a more remote area.

The accounts of the hijacking itself remain cloudy and a focus of pure speculation. Nonetheless, one is able to gain better and more accurate insight into the hijacking and hijackers by looking at the Russian response to the event.

A telling event in tracking the Arctic Sea

Open source reports state that the hijackers boarded the ship and disabled some high tech devices, including the automatic identification system and a satellite transponder. This would, of course, suggest a level of knowledge and sophistication surpassing less capable pirates found cruising in the normal dangerous areas of the high seas. It might also suggest collusion by members of the crew members themselves. While that is indeed an important aspect of this event, it is more important to look at the subsequent tracking of the vessel, according to our intelligence sources. It is within this area that one will find clues to the “real events” involving the allegedly hijacked vessel.

As postulated by Roland Oliphant of RussiaProfile.org in an article titled Hidden in Plain Sight, the Russian Navy, via Russian Intelligence, was actively tracking the Arctic Sea through classified means despite the disabling of the automatic identification system (AIS) and other beacon equipment. Russia’s “eyes in the sky” would explain their silence during the recovery of the ship (for the safety of the crew) and their ability to locate the vessel on open waters as quickly as they did. Although it seems plausible at first blush, one must ask whether that really happened. Our response and the most likely answer is that it probably did not.

A report published on 20 August 2009 by RIANOVOSTI titled Russian envoy praises NATO role in search for Arctic Sea discloses that the assets of other countries - under the umbrella of NATO - were employed in that manner.  In fact, it was NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen who provided the means to the Russians including the use of an integrated maritime monitoring system “which helps the alliance to track the movement of vessels in the sea.” Therefore and most importantly, it was not the Russians who initiated the tracking of the Arctic Sea, although they were certainly the beneficiaries.

According to Sean Osborne, military affairs specialist with the Northeast Intelligence Network, this move by NATO could well constitute a breach of U.S. and NATO operational security (OPSEC) in that NATO has essentially provided critical classified intelligence to the Russians.

If this report is correct as our sources have confirmed , then NATO provided Russia not only the means but critical information about the depth of our capability to precisely track small vessels in the open ocean absent of the AIS or other such tracking devices. Mr. Osborne adds that this specific capability is classified as Top Secret/Specially Compartmented Intelligence (TS/SCI) at least until 2015.

Therefore, the role of NATO within this aspect of the Arctic Sea incident must not be overlooked, nor its importance underestimated. In fact, it is this very aspect of the hunt for the Arctic Sea that should be setting off proverbial alarm bells among NATO member nations. Unfortunately, this matter will likely be overlooked while the focus remains myopically on the cargo and away from the behavior of Russia and those in collusion with such state-sponsored activities.

The question now becomes why would NATO provide sensitive information to Russia, the country essentially responsible for its creation? The answers might reside very close to home, within our highly infiltrated and heavily compromised Department of State.

In an article dated July 30, 2009 published again by RIANOVOSTI, it is apparent that Washington has sent overtures to Russia about joining the NATO alliance. According to that article, Assistant Secretary of State Philip Gordon stated that the U.S., under the Obama administration, would consider Russian membership in the military alliance! Although Russia has since dismissed this confusing overture, the fact that it was even made is illustrative of a larger agenda of global governance. This agenda of submission to a global governance, a one world order or “New World Order,” once fodder for conspiracy theorists, is clearly evident in the NATO (i.e. U.S.) actions relative to the Arctic Sea.  This one aspect of the MV Arctic Sea, as previously associated with the serial aspect of weapons proliferation, connects certain agencies of our own government and certain officials - again, either willingly or through compulsion, to a globalist agenda. The tracking of the Arctic Sea provides just one example of this globalist agenda at work.

The globalist agenda is certainly not limited to the current administration, and can be traced to both sides of the political aisles. What is of specific importance to their agenda under this administration lies not solely with Obama himself, but what political appointments are being spawned by his past associations and those to whom he is committed through massive investments to his political machine.

While news of the overture made by the current U.S. State Department to Russia to join NATO was casually reported by the media, news over the concern regarding the Arctic Sea was conspicuously absent. It would be reasonable to expect that the mere possibility of a vessel suspected of supplying nuclear cargo to Iran, a cargo that ostensibly originated in Russia, would merit at least a mention by the U.S. Department of State or someone within the current administration. Despite the close proximity to the action by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at about the same time this issue was making headlines in Europe, there was silence.

That silence continued during a visit to Russia by Israeli President Shimon Peres immediately after the Arctic Sea was recovered. Peres met with the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in the city of Sochi to discuss, among other things, Iran’s nuclear program. That visit appears to have been arranged during the search and recovery of the Arctic Sea. It was a relatively brief visit that took place during Medvedev’s summer vacation at his summer home, and corresponds with the unusual order he gave that dispatched the Baltic fleet of the Russian navy to “search” for the vessel.

It is important to note the confluence of events during the period from 12 through 17 August 2009.  The Arctic Sea had been missing and believed “hijacked” for weeks, yet Russia made no effort to secure its recovery. Suddenly, Russian President Medvedev orders an entire naval fleet consisting of submarines and destroyers to search for a “hijacked” ship carrying a cargo of timber. At about the same time the ship was “found” and Medvedev sent three large military cargo planes to transport the crew and hijackers back to Russia, Israeli President pays Medvedev a brief visit at his summer home on the Black Sea.

A transport of large proportions

The retaking of the Arctic Sea and the rescue of the crew is most telling. Reports about how the crew was confined together with the alleged hijackers - something not done in a traditional hostage-rescue situation-have already been published and discussed. Russia also flew the crew and hijackers together from Cape Verde to the Lefortovo remand prison in Moscow. What is not being discussed is much more curious and more telling.

In plain sight, Russia deployed three full size military cargo planes to Cape Verde to pick up the ship’s crew and hijackers. Considering that these aircraft are the Russian counterpart of our own C-130 transport planes, the logical question is to ask why. What was the purpose of sending not one but three such aircraft to transport 11 crew members and 8 hijackers back to Russia?

During the course of our investigation, that question was posed to our intelligence source in Europe, and the answer received was simple and direct. The less-public recovery operation was directed by the same cabal within the Russian government as the deployment of the ship. While the public’s attention was diverted to the “freeing of the crew and the perp walk” of the alleged hijackers, Russian assets were busy removing the illicit cargo from the ship onto the unused aircraft. This appears to be substantiated by the abnormally long period of time passing between the retaking of the ship and its release back to Russia. The transfer reportedly took place while the crew and hijackers were under the control of the Russian naval assets sent to the islands.

Also according to our intelligence source, the arrest of the alleged hijackers and the “rescue” of the crew were conducted by Russian Naval assets. The order for deployment of the transport planes came through different channels, specifically from assets inside Russian intelligence. “These were two separate and distinctly different operations,” stated this intelligence source.

To answer the question posed above, our intelligence source in Europe states that at least two of the cargo planes dispatched for this rescue operation broke away from the third and “appeared to be on a separate mission.” This source stated that the two cargo planes were delayed from departure at Cape Verde, surrounded by Russian forces under heavy security, and ultimately landed at a separate hanger upon their return to Russia.

The actions of the two planes would make sense if they were returning nuclear cargo to Russia.

The value of diversion

Of particular value in asymmetrical warfare is “diversion,” whether it is diversion of assets or attention to a specific event. Just such an event took place with the Arctic Sea. While NATO assets and satellite coverage was focused on “locating” the Arctic Sea (despite the likelihood that Russia never lost the ship), one has to ask what was taking place elsewhere - from the Caspian Sea to the Atlantic.

Particularly troublesome is the commitment of NATO assets to this search. We will be providing more information  about the individuals involved in this decision in subsequent reports.

The strange death of Alexander Litvinenko

Remember Alexander Litvinenko?  Litvinenko, a former KGB officer, was responsible for exposing “false flag operations” by members of the Russian FSB, a successor organization to the KGB. In his book Blowing up Russia: Terror from Within, he stated that it was Federal Security Service (FSB) agents in Russia that planned and executed the 1999 apartment block bombings that killed more than 300 people. The attacks served to sway public opinion in favor of Russia’s second war in Chechnya. As a result of that bombing, the Russian military launched a huge military offensive.

During his tenure with the KGB, Litvinenko was privy to numerous Soviet intelligence and military operations. Perhaps the most relevant revelation to the U.S. is that Litvinenko maintained that Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s second in command only to Osama bin Laden, was trained by the FSB in Dagestan in the years running up to the 9/11 attacks. Sean Osborne, military affairs specialist for the Northeast Intelligence Network, reported on the ties between the KGB and Ayman al Zawahiri in this article dated 6 May 2007.

After authoring his book and further exposing state sponsored terror, corruption and ties to numerous watershed events, Litvinenko settled in the UK in 2000 after being granted political asylum. In October 2006, he was somehow poisoned with polonium-210. Was it a case of murder or something entirely different?

An investigation involving Scotland Yard and the FBI resulted in identifying Andrei Lugovoi as the key suspect in the murder/death of Litvinenko. Who is Lugovoi and where is he now?  As noted in this article dated 7 June 2009 by the UK Times online:

Andrei Lugovoi has been appointed to the security committee of the Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament.

The committee, which oversees antiterrorist legislation and border security, has regular contact with the Federal Security Service (FSB) - the former KGB - and the interior ministry.

The case of Alexander Litvinenko and the lead suspect in his “murder,” Andrei Lugovoi, may be tangentially tied to the case of the Arctic Sea. Polonium-210, the radioactive isotope that caused the death of Litvinenko, was traced to the Avangard plant in Russia. Polonium-210 is used for the trigger in nuclear weapons and when found where it shouldn’t be, is a prime indicator of smuggling nuclear components.

Our intelligence sources have confided that the death of Livinenko and the identification of Lugovoi as the prime suspect are much deeper and more complex than a “simple” state-sanctioned assassination. Stated our source:

“I can tell you this much, that his death is directly related to smuggling nuclear materials on the black market to Islamic terrorist regimes. Take that at face value, without reading anything further into it.  Understand that the amount of Polonium-210 to which Litvinenko was exposed is one-billionth of an ounce, infinitely smaller than a grain of sand. Despite published reports that his [Litvinenko's] tea was spiked by Polonium-210, you should consider how that was accomplished. You’ve got to understand not only where Polonium-210 comes from and what it is used for, but how it is handled. Spiking someone’s tea with a substance -the amount of which would barely be detected on the sharp end of a needle-would be quite problematic. It would be much useful to look at the movements of both Litvinenko and Lugovoi while Lugovoi was in the UK. Then, look at the traffic of black-market nuclear materials.”

In other words, according to our intelligence source, whether Litvinenko was “murdered” with polonium-210 is actually of lesser importance to the fact that he was exposed to the substance - in London. The fact that polonium-210 is in London when nearly all of the intensely radioactive isotope is manufactured at a closely guarded nuclear reactor in Russia is of prime importance.

According to investigative results from UK intelligence officials, it is obvious that the UK was not the ultimate destination of the polonium-210. Most importantly, the polonium was further identified as black-market cargo in the nuclear arms trade.

Guided by the information provided by our intelligence source, this investigator conducted additional research into individuals and events encompassing the time period from approximately 1997 through the present. This period not only encompasses the activities of Litvinenko, but those of other Russian officials, former Soviet diplomats, UN officials, as well as individuals within the U.S. government and related agencies. This investigative data was compared to the various documents that were published by and for U.S. intelligence officials during that same period of time, and is continuing as of this writing.

One specific item that immediately caught my interest was the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran. The conclusion reached in that document was in complete opposition to the numerous NIE documents issued within the previous ten-(10) years. Specifically, the findings were that Iran had halted their nuclear weapons program in 2003 and had not since sought to achieve a position among the community of nuclear armed nations.

Immediately after the release of that document, politicians on both side of the political aisle put their personal agendas into overdrive, with truth taking a back seat. As detailed in an assessment by Sean Osborne quoting a Wall Street Journal editorial, the authors of that NIE report include three former State Department officials with previous reputations as “hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials.” They were identified as Tom Fingar, formerly of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research; Vann Van Diepen, the National Intelligence Officer for WMD; and Kenneth Brill, the former U.S. Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and a career foreign-service officer. An insightful article about Brill was published in an article by Frank Gaffney, Jr. on 1 July 2005, available at this link.

What is readily apparent to even those outside of the intelligence community is the existence of a rift between the Bush administration (at that time) and members of the U.S. State Department. Responding to the 9/11 attacks and based on the 9/11 commission’s advice, the Bush administration created the position of Director of National Intelligence (DNI), a position that evolved from DCI, or Director of Central Intelligence. It is interesting to note that the first DNI was John Negroponte, who, after his tenure as DNI, was sworn in as Deputy Secretary of State in 2007.

Referring again to intelligence expert Frank Gaffney, Jr., in an article published in January 2005, Gaffney describes Negroponte:

“He acted like a typical bureaucrat, building the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) into an empire of some 1,500 employees. What should have been a lean intelligence-coordinating outfit has instead developed and expanded at the expense of line agencies with real responsibilities and at a staggering cost of $100 million a year.”

In a withering critique of Negroponte’s organization (and, at least implicitly, his performance) delivered at the CIA last year, District Court Judge Richard Posner - a highly regarded expert on intelligence matters - observed that ODNI was characterized by “delay and loss of information from the bottom up, delay and misunderstanding of commands from the top down, [and] turf fights for the attention of the top layer.”

Negroponte’s failure to streamline the U.S. intelligence apparatus and enhance its capabilities was greatly exacerbated by his poor judgment in staffing key positions at ODNI. Rather than filling the ranks with intelligence professionals, he opted in a number of cases to populate senior positions with fellow Foreign Service Officers. The most notable of these were two individuals whose judgment and conduct had previously been called into serious question: Thomas Fingar, the deputy DNI for analysis, and Kenneth Brill, the director of the DNI’s National Counterproliferation Center.”

The reason this is so important is twofold. First, it provides critical insight into how the DNI, the result of recommendations by the heavily compromised and infiltrated Keen Commission and created by legislation introduced by Senators Dianne Feinstein, Jay Rockefeller and Bob Graham was woefully deficient in terms of streamlining intelligence. What happened instead was that the DNI focused on appointing individuals to key agencies that further impaired an already bloated bureaucracy.

The second important aspect involves the individuals selected by the DNI, which is more relevant to this article. Note that the DNI appeared to exploit that position by appointing those with questionable agendas to key positions. One merely has to look at the backgrounds of the individuals within the 16 intelligence agencies who ultimately authored the 2007 NIE to find agendas that include globalist leanings and not-so-subtle pro-Arab, pro-Palestinian, and anti-Semitic leanings.  The result should have been predictable, at least in hindsight.

The formation of the DNI at the recommendation of the 9/11 commission, the publication of the 2007 NIE on Iran (including some of the greatest intelligence flip-flops since the Scott Ritter-Burger King-Iraq movie deal), indeed applies to the current case involving the Arctic Sea. First, one must understand that our intelligence apparatus has been compromised from within. Some of the individuals who were involved in the 2007 NIE have been rewarded with positions within the State Department, where they are better able to advance their globalist agenda. The process began long before Barack Hussein Obama became a DC resident, although is being accelerated under his watch due to those who are closely associated with him. The Republicans and Democrats are subjugated by the globalist, “one world government” and “New World Order” movements.

Ultimately, black market nuclear weapons proliferation is being permitted to exist and flourish, while true intelligence is so heavily politicized that the end product fails to represent a truthful analysis of the raw information collected by our patriotic officers and foot soldiers.

To be continued… Connecting the dots