{"id":65679,"date":"2003-07-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-07-16T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2003\/07\/16\/en-marge-de-la-crise-de-nerfs-possible-a-lotan-la-main-du-kgb\/"},"modified":"2003-07-16T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2003-07-16T00:00:00","slug":"en-marge-de-la-crise-de-nerfs-possible-a-lotan-la-main-du-kgb","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2003\/07\/16\/en-marge-de-la-crise-de-nerfs-possible-a-lotan-la-main-du-kgb\/","title":{"rendered":"En marge de la crise de nerfs possible \u00e0 l’OTAN : la main du KGB<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

En marge de la crise de nerfs possible \u00e0 l’OTAN : la main du KGB<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t16 juillet 2003 Il y a un aspect tr\u00e8s inattendu en marge de cette situation d’une possible crise \u00e0 l’OTAN . A cette occasion d’une crise divisant \u00e0 nouveau l’OTAN, comme en janvier-f\u00e9vrier mais plus gravement, pourrait ressortir une th\u00e8se des ann\u00e9es 1970-80, d\u00e9j\u00e0 \u00e9voqu\u00e9e par certains en janvier-f\u00e9vrier dernier, lors de la premi\u00e8re crise de l’OTAN.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tC’est la th\u00e8se du Grand Dessein sovi\u00e9tique. Cette th\u00e8se est que l’actuelle division de l’OTAN serait l’effet ultime d’un vaste plan sovi\u00e9tique lanc\u00e9 dans les ann\u00e9es 1960, visant \u00e0 endormir l’Ouest, notamment gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 l’attitude sovi\u00e9tique (la d\u00e9tente et la suite), puis \u00e0 diviser l’Ouest jusqu’\u00e0 la rupture de l’OTAN. Cette th\u00e8se implique gaillardement que, apr\u00e8s la d\u00e9tente elle-m\u00eame qui n’\u00e9tait qu’un complot, Gorbatchev et la glasnost<\/em> ne furent qu’un montage du KGB, la dissolution du Pacte de Varsovie, la chute du Mur et la fin du communisme idem<\/em>. L’ultime manoeuvre du plan est la venue au pouvoir de l’agent du KGB Poutine. La rupture de janvier-f\u00e9vrier dernier serait le signe annonciateur que le KGB a r\u00e9ussi son coup : on imagine l’hyst\u00e9rie si cela recommence.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLa cerise sur le g\u00e2teau de cette th\u00e8se concerne la new Europe<\/em> tant ch\u00e9rie par Rumsfeld. Ce ne serait qu’une couverture. En r\u00e9alit\u00e9, tous ces pays de l’ex-Pacte entr\u00e9s dans l’OTAN ou sur le point d’y entrer seraient toujours men\u00e9s par des communistes, ou anciens communistes (ce point-l\u00e0 n’est pas faux), qui n’attendraient qu’une circonstance favorable pour agir dans le sens qu’on imagine, celui de la rupture de l’Ouest.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tL’un des tenants de cette th\u00e8se est le commentateur (am\u00e9ricain) d’extr\u00eame-droite J. R. Nyquist, qui l’expose dans un texte publi\u00e9 le 12 f\u00e9vrier dernier: Is NATO Cracking?<\/a> Voici ce qu’il \u00e9crit notamment pour conclure son texte, en d\u00e9taillant le Grand Dessein ; cela fait une excellente lecture de d\u00e9tente pour l’\u00e9t\u00e9, en n’oubliant pas \u00e9galement qu’en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral les mois d’ao\u00fbt, un peu trop languissants, sont marqu\u00e9s par des \u00e9v\u00e9nements dramatiques inattendus :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab The ranking Czechoslovakian defector, Jan Sejna, wrote about Moscow’s long-range strategy as it was described to him in 1967, twenty years prior to Gorbachev’s statement on eliminating the military blocs. According to Sejna, Phase Three of Moscow’s plan was called The Period of Dynamic Social Change. Here Gorbachev’s future policy of perestroika is fully explained in strategic terms. The purpose of this so-called dynamic social change would be to smash the hope of false democracy (i.e., Western democracy). Our relationship with the United States would be a vital element in this phase, explained Sejna. By fostering belief in our policy of friendship and co-operation with America, we planned to receive the greatest possible economic and technological help from the West, and at the same time convince the Capitalist countries that they had no need of military alliances. Sejna further explained that the erosion of NATO, begun in Phase Two would be completed by the withdrawal of the United States from its commitment to the defence of Europe, and by European hostility to military expenditure, generated by economic recession and fanned by the efforts of the progressive movements. Then Sejna penned the following, striking, explanation: To this end we envisaged that it might be necessary to dissolve the Warsaw Pact, in which event we had already prepared a web of bilateral defence arrangements, to be supervised by secret committees of Comecon.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb According to this high-ranking defector, the breakup of NATO was a key objective. In order to achieve this breakup Moscow would dissolve its own military bloc in Eastern Europe, but only on the surface. Today the communists still control the top jobs in the military organizations of Eastern Europe. Eastern Europe’s support for American policy in Iraq is therefore a deception, a way of winning favor and sowing confusion. Again and again reports filter in from the East that communism is not dead. It has merely submerged itself in the surface epiphenomena of dynamic social change. This change is known in America by the phrase collapse of communism. This collapse is something akin to the man in the moon. Everyone sees it winking from on high, but the effect is a trick of light and imagination.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb If Sejna was the only defector to write of this long-range Soviet plan we might be justifiably skeptical. But he was not alone. In 1984, prior to the elevation of Gorbachev as General Secretary of the Communist Party Soviet Union, KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn wrote a book titled New Lies for Old. In this book Golitsyn stated that Moscow’s aim was the elimination of NATO as a military bloc. This would be achieved by the liberalization of Eastern Europe and calls for the simultaneous dissolution of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and ultimately for the establishment of a neutral, socialist Europe. Golitsyn further explained that false alignments between communist and noncommunist powers [would eventually] break up the existing NATO structure and replace it with a system of European collective security entailing the ultimate withdrawal of the American military presence from Western Europe and the growth of communist influence there.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Sejna adds a critical detail to this overall picture. In 1982 he wrote, The Soviet view was that during Phase Three [of the plan] Capitalism would suffer an economic crisis that would bring Europe to its knees and stimulate the influence of progressive’ forces in European governments. At this juncture Moscow’s plan called for an anti-American propaganda campaign. According to Sejna. [During this phase] we should apply ourselves to convincing the Europeans that the U.S. was pursuing a self-interested policy and even conspiring actively against them; thus we would increase America’s isolation.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb The key to everything was explained by Sejna in the following way: Europe was the principal area in which to reduce U.S. influence in the free world. The Russians planned to play upon the nationalist, bourgeois prejudices of the leading European countries in order to convince them that Europe must strive to become a distinct entity, separate from the United States.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb The current split within NATO has been visibly encouraged by Russia. This is no accident. American leaders and the American public must understand the nature of the present geo-political game. The proposed war in Iraq has led to a disagreement within the Western alliance. This disagreement is being exploited to the detriment of the West.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tOn notera, en commentaire accessoire, que Sejna, devenu tr\u00e8s vite agent de la DIA apr\u00e8s son passage \u00e0 l’Ouest en 1967, reconverti en 1985-90 dans la recherche des anciens prisonniers de guerre US (POW) de Cor\u00e9e et du Viet-n\u00e2m, enfin mort en 1997 \u00e0 70 ans, joua un r\u00f4le indirect central dans les \u00e9v\u00e9nements qui men\u00e8rent \u00e0 la seconde Guerre froide relanc\u00e9e en 1976-77. (Cette relance fut due en partie aux manipulations des n\u00e9o-conservateurs, et cela conduisant effectivement \u00e0 la place pr\u00e9pond\u00e9rante que tiennent ceux-ci aujourd’hui.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tC’est essentiellement Sejna qui convainquit Lord Chalfont, lors d’une rencontre en 1975 (voir les m\u00e9moires de Chalfont, The shadow of my hand<\/em>), de la soi-disant gravit\u00e9 de la situation en Europe, et des soi-disant intentions agressives du Pacte de Varsovie, avec le fameux Grand Dessein sovi\u00e9tique, ou plan en trois phases. Chalfont, chroniqueur du Times<\/em>, d\u00e9cida alors, avec l’accord du DoD (le secr\u00e9taire Schlesinger jusqu’en novembre 1975) et de la DIA dont Sejna faisait partie, d’utiliser la th\u00e8se d’un obscur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral belge, le g\u00e9n\u00e9ral Close (et \u00e0 l’insu de celui-ci, \u00e9videmment, comme Close l’explique candidement dans ses m\u00e9moires, Gauche ! Droite !<\/em>). Ce fut la bombe du 15 mars 1976, un article de Chalfont sur la th\u00e8se de Close (les Russes en 48 heures sur le Rhin), qui provoqua une pol\u00e9mique tr\u00e8s vive \u00e0 l’OTAN, \u00e0 Bruxelles et \u00e0 Washington et joua un r\u00f4le essentiel dans la relance de la Guerre froide, de la course aux armements, etc, jusqu’au paroxysme de 1983-85.<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

En marge de la crise de nerfs possible \u00e0 l’OTAN : la main du KGB 16 juillet 2003 Il y a un aspect tr\u00e8s inattendu en marge de cette situation d’une possible crise \u00e0 l’OTAN<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[4076,4075,2631,3209,4077,3210],"class_list":["post-65679","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-chalfont","tag-close","tag-de","tag-pacte","tag-sejna","tag-varsovie"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65679","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=65679"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65679\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65679"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65679"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65679"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}