By Moti Nissani
A few hours ago, on
the evening of February 27, 2015, Boris Nemtsov (1959-2015), former deputy
prime minister of the Russian Federation and a leader of the Russian
opposition, was murdered, some 200 meters away from the Kremlin. According to a
CIA-sponsored publication that lost no time in updating its Nemtsov's biography, he had been
"an outspoken critic of Vladimir Putin."
Was President
Vladimir Putin behind this murder, or was it someone else?
To begin with,
everyone agrees that Putin is a brilliant strategist and politician.
Against all odds, Putin has so far brought Russia
from the brink of utter poverty, disintegration, and disaster.
One has just to watch him improvising a press conference, calmly, competently,
and tirelessly, to realize that one is dealing here with a real, almost
forgotten, specimen of a lost art: superb statesmanship.
So, we need to ask
ourselves: What could Putin gain from the
killing of Nemtsov? On first sight, it might appear that
he had plenty to gain, for the two were clearly at odds about the future
direction of Russia. But with an 85% popularity rating-by far the highest
of any politician on our war-ridden planet-Putin has no need to assassinate his
opponents.
Moreover, according
to the facts put forward by a CIA-sponsored publication, and despite attempts
to lionize the likes of Kasparov and Nemtsov in the Western captive media, Nemtsov was a political small potato who posed no threat whatsoever to
the immensely popular Putin. Thus, Wikipedia tells us: "In
the parliamentary elections of December 2003 the Union of Rightist Forces,
whose list was headed by both Nemtsov and Chubais, received just 2.4 million
votes, or 4% of the total, thus falling short of the 5% threshold necessary to
enter Parliament and losing all of its seats in the State Duma." Nemtsov didn't even manage to get elected as mayor of Sochi,
winning a mere 14% of the vote in the 2009 mayoral elections of that city.
Putin would have to be not only ruthless but insane to order the killing such
an obviously unpopular fifth columnist.
Putin likewise must
have been aware of the assassination of the late Alberto
Nisman (1963-2015), the chief prosecutor of the 1994 car
bombing of the Jewish Center in Buenos Aires. Did President Cristina
Fernández de Kirchner benefit from that probable assassination? Did she
gain anything at all from Nisman's death? The obvious answer is that she
did not. Nisman was a mere irritant to begin with, a confidant of the
American government in charge of investigating a tragic event that took place
many years before the Kirchners assumed power. Moreover, owing to
Nisman's death, Cristina's position has weakened considerably. The murder
has led, among other things, to demonstrations by hundreds of thousands of
gullible Argentines who listen, watch, and believe their CIA-owned mass
media.
Given the Argentine
experience, would an acknowledged grandmaster of political strategy shoot
himself in the foot by ordering the killing of a minor irritant? Does Putin need to kill a man who says that Crimea should effectively
belong to Russia's enemies and would be disintegrators -despite
the overwhelming votes of the people of Crimea, despite the arbitrariness of
Crimea ever belonging to Ukraine, despite Crimea's critical importance to
Russian security? Could a former advisor to Ukraine's IMF-owned former
President Yushchenko ever pose a threat to the patriotic and popular
Putin?
As well, and contrary
to everything we hear in the Western CIA-owned media, it would be totally out of character for Vladimir Vladimirovich to order the
assassination of political opponents. Over the years,
Putin had to put up with any number of home-grown traitors, who had
deliberately or naively forgotten the entire history of Western crimes against
Russia, and who had been dead-set on resurrecting the disastrous, servile,
Yeltsin era. And yet there is no evidence, solid or circumstantial,
that Putin had ordered the assassination of dissenting voices.
Or to give another of
many example: In 2008, one suspects, Putin would have liked to continue
serving as president of the Russian Federation. And yet, despite his
probable wishes, despite the fact that Russia needed him, he chose to play by
the rules and ceded the presidency-and at least some powers-to Medvedev. Does that sound like a man who would assassinate a misguided or bribed
unpopular opponent?
So, even if no
candidates presented themselves for the role of Nemtsov's would-be assassin, it
would appear highly unlikely that President Putin would have been stupid
enough, and heartless enough, to serve in that role.
But our story does
not merely end in the exoneration of President Putin, for a likelier assassin
readily presents itself: America's shadow government. That government is
either directly involved in Nemtsov's assassination, or used one of its proxies
to carry it out (the list of proxies is certainly as long as it is hideous, and
includes MI6, Mossad, the Saudi dictatorship, Ukrainian Nazis, Muslim henchmen
such as Al Qaeda and ISIS-none of which would have hatched such a plan without
the knowledge and sponsorship of the CIA).
So let us begin our
indictment by asking: Who could possibly expect to
benefit from Nemtsov's assassination? We have seen
already that this murder could on balance harm President Putin and his project
for Russia. On the other hand, the men in the shadows who constitute the
real government of the USA (one of these of men alone, David Rockefeller, has
certainly more power, by far, than the combined executive, legislative, and
judicial branches of the American government). These bankers, generals,
and spooks, are clearly pursuing world domination. For them, Russia is what
Carthage was to Rome's Cato the Elder. Russia under
Putin's leadership is acting forcefully, fearlessly, and yet moderately in
world affairs, and has recently stopped the conquest of Syria
and the transformation of Crimea into an American military base.
These shadowy figures clearly want Putin out of the way.
If nothing else works, sooner or later they will surely assassinate him, but
such a step would involve some unwelcome risks. After all, unlike Chile's
Allende, Italy's Moro, Congo's Lumumba, Venezuela's Chavez, Indonesia's
Sukarno, America's Franklin Roosevelt, Walter Reuther, at least six members of
the Kennedy clan, and thousands of other friends of the people everywhere,
Russia has an impressive arsenal of nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles.
Given this bloody, incontestable history of assassinations of world
leaders, given moreover Russia's nuclear arsenal, is it not likely that the masters of the CIA would try to bring Putin
down in a more subtle way?
And the Men in the
Shadows have nothing to lose from such a gambit. Nemtsov's assassins were
almost certainly top professionals. In the unlikely case of exposure,
they could be readily liquidated. And, in the still more improbable event
of tracing the plot to the CIA, there will be no outrage in the West-because
virtually all sources of information in that part of the world are controlled
by the CIA and its allies.
To continue our
exploration of Boris Nemtsov's death, we can next turn to history. Is America's shadow government capable of killing their friends, agents,
and servants when such cold-blooded murders serve its long-term objectives?
The entire historical record is chockfull of precisely such examples.
Here, let us focus on just three recent incidents.
With much fanfare,
the American government and its servile media (and Boris Nemtsov of course)
immediately-and with no trace of supporting evidence--blamed Russia or
Novorossiya freedom fighters for the tragic downing of a Malaysian airplane and
its 298 passengers over Novorossiya airspace. Following an extensive and
immediate baseless media barrage, it gradually came to light that this
was a CIA-orchestrated false-flag event, leading the western media to
drop the subject. If the CIA can order their
Ukrainian puppets to kill 298 innocent men, women, and children to advance
their agenda of world conquest, couldn't they kill their Russian agent Nemtsov
to advance that very same agenda?
Then we have another
CIA success story, the so-called Maidan coup of 2014. Everyone knows by now that this was a CIA-sponsored event.
We even know the price tag: 5 billion dollars (we may note in passing that CIA
fascist coups d'état are subject to inflationary pressures too-in 1953, it only
cost $100,000 to overthrow Iranian democracy). As well, to remove the
elected president of Ukraine from power, the CIA had Ukrainian snipers killing
their own paid protesters in order to successfully turn Ukraine into a fascist
dictatorship-and a thorn in Russia's side. If they can kill their
comrades in Kiev, can't they likewise kill comrade Nemtsov in Moscow?
For another example
of American spooks' subtlety and willingness to kill their own agents in order
to smear their enemies, let us again recall recent events in Argentina.
In the 1970s and 1980s, the CIA had successfully installed or strengthened
vicious dictatorships in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, and
Bolivia. The list of atrocities of these American-sponsored thugs is
chillingly long. Besides tortures, censorship, and fake nationalism, the
Southern Cone's dictators ceded everything to Western interests and brought
misery and unemployment to ordinary citizens. By the turn of the present
century, Argentines had enough and managed to kick out the lackeys, oligarchs,
and traitors who ruled over them. By 2003 these imperial collaborators were
replaced, first, with President Nestor Kirchner. After Kirchner's
untimely death at age 60, his wife, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner won the
presidential elections and continued her husband's policies. Despite
vicious Western-owned media campaigns against the Kirchners, despite oligarchic
opposition at home, the Kirchners have managed to partially defy the Men in the
Shadows, pursue semi-independent policies, and bring greater prosperity and liberty
to their countrymen.
Things got really
ugly when Cristina balked an American judge who ordered her, the head of a
sovereign nation, to pay an odious debt to politically powerful American
vulture funds. Another example of Cristina's defiance is provided by the
renationalization of YPF, an oil company. She crossed the line, and had
to be removed from power by any means necessary.
So, to protect
herself, to make her assassination a bit less likely,
President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner wisely gave an emotional speech in
late 2014, telling her countrymen and the world that her
defiance of America might cost her life. That of course made it a bit
difficult for her would-be assassins to do her in.
No one should ever
underestimate the professionalism and tenacity of the Central Institute of
Assassinations, who most likely came up with a diabolically ingenious stratagem
to overcome Cristina's disobedience.
The full story of
this sordid Nisman affair must and will be told elsewhere. For now,
suffice it to say that it is highly probable that the CIA solved that quandary
creatively and professionally by killing one of their collaborators and a minor
irritant for Cristina, a prosecutor of events that took place decades
before. And as we have mentioned, that killing had the desired
effect-aided by the Argentine prostitute media-of bringing hundreds of
thousands of cynical or ignorant protesters to the streets of Buenos
Aires.
Needless to say too,
unscrupulousness is entirely in character for the American government.
Rulers that killed, say, over one-quarter of a century, 2.5 million Iraqis on
false pretenses, brought total chaos to this ancient and proud civilization,
and left behind, forever, an environmental wasteland, are capable of any crimes
whatsoever. They would kill 1,000,000,000
Nemtsovs to achieve their goals, without once blinking an eye or suffering a
single sleepless night.
So, in my view, the probability that the Russian government is behind the killing of
Boris Nemtsov is close to zero, while the probability of involvement of the CIA
and its allies and stooges is well over 90%.
And this, right here
and now, before the dust of the bullets that terminated the life of Boris
Nemtsev settles, allows us to make two predictions.
The first prediction
is this. The captive Western media will go out of their way to demonize
Putin and attribute Nemtsov's assassination to him. Day and night we
shall be bombarded with stories of the defiant and heroic Nemtsov and the
perfidious and murderous Putin. By the time they are done, the average
Westerner or Japanese will be almost as familiar with Boris Nemtsov as she had
been with Lee Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, Patricia Hearst, or Osama Bin Laden.
No real evidence will be presented against Putin,
for these villains understand human psychology far better than
their opponents-repeat a lie often enough and you would have succeeded in
smearing your opponent and justifying your plan of murdering him.
The second prediction
is this. The CIA will orchestrate
anti-Putin demonstrations the world over. We shall have
anti-Putin concocted marches not only in the port city commanded by Wall
Street, not only in the river city commanded by the City of London, not only in
the ancient city commanded by the Vatican, but everywhere the CIA can stir up
trouble. More importantly-and this is one probable reason Nemtsov was
killed - there would be demonstrations by traitorous,
naïve, ignorant, or misinformed Russians.
If these predictions
come true, they would lend further support to the assertion that, most likely,
the CIA is behind the assassination of Boris Nemtsov.
Moti Nissani
_____________
Dr. Moti Nissani is
Professor emeritus, Wayne State University, Michigan, USA and the author of Lives in the Balance: The Cold War and American
Politics, 1945-1991. His recent postings include analyses of recent false-flag events and of the state-sponsored assassinations or attempted assassinations
of Aaron Swartz, Lucia and and Leo Krim, Michael Hastings, and Imran Kahn.
Source: English Pravda 28-02-2015
