Central importance of Sun-Tzu’s ‘Art of War’

By Christopher Story
July 15, 2019 Anno Domini

Excerpted from Christopher Story’s The European Union Collective: Enemy of Its Member States (1997),  pgs. 56-59

The blindness of the West, and its arrogant assumption that ‘we won the Cold War’ particularly reconfirms the timeless effectiveness of the advice given by the ancient Chinese military strategist, Sun-Tzu, in his treatise entitled ‘The Art of War’: ‘Pretend inferiority and encourage your enemy’s arrogance’ . It is known that ‘The Art of War’ was required reading in the East German and Soviet armed forces. As Anatoliy Golitsyn explains in New Lies for Old: “The ancient Chinese treatise on strategy and deception, Sun -Tzu’s The Art of War, translated into Russian by N.I. Konrad in 1950 (shortly after the Communist victory in China), was retranslated into German in 1957 by the Soviet specialist Y. I. Sidorenko, with a foreword by the Soviet military strategist and historian General Razin. It was [also] published in East Germany by the East German Ministry of Defense and was prescribed for study in East German military academies: [see facsimile on page 57]. A new translation and other studies of Sun-Tzu were published in Peking in 1957 and 1958 and in Shanghai in 1959. Mao Tse-Tung is known to have been influenced by Sun-Tzu in his conduct of the civil war”.

Illusions such as those dispensed by the author of the article cited above from “The Times’ of London are fostered by, and depend upon, the continued success of the Russian ‘weak look’ strategic deception – which is based upon the practical applic- ation in modern conditions of Sun-Tzu’s military deception aphorisms:

Statue of Sun-Tzu

‘All warfare is based on deception’.

‘Therefore, when capable, feign incapacity; when active, inactivity’.

‘When near, make it appear that you are far away; when far away, that you are near’.

‘Offer the enemy a bait to lure him; feign disorder and strike him’. ‘Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance’.

‘Keep him under strain and wear him down’.

‘When he is united, divide him’.

‘Attack the enemy’s strategy’.

‘Disrupt the enemy’s alliances’.

‘If I am able to determine the enemy’s dispositions while at the same time I conceal my own, then I can concentrate and he must divide. And if I concentrate while he divides, I can use my entire strength to attack a fraction of his’.
‘Make the devious route the most direct and turn misfortune to advantage’.

‘The ultimate in disposing one’s troops is to be without ascertainable shape. Then the most penetrating spies cannot pry in, nor can the wise lay plans against you’.

‘Subtle and insubstantial, the expert leaves no trace; divinely mysterious, he is inaudible. Thus he is master of his enemy’s fate’ .

‘Active measures’ operations against Western leaders

The successful implementation, through the creative (Leninist) application of Sun-Tzu’s teachings and complementary Leninist dialectical strategic deception principles, of the inverted pyramid of lies called ‘perestroika’, is all the more remarkable in that, as has been shown, absolutely faithful adherence to Leninist revolutionary methods had repeatedly been asserted in public by the Communist leaders and the 1991 that she had concluded that ‘Gorbachev isn’t a Leninist any more’ – merely weeks before Gorbachev and the KGB executed the biggest and boldest Leninist Bolshevik provocation to date: the fake August coup. Prominent among the planners and implementers of this provocation was the KGB veteran Yevgeniy Primakov, a leading KGB strategist, who flew back to Moscow late in the evening of 19th August, thus conveying the impression that he had not been involved – yet issued a statement on the following day asserting that Gorbachev was not ill but was being held captive.

Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev shakes hands with Lady Thatcher during a meeting in Lord Powell’s office in London, Wednesday October 19, 2005. PRESS ASSOCIATION Photo. Photo credit should read: Michael Stephens/PA (Photo by Michael Stephens – PA Images/PA Images via Getty Images)

The Soviets have even gone so far as to hint in public that both the British Prime Minister and President Reagan were the target of ‘active measures’ operations by Soviet intelligence ahead of the controlled ‘Break with the Past’. The nature of these ‘active measures’ is not known (although in Mrs. Thatcher’s case, the murder shortly before she came to office in 1979 of her intelligence adviser, Airey Neave, in a car bomb placed in the House of Commons car park, may have been an element of them – since Neave was well equipped to warn her against being taken in by the Soviets); but ‘active measures’ covers everything from the fabrication of forgeries to the administration of mind-altering psychotropic drugs, to sexual allure or entrapment, to assassination.

It is the Author’s view that analysts have overlooked one important reason why Gorbachev was selected by the Kremlin’s strategy collective as General Secretary following a prolonged period of apparent infighting which resulted in Gorbachev’s alleged rival, Grigory Romanov, being expelled from the Kremlin in the summer of 1985, framed as an alcoholic (which he was not) and forcibly confined to a hospital for alcoholics [see pages XXXX-XXXXII]. This is that he possesses what can only be described as a kind of demonic sexual allure: and the strategists’ key target at the time was Mrs. Thatcher. She immediately fell for Gorbachev’s ‘charms’, notwithstanding his boorish behaviour during his visit to London in late 1984, described on pages 17- 18. The Author is personally acquainted with two American women, not known to each other, each of whom has separately testified to Gorbachev’s sexual magnetism, which the late Malachi Martin described as being sinister. (One of these women also testifies to the near-freezing temperature immediately surrounding the person of MVD General Eduard Shevardnadze, reported on page 49; but the other lady is not one of the two who have separately experienced that distsurbing phenomenon).

On 19th February 1991, ‘Izvestia’ reported that ‘in the United States and Britain, “Active Measures” against President Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher had limited success’ . The inclusion of the qualification ‘limited’ here should perhaps be disregarded: the proper translation of this statement from the Aesopian language used by ‘Izvestia’ is that the operations were successful. The fact that they were mounted, and have even been openly acknowledged, is of course significant enough.

Mrs Thatcher failed to understand that she had been duped by Mr Gorbachev, as she made clear to the author in July 1991. During an interview in which the Author explained details of the Soviet ‘bilateral treaty offensive’ and spoke of Golitsyn’s work, which the former Prime Minister dismissed, Mrs [now Lady] Thatcher not only remarked: ‘I don’t think Gorbachev is a Leninist any more’, but also added the following corollary: ‘I don’t think we have been deceived—at least, I hope we haven’t’ [see page 19]. As the Author wrote in the Editor’s Foreword to Golitsyn’s book The Perestroika Deception, this qualifying afterthought clearly implied ‘a niggling doubt that the West might indeed have fallen victim to Soviet strategic deception’. Necessarily, by then the consequences of Lady Thatcher’s mistakes were crowding in on the West like a gigantic thunderstorm. But if she had entertained such doubts while still in power, it was surely her duty to have had them investigated.

That failure was undoubtedly Lady Thatcher’s worst: and the Author has elsewhere described the British Prime Minister’s careless accommodation of Gorbachev and all his Leninist lies as ‘a millennial strategic error’. A second strategic error of comparable proportions concerned Europe: though troubled by the implic- ations of the ‘European project’, she pushed through the 1986 Single European Act which paved the way for the Collective’s Maastricht Treaty. In the end, she became an enthusiastic supporter of the Leninist deception strategy of ‘convergence’. She had already permitted her Foreign Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe , to go along with the Foreign Office’s plan to hand the priceless capitalist jewel of Hong Kong over to the Communist Chinese, a grand betrayal which could hardly have been urged upon her other than by forces aware of the ‘convergence’ framework and agenda. Lady Thatcher’s most recently monitored geopolitical stance is that ‘Russia isn’t a threat any more’—just as ‘Gorbachev isn’t a Leninist any more’.

The ‘August coup’ hoax that legitimized the fake collapse of communism

Moscow. The 19th of August 1991. Boris Yeltsin addresses people from the top of a tank. Photo TASS / Valentin Kuzmin; Alexander Chumichev (Photo by TASS via Getty Images)

By Anatoliy Golitsyn
June 22, 2019 Anno Domini
Excerpt: The Perestroika Deception, pgs. 137-144 (1998)

THE FAKE ‘AUGUST COUP’ AND ITS CALCULATED FAILURE

A deliberately engineered ‘Break with the Past’

Who called the shots in the USSR before the ‘coup’ and who introduced the ‘reforms’? Gorbachev and his ‘liberals’? NO, the Party and its strategists.

Who is calling the shots now and who proposed the coup to replace Gorbachev? The ‘hardliners’, the Minister of Defence and the Chief of the KGB? NO, the Party and its strategists.

The ‘coup’ was proposed in accordance with the requirements of the Soviet strategy of convergence leading to eventual World Government. This strategy and its moves, like the present Soviet ‘coup’, can only be understood in the light of the theories of one of the principal Soviet agents of influence, namely Sakharov, and his timetable for convergence. According to Sakharov, during the first phase the Leninist realists (i.e. Gorbachev and other ‘liberals’) will expand and strengthen ‘democracy’ and economic reform in the USSR and other socialist countries.

As we know, this has already happened.

According to Sakharov, in the second phase the pressure exerted by the Soviet example and by the internal progressive forces would lead to the victory of the Leftist Reformist Wing (the Soviet term for American liberals) which would begin to implement a programme of collaboration and convergence with the USSR on a worldwide scale, entailing changes in the structure of ownership. According to Sakharov, this phase would include an expanded role for the intelligentsia and an attack on the forces of racism and militarism.

We had reached this phase before the war with Iraq. In the assessment of the Soviet strategists, the US victory over Iraq adversely affected the political balance in the United States. In their view, the victory weakened and demoralised the liberals (or Leftist Reformists) and strengthened the centrist and conservative forces and the US military. This disturbed Soviet plans to carry out their strategy of convergence.

They saw that their main political allies in achieving convergence with the United States had been weakened. Accordingly they engineered this strategic ‘coup’ to reverse and improve the political fortunes of their American allies. Seen in strategic terms, the main purpose of Gorbachev’s ‘dismissal’ is further to confuse American opinion and to alter the political landscape in the United States so as to accelerate the progress of the Soviet strategy and to put it back on the rails.

This strategy is a deliberate and coordinated walk towards ultimate victory by advancing first the left leg of action by ‘liberals’, then the right leg of action by ‘hardliners’ and then once more the left leg of action by ‘liberals’. The ‘dismissal’ of Gorbachev is temporary. In earlier Memoranda I predicted a calculated ‘resignation’ by Gorbachev and his eventual return to power.

The ‘coup’ confirms this prediction. According to my analysis, the ‘coup’ is aimed at intensifying American anxieties over the fate of Gorbachev and the other ‘liberals’ and ‘reformists’ in the USSR like Shevardnadze. When these concerns reach their peak, the Soviet strategists’ next move can be expected. They will return Gor- bachev and other ‘liberals’ to power through a campaign of strikes and demonstra- tions organised by the Party.

As the Soviet strategists see it, Gorbachev’s return and the strengthening of the ‘reformists’ in the USSR will also strengthen the American liberals, revive their fortunes and help them win future elections – leading eventually to the convergence of the United States and the USSR. In short, Gorbachev’s return will be a repetition of the device of the suppression of Solidarity in Poland, followed by its victory.

The main purpose of the ‘coup’ is to reverse an unfavourable situation for potential Soviet allies in the United States and to create favourable conditions for the implementation of the convergence strategy. The second objective is to secure the non-violent creation of the new Soviet Federation of Republics. The third objective is to provide any potential adventurers there may be in the Soviet military with a lesson and thereby to eliminate any possibility of a genuine coup in the future.

Moscow, August 20, 1991. Russian President Boris Yeltsin makes communist first salute and speaks at a rally held in support of “democracy”. (Photo by: Sovfoto/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

A FURTHER ANALYSIS OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE SOVIET ‘COUP’

The point has already been made that Gorbachev will be returned to power at the moment when it best serves the Soviet strategy of convergence. Depending on the circumstances prevailing at the appropriate time, he could be returned to power through an election, after a period of other activities .

His alleged removal from power and house arrest are deliberate devices to build up his popularity before such an election. Meanwhile one can expect that the Soviet strategists intend to replace him or to add to his team another ace card, the ‘anti-Communist’ (but, like Gorbachev, protege of Andropov) Boris Yeltsin, leader of the Russian Republic. As the Soviet strategists see it, Gorbachev has exhausted the influence he exerted on their behalf in the West. He was unable to extract more econ- omic aid at the London Summit Meeting and his advice concerning a diplomatic solution to the conflict with Iraq was ignored by President Bush. It is the strategists’ belief that Boris Yeltsin will give greater credibility in the West to Soviet economic and political ‘reform’. He will be in a better position to exploit his influence to extract additional economic aid from the West and, in particular, to obtain from the West a commitment to a new Marshall Plan for Russia.

A Marshall Plan for Russia is one of the primary interim objectives of the Soviet strategists and one that Gorbachev failed to achieve. The strategists expect that Yeltsin will be able to exert greater influence in diplomatic, economic and political relationships and will receive more cooperation in the international arena particularly in the Middle East and at the United Nations. One can expect that the Soviet strategists will come forward with fresh initiatives combined with deliberate provo- cations and crises in order to enhance the role of the United Nations.

They will do this because they regard the United Nations as a stepping stone to a future World Government The Soviet political game and the Soviets’ trickery in ‘manipulating’ politicians like Gorbachev and Y eltsin for W estern public consumption demand more imagination and a better grasp of these machinations from the Bush Administration. For example, to proceed with the appointment of Mr Robert Strauss as the new Ambassador in Moscow is a great mistake because the appointment is being made at a time when the Soviet strategists are deliberately undermining the credit and prestige President Bush gained from his dealings with Gorbachev. They are undercutting the President in favour of their political allies – namely, the American liberals. Nowadays the situation is more serious than it was after the Second World War. President Truman woke up to the nature of Stalin’s mentality, his deeds and his intentions. The Bush Administration, by contrast, has no understanding of Soviet strategy and its ultimate, aggressive, strategic designs against the United States.

Given this situation and the Soviet ‘game plan’, the President, instead of appointing a politician/businessman like Robert Strauss as American Ambassador in Moscow, should consider appointing someone like Richard Helms or General Vernon Walters – that is to say, a professional man and an intelligence expert who might see through the Soviet game plan and help the Administration as General Bedell Smith helped President Truman in 1947.

THE AUTHOR’S ANALYSIS OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CALCULATED SOVIET ‘COUP’ AND OF ITS CALCULATED ‘FAILURE’

According to my assessment, the Soviet ‘coup’ and its ‘failure’ constituted a grandiose display of deception – a provocation. The ‘ineptitude’ of the participants in the ‘coup’ and the ‘failure’ of it were skilfully planned and executed. The main argument in support of this assessment is that the Soviet military, the KGB, the Party and leading media figures apparently had neither the skill to launch a successful coup nor the guts to crush resistance to it. This is news indeed!

Oleg Kalugin, former KGB general, giving a speech after the Russian government forces suppressed the fake August Coup – an attempt by supposed hard-line members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) to take control of the country. Moscow, Russia, on August 20, 1991. (Photo by Wojtek Laski/Getty Images)

Facing a real crisis in Hungary in 1956, the same forces displayed exceptional skill, knowhow and determination in crushing a genuine revolt. Knowledge of the Soviet mentality and of Moscow’s record of ruthless action has convinced this analyst that the Soviet military, the Party and the leaders of the media all have the skill, the will and the courage to crush genuine resistance and opposition. They did not display them on this occasion because the abortive ‘coup’ was carried out in accor- dance with Party instructions; and it was the Party and the Komsomol themselves which organised the alleged resistance to it.

The real participants both in the ‘coup’ and in the ‘failure’ were some 20,000 or more chosen Komsomol and Party members in Moscow with two or three tank divisions guided by their political commissars and a handful of dedicated Party offi- cials and generals who sacrificed their prestige in the interests of the Party’s strategy and under the guidance of its strategists. The calculated nature of the ‘coup’ and its timing show that it was staged by the Russian, President Yeltsin, to save the essence of the Union at the time of transition to a new form of federation.

The abortive ‘coup’ and the ‘resistance’ to it were carefully calculated displays intended primarily for the West. This explains why Western media contacts with Moscow were not curtailed. On the contrary, the big guns of the Soviet media like Vitaliy Korotich and representatives of the Arbatov Institute were on hand both in Moscow and in the United States to ‘help’ the Western media with their interpretation of developments in the USSR. The episode shows how well Soviet strategists like Arbatov and his experts on the American media have mastered the art of projecting such displays for consumption by the American media, and throughout the West.

The Soviet strategists sought to underline for the West the dramatic ineptitude of the ‘coup’ and the spectacular courage and resistance displayed by the new ‘Russian democrats’ and their leader Yeltsin in ‘defending’ the Soviet Parliament – their symbolic equivalent of ‘The White House’. The main external objective of the display was to demonstrate to the West that Soviet democratisation is genuine, that it has the support of the people and that it is working. They want to convince the West that Western investment in the USSR will pay dividends.

They expect that the West will now respond with a new Marshall Plan which will bring Western technology flooding in to the Soviet Union, promoting joint ven- tures and stimulating a restructuring of the Soviet economy along the lines of the revival of the German and Japanese economies after the Second World War.

Internally, one objective is to influence the Soviet population towards acceptance of the new Party-controlled ‘democracy’ as a real power and to develop the strength and maturity of the new ‘democratic’ structure and the popularity of its leaders, especially Yeltsin. Another objective is to exploit this staged ‘coup’ in order to reorganise and ‘reform’ the Soviet bureaucracy, the military, the intelligence and counter-intelligence organisations and the diplomatic service, and to give them a new ‘democratic’ image.

The Soviet strategists realise that only with such a new image, implying a ‘Break with the Past’ and severance from Communism, can these organisations be converted into effective weapons for convergence with their counterparts in the United States. A further internal objective is to emphasise the change in the system by means of the spectacular, televised but calculated removal of old Communist symbols like the monuments to Lenin and Dzerzhinskiy, and the red banners.

These changes do not represent a genuine and sincere repudiation of Soviet design and intentions to secure an eventual world victory. Although very spectacular, the changes are cosmetic. They demonstrate only that Arbatov and others know how to manipulate the American and other Western media through the use of powerful symbols such as the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, the toppling of Lenin and Dzerzhinskiy statues and Yeltsin’s staged ‘defence’ of the Soviet ‘White House’.

If the Soviets were truly moving towards genuine democracy, and were intent on a true ‘Break with the Past’, these symbolic changes would be accompanied by the introduction and implementation of a de-communisation programme, the irrevocable (not cosmetic) prohibition of the Communist Party and Komsomol organisations at all levels throughout the USSR, and the removal of ‘former’ Party and Komsomol members from all the main seats of power including the KGB, the Soviet army and its political commissar administration, the Ministries, especially those for the Interior and Foreign Affairs, and the trade unions.

Yeltsin has allegedly banned the Communist Party in Russia. But the question should be asked: ‘Why did he forget to ban the Komsomol youth organisation?’ [Note: According to ‘The New York Times’ of 29 September 1991, the Komsomol voted to dissolve itself; its regulations were changed ‘to allow subordinate youth leagues in the Soviet Republics to succeed it’ – Author’s emphasis].

To carry conviction, the necessary purge of former Communists would have to be carried out at all levels, as was the intention with the de-nazification programme in Germany after the war. Without any such programme, present changes, however impressive, will remain cosmetic.

There are at present no means of distinguishing reliably between a genuine democrat and a former Communist in Russia. However one important criterion for judging the sincerity of the abrupt and virtually simultaneous conversion of former Communist leaders into true democrats would be a frank official statement from them that the Soviet Party and Government adopted a long-range strategy in the years 1958 to 1960, that ‘perestroika’ is the advanced phase of this strategy, and that it is to be abandoned forthwith in favour of normal, open, civilised relations. There has been no sign whatsoever of any such admission.

Further criteria for judging the sincerity of the abrupt conversion of ‘former’ Communist leaders into believers in true democracy would need to include:

  • An official admission that the ‘dissident movement’ and its leader, Sakharov, were serving the interests of that strategy under KGB control;
  • Public exposure of the main KGB agents among Soviet scientists, priests, writers and theatre and movie personalities who have been playing an active role in the KGB-controlled political ‘opposition’ – especially those like the ‘conservative’ Kochetov and the ‘liberal’ Tvardovskiy who in the 1960s engaged in a Party- and KGB-controlled debate intended to convey the false impression that Soviet society was evolving towards democracy;
  • And finally: a categorical repudiation of any strategic intention on the part of the Soviets of working towards ‘convergence’ with the United States.

The self-evident absence of any of these criteria indicates that the symbolic changes mean no more than that the strategists had reached the conclusion that the old symbols had outlived their usefulness – at least, in the Soviet Union and East- em Europe – and had to be replaced by new, more attractive, popular symbols.

Moreover these cosmetic changes are logical and were predicted earlier by this ana- lyst. The Soviets realised that convergence with the United States cannot be achieved under the old compromised symbols like Lenin, Dzerzhinskiy and others associated in the Western mind with terror, repression, exile and bloodshed. Convergence requires the introduction of new, attractive, national and ‘democratic’ symbols conveying the impression that Soviet ‘democracy’ is approaching the Western model.

No doubt these cosmetic changes, the reorganisation of the Soviet bureau- cracy and the new, more enigmatic status of its leaders like Yeltsin will be seen by the West as a deepening of the process of Soviet’ reform’, offering new opportunities for Western policy. But the West’s main weakness remains unchanged: it cannot grasp the fact that it is facing an acceleration in the unfolding of Soviet convergence strategy which is intended to procure the subservience of the West to Moscow under an ultimate Communist World Government.

The Machiavellian boldness and imagination displayed by the Soviet strategists through their staged ‘coup’ and its preordained defeat are alarming. No doubt these manoeuvres will be followed not only by faked suicides, but also by staged trials of the alleged leaders of the ‘coup’. These leaders may well be sentenced to apparent prison terms. But in fact they will live in comfortable retirement in resort areas like the Crimea and the Caucasus. Russia is a big country and places can be found for them to hide.

The ‘coup’ and its ‘defeat’ show that the Soviets will go to any lengths in pur- suit of their convergence strategy. This reminds me of remarks by Vladimir Zhenikhov, the former KGB Rezident in Finland, and Aleksey Novikov, another KGB officer, at the time the strategy was adopted in 1961.

Both of them had recently returned from home leave in Moscow. When I asked for the latest news from headquarters, both replied using different words but to the same effect: ‘This time the KGB are going to finish with capitalist America once and for all’. I believed them then, and I believe that what is happening now is a bad omen for Western democracy.

The other alarming aspect of the situation is Western euphoria and the uncritical acceptance of present Soviet developments at their face value. This shows how easily the West can be taken in by staged Soviet spectacles, and how justified the strategists are in believing that their ‘era of provocations’ will produce the intended results. Furthermore, Western euphoria and naivete serve only to encourage the Soviet strategists to stage new spectacles more convinced than ever that their strategic designs are realistic.