Untitled

When I worked at Mike’s Place Tel Aviv in 2010-2013 (near the US embassy), my manager, Jason Jungreous, refused to let my colleague Ortal use the toilet. He claimed she would smoke there and said, “It isn’t time for a break yet.” She cried and begged him to “let her pee,” but he made her stay on shift for hours. This happened only once but was just one of many details that compounded a harrowing picture I was unlucky to witness.  

The same guy once told me that I didn’t have a “good aura” or “good energy” because I refused to suffer quietly and spoke up when things were wrong, unjust, or didn’t make sense. Meanwhile, he was notorious for yelling so loudly and fiercely at everyone that people would tremble, and some even temporarily lost their hearing from the sheer terror he induced.  

Once, right before he was promoted to head manager of the entire network, a waitress confided in me after a staff meeting, saying:  

“You know what he talked about for 40 minutes straight? The importance of good aura, good energy, positive vibes, and all that. Isn’t it ridiculous? The most toxic guy in the place demanding US to stay positive. WTF.”  

My comment was, “Of course he wants you to be quiet while he’s beating you up.” How is it any different from what radical Muslims in Yemen and Iran do to their women? Especially considering the fact that most of the managers (“roosters”) were men, and they would “manage” the women in the same way I’ve described—and in ways you can likely imagine for yourselves.

And don’t get me wrong—this isn’t an attack on Jason or even Mike’s Place as a whole. I see the patterns, and they’re everywhere—not just in this country. The owners were known for constantly smoking hash outside. A typical response from one of them, if you approached them with a problem, was “…it happens…”  

So, do I think THEY - Mikes Place (or any other business in Israel, really, especially restaurants) mistreat Arabs, Russians, Africans, or fellow American immigrants? Yes and no. I mean, yes, but it’s not just them—it’s the hypocrisy we (and other societies) are filled with. That particular place is just a great example because it claims to be both “a home away from home for Americans” and “a place where everyone (Muslims, Christians, Jews, Everyone) can meet and set aside their differences - away from politics, religions, and the bs that divides ppl.”

Yet, that was the place that not only mistreated people from other societies but treated people from its own society the same way: ‘Olim’ (immigrants from the US, especially women), their workers as a whole, themselves, and their customers too! Probably important to mention the latter one since it’s a place of business, a place of service!

Again, do I blame them? Management, owners, etc.?  

Not really. I blame society, the mentality, the narrative—and most of all, myself and each individual who chooses fear over love when they truly have the freedom to choose.  

For years, I watched people clash there—getting mad at each other, losing their tempers, hating themselves for needing to keep up, and drowning in alcohol or drugs to numb their pain. The pain was embedded in how the place operated—perhaps rooted in the attack they experienced there in 2001. But again, I could see ways to make things better and talked to people about it. Nearly everyone (with maybe one or two exceptions) said the same things:  

“What can we do?”  

“Our part is small.”  

“It’s us versus them.”  

“There’s nothing we can do about it.”  

“It is what it is.”  

“It happens.”  

If I start sharing the facts about what people endured and the reactions they received, you’d be shocked. This includes constant sexual harassment, verbal abuse, and neglect of basic human rights. But that’s not the point. The point is that, as Bill Hicks said, every second is a choice between fear and love.  

Instead of complaining about why “60 countries with over 2 billion people hate us but can’t make their people lives better, while the most developed 15 countries silently watch horror unfold not even able to protect themselves”…maybe, we could at least TRY TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE??  

After all, we claim we’re here (in this world and in Israel) to do just that: to create order, to organize the chaos—for humanity and the universe. I’m not saying we don’t try at all, but not nearly with the urgency and efficiency the ‘matsav’ (situation) demands. 

First of all, we do treat people of other nations, ethnicities, and races worse—and that’s a fact. But we’ve also developed a system where we ourselves can’t function. We create a society where we can only act “normal” when we’re high or medicated. We make TV shows we can’t bear to watch, social media platforms the smartest among us avoid, and an extremely sexualized culture filled with violence and oppression that the best of us simply ignore.  

Why are we doing this? What’s the point?  

A business owner might say:  

“I hire a Sudanese refugee to wash dishes because he’s better at it than an Israeli—and because the government makes it impossible for me to pay decent salaries and still stay afloat.”  

But what do Russians say about why they take part in crimes, support war, and oppression? 

The same dvmn thing:  

“If I don’t steal, I can’t survive. If I speak up, they’ll destroy me.”  

But when you blame “the government,” you’re really blaming a system identical to the one you create at work—with the same flaws. It doesn’t just oppress “at-risk groups”; it turns YOU into one.  

Who was at risk on October 7? The Sudanese—or anyone?  

This happens because of a combination of dehumanizing decisions ‘from the top’ and silence, lack of initiative, or lack of response ‘from the bottom’—or should I say, a lack of Communication? And I don’t just mean people not speaking—I also mean people not LISTENING to each other. It’s a lack of CONNECTION.  

You don’t speak up when things go wrong, and then you complain about why they went wrong.  

If you become Prime Minister, would you do the most important thing? Would you leave after four years? If so, I’m voting for you.  

I’m not political, but I stand for people. That’s why I care who’s in our parliament. Just like that Jason running around, yelling and spraying his spit everywhere, we’re the ones who create the “world we live in”—in both big and small ways, good and bad. 

What kind of leadership do we develop and cherish?

If we think it’s okay for the same guy to be in power for 20 years, firing the defense minister over a scandal surrounding his own cabinet leaking data, sacrificing (allegedly but very likely) hostages’ lives for personal gain… 

If we think it’s okay for an Eritrean guy to eat his burger sitting next to the sewage while we eat our staff meals at the bar with juice and music…Who can really help us? I always say “if a restaurant is a car, the dishwasher station is its wheels. I don’t need to see your fancy looking keys, just show me the wheels first and I’ll decide if I want to sit in the car.”

What I’m saying is simple:  

Follow The Script, and if it doesn’t work, Change The Script. 

Use both approaches SIMULTANEOUSLY.  

As for Mike’s Place, I’ve never been back since I stopped working there. I knew it all along. And I have no hard feelings toward them. But if I went back and saw how much lower they’ve sunk, it would make me cry.  

2010 was a different era. Back then, the US voted for Obama, and we still tried to live in ways that made sense. Every external disaster comes from an internal crisis. Don’t try to explain it—just admit it.  

Things are connected.  

I could never forgive Jason (or George) for how they treated Ortal. But that doesn’t mean I can’t understand why they did it. I couldn’t deal with her either, even though I wanted to.  I stand against the far right, which is in power almost everywhere—Israel, the US, Russia, China, Iran. But I’m not a leftist. I’m a true liberal. I have no problem calling out Ortal for mixing pills with alcohol or condemning leftists in the US and Israel for being idiots.  

I can’t judge people who can’t think because they’re too scared. But I know why they’re scared. They don’t think, so they make choices that put them in fear-inducing situations.  

And I’ve known this since I was a kid—I had dreams about it.  

The world gets stupid because it’s scared, and it gets scared because it keeps making the wrong choices. The wrong choices lead to more disasters, that scare them even more, so they do more dumb sh*t, to get even more... you get the idea. But we can change the direction at any point given. Because there’s the same snowball effect in the “Circle of Prudence”: right choices lead to more courage and bravery, freedom of imagination and efficient analytical processes, which lead to better decisions, which cause better experiences and further development. Better developed ones make better choices. The 'Circle of Prudence' is kind of an alternative to the 'Vicious Circle.' Look, I haven’t figured it all out on my own. Read Why Nations Fail. It’s a great book.

Do you want to hear about Alan, who got promoted after punching a customer and was later shot d3ad in LA? About Juan, who told me to serve fried fish with bones in beer batter to a customer? About him drinking with a customer who slapped Josephine, a waitress? …My colleague getting drunk at work and slamming a door into the tray I was carrying, spilling champagne everywhere? Aaron, the owner, letting a customer sign a paper accepting responsibility for being served mildly raw chicken? Or Corey bragging to me about how he farts in Ortal's face while she's bent over to grab something from the fridge next to him? And how many of them spoke behind Kevin’s back, even though he was one of the few trying to organize the space in a way that would make it easier for them to work…

I don’t think these are pleasant stories, but I’ll share them at some point, so others know. Otherwise, why do I keep them in my memory?  

You know I was the one who stood up for the place, ensuring the quality of the product and service no matter what happened—airstrikes, freezing weather, incompetent managers, or colleagues on K2 (synthetic pot) messing around with each other’s private parts during a shift. And what did I get in return? Isolation, condemnation, and when I really pushed back—more and more raises. They kept promoting me to take on more responsibility but with fewer tools.  

Once, I created 3D maps of the fridges to make the organization of products easier to understand. Those maps are still sitting somewhere in my archives because no one needed them. My point is that, just like in countries ruled by dictatorships (and I always say this!), in MOST companies (including that one), you’ll find:  

1. Negative selection – To move “up,” you often have to be the worst (in some way).  

2. Absence of obvious “social lifts” – There are no opportunities for everyone to realize their potential.  

3. No way to communicate issues – The “kill the messenger” mentality reigns, where the one who brings bad news is blamed, even though they’re the least responsible for it.  

4. Jealous, insecure leadership – Leaders who don’t see others’ success as their own but view anyone as a threat.  

5. Preservation of the status quo – “This is how it is and how it will stay because it’s how it’s always been.” But in reality (whether in business, personal growth, or mental health), anything that isn’t progressing is regressing—it’s the law of entropy, as far as I know.  

6. Other symptoms – The same traits you see in failing states, declining companies, or underdeveloped personalities.  

Again, this isn’t to condemn anyone but to offer a hand—to help before it’s too late.  

As I keep saying: I warned people living in the North of Israel for two years that they needed shelters because Russia, stationed in Syria, is no friend to us. They ignored that perspective. I keep telling Israelis that if we don’t stand up for Ukraine, we are not really a nation that has learned the lessons of the Holocaust. I keep telling Jews worldwide that if we don’t start spreading the truth and striving to be GREAT (again hahaha), we will fall.  

Not to look or sound great, but to BE great. The idea the pro-pali camp completely overlooks:  

Their whole thing is the “Potemkin Village,” with lots of decorations but no substance,  

a “tacky extravaganza.”

By the way, I also keep telling my fellow Democrats and liberals that, no matter how wrong Biden or the Democratic Party (in the U.S.) may be, Trump does not represent our values. We absolutely CANNOT ally with someone like him. It’s like Stalin allying with Hitler in 1939—had he not done that, at least Hitler wouldn’t have been able to attack the USSR *UNEXPECTEDLY* in 1941.  

There was one guy at Mike’s, though—Joe/Joseph, that once told me, “I get it, dude. You’re not just saying random things; you’re setting points for us to connect.” And that’s exactly right.  

Since my approach comes from creativity and being an art-oriented person, I don’t force my vision on the people I talk to (unlike populists—Putin, Trump, Netanyahu, also all of them—or the scholars of Islam, including their main prophet). Instead, I set the points and let others connect them.  

That’s exactly why the blog is called ‘Connecting Lines’. It’s a kind of 3D version of “connecting dots.” Because here in 2024, we don’t just deal in facts; we deal in narratives, and each narrative is a story in itself. So the goal is to connect them in a way that is both logical and true to reality.  

(I still need to re-check the translation because AI keeps doing stupid mistakes, but here you have the 1st version) News agencies reported: Khanpash Nurdiyevich Terkibaev died in a car accident in Chechnya. A 31-year-old native of the Chechen village of Mesker-Yurt, Terkibaev had lived a brief but eventful life. His most notable role, undoubtedly, was his involvement in the hostage crisis at Dubrovka in October 2002.

So, who was Terkibaev? He seems to have been the last remaining witness from the hostage-takers’ side at the Theater Center. Outwardly, he was one of the terrorists, one of those who, as he claimed, entered the building with Baraev's group on October 23 of the previous year. But in reality, he was a double agent—an informant for the security services. According to Terkibaev, and supported by indirect evidence, he provided information to the special services while inside the theater. He managed to leave the "Nord-Ost" scene the day before the storming.

Terkibaev had also worked as a journalist for Maskhadov’s administration and hosted a presidential TV program between the two Chechen wars. After "Nord-Ost," he cooperated with Putin’s administration, even visiting the European Parliament in Strasbourg in April 2003 as the head of a delegation of Chechen deputies. He also flashed credentials as a special correspondent for the official Russian Gazette.

In summary: he served many masters.

But his "claim to fame" was undoubtedly "Nord-Ost," a horrifying incident. If Terkibaev truly operated as described, then the attack was managed—at least by one of the domestic intelligence agencies. It suggests that this orchestrated attack, which ended with the use of secret chemical weapons against Russian citizens, was fought against by another intelligence service and several special forces units.

In May of this year, our newspaper published an interview with Terkibaev, who was then still very much in control of his situation. From his revelations, it appeared that "Nord-Ost" was highly beneficial to our unique form of government, known as managed democracy.

What happened after the interview? First, we called on the investigative team probing "Nord-Ost" to interrogate Terkibaev. We also urged them to question the author of these lines regarding Terkibaev. A detective even visited the editorial office once. As usual, he wrote in the report what he wanted—so-called free statements—and was only concerned about how, following the newspaper's publication, Basaev might now threaten Terkibaev as a traitor.

Indeed, Terkibaev had lived for some time in Baku this year, where he faced significant difficulties and could not stay long—Basaev's men would have eventually killed him. So, Terkibaev moved back to Chechnya, a desperate move—he had placed his head in the lion’s mouth. The federal forces were no longer interested in cooperating with him, and he had no other support. And then came the car accident.

What’s important now? Double and triple agents traditionally end up dead. This only makes matters worse for us: Terkibaev was never interrogated, which means that another fragile link to the secrets of "Nord-Ost" has been forever severed. He took with him information that should have been made known to the public—our entire society. We have no answers to some of the fundamental questions about "Nord-Ost," questions that, thanks to the upper echelons of power, remain unanswered. Who helped Baraev’s group in Moscow? (And no, I’m not talking about the corrupt employees of passport offices—ironically, they were also put on trial this week.) How did Baraev's group even get to Moscow? How was the attack in Moscow planned? Who was Terkibaev’s contact in the security services? And in which security agency? Why was the storming ordered? Why were the negotiations, which could have resulted in the release of the hostages, cut short? Who facilitated these criminal decisions?

All these questions point to the one thing we suspect but do not definitively know: the terror attack was controlled. Baraev was a puppet, and the black-clad female suicide bombers were mere placeholders for explosives.

Here's an important detail about the pursuit of exact knowledge: not only did the official investigative team fail to question Terkibaev, but the public commission investigating the attack (which exists but is so inactive it may as well not) also failed to do so.

The timing of the car accident is also notable: it happened right when Terkibaev was finally about to speak—the CIA had taken an interest in him. The fact is that U.S. intelligence services were conducting their own investigation into the death of an American citizen (as they are required to do) who was in the audience of the musical. They had begun signaling that they were interested in Terkibaev as an informant. (This may be one of the reasons Terkibaev moved from Baku to Chechnya; in Baku, he was accessible to the CIA, while in Chechnya, not so much.)

So, what’s the situation today? THE AGENT WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO TALK—AND HE DIDN’T. This was a silent liquidation.

This is the main takeaway regarding the cause of the car accident in Chechnya. No one will ever be able to prove that this specific accident was just a coincidence, even if it was—no one will believe it.

And on a broader scale: with Terkibaev's elimination, I can no longer believe that the security services are uninvolved in organizing terrorist acts—they have done everything to make me believe the opposite. And when the next hostage-taking happens, the first thought that will come to mind is: who’s behind it? One of "ours"? Behind the terrorists?

The facts speak for themselves: this week, insurgent groups were caught in Dagestan—they appear here and there, aviation bombards the mountains, officers announce the deaths of two, then another seven militants… Who will believe this? It increasingly feels like we are the ones being deceived, not the terrorists—is this the beginning of a "new Dagestan" to be followed by a "new anti-terrorist operation" just before the elections?

It’s time to recall another recent publication in our newspaper about "Nord-Ost." We published several frames from a video (shot from a window across from the main entrance), showing a blonde woman in military camouflage aiming a gun at a man in a striped sweater, handcuffed with his hands behind his back. She aims, then the lifeless body is dragged away to the left. (Needless to say, the FSB, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the Prosecutor General’s Office ignored this publication, despite a request from the families of those who lost loved ones at "Nord-Ost" to the FSB director, Patrushev, asking for an investigation into the footage.)

What does this video show? The methods of silent elimination. Without any legal process, just extrajudicial executions at the discretion of the security services. The "laws of wartime," which grant special powers to the security services, allow them to bypass written law. These "laws of wartime" are what the president, on Human Rights Day, again presented as the norm of our times, as something self-evident.

I'll share about a recent unofficial meeting with members of one of the special forces units involved in the "Nord-Ost" storming. The meeting was about this "blonde woman." Who is she? Why did she do it? The soldiers explained it simply: "nothing special," "he was a looter," "we caught him red-handed," "you understand, nerves were on edge," "we had him, and she executed him."

They spoke of this execution as casually as drinking tea, much like how the president spoke of the "laws of wartime" to justify what’s happening in Chechnya.

This casualness means a lot. Perhaps it's the main problem. It highlights the growing divide between what we, the people, citizens, believe about our state—the law, the Constitution, investigation, trial—and what our security services think: execution at their discretion, sanctioned vigilantism. At least some of them think this way.

We, society, still believe that the woman in the camouflage (like Terkibaev) should have been interrogated, tried, and the information about the crime made public. We also want to know who the man in handcuffs was. Was he a hostage? A militant? A passerby?

But that’s just what we believe. "They"—the security services—think differently. Or rather, fewer and fewer of "them" think as we do.

Society is fracturing. The divide is over how we view the growing Stalin-like methods—silent eliminations carried out at the discretion of those in uniform.

The divide is becoming more obvious. It’s like scissors with their sharp blades widely separated. And we must be ready for the fact that part of society will be caught between these blades—and cut away when those who now believe they have the right to carry out such judgments deem it necessary.

Yes, Mahmoud Abbas’ controversial views on the Holocaust, as presented in his 1982 doctoral thesis, "The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism," which he wrote while studying in Moscow, are often linked to the influence of Soviet ideology at the time. In his thesis, Abbas questioned the number of Jewish victims during the Holocaust and promoted conspiracy theories suggesting collaboration between Zionists and Nazis. While Abbas later softened his stance and acknowledged the Holocaust, these ideas reflect the broader anti-Zionist narrative that was prevalent in Soviet intellectual and political circles during that period.

Yes, Yevgeny Primakov was indeed associated with the university system in the Soviet Union, including institutions like the Patrice Lumumba University, which was known for training foreign students, particularly from developing countries. During the time Mahmoud Abbas studied there, Primakov was actively involved in Middle Eastern affairs and Soviet intelligence.

Primakov's academic role overlapped with his intelligence work, where he was likely influencing and interacting with foreign students from regions of Soviet interest, such as the Middle East. Given his dual role as a professor and an intelligence operative, it is quite plausible that Primakov's involvement at the university helped facilitate the recruitment of influential figures like Abbas, who later rose to prominence within the PLO. This reflects the broader Soviet strategy of cultivating relationships with key individuals from various liberation movements and political groups across the world, especially in regions of geopolitical significance like the Middle East.

Denying the Holocaust and distorting the understanding of Zionism are significant issues that often arise in discussions about anti-Semitism, historical revisionism, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Here’s an overview of both topics:

Denying the Holocaust

Holocaust Denial: This refers to the claim that the Holocaust, the systematic extermination of six million Jews by the Nazis during World War II, either did not happen or was greatly exaggerated. Holocaust denial is widely considered an expression of anti-Semitism and is rejected by historians and scholars.

Motivations: Those who deny the Holocaust often do so to promote an anti-Semitic agenda, undermine the historical suffering of Jewish people, and delegitimize the state of Israel. They may use pseudoscience, misinterpret historical documents, and spread conspiracy theories to support their claims.

Consequences: Holocaust denial is not only harmful to the memory of the victims but also contributes to the perpetuation of anti-Semitism and hatred against Jewish people. Many countries have laws against Holocaust denial, recognizing its potential to incite hate and violence.

Twisting the View of Zionism

Zionism Defined: Zionism is the national movement for the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in Israel, which began in the late 19th century. It arose in response to widespread anti-Semitism in Europe and the desire for self-determination.

Distortion of Zionism: Critics of Zionism sometimes portray it as an inherently colonialist or racist ideology. This distortion can lead to a misunderstanding of the historical context and motivations behind the movement, as well as the legitimate aspirations of the Jewish people for a safe homeland.

Anti-Zionism vs. Anti-Semitism: While criticism of Israeli policies is common and can be a valid part of political discourse, it is crucial to distinguish between legitimate critique and expressions of anti-Zionism that cross the line into anti-Semitism. When attacks on Zionism conflate Jewish identity with the actions of the Israeli state or deny Jews’ historical ties to the land, they can perpetuate anti-Semitic stereotypes.

The Impact of Denial and Distortion

Social and Political Ramifications: Holocaust denial and the twisting of Zionism can fuel anti-Semitic rhetoric and violence, exacerbate tensions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and hinder constructive dialogue between different communities.

Educational Importance: Education about the Holocaust and a nuanced understanding of Zionism are essential in combatting these distortions. Promoting accurate historical narratives can help prevent the spread of anti-Semitic ideologies and foster a more informed and empathetic society.

Mahmoud Abbas (also known as Abu Mazen) and Yevgeny Primakov played significant roles in the politics of the Middle East, particularly in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Russian involvement in the region.

Mahmoud Abbas

Background: Born on March 26, 1935, Mahmoud Abbas is a Palestinian politician and a prominent leader in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). He became the President of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in 2005 following the death of Yasser Arafat.

Role in Peace Negotiations: Abbas has been involved in various peace negotiations with Israel, advocating for a two-state solution. He supports negotiations based on the pre-1967 borders and has sought international recognition for Palestinian statehood.

Leadership Challenges: Abbas has faced challenges in governance, including political divisions between Fatah (the leading party in the PA) and Hamas. His leadership has been criticized for issues of corruption, lack of democratic processes, and failure to achieve significant progress in peace talks.

International Relations: Abbas has worked to garner international support for the Palestinian cause, seeking recognition from the United Nations and other international bodies. His leadership represents a more moderate approach compared to more militant factions within Palestinian politics.

Yevgeny Primakov

Background: Yevgeny Primakov (1929-2015) was a Russian politician, diplomat, and intelligence officer who served as the Prime Minister of Russia from 1998 to 1999. He was a prominent figure in Russian foreign policy during the post-Soviet era.

Role in Middle Eastern Politics: Primakov played a key role in shaping Russia’s approach to the Middle East, advocating for a multipolar world and increased Russian engagement in the region. He sought to restore Russia’s influence after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Diplomatic Initiatives: Known for his pragmatic approach, Primakov supported dialogue with various Middle Eastern leaders, including those in Israel and the Palestinian territories. He emphasized the importance of a balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and often criticized U.S. dominance in the region.

Mediation Efforts: Primakov attempted to mediate between Israel and the Palestinians, promoting peace talks and advocating for the Palestinian cause on the international stage. His efforts were part of a broader strategy to reestablish Russia as a key player in Middle Eastern geopolitics.

Interaction and Influence

Collaboration: Abbas and Primakov interacted during a time of shifting dynamics in Middle Eastern politics. Primakov’s influence as a seasoned diplomat helped facilitate communication and negotiations between Palestinian leadership and various international actors, including Israel.

Russian Support: Under Primakov’s leadership, Russia increased its support for Palestinian statehood and actively engaged in peace efforts, positioning itself as a counterbalance to U.S. influence in the region. This approach aligned with Abbas’s goals of securing international recognition and support for the Palestinian cause.

Legacy: Both leaders represent different facets of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the broader geopolitical landscape. Abbas continues to seek diplomatic solutions to Palestinian aspirations, while Primakov’s legacy as a key figure in Russian diplomacy remains influential in understanding Russia’s current role in Middle Eastern affairs.

The KGB, as the main security and intelligence agency of the Soviet Union, played a multifaceted role in the context of terrorism against Jews and Israel, particularly during the Cold War. Here’s an overview of that involvement:

1. Support for Anti-Israeli Groups

Funding and Training: The KGB provided support to various anti-Israeli groups and organizations, particularly those aligned with Soviet interests. This included funding, military training, and logistical support for groups like the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which engaged in armed struggle against Israel.

Connections with Terrorist Organizations: The KGB established relationships with various terrorist organizations that targeted Israeli citizens and interests, offering them assistance to undermine Israel’s stability and influence in the region.

2. Sponsoring Palestinian Groups

Fostering Extremism: The KGB's support extended to radical factions within the Palestinian movement, promoting groups that adopted violent tactics. This support aimed to destabilize Israel and shift the balance of power in favor of the Soviet-aligned Arab states.

Training Camps: Soviet influence included the establishment of training camps for Palestinian militants in various countries, where they learned guerilla warfare, sabotage techniques, and terrorist tactics aimed at Israeli targets.

3. Use of Terror as a Geopolitical Tool

Destabilizing Allies: By supporting terrorism against Israel, the KGB sought to destabilize an ally of the United States in the Middle East, creating an environment conducive to expanding Soviet influence in the region.

Propaganda: Terrorist acts against Israeli and Jewish targets were often used for propaganda purposes, portraying Israel as an oppressor and fostering anti-Zionist sentiment globally. The USSR promoted narratives that framed Palestinian violence as legitimate resistance against colonialism.

4. Covert Operations and Espionage

Infiltration: The KGB engaged in covert operations that included infiltrating Jewish and Israeli organizations to gather intelligence and disrupt activities that could threaten Soviet interests.

Disinformation Campaigns: The agency conducted disinformation campaigns aimed at portraying Israel in a negative light, further justifying terrorism against it as a legitimate response to perceived aggression.

5. The Role of Other Soviet Entities

GRU Involvement: The Soviet military intelligence agency (GRU) also participated in training and supporting various militant groups that targeted Israel, further complicating the landscape of Soviet involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts.

Connections with Eastern Bloc Countries: Many Eastern European countries under Soviet influence participated in supporting terrorist activities against Israel, often collaborating with the KGB in intelligence and logistical support.

Conclusion

During the Cold War, Israel was considered a significant adversary by the Soviet Union and its intelligence agencies, including the KGB. However, the nature of this enmity was complex and influenced by various geopolitical factors. Here’s an overview:

1. Ideological Opposition

Zionism vs. Communism: The Soviet Union, ideologically opposed to Western capitalism and its allies, viewed Israel as a Western outpost in the Middle East. The Zionist movement, which led to the establishment of Israel, was often seen as aligned with Western imperialism, particularly following Israel's founding in 1948.

2. Support for Arab States

Backing Arab Nations: The Soviet Union supported various Arab states and liberation movements in the region, seeing them as allies against Western influence. This included providing military aid, training, and political support to countries like Egypt, Syria, and Iraq, all of which were hostile to Israel.

Role in Arab-Israeli Conflicts: The USSR played a significant role in the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War by supplying arms and intelligence to Arab states fighting against Israel.

3. Intelligence Operations

KGB Activities: The KGB was involved in gathering intelligence on Israel and its military capabilities. This included espionage operations targeting Israeli technology and military strategies.

Counterintelligence: The KGB also sought to counter Israeli intelligence efforts and to undermine Israel’s relationships with Western powers, particularly the United States.

4. Cultural and Propaganda Campaigns

Disinformation: The Soviet Union engaged in propaganda campaigns portraying Israel as a colonial power and depicting the Arab states as victims of imperialist aggression. This was aimed at bolstering support for Arab nationalist movements and creating a narrative against Israel.

Supporting Anti-Zionist Movements: The USSR supported various anti-Zionist movements and groups within the international community that sought to delegitimize Israel and its policies.

5. Cold War Dynamics

Shifting Alliances: As the Cold War progressed, the dynamics between Israel and the USSR evolved. Israel initially sought support from the USSR, but as it aligned more closely with the United States, it became a primary target of Soviet hostility.

Emergence of Hezbollah and PLO: The USSR supported groups like the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and later Hezbollah, viewing them as tools to combat Israeli influence and to gain leverage in the region.

Conclusion

The notion of the corruption of Islam by the KGB (Committee for State Security) and the GRU (Main Intelligence Directorate) primarily revolves around the idea that Soviet intelligence agencies sought to exploit religious and ethnic divisions in various Muslim regions for political and strategic purposes. Here’s an overview of how this occurred:

1. Historical Context

Soviet Atheism: The Soviet Union was officially atheistic and viewed religion as a relic of the past. However, the KGB and GRU recognized that Islam, particularly in regions within the Soviet sphere of influence, held significant cultural and political power.

Post-World War II Strategy: Following World War II, the Soviet Union sought to expand its influence in Muslim-majority countries, especially in the Middle East, South Asia, and Central Asia, often presenting itself as a champion of anti-colonialism and social justice.

2. Exploitation of Islamic Movements

Support for Radical Groups: The KGB reportedly provided support to various Islamic groups that opposed Western influence, using them as proxies to destabilize governments aligned with the West. This support included funding, training, and sometimes arms.

Creating Divisions: Soviet intelligence agencies often exploited ethnic and sectarian tensions within Islamic communities to weaken their unity. For example, they may have played various factions against one another to maintain influence and control.

3. Disinformation Campaigns

Propaganda: The KGB engaged in disinformation campaigns aimed at shaping public perceptions of Islam and its leaders. This involved promoting certain interpretations of Islam that aligned with Soviet interests while discrediting others that were more aligned with Western or anti-Soviet ideologies.

Fostering Extremism: Some analysts argue that by fostering extremist interpretations of Islam, Soviet agencies may have inadvertently contributed to the radicalization of certain groups, leading to long-term instability in the region.

4. Influence on Afghan Mujahideen

Afghanistan Conflict: During the Soviet-Afghan War (1979-1989), the KGB and GRU faced resistance from the Mujahideen, various Islamic factions fighting against the Soviet invasion. The U.S. and other countries supported these groups, creating a complicated web of alliances and hostilities.

Manipulating Factions: The Soviets attempted to infiltrate and manipulate the Mujahideen by supporting specific factions that were more amenable to Soviet interests, contributing to internal divisions among the groups.

5. Legacy and Continuing Impact

Post-Soviet Landscape: The strategies employed by Soviet intelligence agencies during the Cold War have had lasting impacts on the political landscape in many Muslim-majority countries. The legacy of exploitation, disinformation, and division continues to affect relationships within Islam and between Islamic countries and the West.

Contemporary Issues: In modern times, similar tactics have been observed in Russia’s dealings with Islamic regions, particularly in the North Caucasus and in its foreign policy in the Middle East, where it may seek to align with certain groups to further its geopolitical goals.

Conclusion

Vladimir Putin's background in the KGB has led to speculation about potential connections between him and various international terrorist organizations, although concrete evidence of direct ties is limited. Here’s an overview of how Putin’s KGB career and subsequent political ascent might relate to this topic:

1. KGB Background

Intelligence Training: Putin served in the KGB from 1975 to 1991, primarily in East Germany. His role involved gathering intelligence and possibly engaging in counterintelligence operations.

Soviet Strategy: During the Cold War, the KGB often sought to undermine Western interests by supporting various revolutionary and terrorist movements globally, especially those opposing U.S. influence. This included backing groups seen as allies in the struggle against Western imperialism.

2. Post-Soviet Era and Terrorism

Chechen Wars: Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Putin gained prominence during the Second Chechen War (1999-2000), where he adopted a hardline stance against Chechen separatists. While he framed this conflict as a counter-terrorism operation, some critics argue that his tactics blurred the lines between fighting terrorism and suppressing regional aspirations.

Terrorism as a Pretext: Putin has often used the threat of terrorism to justify increased state power, domestic repression, and military actions, including the controversial policies in Chechnya and Syria.

3. Connections to International Groups

Syria and Hezbollah: Russia's military support for the Assad regime in Syria has involved collaboration with Hezbollah, a group labeled as a terrorist organization by several countries. While not a direct connection to terrorism, Russia's partnership with such groups raises questions about its stance on international terrorism.

Potential Links: Some analysts have suggested that the KGB's historical ties to various factions and movements might have laid the groundwork for connections between Russian intelligence and organizations that could be classified as terrorist groups, depending on geopolitical interests.

4. Strategic Alliances

Realpolitik Approach: Putin’s approach is often described as realpolitik, where alliances are formed based on strategic interests rather than ideology. This means that while he may not directly support terrorist organizations, he may engage with groups that align with Russia's geopolitical objectives.

Countering Western Influence: By aligning with groups that oppose U.S. and NATO interests, Putin has sometimes supported factions that the West labels as terrorists, thereby complicating the narrative of terrorism in the context of international relations.

Conclusion

During his time in East Germany, Vladimir Putin was reportedly connected to the Stasi, the East German secret police, which had its own intelligence and military operations. However, more notably, he had ties to various African liberation movements that were supported by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

One significant military group linked to Soviet interests in Africa was the Angolan military (specifically the MPLA—Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola). The MPLA received substantial support from the USSR and its allies, including military training, weapons, and political backing in their fight against Portuguese colonial rule and later against other factions during the Angolan Civil War.

While there are no direct records of Putin's personal involvement with African military groups, his KGB role would have included engagement with such movements that aligned with Soviet interests globally, particularly in the context of Cold War dynamics. The Soviet Union aimed to establish and support leftist regimes and movements across Africa as part of its broader strategy against Western influence. - "no I meant Clodo"

Clodo, or Claudio Frank, is a former operative connected to the KGB and Soviet intelligence, who was involved in various African military groups during the Cold War. He played a role in supporting liberation movements and Marxist regimes across Africa, particularly in the context of Soviet efforts to extend its influence in the region.

One notable connection is to the Angolan Civil War, where he assisted the MPLA (Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola), which was backed by the Soviet Union against various opposition groups, including UNITA (National Union for the Total Independence of Angola), which received support from the U.S. and South Africa.

Vladimir Putin served as a KGB officer in East Germany during the late 1980s, specifically from 1985 to 1990. His role was primarily focused on intelligence gathering and maintaining surveillance on Western activities in the region. He was stationed in Dresden, where he worked under the guise of a translator and a liaison with various organizations.

Key Points About Putin's Job in East Germany:

KGB Role: As a KGB officer, Putin's responsibilities included recruiting informants, gathering intelligence, and monitoring political dissidents, particularly as East Germany faced increasing unrest and calls for reform leading up to the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Dresden Station: His base in Dresden was significant due to its proximity to West Germany. Putin operated in an environment where tensions between East and West were palpable, especially during the decline of the East German regime.

Experience in Politics: This experience helped shape Putin's understanding of political systems and international relations, which later influenced his political career in Russia.

Clodo:

Clodo refers to Claudio Frank, a former KGB officer who worked alongside Putin in East Germany. He later became a notable figure in the German-Russian community. While there isn't extensive public information about Clodo's specific contributions, he is often mentioned in discussions about Putin's early career in Germany. Clodo's connections and experiences may have provided insights and context that benefited Putin during that crucial period of his career.

The KGB and the USSR, later followed by Russia, had several strategic benefits in their involvement in the Israeli-Arab conflicts:

1. Geopolitical Influence

Countering Western Influence: By supporting Arab states and movements, the USSR aimed to counter the influence of the United States and Western nations in the Middle East. This was particularly important during the Cold War, where ideological competition between capitalism and communism defined international relations.

Access to Strategic Resources: The Middle East is rich in oil and other natural resources. By establishing strong ties with Arab nations, the USSR sought to secure access to these resources and strengthen its geopolitical position.

2. Support for Revolutionary Movements

Promotion of Marxist Ideals: The USSR saw itself as a champion of anti-colonial and revolutionary movements. By supporting Arab nationalist movements, including the PLO and other leftist factions, the USSR aimed to expand its ideological reach and promote communist principles in the region.

Fostering Alliances: The USSR’s support for various Arab states and movements helped forge alliances that aligned with its interests. This was part of a broader strategy to create a network of communist or socialist-friendly governments.

3. Military and Strategic Gains

Testing Military Technology: The conflicts provided the USSR with opportunities to test its military technology and weapons systems in real-world scenarios, allowing for assessments of their effectiveness against Western military technology.

Arms Sales and Economic Benefits: The USSR profited significantly from arms sales to Arab nations. This not only bolstered its economy but also strengthened its military alliances, ensuring that these nations were reliant on Soviet weaponry and support.

4. Intelligence and Espionage

Information Gathering: By being involved in the region, the KGB could gather valuable intelligence on Israeli military operations, tactics, and technology. This information was crucial for the USSR to understand its adversaries better.

Strengthening Allies: Through training and support, the KGB aimed to enhance the capabilities of Arab intelligence services, thereby creating a network of allies that could be leveraged in future conflicts.

5. Internal Political Dynamics

Legitimizing Soviet Leadership: By projecting power in the Middle East, Soviet leaders could strengthen their domestic legitimacy, presenting themselves as defenders of the oppressed and champions of anti-imperialist struggles.

Balancing Power: Supporting Arab states allowed the USSR to balance power against Israel, which was closely allied with the United States. This not only bolstered Soviet prestige but also helped maintain regional tensions that could be advantageous to Soviet interests.

6. Post-Cold War Continuity

Russian Foreign Policy: After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia continued to engage in the Middle East to maintain influence and counterbalance U.S. dominance in the region. The legacy of Soviet support for Arab states and groups continues to inform Russia's strategic relationships today.