1. The Dulles Plan (the Dulles Doctrine) – according to the conspiracy theory, a plan of action by the USA against the USSR, drawn up during the Cold War and consisting in the covert moral decomposition of the population of the USSR. Authorship of the plan is attributed to the American diplomat and intelligence officer, head of the Office of Strategic Services station in Bern (Switzerland) during the Second World War, Director of Central Intelligence (1953–1961) Allen Welsh Dulles (English: Allen Welsh Dulles, 7 April 1893, Watertown, New York, USA – 29 January 1969, Washington, Columbia, USA). The purpose of this plan was allegedly the destruction of the USSR by methods of propaganda aimed at dividing nationalities and social groups, the loss of traditions, moral values, and the moral decomposition of the country’s population. In the form cited by supporters of its authenticity, the “Dulles Plan” was never published anywhere, and the English original of this text was never presented. The text attributed to A.W. Dulles first appeared in the Russian press in the early 1990s and is a selection of fragments from the novel “The Eternal Call” by the Russian prose writer and screenwriter, one of the greatest Soviet “village-prose” writers who wrote novels on rural themes, Hero of Socialist Labor (1984), Laureate of the USSR State Prize (1979) Anatoly Stepanovich Ivanov (5 May 1928, the village of Shemonaikha, Semipalatinsk Okrug, Kazakh ASSR, RSFSR, USSR – 31 May 1999, Moscow, Russian Federation) in the 1981 edition. In November 2016, the text “The Dulles Plan for the Destruction of the USSR (Russia)” was included in the Federal List of Extremist Materials.
Under the name “The Dulles Plan,” in Russia there also appears a selection of excerpts from memorandum 20/1 of the US National Security Council “Objectives with Respect to Russia” of 18 August 1948. This memorandum, being a real American document, has no relation whatsoever to A.W. Dulles, and it did not pursue the goals of the moral decomposition of Soviet society.
The text of the “Dulles Plan” was first published in one of the speeches of Metropolitan John of St. Petersburg and Ladoga (Snychev) in the newspaper “Sovetskaya Rossiya” on 20 February 1993. Metropolitan John referred to this plan, along with the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” as proof that the West was waging against Russia a “vile, dirty war, well paid for, carefully planned, continuous and merciless.” Almost simultaneously the “plan” was quoted by the poet and publicist Boris Oleinik in the journal “Molodaya Gvardiya” (No. 7, July 1993, then edited by A.S. Ivanov himself). The text was repeatedly published in newspapers of a left-wing and national-patriotic orientation. The “plan” was also quoted by influential public figures such as Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Nikita Mikhalkov and Mikhail Zadornov.
The journalist Alexander Kochukov, in an article published in 2004 in “Krasnaya Zvezda,” wrote: “Veterans of the special services allow that the KGB of the USSR could have had at its disposal a rendering of Dulles’s speech at some closed session,” and the source in that case could have been a Soviet illegal intelligence officer or a defector from one of the US special services, whose name cannot be disclosed. According to A. Kochukov, it is possible that during the rule of L.I. Brezhnev an excerpt from an agent report was slightly edited, given “emotional coloring” and so on, and then through KGB channels was planted in the milieu of Soviet journalists and writers.
According to an opinion expressed in 2006 by an expert of the Foundation for National and International Security, Professor of the Academy of the FSB of Russia O.M. Khlobustov, “the time has not yet come for the assertion that ‘the fake has been exposed.’”
In April 2007, the leader of the unregistered party “Great Russia,” A.N. Savelyev, declared the authenticity of the text of the “Dulles plan,” since it “fully and completely reflects both US policy toward the USSR and the results achieved by that policy – the decomposition of our people’s self-awareness and the destruction of our country.”
Political scientist and specialist in Russian-American relations Nikolai Zlobin believes that neither A.W. Dulles nor any other American official or politician could have written anything of the sort, since this text completely contradicts the foundations of the American policy toward the USSR pursued during that period. In particular, N. Zlobin notes that no directive to promote cosmopolitanism with regard to the peoples of the USSR existed in 1945. The policy of confrontation with the USSR was strictly the opposite – to try to awaken national consciousness, especially among national minorities. Moreover, the statement in the text that A.W. Dulles was at that time director of the CIA is absolutely meaningless, since the CIA was created two years later, A.W. Dulles became director of the CIA in 1953, and he did not create any "doctrines." N. Zlobin notes that all documents of that time were long ago declassified and are freely available to any researcher in American archives. But no one has found such a document, because it does not exist. Therefore, he believes that the appearance of such a text is "an internal Russian problem connected with the maladies that Russian consciousness is experiencing."
Vladimir Solovyov draws attention to the research of Nikolai Sakva, who identified the original source of the "Dulles Plan" in the novels of Dold-Mikhailik and A.S. Ivanov.
According to political scientist Julie Fedor, despite its obvious falsity, this text had a greater influence on national self-awareness in Russia than any of the numerous declassified documents of the Cold War period.
In June 2015, the Asbest City Court recognized the text "The Dulles Plan for the Destruction of the USSR (Russia)" as extremist material. Before that, leaflets had been distributed in the city, on one side of which was printed the text of "The Dulles Plan for the Destruction of the USSR (Russia)," and on the other, the text "The Last Wishes of the 'Ivans'." During the examination of the leaflets, employees of the forensic laboratory of the Russian FSB Directorate for Sverdlovsk Oblast established that the content of the leaflets was aimed at "inciting hatred and enmity toward representatives of the state authority of modern Russia." Since November 30, 2016, the text has been included in the Federal List of Extremist Materials (item 3932).
In 2016, the governor of Samara Oblast, Nikolai Merkushkin, on the eve of the elections to the State Duma, repeatedly mentioned the Dulles plan, accusing the politician and public figure Alexei Navalny of carrying it out.
I believe that in reality no Dulles Plan (Dulles Doctrine) may ever have existed, even though its absence does not in the least mean that U.S. policy toward the USSR was peace-loving in character. The ideological struggle of the United States against the USSR could be waged on the most varied fronts, in ever new theaters of military operations that arose as new technologies appeared, both high tech and high hume.
At the same time, the hypothetical Dulles Plan (Dulles Doctrine) itself, like the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" a century earlier, served as a propaganda element of a cover operation for the processes of convergence actually being carried out, for the implementation of which the most influential elite groups of the late-Soviet elites gave their collegial consent, groups that may be identified as the "Project K-17" Club.
Moreover, the patriotic public of our Fatherland often tries to promote correct ideas by unworthy means, often relying not on facts but on leading public consciousness into the thickets of conspiracy theories, which contributes to their devaluation and, in a certain sense, to failure. This is how "political pop" and "political kitsch" appear. Our politicians must always tell their people the truth, for which they must appeal to facts and analysis, not substituting cheap "political pop" and "political kitsch" for them.
2. More realistic is the so-called "Harvard Project." The "Harvard Project" (initially the Harvard Refugee Interview Project, then the Harvard Project on the Soviet Social System (HPSSS)) was a political-sociological study of Soviet society conducted by the Harvard University Russian Research Center (HRRC), established in 1948, in the early 1950s with funding from the U.S. Air Force.
By the end of World War II, a large number of displaced persons from among former Soviet citizens abducted from the USSR were located on the territory of Germany, a significant portion of whom ended up in the American occupation zone after the war. Interviewing these persons was regarded as an opportunity to directly obtain socio-political information about the USSR supplementing intelligence and open-source data.
During the implementation of the project, two types of surveys were conducted:
biographical surveys (A-schedule interviews), in which general sociological data were collected;
specialized surveys (B-schedule interviews), in which "socio-anthropological" data were collected in the areas of economic and family relations, social stratification, and the system of power relations, and the like.
The initiator of the project was John Paton Davies Jr. (April 6, 1908, Sichuan, Qing Empire – December 23, 1999, Asheville, North Carolina, USA) – a member of the Policy Planning Staff of the U.S. State Department headed by George Kennan. J.P. Davies Jr. believed that such primary material was necessary for planning U.S. policy toward the USSR in the conditions of the incipient Cold War. The U.S. Air Force, which financed the project, set a narrower task – assessing the psychological vulnerability of the civilian population under massive bombardments comparable in scale to the bombing of Germany by Anglo-American aviation during World War II and, accordingly, their indirect effect.
During the project, more than 2000 people were surveyed, and additional in-depth interviews were conducted with more than 1000 of them.
Documents about the Harvard Project are posted on a separate Harvard University website and are available for public viewing.
The results of the Harvard Project served as a source for dozens of scholarly works (in the period between 1952 and 1960 alone, about 50 articles and books based on the project were published).
Subsequently, it is generally accepted that in the 1970s Western intelligence services developed the Harvard Project, which envisaged the destruction of the USSR within 15 years. Unfortunately, for many reasons this plan not only failed to provoke any counteraction on the part of the USSR elite, but also found supporters both among the liberally minded elite groups of the late USSR and among the patriotic part of the population. However, the "shedding" of the Central Asian underbelly and the South Caucasus led to the simultaneous shedding of the Slavic allies as well, including territories that had always been Russian, that had no relation whatsoever to the union republics and became part of them for geopolitical reasons in the times of Bolshevism. For example, Novorossiya became part of Ukraine in 1926, and Crimea in 1954. In the pre-war period, Smolensk was part of Belorussia, and Orenburg was part of Kazakhstan; I will say a kind word (just don't throw stones at me) about N.S. Khrushchev, who eliminated the Union status of Karelia, otherwise we would have had another Transnistria in Petrozavodsk.
Now let us recall the plans of the Republican and Democratic parties, the plans of the "American people," that is, the main milestones of the Harvard Project. Its ideological foundation was the ideas of social Darwinism and Malthusianism – the Earth will soon run out of resources, and those resources must be in the hands of the "golden billion."
US environmental scientists believed that at the beginning of the 21st century humanity would face a severe crisis of shortage of raw material and energy resources. The conclusion was, as in American cinema: "We've got to save our own asses." Naturally, at the expense of destroying the population of other states. They were not very interested in humanity outside the Anglo-Saxon world. But the whole catch turned out to be that the resources they were interested in are precisely located outside the Anglo-Saxon world. Therefore two tasks had to be solved:
1) take control of the resources into their own hands;
2) limit the birth rate of the population of the third world.
The Harvard Project was supposed to serve the first task, because the resources of 1/6 of the landmass had to be pocketed. This project killed two birds with one stone: it solved the raw materials problem and fulfilled the geopolitical problem of eliminating a possible rival on the world stage. Let us also say a few words in passing about the second problem. The birth rate of a population can only be addressed in the long term, by betting on maximum brainwashing of the population. First, since the basis of the birth rate (the appearance of a second, third child and so on) is the family as the cell of society, then, by the logic of the Malthusians, it is precisely the institution of the family that should be subjected to maximum discrediting. From this it follows, secondly, that all institutions supporting family values should be discredited. Family values are the foundation of the consciousness of the Abrahamic religions (Christian, Muslim, Jewish), therefore the influence of the Church, the Mosque, the Synagogue must be minimized (naturally, the minimization does not apply to the "chosen" comrade-gentlemen, but they have "their own church"). Thirdly, all the work of the mass media must proceed in the mainstream of liberal values (freedom of sexual relations, freedom of abortion, emancipation and so on), which will replace Christian ones. But to achieve this goal there are other projects for rocking the worlds. If in the Anglo-Saxon world itself de-Christianization is proceeding by leaps and bounds, then outside it there exist programs of so-called democratization (orange revolutions, regime change, all sorts of humanitarian programs from Soros committees and so on).
The Harvard Project was one of these, and was in fact a Program for the destruction of Russia, which was to proceed under the "sweet" wrapping of dismantling the communist system and liberalizing society. And since the society of the USSR of the 1980s was permeated from top to bottom with anti-communist ideas, the ideas of dismantling communism found supporters both among patriot-Slavophiles and among the Westernizing part of the elite, which wanted to live in grand style, while the "egalitarian-just" principles of the communist system clearly hindered this. Our elite, following the principle of the Novgorodians of the 14th century, wanted to become part of the world elite of that time – the Hanseatic League (the Hanseatic League, the Hanse, also the Hanseatic League (German: Deutsche Hanse or Düdesche Hanse, Old High German: Hansa – literally "group", "union", Latin: Hansa Teutonica) – a major political and economic union of trading cities of Northwestern Europe, which arose in the middle of the 12th century; it existed until the middle of the 17th century; the register of the Hanse included 130 cities, of which about 100 were port cities, and up to three thousand settlements were under its influence; by the beginning of the 15th century the Hanse united about 160 cities). And since the communist system had a mass of minuses – an atheistic ideology, excessive planning of the economy, in which goods of group A (products of the military-industrial complex) prevailed over group B goods (consumer goods), which caused the poor quality of many household appliances, lag in scientific and technological progress, the absence of small and medium business, the non-rotation of the gerontological partyocracy – overthrowing it was not much trouble. As the Russian philosopher A. A. Zinoviev said: "We aimed at communism, but hit Russia!".
But I will emphasize an important point: the destruction of Russia is not an end in itself for American strategists. The destruction of Russia is, although the main one, still a link in the chain for achieving the main goal – world hegemony. Not only Russia gets in the way; Libya and Cuba also get in the way, but first the main obstacles must be removed, or those for which there are forces and means. Moreover, the USA also gets in the way, because the interests of the USA and of the "closed supranational structures of world coordination and management" coincide only in part; they are temporary allies. As long as the USSR existed, they were friends against the USSR. After the collapse of the USSR, the interests of the "closed supranational structures of world coordination and management" and the USA began to diverge. Therefore the Harvard Project in itself is merely a stage of the great redistribution of the world, undertaken for the purposes of total control over the world back in the late 1960s by the intellectuals of the Club of Rome. Preparation for its implementation began at that same time; in the USSR practical implementation began after the death of L.I. Brezhnev. The foundations of industrial society in the USA, Europe, and the USSR were to be destroyed by R. Reagan, M. Thatcher, Yu.V. Andropov, M.S. Gorbachev.
3. Let us look at the implementation of the Harvard Project with the disinterested gaze of an outside observer (that is, implementation in fact, without attachment to political bias):
Stage I – Perestroika (1985–1990) – actual implementation 1985–1991, one to one and a half years behind schedule. During this period, ideological preparation for the destruction of the USSR was to be carried out, the strengthening of national elites, the introduction of democracy, the liberalization of industry, and the dismantling of the CPSU. Leadership was to be exercised from within the CPSU by a "planted Cossack." Let us recall how Yu.V. Andropov methodically dragged M.S. Gorbachev into the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, destroying all possible rivals (the retirement of L.I. Brezhnev's successor A.P. Kirilenko, the strange deaths of A.A. Grechko, F.D. Kulakov, P.M. Masherov, S.K. Tsvigun, M.A. Suslov, and L.I. Brezhnev himself, the neutralization of V.V. Shcherbitsky, the discrediting of G.V. Romanov and V.V. Grishin). Completed successfully.
Stage II – Reform (1990–1995) – actual implementation 1991–1999, the lag behind schedule is 4 years. Its plans included, at the initial stage: a) the liquidation of the world socialist system; b) the liquidation of the Warsaw Pact; c) the liquidation of the CPSU; d) the liquidation of the USSR; e) the total liberalization of consciousness with the replacement of Christian family values by Western values (the triad: freedom, money, comfort). This stage was to be led by a "Pugachev of the elite," who would sweep away THE ENTIRE SYSTEM. Initially, A.D. Sakharov was planned for this position, and the same B.N. Yeltsin first went over to the "patriots" in the OFT. But A.D. Sakharov, for all his charisma, was too fixated on the Westernizers, and moreover was gravely ill and died while the first stage was still being carried out. That is when the candidacy of B.N. Yeltsin emerged, with his "wolf's grip," who clawed his way to power like a tank.
On the whole, the program of the second stage was carried out successfully, but in its final stretch it began to falter. This happened partly because all the planned goals had to be accomplished in the shortest possible time, since in this regard time was working against the "Harvard planners." That is, if a plan is carried out slowly, a person has time to reflect on what is happening, and not only to reflect but also to resist this course of events (those who are not part of the elite – to sabotage decisions, as was the case under the communists; there is experience). Time ran out, the destructive cycle (the cycles of L.N. Gumilyov – A.L. Chizhevsky) ended, and the "Harvard planners" simply had no time left for the final stage.
Stage III – Completion (1995–2000) – not implemented, failed. Because of the setbacks, it began to be implemented four years later. The factors of the failure were also the following. For all B.N. Yeltsin's "repulsiveness," he was not in the full sense a "man of the West"; he was used as a battering ram, and B.N. Yeltsin himself used these forces to come to power. There was an agreement between them, which was more or less fulfilled. But by 1996 it became clear that B.N. Yeltsin had discredited himself, and there were three options for the development of events: a) install a new leader and, under his patronage, carry out the final stage; b) stake on the former leader; c) negotiate with the communists.
All three options had their minuses and pluses. However, again there was no time to promote the first option. One could have tried to stake on General A.I. Lebed, but although he took third place in the elections, it became clear: there was no resource to pull him into the presidency. That this "comrade" was planned as a destroyer of Russia is hardly in doubt: recall the Khasavyurt agreements that were concluded, which three years later led to the complete destabilization of the Caucasus, with hostage-taking, murders, and the dominance of Wahhabis. Incidentally, the Chechen war was started by the liberals as a war that was supposed to be lost by Russia and become the detonator for the disintegration of Russia itself. The third option also fell away: G.A. Zyuganov was, of course, ready to make compromises with the "closed supranational structures of world coordination and governance," but in any case the third point had to be crossed out or, at best, shelved indefinitely (besides, the trend could change, and then – pull the plug).
Therefore, they staked on the former, thoroughly ill leader. That is when the so-called semibankirshchina [rule of the seven bankers] arose. By hook or by crook (by the way, it was then that the first mass-scale election frauds and the use of administrative resources took place, headed by A.B. Chubais; this is not an invention of V.V. Putin, as they are now trying to present it), B.N. Yeltsin was elected President of the Russian Federation for a second term. But the greed of the new top brass played a cruel joke on them: if by 1996 the population still had illusions about the quality of "our elite," then the default undermined trust in the "young reformers" among the bulk of the population. It was the default that dealt the strongest ideological blow to the "Harvard planners," knocking out not only the ideological but also the human foundation (they had practically no "their own" people left in power, and those who remained, like A.B. Chubais, prudently withdrew into the shadows).
And although it was precisely in 1998–1999 that Russia found itself on the brink of disintegration, there turned out to be no one to push it toward complete collapse. The nationalist elites (except in Chechnya) in the republics did not represent a serious force, unlike the "Rukh," "Sąjūdis" and other popular fronts of the Soviet era, and the ideas of the Urals and other republics found no support among the Russian population. By this time, the loss of former unity began to be acutely felt, and the people, roughly speaking, "did not take the bait"; attempts to "make a move" on the part of, for example, K.N. Ilyumzhinov or E.E. Rossel, were eliminated without much effort. Moreover, the healthy forces in the country finally "came to their senses," and what happened after 1917 happened here one to one. That is, the camp of the victors split into liberals (Trotskyists) and patriots (Putinists). That is, not all the "new capitalists" were ready to accept the rules of the game of the "Harvard planners." Having gotten a large resource base into their hands, our authorities did not want to be merely accountants for the world elite. To share with them – yes, to be partners – by all means, but not accountants, serfs under a master.
So, although the second stage was successful, the transition to the third stage fell through. The "recovered elite" installed its own man as head of state.
Let us also say that the concluding stage of the liquidation of Russia was to be accompanied by the freezing of the population (interruptions in heating during the winter period), a food crisis (which took place because of elementary non-payments and the system of "barter" payment for labor), riots (Manège, anyone?), as well as the laying of good roads to seaports, along which Russia's resources would be exported abroad. And the territory was to come under the control of the Anglo-Saxons. Let us recall that plans for the partition of Russia appeared among the Anglo-Saxons back during the Civil War. The new is the well-forgotten old.
4. So, because the Harvard Project was not carried through to its logical conclusion, its new, updated modification arose — the Houston Project, which was worked out by "closed supranational structures of world coordination and governance" and envisages the division of Russia into 52 independent segments, which in turn are to become parts of other states.
The Houston Project is one of three projects that have become the most vile manifestation of the activity of the special services of the "collective West" and "closed supranational structures of world coordination and governance" and show the entire treacherous essence of the capitalist world in all its details, but we are fortunate in that we live in an age when information is not so easy to hide from the public and it becomes our common property.
An account of the third of the three projects of the activity of the special services of the "collective West" and "closed supranational structures of world coordination and governance"