Communist Long Range Policy, Antoliy Golitsyn's New Methodology, and the Case of Communist Dissident Dimitri Simes and his Son Simes Jr.
by James A. Fulk
I. Communist Long Range Policy
On December 22nd 1991, the NY Times reported on a TASS transmission that the Soviet Union ceased to exist, stating:1
THE INDEPENDENT STATES -- the Azerbaijani Republic, the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Byelorussia, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Republic of Kirghizia, the Republic of Moldavia, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Tadzhikistan, Turkmenia, the Republic of Uzbekistan and Ukraine,…With the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ceases to exist.
President Gorbachev of the USSR shortly thereafter resigned on the 25th of December,2 and on the 26th the Soviet of the Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR voted the Soviet Union out of existence.
With the official dissolution of the Soviet Union was there a concomitant dissolution of the communist conspiracy in Russia? Were communists no longer in charge of the military, the intelligence services, regional administrations, universities, institutes, police, the central government, the governments of the new republics, etc? Partly answering this question, there is significant evidence there was no concomitant dissolution of the communist conspiracy in scope and power in Russia. In the preface of his book Origins of the Fourth World War (1994), independent researcher on the international communist conspiracy, J.R. Nyquist cites research by the International Currency Review, that 13 out of 14 of the heads of the new independent Republics at that time were communists.3 Only Estonia appeared to be run by a non-communist leader.
There were also reasons to believe the dissolution was a real rejection of communism, like the Aug ‘91 failed coup to prevent the dissolution of the Soviet Union supported by the head of the First Chief Directorate of the KGB Vladimir Alexandrovich Kryuchkov. The attempted coup showed the West there was still a fight for keeping the communist system in Russia, but the backers of the Soviet Union weren’t strong enough to maintain power. Real or not, this fight and the subsequent failed coup facilitated the belief in the dissolution in late 1991 especially with the arrest of the conspirators like Kryuchkov. However, Kryuchkov was only lightly punished, and he was put on home release pending trial in 19934 and then pardoned by the State Duma in 1994.5 Years later, he attended President Vladimir Putin’s first inauguration in 2000—at the invite of Putin.6
A former pro-Soviet KGB head attending the inauguration of a former mid-level KGB officer as President of Russia is a telling piece of evidence of continuity between two alleged opposing systems. Investigative journalist Dave Troy posting on X cited for his readers an excerpt from John Barron’s KGB: The Secret Work of Soviet Agents (1974) a passage that is pertinent to the question we are raising; Barron said, “…the dismantlement of the KGB would remove the very foundation of Soviet society, a foundation laid by Lenin more than half a century ago.”7 Was that foundation removed, because the KGB in name is no longer extant? A 1993 Rand report on the subject of the KGB stated:8
Many of the democrats who helped free Russia from Communist rule believed that the only way to consolidate their victory was by dismantling the huge secret police apparatus on which the Communists had relied to maintain their monopoly of power. In fact, however, the secret police has survived. Despite an official name change, moreover, most Russians still refer to the Ministry of Security as the KGB—a practice adopted in this paper as well. Although the new KGB differs from its forbear in crucial respects, there are also disturbing similarities.
The foundation of Soviet society and of the communist movement, remained intact despite apparent changes that took place in Russia after 1991. This again begs the question, was the dissolution of the Soviet Union a rejection of communism, or was it something else?
An obscure individual to the vast majority of the American public, Soviet defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn made the case in his 1984 book New Lies for Old that the Soviet Union was planning a liberalization and democratization that “would follow the general lines of the Czechoslovak rehearsal in 1968.”9 He predicted the “‘liberalization’ would be spectacular and impressive.” However, it would also be:
calculated and deceptive in that it would be introduced from above. It would be carried out by the party through its cells and individual members in government, the Supreme Soviet, the courts, and the electoral machinery and by the KGB through its agents among the intellectuals and scientists. It would be the culmination of Shelepin’s plan.10
Shelepin’s plan, created by Aleksandr Shelepin was based off a study of Operation Trust (controlled resistance movement) and the New Economic Policy (deceptive liberalization). An interesting aside about Shelepin showing evidence of continuity between the Soviet Union and Russia is that he was the first Secretary General of the World Festival of Youth and Students—a communist youth organization that has over 100 member groups across the world. Putin spoke to over 20,000 WFDY members in 2017 at Sochi, Russia. The current Secretary General of WFDY is a Cuban Communist Yusdaquy Larduet who has traveled to Russia to participate in the VII Congress of the Leninist Kmosomol (also attended by the vice president of the State Duma of the Russian Federation Dimitry Novikov.)11
Back to Shelepin, he was promoted to head of the Department of Party Organs and later made chairman of the KGB. These promotions followed a 1958 meeting between him, KGB Third Directorate Major General and head of the Leningrad KGB Nikolai Mironov (after the meeting he was made head of the Administrative Organs Department), First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Premier of the Soviet Union Nikita Khrushchev and candidate member of the Politburo Leonid Brezhnev.12 The promotions of Shelepin and Mironov were the result of their argument to Khrushchev and Breznev that the KGB should be transformed “from the typical secret political police force that it was into a flexible, sophisticated political weapon capable of playing an effective role in support of policy, as the OGPU had done during the NEP.”13
The KGB was being transformed at that time to develop, plan and execute on a long range policy that would pass disinformation to the west that the Soviet Union was liberalizing. It would also fake a split between China to draw Western resources into developing China. First a fake split to support China and then a deceptive liberalization to support the Soviet Union. When both powers had sufficiently built up, the split would turn into a one clenched fist and this is what we are starting to see in the 2020’s.
In an March 2020 article by written by Stephen Blank at the U.S. Naval Institute titled “China and Russia: A Burgeoning Alliance” Blank refers to a 2018 Russo-Chinese expert dialogue that “argued that the two countries have attained a level of interaction exceeding a strategic partnership and surpassing an alliance.”14 That dialogue took place under the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) which was co-Founded by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and at one point had as council members Valentin Korabelnikov (former director of Russian Military Intelligence), Vladimir Maksimovich Primakov (former director of KGB First Directorate and the Foreign Intelligence Service) and Vyacheslav Trubnikov (Former Director of Foreign Intelligence).15
Up to this point, I have been making the argument that Anatoliy Golitsyn appears to have accurately predicted what is happening now. Russia and China are back together, Russia is aligned with the communist powers against the west. Russia has more spies on our border (Mexico) than in any other country in the world according to U.S. four star General Glen VanHerck,16 and Russian and Chinese nationals are actively and increasingly probing our military bases according to U.S. Admiral Daryl Caudle.17 The list of evidence goes on, and it demands we at least consider what Anatoliy Golitsyn called the new methodology which we need apply in reconsidering all Russian dissidents for the purposes of national security.
II. Anatoliy Golitsyn’s New Methodology & Soviet Dissidents
Golitsyn said of the new methodology that:
“The launching of a strategic disinformation program in 1958 invalidated the conventional methodology of Western students of communist affairs.”18
“The essence of the new methodology, which distinguishes it from the old, is that it takes into account the new policy and the role of disinformation.”19
“The new methodology starts from the premise that the eighty-one parties all committed themselves to the new long-range policy and agreed to contribute toward its objectives according to the nature and scale of their resources.”20
What Golitsyn’s new methodology calculates is the fact that previous liberalizations have been used before by the communists to strengthen the communist movement, and the current one is part of a long-range deception plan. Disinformation campaigns were run concurrent with these previous liberalizations (which are themselves disinformation in terms of their intentions) and part of the campaigns involved sending people to the West to tell the West communism was dying out. The new methodology views dissidents and asylum seekers with a skeptical, watchful eye, precisely, because they—that is the dissidents—have been used as disinformation tools and agents of influence by the communists in previous deception programs.
Quoting Golitysn again:
…this new brand of Stalinism [Brezhnev] seemed unable either to conceal or control the forces of internal opposition. The West witnessed the emergence not just of individual dissidents, but of an entire "dissident movement"…The phenomenon can be understood only in the light of past history and the new methodology. Genuine opposition to the communist system in the Soviet Union in the period 1958-60, when the new long-range policy and the KGB's new political role were being worked out, was deep-seated and intense. Dissatisfaction was widespread among workers, collective farmers, priests, and intellectuals. It was particularly strong among Ukrainian, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Jewish nationalists. The opposition rejected the Soviet regime in principle. Its members did not believe in the possibility of "evolution"; they firmly believed that freedom could come only through a new revolution, the overthrow of the regime, and the dissolution of the communist party. They did not call themselves dissidents nor were they described as such by the regime. They were known in KGB and party documents as "enemies of the people.” The KGB was capable of preventing and neutralizing contacts between the West and genuine opponents of the regime…
Knowing that dissidents can be used for long-range deception goals, and that they could have been effectively isolated by the KGB if they were deemed actual “enemies of the people” demands that we view all potential Soviet dissidents as possible Soviet agents working for the KGB helping carry out the long-range deception plan, and this is where I will introduce the case of Dimitri Simes Sr. as an one example of a possible false dissident.
III. The Case of Communist Dissident Dimitri Simes and his Son Simes Jr.
Dimitri Simes Sr. was born in Moscow to Dina Kaminskaya and Konstantin Simis both lawyers for Soviet dissidents.21 Dina represented refusenik Anatoly Shcharansky who was working with Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov. She also represented Vladimir Bukovsky.22 Reading the biographies of Dina, Konstantin, Vladimir and Anatoly, they all looked like genuine Soviet dissidents. However, the biography of Dimitri has many red flags, which we will discus shortly, and worth briefly noting is that dissident Sakharov was under suspicion by Golitsyn as being a KGB controlled dissident. Quoting Golitsyn, he said:
Sakharov is a scientist of distinction whose past services to the Soviet regime in the development of nuclear weapons are officially recognized. As one of the chief scientific advisers to the Soviet government, he would have had access to the most sensitive nuclear secrets and an insight into Soviet strategy and Soviet relations in the nuclear field with other communist states, including China. It is inconceivable that, if he were seriously at odds with the regime and therefore a security risk, he would have been given the opportunities he has had to maintain contact with Western friends and colleagues. Even from his "exile" in Gorkiy, he is able to convey his views to the West through intermediaries and correspondence. The only conclusion consistent with these facts is that Sakharov is still a loyal servant of his regime, whose role is now that of a senior disinformation spokesman for the Soviet strategists.
The dissident case of Dimitri is just a suspicious as that of Sakharov (Sakharov returned to Moscow in 1986 after almost seven years of internal exile)23. During his early years, Dimitri was a “Deputy Secretary of the Komsomol Organization [All-Union Leninist Young Communist League] at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations and an international lecturer at the Moscow City Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.”24 During the early 1970’s, Yevgeny Primakov (later Director of the KGB First Directorate and then Director of Foreign Intelligence Service for Russia and Chairman of the Board of Trustees for Russian International Affairs Council which was a founding member of the Valdai Club of which Dimitri would many years later be a guest speaker at with Putin) became Deputy Director of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union. Dimitri admitted he was working for Primakov during the early 70’s,25 and Primakov is believed to have been working for the intelligence services years before his position at the academy.26
Raising even more suspicion is how Dimitri left the Soviet Union despite being in good standing with the Communist Party and the academy. Quoting historian Yuri Felshtinsky’s article on this subject, he said:27
This spotless background notwithstanding, Simis submitted his resignation from the Institute on July 3, 1972, due to his intent to immigrate to Israel. Yevgeny Primakov, a deputy dean of the Institute, signed the resignation, and Simis left. Applying for immigration had to entail a complicated and usually unpleasant procedure of being expelled from Komsomol. In the case of Simis, whose status within the organization was fairly senior, this procedure had to have occurred at a high level – Moscow City Committee or even at the Central Committee of the All-Union Leninist Young Communist League. By Soviet standards, this had to be a political affair. However, there are no records of Simis having been expelled and the details are unclear…In November 1972, Simis was arrested and detained for two weeks for participating in a protest in front of the Central Telegraph building in Moscow. However, by the end of the year, he received a permission to relocate to Israel. In January 1973, with an aureole of a martyr, dissident and a political prisoner, Simis arrived in Rome by way of Vienna, bypassing Israel...He waited in Rome for three months before receiving a visa to enter the United States.
Dimitri was a perfect candidate for the KGB to recruit given his communist background, the fact he was studying U.S. policy, and the fact that his parents were part of the dissident movement (genuine or not), and Golitsyn’s new methodology demands that we consider this possibility—that is his use by the KGB for communist long-range deception. His parents, would be his cover along with his arrest record. However, Felshtinsky mentions in his article that his cover was not perfect, and that people had come forward claiming he was a KGB agent.28
When he was applying for US citizenship, Simes was approached by the FBI. The FBI official with whom he met pulled out a folder full of paper and said, "This folder contains written statements of people alleging that you are a KGB agent. Here they are. But these are all just statements with no proof. Therefore, we do feel that we cannot oppose your citizenship application on the basis of these statements. However, I am telling you this so that you understand that these statements exist and that we will be watching you closely.”
Despite the suspicion of the FBI, he was given U.S. citizenship, and he eventually worked his way into U.S. politics becoming close with former U.S. President Richard Nixon who then chose him to head the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom starting in 1994. Prior to this Dimitri was a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and was honored by them as a great immigrant and great American.29 He got that position with the help of high-level U.S. contacts including James Schlesinger.30 Years later, there was a falling out between members of the Nixon family, the Nixon Center and Simes according to a Politico article on the subject:31
To the Republican stalwarts, family members, and former political aides who sit on the Foundation board, however, the Center and – particularly — its longtime president, Dimitri Simes, had become nothing less than an embarrassment to the Nixon family name. Simes, an imposing eminence of Russia policy, was – in their view — offering apologies for Russian autocrat Vladimir Putin…
The falling out led to the Nixon “Center’s formal separation from the Nixon family and heralding its new life as the Center for the National Interest”.32 Among Simes defenders cited in the Politico article, which is quite telling, was Leslie Gelb, the President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations who worked under appointment by Robert McNamara on the Pentagon Papers with people such as Daniel Ellsberg. A quick aside on Ellsberg, he was a member of Unity4Julian (along with Bill Binney, Jack Posobiec, Ray McGovern, Dan McAdams, Cassandra Fairbanks, etc).33 These are all almost, if not all, Pro-Russian individuals. He was also husband to antiwar activist Patricia Marx Ellsberg who was sister to Barbara Marx Hubbard who was connected to Stephen Dinan (her business partner) of the Esalen Institute (Hot Tub Diplomacy), was chairwoman of the Soviet-American Citizen’s Summit and received funding through Laurence Rockefeller.34 Laurence was brother to David Rockefeller who was a Tri-Lateral Commission member with Henry Kissinger the latter being identified as a Soviet agent according to Polish defector Colonel Michael Goleniewski.35
This interesting aside is pertinent, because it takes us back to Simes—Simes worked with Kissinger (as well as Zbigniew Brzezinski and Francis Fukuyama the latter two being on the editorial board of his National Interest publication until 2005).36 Kissinger was also on the board of the Nixon Center,37 and according to an interview that Yuri Felshtinsky had with Andrey Andreyevich Piontkvsky38, Piontkvsky stated that the:
Kremlin created a ‘Council of the Wise’ of sorts, headed by Kissinger and Primakov, the financing for which was supplied by the Russian oligarchs. It was a purportedly interdependent Russian-American body. And they were like scientists. And Alexei Mordashov or someone like that pays them $5 million. They receive Russian, not American, funding. Everything is open and legal.
Piontkvsky explained that there were three men he identified that were working for the Kremlin that “are very talented individuals…A head above this other pathetic scum.” They were the ones that we can, in large part, trace the pedestrian, low IQ memes of we must give up Ukraine and ally with Russia to fight Islamic terrorism back to. They were working at the well funded and prestigious think tanks writing papers on the subject, the content of which trickled down to the public trough multiple channels. The three men Piontkvsky identified were Simes, former diplomat Thomas Graham and former Russian Military Intelligence Colonel Dimitri Trenin who would become Director of the Carnegie Center (Piontkvsky suspected Trenin was still active and might have been promoted to General). Piontkvsky said of Graham, whom he knew personally, that:
I know the day when he was bought by the Kremlin. He did not last through the end of President Bush’s term. He was what is called a ‘Russian Tzar’ and he left in the middle of the second term when he received an offer from Kissinger. On the day when he left, I ran into him on the Metro. He is usually quite a reserved person. He did not look like himself on that day, he was in a total euphoria and, unexpectedly, mentioned to me several times that he switched jobs and that he is making at his new job several times more than he did when he worked for President Bush.
As for Simes, Piontkvsky said that his handler is Sergey Lavrov (in addition to the KGB) and that Kremlin mouthpieces that come from Moscow to Washington first go to Simes to receive instructions.
What was Simes role in the U.S.? To influence policy towards Russia for Russia’s benefit. Quoting again from Felshtinsky’s article, “All of Simes’s articles are just the variations on the same theme: for the US to survive, it is imperative to achieve an agreement with Putin at any price.”
Simes Sr. makes complete sense in terms of Anatoliy Golitsyn’s New Methodology. Simes doesn’t even have to believe in the existence of the long range policy to be working for it on behalf of the KGB. His appointment to head the Nixon center in 1994 was only a few years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, a time when people like him could write new narratives about Russia— that is was a liberalizing nation vs. a country still run by the communists and KGB.
We now turn our attention to Simes Jr. and MAGA communism where the spark for the idea of writing this article first appeared in my mind. While the apple might have fallen farther from the tree with respect to Simes Sr. and his parents, it appears to not have fallen far between Simes Sr. and Jr.
I learned of the Simes through tracking the activities of American communist Jackson Hinkle and his recent trip to Russia. I was expecting to see all the familiar faces like Aleksandr Dugin, but there was a young man that was accompanying Hinkle at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum that I had not seen before. Jackson said on a X post that it was Dimitri Simes Jr. 39
I then went to Dimitri Jr.’s Rumble channel New Rules,40 and I instantly knew what he was about without having yet educated myself on who his father was. It was there that I found interviews with Aleksandr Dugin a KGB asset and former adjunct professor of the Russian General Staff Academy41 who lectured the Russian military and a Serbian Military Institute42 on building a new empire,43 destroying America which such strategies as encouraging racial division and dissident movements (just like the Soviet’s advised).44 There was also Paul Craig Roberts, Scott Ritter, Pepe Escobar, and Judge Andrew Napolitano all featured authors on the Russian Foreign Intelligence tasked Strategic Culture Foundation website.45
There was Larry Johnson, member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) whose members tie into InfoWars, the Q psychological operation, Unity4J, the Iranian Intelligence recruiting event New Horizon (that Dugin also attends) and Russian state television.
Ray McGovern is also featured. He is an associate of Edward Lozansky of the World Russia Forum. Ed commissioned a propaganda film that Lt. General Flynn promoted on Twitter (that McGovern was in) which was partly written by Matthew Ehret who is associated with the Strategic Culture Foundation. Flynn has also promoted Jackson Hinkle’s interview with Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Maria Zakharova.
While visiting Russia, Hinkle told Simes Jr. in an interview that he attended a dinner with Lavrov.46 If Lavrov is indeed handling assets like Simes Sr. (and potentially his son), it would make sense that he would want to meet with a vetted American communist asset like Hinkle who has accumulated 2.6 million followers on X and a cursory review of his recent posts reveals he has hundreds of thousands-to-millions of impressions for each of his posts.
Seeing all these people I have been researching for a few years on the New Rules channel and knowing they are Kremlin assets makes it even more probable, not just plausible, that Simes Sr.’s handler is indeed Lavrov. His son, whose Rumble channel New Rules is about a year old, looks like he has been groomed to continue the mission of his father but adapted for the current generation and phase of the long range policy which appears to be in the phase of declining liberalization, defining and orienting society towards the enemy (one of Dugin’s primary missions for the last 30 years or so), and standing on the precipice that overlooks the approaching and maybe inevitable direct military confrontation between the western allies and the communist bloc.
Using Dimitri Jr. as a key to the intentions of his father along with his father’s background that we examined, leads me to conclude that Dimitri Sr. has been working for the KGB since his days under Primakov. The importance of the new methodology proposed by Golitsyn vs. the much more common methodology in place is that Golitsyn’s methodology recognizes a long range policy of the communists. Following that methodology it is impossible to make such inaccurate conclusions and statements as are common by the Left on social media as “Putin is a NAZI”, or labeling people like Simes as a simple Russian agent of influence without the context of a larger plan. In fact, there is continuity between Marx, Lenin, the Bolsheviks, international communism and present day Russia. Putin was not an NAZI SS officer; he was mid-level KGB and a card carrying communist party member. The Left can’t use the word communist, even if they are truly opposed to Putin, because they would indirectly criticize themselves, because Marxist-Leninists in large part run the U.S. universities which are cranking out socialists. I once mentioned this to the dean of a university I attended, and she had no objection to my argument other than pointing to a non-core, elective course that wasn’t taught by a Marxist educated professor as an example of intellectual diversity at the University.
In conclusion, what this article has attempted to do is alert people to the possibility that the international communist conspiracy is still operating and is alive and well in Russia. That there is continuity between the Soviet Union and Russia. That spies deployed in the West under the Soviet Union are still working for the same masters in current day Russia. That the China-Russia alliance that our institutions are now admitting exists was predicted in 1984. That we might want to consider Golitsyn’s new methodology in the interests of national defense and survival.
The End of the Soviet Union (Dec 22, 1991), The New York Times, https://web.archive.org/web/20170701205743/http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/22/world/end-soviet-union-text-declaration-mutual-recognition-equal-basis.html
The Gorbachev era and the collapse of the Soviet Union (Aug 30, 2022), Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/world/gorbachev-era-collapse-soviet-union-2022-08-30/
Origins of the Fourth World War (1999), J.R. Nyquist, Preface. See also: International Currency Review: 22, 3-4
GCPC Press Conference (1993), Kommersant, https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/36887
KGB chief who led failed coup against Gorbachev dies at 83 (Nov 27, 2007), CBC News, https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/kgb-chief-who-led-failed-coup-against-gorbachev-dies-at-83-1.683523
Putin Is Made Russia's President In First Free Transfer of Power (May 8, 2000), Michael Wines, https://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/08/world/putin-is-made-russia-s-president-in-first-free-transfer-of-power.html
Dave Troy’s X Account (Feb 26, 2024), https://x.com/davetroy/status/1762249747383869638
The Formation and Development of the Russian KGB, 1991-1994 (1993), Rand, Jeremy R. Azrael & Alexander G. Rahr, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR355.pdf pg.1
New Lies for Old (1984), Anatoliy Golitsyn, pg. 339
Ibid. pg. 340
Cuban representative participates in VII Congress of the Leninist Komsomol (Oct 27-29, 2023), Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs, https://misiones.cubaminrex.cu/es/articulo/participa-representante-cubano-en-vii-congreso-del-komsomol-leninista
Ibid. Golitsyn, pg. 47
Ibid. pg. 47
China and Russia: A Burgeoning Alliance ( March 2020), U.S. Naval Institute, Stephen Blank, vol. 146/3/1,405, https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2020/march/china-and-russia-burgeoning-alliance see also: Russian-Chinese Dialogue: The 2018 Model (Aug 21, 2018) RIAC, https://russiancouncil.ru/en/activity/publications/russian-chinese-dialogue-the-2018-model/
RIAC Council Members (2013 Website Snapshot), https://web.archive.org/web/20130808005851/http://russiancouncil.ru/en/about-us/members_RSMD/
US general: Russia has more spies deployed in Mexico than in any other country (March 26, 2022), El Paise, Yolanda Monge & Elias Camhaji, https://english.elpais.com/international/2022-03-26/us-general-russia-has-more-spies-deployed-in-mexico-than-in-any-other-country.html
China, Russia Trying to Infiltrate US Military Bases: Navy Admiral (May 28, 2024), The Defense Post, Joe Saballa, https://www.thedefensepost.com/2024/05/28/china-russia-us-bases/
Ibid. Golitsyn, pg. 309
Ibid. Golitsyn, pg. 85
Ibid. Golitsyn, pg. 87
Dimitri Simes’s Wikipedia Entry, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimitri_Simes
Dina Kaminskaya’s Wikipedia Entry, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dina_Kaminskaya
1986: Sakharov comes in from the cold (Dec 23, 1986), BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/23/newsid_2540000/2540121.stm
Who is Dimitri Simes And Why Is He Trying To Sink Mayflower? Investigation by Yuri Felshtinsky (May 01, 2020), Gordon, Yuri Felshtinsky, https://english.gordonua.com/news/exclusiveenglish/who-is-dimitri-simes-and-why-is-he-trying-to-sink-mayflower-investigation-by-yuri-felshtinsky-316154.html
https://www.pseudology.org/information/SimesDK.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgeny_Primakov, citing Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Mitrokhin Archive: The KGB in Europe and the West, Gardners Books (2000), ISBN 0-14-028487-7 and Vadim J. Birstein. The Perversion of Knowledge: The True Story of Soviet Science, Westview Press (2004) ISBN 0-8133-4280-5
Ibid. Gordon
Ibid. Gordon
2013 Great Immigrants, Carnegie Foundation of New York, https://www.carnegie.org/awards/honoree/dimitri-simes/, see also Soviet Spies Are a Threat and an Obvious Weakness (July 26, 1985) Los Angeles Times, Dimitri K. Simes https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP90-00965R000706160006-9.pdf Note: his position at Carnegie is listed at the end of the article.
Ibid. Gordon
Divorce for Nixon Center, Foundation (April 19, 2011) Politico, Ben Smith, https://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/divorce-for-nixon-center-foundation-053384
Ibid. Politico
Unity for Julian Assange website, https://unity4j.com/
About the Foundation for Conscious Evolution, https://web.archive.org/web/20030814124751/http://www.evolve.org/pub/doc/footer_about_fce.html
Is Kissinger a Soviet Agent? (1974), Frank A. Capell, CIA FOIA Release, https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP75-00149R000300140001-6.pdf
Symmetric response from Moscow (Dec 5, 2005), Kommersant, https://web.archive.org/web/20180419032258/https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/632410
Ibid. Politico
Ibid. Gordon
Jackson Hinkle’s X Account (June 7, 2024), https://x.com/jacksonhinklle/status/1799069230429852065
Dimitri Simes Jr. Rumble Account New Rules, https://rumble.com/c/NewRules
Putin's Funding of Italy's Far-Right: The Pivotal Role of Aleksandr Dugin (September 4, 2019), Byline Times, Zarina Zabrisky, https://bylinetimes.com/2019/09/04/putins-funding-of-italys-far-right-the-pivotal-role-of-aleksandr-dugin/
Lecture by Professors Dr. Alexander Dugin at the University of Defense (November 22, 2019), http://www.isi.mod.gov.rs/eng/photo/417/predavanje-prof-dr-aleksandra-geljevica-dugina-na-univerzitetu-odbrane-417
Foundations of Geopolitics (1997), Aleksandr Dugin, pg. 238
Ibid. Dugin, pg. 358
GEC Special Report: August 2020 Pillars of Russia’s Disinformation and Propaganda Ecosystem (August, 2020), U.S. Department of State, https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Pillars-of-Russia%E2%80%99s-Disinformation-and-Propaganda-Ecosystem_08-04-20.pdf
Debunking Western Propaganda: The Truth About Russia (2024),Rumble, New Rules, Dimitri Simes Jr., https://rumble.com/v4gl50l-debunking-western-propaganda-the-truth-about-russia.html 24:00 into the video