Near where the future Bering Strait Tunnel finally connecting Russia and the United States will soon be, there is a town named Kotzebue. It is named after the Russian explorer Otto von Kotzebue (1787-1846,) who was the son of the playwright August von Kotzebue (1761-1819), On behalf of the Russian Imperial Navy—the same navy that Catherine the Great earlier deployed as part of her 1780 League of Armed Neutrality, which indirectly supported the American Revolution by protecting “neutral” shipping to the new United States from interference by the British Navy — Otto von Kotzebue explored the Bering Strait in pursuit of a passage to the Arctic Ocean.
As a result of Russia’s later sale of Alaska to the United States in 1867, five years after Russia had also supported the Union cause by sending its navy to the ports of New York and San Francisco to prevent Britain and France from breaking Lincoln’s blockade of the Confederacy, Russia’s mainland coast is 55 miles from the Seward Peninsula of the United States. (Technically, the two countries, each of which owns one of the Diomede Islands, are actually geographically much closer—only 2.4 miles apart.)
Could the eight decades of hostility between Russia and the United States, two nations which, prior to then, had not only not fought each other, but had been allied in opposition to the British Empire, now be finally overcome? Was that hostility instigated by Winston Churchill’s “Operation Unthinkable” proposal to go to war with the Soviet Union by no later than July of 1945, well before the end of the War in the Pacific? Is that empire, and its lackeys, right now attempting to foment war with Russia, involving the United States, up to this very moment?
Readers of Executive Intelligence Review’s Daily Alert are aware that since July 30, documents released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard have provided clues that may yet figure in answering that question. In his August 5 article, “Whistleblower Exposes Real 2016 U.S. Election Meddling,” journalist Kit Klarenberg, reporting on those documents, tells the story of “a U.S. intelligence veteran who from 2015 to 2020 served as Deputy National Intelligence Officer, at the ODNI-overseen National Intelligence Council. They specialized in ‘cyber issues,’ including ‘cyber-enabled information operations.’ Prior to the 2016 vote, they led the production of an ICA [Intelligence Community Assessment] on ‘cyber threats’ to U.S. elections, at the order of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, for which they were ‘commended.’”
Klarenberg then quotes that source from one of the documents Gabbard released. “For the new 2017 ICA, I was directed by (REDATED) to focus on Russian attempts to access U.S. election-related infrastructure. IC [Intelligence Community] reporting suggested many Russia-attributed what did the initials IP stand for? IP addresses were making connection attempts that the IC could not explain the purpose of. Later, when presenting (REDACTED) with our findings, (REDACTED) directed us to abandon any further study of the subject, saying ‘it’s something else.’ In light of later development in open source reporting, I came to have concerns about this Russia-attributed cyber activity and the abrupt dismissal of the study effort.”
Note the following important passage: “In addition, I noted other nations’ efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election, but this critical context was omitted from the 2017 ICA. During conversion of the 2017 ICA to… Unclassified versions, {key context was not included, and I was pressured to alter my views on the 2017 ICA’s [Intelligence Community Assessment’s] key judgments, with the expressed intent by (REDACTED) that my concurrence was sought to enable (REDACTED) to sway the views of the Defense Intelligence Agency, DIA.”
Will Great Britain’s intelligence operatives, former head of GCHQ Robert Hannigan and former MI6 Chief Sir Richard Dearlove be among those foreign nationals accused, instead of “the Russians,” of co-managing the attempt, before and after the 2016 election, to alter the Presidency of the United States? As Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, both of whom survived assassination attempts in the past 18 months, prepare to meet this Friday, note Vice-President J.D. Vance’s comments on a Fox News interview regarding the criminal referrals DNI Gabbard has made to Attorney General Pam Bondi regarding Russiagate: “that’s a violation of what our intelligence services should be doing, and I absolutely think they broke the law.” Vance indicated he supports and expects indictments.
A new security and development architecture needs to be the focus of not only the August 15 meeting, but also a subsequent “Big 3” meeting, preferably in early September, among Presidents Trump, Putin, and President Xi Jinping of China. President Xi, who spent months in the state of Iowa as a student, and has an appreciation of American history, might be intrigued to know, if he is not already aware of it, that Abraham Lincoln’s Ambassador to Russia Cassius Marcellus Clay, who played a secondary but essential role in Secretary of State William Seward’s purchase of Alaska from Russia, “was among the first United States diplomats to urge Russo-American identity of interests in Eastern Asia,” according to author Albert Parry. During the Second World War, in the spring of 1943, Parry wrote this in an article cited here titled “Cassius Clay’s Glimpse into the Future: Lincoln’s Envoy to Saint Petersburg Bade the Two Nations Meet in Asia.”
At this September 2-3, eightieth anniversary of the victory over fascism, in which the United States, China and Russia were all allied, the dream to connect East and West through the Bering Strait, equally a dream of Chinese, Russian and American thinkers and engineers, such as the Schiller Institute’s late Hal Cooper, who designed the World Land-Bridge map of international “development corridors,” could be discussed. Helga Zepp-LaRouche has released a petition that urges this. We, who are both patriots of our nations, and world-citizens in search of a more perfect union of humanity without war, should encourage this next step. That is the mountain-top standpoint from which to view the true potential, despite the dangers, of the upcoming summit-process.
