I posted about this report that was leaked and discussed in a Swedish newspaper, A shocking document As planned, the United States, the war and the crisis of Europe.
More about this story with facsimiles of the document.
From the Duran
Weaken Germany to strengthen US: Alleged leaked RAND doc outlines plan to destroy Europe as ‘political competitor’
Either this leak is a brilliant piece of technothriller fiction – or it shows that collapse we are experiencing was Made in the U.S.A.
“How can we destabilize Europe?”
“How can we destroy Germany and make life hard for Russia at the same time?”
“How can we seize total control over all people, everywhere?”
Total conspiracy theory questions. Right?
Well, to be sure, what you are about to read may be such good technothriller writing that Tom Clancy would have a run for his money. However, this reportedly comes from none less than the RAND Corporation, which is a real and well-known think tank in California that makes it its business to think about how to do things. All kinds of things.
A few days ago a leaked document from RAND started to appear in the news cycle, even making it to Russia Today. It was a small piece but it did get international attention from RT’s estimated 700 million English-speaking viewers. However, the scope of the story was not delved into very deeply, and understandably so, because it is an alleged leak and one without confirmation, and by the standards of truly good journalism, sources really do need to be verified.
However, having viewed the entire document, it seems necessary to bring its full text to your attention for reading and consideration. We have a link to it here:
And, yes, this is on Yandex, Russia’s Google in essence. Take that as you will. However, the writing is very polished for the most part and it appears to be serious.
Here, though, I want to insert a few notes that make me distrust this document’s authenticity, for your consideration:
- There are occasional missing articles, in a manner consistent with the errors Russians make when they write in English. These errors are arguable within the context of professional language, but they still exist in places that surprise me. I am an English grammar-nazi, so I see this stuff easily, especially since I live and work in Russia. Examples include, “This gap will be primarily filled with dollar and yuan.” (American English would render this as, “This gap will be primarily filled by dollars and yuan” or “by the dollar and the yuan.”)
- The title “Vulnerabilities in German and EU economy” should be rendered “Vulnerabilities in German and EU economies” or “Vulnerabilities in the German and EU economies” – the missing article and incorrect use of plural references gives me a moment of pause. At the very least, this would not pass my eyes as an editor!! If this is really from Rand, they need some help in their editing department. I am available…
- Reference to the Russian president as simply “Putin” – perhaps this is internal language for an internal document, but the reference is unprofessional and banal. It should be “President Putin” at least, in my view. By contrast, the two German leaders named are given both first and last names.
- Near the end of the document, which supposedly comes from Rand Corporation in California, there are the words, “neutralised” and “labour”, which are spelled in the manner consistent with UK English, AND which is the common denominator for the English language as it is professionally used in Russia and Europe. Why do these words appear this way in a California-based company?
- The word “crossgovernmental” should be rendered as “cross-governmental.”
- Also, the document presumes knowledge of “THE military conflict in Ukraine” a month before it actually begins. This is troubling, and it has two explanations: Either it is a fake, cleverly written AFTER the military operations began but made incorrectly to appear as before it, with the definite article THE being the giveaway that this was written in full knowledge of the war, which already exists. That is Possibility Number One. Possibility Number Two is that the military conflict in Ukraine itself was planned by RAND and is addressed in other documents besides this one. Similar “we already know about this” style references appear elsewhere in this document, as well.
There are probably more errors, but these all jumped out at me. Signs of a hoax or signs of something else? We leave it up to you, Dear Reader, to decide.
We only have the Executive Summary, but it is interesting to note the destinations for it. Here is the key for the alphabet soup that we see:
WHCS: The White House Chief of Staff
ANSA: Assisstant to the President for National Security Affairs
Dept. of State is obvious enough…
CIA: Central Intelligence Agency
NSA: National Security Agency
DNC: Democrat National Committee
Note that the RNC is not included in this destination list. Just keep that in mind.
What follows is the full text of the document’s Executive Summary itself, but please look at the files to see the boilerplate introduction and the original documentation yourself:
Executive Summary: Weakening Germany, strengthening the U.S
The present state of the U.S. economy does not suggest that it can function without financial and material support from external sources. The quantitative easing policy, which the Fed has resorted to regularly in recent years, as well as the uncontrolled issue of cash during the 2020 and 2021 Covid lockdowns, have led to a sharp increase in the external debt and an increase in the dollar supply.
The continuing deterioration of the economic situation is highly likely to lead to a loss in the position of the Democratic Party in Congress and the Senate in the forthcoming elections to be held in November 2022. The impeachment of the President cannot be ruled out under these circumstances, which must be avoided at all costs.
There is an urgent need for resources to flow into the national economy, especially the banking system. Only European countries bound by EU and NATO commitments will be able to provide them without significant military and political costs for us.
The major obstacle to it is growing independence of Germany. Although it still is a country with limited sovereignty, for decades it has been consistently moving toward lifting these limitations and becoming a fully independent state. This movement is slow and cautious, but steady. Extrapolation shows that the ultimate goal can be reached only in several decades. However, if social and economic problems in the United States escalate, the pace could accelerate significantly.
An additional factor contributing to Germany’s economic independence is Brexit. With the withdrawal of the UK from the EU structures, we have lost a meaningful opportunity to influence the negotiation of crossgovernmental decisions.
It is fear of our negative response which by and large determines the relatively slow speed of those changes. If one day we abandon Europe, there will be a good chance for Germany and France to get to a full political consensus. Then, Italy and other Old Europe countries – primarily the former ECSC members – may join it on certain conditions. Britain, which is currently outside the European Union, will not be able to resist the pressure of the Franco-German duo alone. If implemented, this scenario will eventually turn Europe into not only an economic, but also a political competitor to the United States.
Besides, if the U.S. is for a certain period is engulfed by domestic problems, the Old Europe will be able to more effectively resist the influence of the U.S.-oriented Eastern European countries.
Vulnerabilities in German and EU Economy
An increase in the flow of resources from Europe to U.S. can be expected if Germany begins to experience a controlled economic crisis. The pace of economic development in the EU depends almost without alternative on the state of the German economy. It is Germany that bears the brunt of the expenditure directed towards the poorer EU members.
The current German economic model is based on two pillars. These are unlimited access to cheap Russian energy resources and to cheap French electric power, thanks to the operation of nuclear power plants. The importance of the first factor is considerably higher. Halting Russian supplies can well create a systemic crisis that would be devastating for the German economy and, indirectly, for the entire European Union.
The French energy sector could also soon begin to experience heavy problems. The predictable stop of Russian-controlled nuclear fuel supplies, combined with the unstable situation in the Sahel region, would make French energy sector critically dependent on Australian and Canadian fuel. In connection with the establishment of AUKUS, it creates new opportunities to exercise pressure. However this issue is beyond the scope of the present report.
A Controlled Crisis
Due to coalition constraints, the German leadership is not in full control of the situation in the country. Thanks to our precise actions, it has been possible to block the commissioning of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, despite the opposition of lobbyists from the steel and chemical industries. However, the dramatic deterioration of the living standards may encourage the leadership to reconsider its policy and return to the idea of European sovereignty and strategic autonomy.
The only feasible way to guarantee Germany’s rejection of Russian energy supplies is to involve both sides in the military conflict in Ukraine. Our further actions in this country will inevitably lead to a military response from Russia. Russians will obviously not be able to leave unanswered the massive Ukrainian army pressure on the unrecognized Donbas republics. That would make possible to declare Russia an aggressor and apply to it the entire package of sanctions prepared beforehand.
Putin may in turn decide to impose limited counter-sanctions – primarily on Russian energy supplies to Europe. Thus, the damage to the EU countries will be quite comparable to the one to the Russians, and in some countries – primarily in Germany – it will be higher.
The prerequisite for Germany to fall into this trap is the leading role of green parties and ideology in Europe. The German Greens are a strongly dogmatic, if not zealous, movement, which makes it quite easy to make them ignore economic arguments. In this respect, the German Greens somewhat exceed their counterparts in the rest of Europe. Personal features and the lack of professionalism of their leaders – primarily Annalena Baerbock and Robert Habeck – permit to presume that it is next to impossible for them to admit their own mistakes in a timely manner.
Thus, it will be enough to quickly form the media image of Putin’s aggressive war to turn the Greens into ardent and hardline supporters of sanctions, a ‘party of war’. It will enable the sanctions regime to be introduced without any obstacles. The lack of professionalism of the current leaders will not allow a setback in the future, even when the negative impact of the chosen policy becomes obvious enough. The partners in the German governing coalition will simply have to follow their allies – at least until the load of economic problems outweighs the fear of provoking a government crisis.
However, even when the SPD and the FDP are ready to go against the Greens, the possibility for the next government to return relations with Russia to normal soon enough will be noticeably limited. Germany’s involvement in large supplies of weapons and military equipment to the Ukrainian army will inevitably generate a strong mistrust in Russia, which will make the negotiation process quite lengthy.
If war crimes and Russian aggression against Ukraine are confirmed, the German political leadership will not be able to overcome its EU partners’ veto on assistance to Ukraine and reinforced sanctions packages. This will ensure a sufficiently long gap in cooperation between Germany and Russia, which will make large German economic operators uncompetitive.
A reduction in Russian energy supplies – ideally, a complete halt of such supplies – would lead to disastrous outcomes for German industry. The need to divert significant amounts of Russian gas for winter heating of residential and public facilities will further exacerbate the shortages. Lockdowns in industrial enterprises will cause shortages of components and spare parts for manufacturing, a breakdown of logistic chains, and, eventually, a domino effect. A complete standstill at the largest in the chemical, metallurgical, and machine-building, plants is likely, while they have virtually no spare capacity to reduce energy consumption. It could lead to the shutting down of continuous-cycle enterprises, which would mean their destruction.
The cumulative losses of the German economy can be estimated only approximately. Even if the restriction of Russian supplies is limited to 2022, its consequences will last for several years, and the total losses could reach 200-300 billion euros. Not only will it deliver a devastating blow to the German economy, but the entire EU economy will inevitably collapse. We are talking not about a decline in economy growth pace, but about a sustained recession and a decline in GDP only in material production by 3-4% per year for the next 5-6 years. Such a fall will inevitably cause panic in the financial markets and may bring them to a collapse.
The euro will inevitably, and most likely irreversibly, fall below the dollar. A sharp fall of euro will consequently cause its global sale. It will become a toxic currency, and all countries in the world will rapidly reduce its share in their forex reserves. This gap will be primarily filled with dollar and yuan.
Another inevitable consequence of a prolonged economic recession will be a sharp drop in living standards and rising unemployment (up to 200,000-400,000 in Germany alone), which will entail the exodus of skilled labour and well-educated young people. There are literally no other destinations for such migration other than the United States today. A somewhat smaller, but also quite significant flow of migrants can be expected from other EU countries.
The scenario under consideration will thus serve to strengthen the national financial condition both indirectly and most directly. In the short term, it will reverse the trend of the looming economic recession and, in addition, consolidate American society by distracting it from immediate economic concerns. This, in turn, will reduce electoral risks.
In the medium term (4-5 years), the cumulative benefits of capital flight, re-oriented logistical flows and reduced competition in major industries may amount to USD 7-9 trillion.
Unfortunately, China is also expected to benefit over the medium term from this emerging scenario. At the same time, Europe’s deep political dependence on the U.S. allows us to effectively neutralise possible attempts by individual European states to draw closer to China.
So, there it is. What do you think?
The team at Redacted.inc have a great report on this:
Certainly the occurrences in the world since February 24 of this year are a pretty close match to what is specified in this document, dated only a month earlier. The successful management of propaganda in the US and in the West overall has got governments in supposedly liberal democracies now treating Russians – actual regular Russian citizens in a manner that would have done old Adolf proud. With statements from new popular attractive party wannabe fascists like Finland’s prime minister Sanna Marin saying things like “Visiting Europe is a privilege, not a right” and “It is time to end tourism from Russia now” coming from Estonian PM Kaja Kallas.
Both women, incidentally. Feminists? Probably.
The US economy is definitely self-destructing, thanks to Imposter Biden and his puppeteers. It does seem that President Putin is outmaneuvering the PLAN, but he appears to have been caught up in it at least from early points. We have yet to see what Russia does after the recent “counteroffensive” by the Ukrainians in the area around Kharkov. The silence from Moscow on this speaks volumes, and while speculation about it goes in all directions (Just read Western papers!), it also says this: “We are not worried. We will decide the next moves and when we are ready to act, we will.”
This is a very confident stance, and Russia has gotten it right so many times in this conflict that it seems safe to assume this is the stance and not “oh, my God what do we do now!?”
Here in Moscow there is no sense of panic, and Moscow is far more liberal than many Russian cities, so there are more people here that would tend to look askance at the government than in other places. Some of them have spoken out, but very few, and there is no sense of “you better not say what you think” in place. (This points to the need to write about how one handles dissent in time of war – something the United States has long forgotten, but that is for another time.)
Something is coming, for sure. However, the premise shown by the “RAND letter” if true, is outrageous and stunning. It shows that the United States is the architect behind all of this, and that the whole war, perhaps even COVID, the economic gyrations – all of these are the machinations of some very powerful people who wish to preserve, consolidate and strengthen that power.
It makes even more sense in light of dozens of FBI raids on Trump supporters, which started to happen at an accelerated pace following the Imposter’s “Red Speech.”
It is time to put aside the Xanax, America. Put down the joints. Those lovely drugs are how you are kept under control.
Like pigs in a pigpen.
If you don’t like the simile, do something about it.
OF COURSE the Rand Corporation have denied it!
September 14, 2022
A supposedly leaked RAND report about a bizarre U.S. conspiracy to “weaken Germany” is fake.
Genuine RAND research, analysis, and commentary on the war in Ukraine may be found at this page.
Given the potential origins of this fake document, we encourage you to explore this resource on the “firehose of falsehood” approach to propaganda and RAND’s extensive research on “Truth Decay,” a phenomenon driven in part by the spread of disinformation.
The documents are stored on Yandex