Wolves Among the Sheep > Justin Welby prayed against Israel - now he's gone!

 

Welby prayed God would turn the world

against Israel and was judged for it

Nov 15, 2024 | Christians Against Anti-Semitism, News

Justin Welby has resigned as the Archbishop of Canterbury. Recently, Welby came out strongly against Israel, denying the Biblical rights of Jews to the land, and many are now asking whether this has brought God’s judgement upon him. It is a lesson that all Christian leaders should learn from.

Jesus told us that the world would hate us just as He was first hated by the world (John 15:18-19). And Paul teaches us that we are not to be conformed to this world (Romans 12:2) but be transformed by the renewing of our minds.

As leader of the Church of England his role should have been to challenge the world. To hold the government and authorities in Britain to account according to the teachings of the Bible. Welby was supposed to defend the faith, not transform Christianity to fit the politics of the day.

“You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men.” – Matthew 5:13

The Church cannot be salt and light if it is indistinguishable from the world. It has no value to God. Sadly, Justin Welby was conforming to the ways of the world and rejecting Biblical truth.

At CUFI, we are fully committed to the Godly cause of Israel. We speak of little else. Our supporters have raised several issues they had with other teachings of Justin Welby, but we are not going to cover those topics today. We are only looking at it from his stand on Israel. Ultimately, it seems it was his anti-Israel stance that brought him down.

In August, Archbishop Welby released a statement on the ‘Two-State Solution’ and called for Israel and Jewish removal from all of Judea and Samaria, including East Jerusalem.

These areas rightfully belong to Israel, including the Old City of Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, the Mount of Olives (where Jesus will return) and the Tomb of the Patriarchs to name a few. Welby wanted to remove the Jewish rights to these places and give them to Islamists.

CUFI wrote an article about it which went into seven reasons why the Archbishop’s stance was unbiblical and out of order. You can read that https://www.cufi.org.uk/news/seven-reasons-why-archbishop-welbys-statement-on-israel-is-unbiblical-and-out-of-order”>here.

Ultimately, God warns that Jerusalem will be a heavy stone for all who try to lift it. And that includes Christian leaders.

“And it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it.” – Zechariah 12:3-4

Welby’s statement in August made clear the Archbishop’s stance. He said, “Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is unlawful and needs to end as rapidly as possible.” And he wrote this based on biased statements from ungodly global bodies.

Welby forgot that the Bible is the final authority on Israel’s legality. God’s law is infallible. International law is not. The legal text for Israel’s status is written down in the pages of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all their descendants, are the rightful heirs of the land as decreed by God.

Not only did Welby replace God’s word with man’s, but he also encouraged the world to go against God.

“It is imperative that governments around the world reaffirm their unwavering commitment to all decisions by the International Court of Justice, irrespective of the situation,” wrote Welby.

Then Welby wrote his most egregious comment: “I pray that all UN member states respond positively to this Advisory Opinion.”

Not only was Welby urging the world to turn against Israel, Welby said he was praying, talking to God, that He might turn all the nations of the world against Israel.

Think about it for a moment. He was asking the God of Israel who made a promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to turn the world against Israel and the Jews.

How foolish!

God is clear that anyone who tries to remove Jerusalem will be cut into pieces. Likewise, anyone who touches Israel touches the apple of God’s eye (Zecheriah 2:8).

What could possibly lead an Archbishop to have the audacity to demand from God that He rescind His eternal promise, reject the people whom He foreknew, rewrite Scripture, and ask God to turn all nations against the thing God loves? It was far worse than just poking God in the eye, and it wasn’t God leading Welby to make such unbiblical statements.

Three times this year, before this story broke, I have called for Welby's resignation. Each time it appeared that Welby's decisions were not those of a godly man, but those of one who has departed from God. 

Is this possible? Martin Luthor once spoke against the Jews, although this may have come shortly after the death of his youngest and favourite daughter.

I know by experience that it is possible to depart from the Lord for a season. I believe Welby will find his way back into fellowship with the Lord, but he definitely needs to step down from his lofty position.

At CUFI, we seek to follow the Lord and obey His commands. We fully believe and accept that God knows what He is doing and compared to Him we know nothing. We do not have the audacity to think we know better than God. We fear the Lord.

Welby learned the hard way that compromising the truths of the Bible is a bad move. He had already lost a lot of respect from the Church for various ways in which he pandered to the world. Now, he’s lost the respect of the world too. And it was all because he tried to please the world rather than God. He lost his flavour, turned against Israel, conformed to the world, and it seems he was judged for it; losing his position and having his legacy cut to pieces.

We will of course be praying for Justin Welby and for his successor. The Church of England needs Godly leaders who will stand up for Biblical truth and be salt and light in this dark and evil world.

===============================================================================

Wolves Among the Sheep > Senior Pastor - a liar and a thief, sent to prison in Maryland

 

Pastor who obtained $3.5M in COVID relief funds, bought Tesla sentenced to prison

By Anugrah Kumar, Christian Post Contributor Sunday, September 01, 2024

Rudolph Brooks, a 48-year-old pastor from Cheltenham, Maryland, has been sentenced to 18 months in federal prison for fraudulently obtaining over $3.5 million in COVID-19 Paycheck Protection Program loans and using part of these funds to purchase a Tesla.

The sentencing also includes two years of supervised release and mandates the forfeiture of significant assets, including properties in Maryland.

And the Tesla?

Investigations revealed that from April 2020 to September 2021, Brooks, founder and senior pastor of the Kingdom Tabernacle of Restoration Ministries in Washington, D.C., exploited the PPP by submitting falsified documents to obtain loans for businesses under his control, including a car dealership and a ministry, Erek L. Barron, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, said in a statement.

Brooks’ fraudulent activities centered around his businesses, Cars Direct by Gavawn HWD Bob’s Motors, Kingdom Tabernacle of Restoration Ministries, and Madaro, LLC. He inflated employee numbers and payroll expenses on PPP loan applications, securing millions, which he then misused for personal expenses.

Satan is the father of lies, and liars, IMHO.

Notable purchases included a 2018 Tesla Model 3, a property in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, and lavish spending on groceries, retail items and restaurant meals.

The CARES Act, under which Brooks committed the fraud, was enacted in March 2020 to provide emergency financial assistance to Americans impacted by the economic downturn caused by COVID-19.

Brooks pleaded guilty to charges of wire fraud and money laundering, as per court records from the sentencing Tuesday. As a result, he was ordered by Judge Deborah L. Boardman to forfeit over $2 million, the Tesla vehicle and the real estate purchased with the fraudulently obtained funds.

The case against Brooks involved several federal agencies, including the FBI and the IRS.

Brooks was prosecuted by the District of Maryland Strike Force, one of three nationwide initiatives aimed at combatting pandemic-related fraud.

In an interview with The Impact’s Robin Dorsey on WBGR in 2018, Brooks said he knew he was called by God when he was about 4 or 5 years old. He further noted that he was raised in the church and his father was a minister.

His church’s website describes him as “a man after God’s own heart and has a passion for God’s people.”

“Pastor Brooks desires to see believers grow spiritually and desires to see the church function according to the word of the Lord. His intense love for the Lord, relentless spirit and ability to tap into the very heart of God make him a memorable speaker. With his love for God and lively preaching style, which can hold even the skeptics’ attention, Pastor Brooks speaks and shares the heart of God with compassion and conviction,” the church notes.

Did Brooks write this himself? Liars and thieves have no place in the pulpit of a real Christian church. Where was the gift of discernment in this church? Was no-one listening to God?

Wolves Among the Sheep > Hundreds of Christians murdered or suicided in Kenyan cult

 

Kenyan cult leader faces terrorism charges

for mass starvation deaths

Kenyan doomsday cult leader Paul Nthenge Mackenzie appeared in court in the Indian Ocean port city of Mombasa on Monday at the start of a high-profile trial over the starvation deaths of more than 400 of his followers. Mackenzie faces terrorism charges and is also accused of murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, and torturing children, along with 94 other defendants.

Issued on: 08/07/2024 - 12:38

2 min

By:NEWS WIRES

The leader of a Kenyan doomsday cult went on trial on Monday on charges of terrorism over the deaths of more than 400 of his followers in a macabre case that shocked the world.

Self-proclaimed pastor Paul Nthenge Mackenzie appeared in court in the Indian Ocean port city of Mombasa along with 94 co-defendants, an AFP journalist said.

Journalists were removed from the courtroom shortly after the start of the hearing to enable a protected witness to take the stand.

Mackenzie, who was arrested in April last year, is alleged to have incited his acolytes to starve to death in order to "meet Jesus".

He and his co-accused all pleaded not guilty to the charges of terrorism at a hearing in January.

They also face charges of murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, and child torture and cruelty in separate cases.

The remains of more than 440 people have been unearthed so far in a remote wilderness inland from the Indian Ocean coastal town of Malindi, in a case that has been dubbed the "Shakahola forest massacre".

Autopsies have found that while starvation appeared to be the main cause of death, some of the victims -- including children -- were strangled, beaten, or suffocated.

Previous court documents also said that some of the bodies had had their organs removed.

Police accused of laxity

Mackenzie, a former taxi driver, turned himself in on April 14 after police acting on a tip-off first entered Shakahola forest, where mass graves have been found.

In March, the authorities began releasing some victims' bodies to distraught relatives after months of painstaking work to identify them using DNA.

Questions have been raised about how Mackenzie, a self-styled pastor with a history of extremism, managed to evade law enforcement despite his prominent profile and previous legal cases.

Interior Minister Kithure Kindiki last year accused Kenyan police of laxity in investigating the initial reports of starvation.

"The Shakahola massacre is the worst breach of security in the history of our country," he told a senate committee hearing, vowing to "relentlessly push for legal reforms to tame rogue preachers".

The state-backed Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) in March criticised security officers in Malindi for "gross abdication of duty and negligence".

The horrific saga has seen President William Ruto vow to intervene in Kenya's homegrown religious movements.

In largely Christian Kenya, it has also thrown a spotlight on failed efforts to regulate unscrupulous churches and cults that have dabbled in criminality.

(AFP)

Wolves Among the Sheep > Is Duplantis inviting Satan to test him like he tested Job?

 

Televangelist Jesse Duplantis calls poverty a ‘curse,’

says his wealth is because he’s ‘blessed’

By Leonardo Blair, Senior Reporter Monday, April 29, 2024

Televangelist and prosperity gospel preacher Jesse Duplantis, who has an estimated net worth of around $20 million, has called poverty a "curse" and says his wealth — which includes a private jet and a 40,000-square-foot mansion in Louisiana — comes from being "blessed" by God. 

He may be right. God blessed Job with riches twice, but, in between, Job suffered greatly. Has Duplantis been tested by Satan like Job. Has he received his reward in full like the hippocrites? Asking for a friend.

In New Testament days our riches should be counted in spiritual blessings not financial blessings. Is he teaching his followers how to draw close to God, or how to use Him like a genie to get rich? God never appeals to the flesh. 

"Let me give you a prime example why I don't care what people think about me, about what I have. Now look at me. Look at me. I am a very blessed man," Duplantis said in an online "Boardroom Chat" session with his wife, Cathy, earlier this month.

"Me and Cathy are very blessed. I'm spiritually, physically, and financially [blessed]. I've had more people criticize me over that jet. They still can't get over it. Criticize me over my house. They didn't pay for it. I paid for it. Do you understand what I say?" he asked.

In 2018, Duplantis faced widespread criticism for trying to raise money from his followers to purchase a $54 million jet.

In the "Boardroom Chat" session, Duplantis argued that most people's troubles stem from disobedience and claimed "Christian propaganda" makes people think "poverty is a blessing." 

"Most people's troubles come because people disobey. That is just simply the truth. Wars, rumors of wars, people always mad about somebody," he said. "It's usually someone who has enough power to change 'people's thinking,' I call it. Especially in the Church, I call it Christian propaganda."

The televangelist highlighted what he sees as propaganda in the Church.

"You know that 'poverty is a blessing?' That's a lie. Poverty is a curse. It's not in Heaven, none whatsoever," he said, quoting common phrases some Christians use to challenge the prosperity gospel. "'Jesus was poor.' When was He poor? Did you ever hear Him say, 'I can't eat today [because] I don't have anything?'"

Duplantis further suggested that people frustrated about not being blessed when they give financially to a ministry are emotionally manipulated into giving instead of giving out of obedience to Scripture.

"If you move on people emotionally to give, and you do that a lot of times with poverty … why don't you move on people to simply obey God's glorious word that He will do what He says," Duplantis argued. "A lot of people raising money on people's emotions, so they don't get blessed."

Duplantis attempted to use Psalm 49:16 to suggest that the Bible tells believers not to worry about how much another person has. The scripture he read and the verses that follow appear to warn against being enamored by financial wealth.

"Do not be overawed when others grow rich, when the splendor of their houses increases; for they will take nothing with them when they die, their splendor will not descend with them," the Scripture states. "Though while they live, they count themselves blessed — and people praise you when you prosper — they will join those who have gone before them, who will never again see the light of life. People who have wealth but lack understanding are like the beasts that perish."

Duplantis shared his thoughts on Christians turning the other cheek, according to Matthew 5:38-48. He argued that Christians should not interpret this as the scripture asking Christians to be pacifists because he does not subscribe to that view.

"I'm just going to be honest with you. … I've been spit on, slapped and everything when I've been preaching. But I'm not going to let somebody just come up to me and slap me if I'm not preaching and somebody just wants to slap me," he said.

"You better believe in healing because something's coming down. … Don't let this small stature fool you. I get me a baseball bat if I got to. You know what I'm saying? I don't mean that pridefully but … I know what I can do with a baseball bat."

According to Got Questions Ministries: "Turning the other cheek does not imply pacifism, nor does it mean we place ourselves or others in danger."

"Jesus' command to turn the other cheek is simply a command to forgo retaliation for personal offenses. He was not setting government foreign policy, and He was not throwing out the judicial system," the ministry notes. "Crimes can still be prosecuted, and wars can still be waged, but the follower of Christ need not defend his personal 'rights' or avenge his honor."

=======================================================================

European Politics > Energy Crisis; German Weapons Trade Policy Under Review; NATO Grooming Finland and Sweden; Gorbachev Blames America; American Lies About NATO

..

Europe faces full-blown energy crisis

Amid a shortage of natural gas, lowered wind power output, outages at nuclear energy facilities and cold weather with winter just starting, power prices in Europe soared this week – and the worst may yet to come.

European prices for natural gas exceeded $2,150 per 1,000 cubic meters on Tuesday for the first time in history, according to Intercontinental Exchange’s London clearing house. The price at the Dutch TTF hub in the Netherlands, the benchmark gas price for Europe, soared some 27% in one day to nearly $210 per megawatt-hour in household terms.

The surge slightly subsided when markets opened on Wednesday, with January futures trading at around $1,970 per 1,000 cubic meters as of 08:00 GMT.

Tuesday’s jump in prices came about after gas deliveries to Germany via the Yamal-Europe gas pipeline from Russia were halted. Flows were diverted eastward to Poland, and Russia’s Gazprom hasn’t booked additional pumping volumes for Wednesday, data from the Russian gas transmission operator Gascade shows.

Some critics say Gazprom has been reducing gas flows to Europe amid the delay in the certification of its new European pipeline, Nord Stream 2. However, it has repeatedly stressed that it supplies gas to Europe according to consumer demand and in accordance with existing contracts.

Meanwhile, no new gas flows to Europe mean utilities are forced to drain their gas storages, which are already at seasonal lows. Some of them, including
France’s EDF, have had to restart fossil-fuel-burning generators to avoid grid disruption. France is usually considered an exporter of power on the European continent, but it has been short on energy since its major power utility, Electricité de France SA, halted four nuclear reactors, constituting 10% of the country’s nuclear capacity, straining power grids. According to ZeroHedge, 30% of its nuclear capacity will go offline in the coming weeks, while Germany is also set to lose nearly half of its own capacity next year.

To add fuel to the proverbial fire, Germany’s power output from wind turbines has dropped to five-week lows amid the cold weather. This put the power grid under strain, hiking power prices by 30% to a record $487 per megawatt-hour.

It appears the energy crisis in Europe is only gaining speed, with experts warning that the worst is yet to come in late January-early February, when the temperature tends to be at its lowest. Meanwhile, renewable sources such as solar and wind power will be at a standstill due to meteorological conditions, with windless days and the sun unable to push through the clouds.

Germany’s new foreign minister questions chancellor’s

past decisions on weapons trade

Shortly after assuming the post, Germany’s foreign minister has called into question

Berlin’s arms sales outside the EU and NATO, calling for a rethink of military contracts.

Heckler & Koch weapons are pictured at a show room at the headquarters in Oberndorf,

80 kilometers southwest of Stuttgart, Germany. © REUTERS / Ralph Orlowski

Annalena Baerbock told Germany’s dpa news agency that the traffic light coalition, which is currently at the helm, has “made it clear that it will reexamine the arms export policies of recent years.” She added that the new government was “working on an arms export law that would clarify the criteria according to which arms exports are approved.” Germany’s top diplomat stressed that the sale of weapons was not merely a question of economy and profit, but rather one of “foreign policy, human rights and international relations.”

Obviously, Deep State hasn't gotten around to this girl yet. It won't be long!

Foreign Minister Baerbock also told the German media that she would like to see a joint arms export control mechanism on a European level, admitting, though, that such an initiative was bound to be met with opposition from the likes of France.

France being a major weapons exporter!

It has transpired that during the last nine days of its rule, Angela Merkel’s outgoing government approved arms sales to the tune of nearly five billion dollars, bringing the total amount of arms export licenses to a record nine billion euros.

It is worth mentioning that the Social Democrats, who are part of the current ruling coalition, were also in the previous government that gave the controversial defense deals the green light. Olaf Scholz, Germany’s incumbent chancellor, was none other than vice-chancellor at the time. Baerbock, in turn, is the leader of Germany’s green party and is known for promises to deliver a “moral” foreign policy.

The number one recipient nation was Egypt, whose government has been criticized by some over alleged human rights violations and involvement in conflicts in Yemen and Libya. That notwithstanding, Berlin went ahead with the sale of three navy vessels and 16 air defense systems.

The Greens and the Left party have long been demanding a thorough review of Germany’s defense contracts, while the conservatives dismissed those criticisms as “crocodile tears” and insisted that all the existing contracts were in line with German law. Roderich Kiesewetter from the CDU party told the German media earlier that it was “in Germany’s best interest when countries in the Middle East continue to buy EU-made weapons.” He also warned the new government that if “these nations go on to procure weapons in China or Russia,” then Germany “will no longer have any political influence in the region.”

Does Germany have any real political influence if middle-eastern countries can easily switch to buying from Russia or China?

Finland & Sweden in NATO would trigger response – Russia

The possible inclusion of Sweden and Finland in NATO will have “serious” 

military and political consequences that won’t be left unanswered by Moscow, 

Russia’s Foreign Ministry has warned.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg meets with Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven in Stockholm.

© Reuters / Claudio Bresciani

The persistent attempts by NATO to “draw those countries into the orbit of its interests and opportunistic policies” haven’t gone unnoticed by Russia, Maria Zakharova, the ministry’s spokeswoman, said.

“It’s quite obvious that Finland and Sweden joining NATO … would have serious military and political consequences that would require an adequate response from the Russian side,” she pointed out.

The policy of not being part of any alliances, traditionally pursued by Stockholm and Helsinki, is viewed by Moscow as “an important factor in ensuring stability in northern Europe,” Zakharova added.

NATO has been expressing its satisfaction over what it called deepening cooperation with Finland and Sweden, which “share” the block’s values and contribute to its operations.

At a summit in June, the US-led military alliance vowed to further bolster those ties “in support of our common security, including by crisis management preparation, exercises, and exchanging information and analysis.”

The same statements were repeated during the visit of NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg to Stockholm and Helsinki in late October.

Earlier this month, Moscow issued two documents – one addressed to NATO and the other to Washington – demanding guarantees that would assure security for all sides. The proposals included limiting NATO’s buildup near the Russian borders and ruling out the enlargement of the bloc.

Speaking about Moscow’s proposals, Zakharova reiterated that “ruling out the expansion of NATO and the deployment of weapon systems that threaten our security near the Russian borders are going to be the main, key issues at the upcoming talks with the US and NATO.”

Everyone who hasn’t yet grasped the essence of the Russian stance must clearly understand this.

Swedish authorities previously decried the Kremlin’s initiative, saying that “rejecting any future expansion of NATO will reduce the opportunities to make independent political choices.” The Finnish government also insisted that it needed to have “national room to maneuver,” including applying for NATO membership.

This sounds like Deep State influence at work.

Gorbachev hits out at American 'arrogance'

The fall of the USSR inspired the US to turn NATO into its own empire,

former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev has said.

Mikhail Gorbachev © Sputnik / Evgeny Odinokov

After the Americans declared victory in the Cold War, they became overly self-confident and have now decided to build a brand new empire through the guise of NATO, former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev said on Friday.

Speaking to RIA Novosti, Gorbachev accused Washington of becoming too big-headed after the fall of the USSR in 1991, suggesting that Washington got carried away with the “triumphalist sentiment in the West.”

“[The US] became too arrogant, self-confident, and big-headed,” he said. “They declared victory in the Cold War. We were pulling the world together out of a confrontation, out of a nuclear race. But, instead, the ‘winners’ decided to build a new empire.”

According to Gorbachev, America’s imperial ambitions are the reason Washington has supported the idea of expanding NATO eastward since 1991. As well as taking aim at the White House, Gorbachev also condemned the Russian leadership for abandoning other attempts to create collective security in Europe.

However, the former leader welcomed upcoming security talks between Moscow and Washington, and expressed confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin and his American counterpart Joe Biden can come to an agreement.

“I support it. I hope there will be a result. One that will make all European countries feel safe,” he said.

Last week, Moscow published two draft documents with a list of security guarantees it wants to obtain from the US and NATO. The proposed treaties include restrictions on NATO expansion, as well as the stationing of troops, military equipment, and weapons in the vicinity of the Russian border.

The first round of negotiations on the documents is expected to begin in January.

Gorbachev led the USSR from 1985 until its collapse in 1991 and is seen as one of the most important figures of 20th century history. However, while he enjoys a positive reputation outside of the country, he is viewed differently inside Russia. Many people blame him for the post-Soviet economic crisis that led to a dramatic decline in living standards, as well as a diminution of Moscow’s status on the world stage.

Earlier this month, a study conducted by the state-owned Russian Public Opinion Research Center (WCIOM) revealed that Gorbachev is Russia’s most-hated man from the Soviet era.

Even more than Joe Stalin? My, what short memories Russians have.

Declassified documents show how US lied to Russia about NATO in 1990s

Promises that the bloc wouldn’t expand appear to have been ignored in

Washington’s quest for influence in Europe.

FILE PHOTO: Russian President Boris Yeltsin (L) and US President Bill Clinton shake hands before leaving a final news conference in the Kremlin in this September 2, 1998. © REUTERS

In April 2014, President Vladimir Putin addressed Russia's Federal Assembly in the wake of Moscow’s reabsorption of Crimea. Over the course of his speech, he laid the blame for an increase in tensions on the West, which he insisted had “lied to us many times, made decisions behind our backs, placed us before an accomplished fact.” At the heart of this apparent duplicity was NATO’s expansion to the East, “as well as deployment of military infrastructure at our borders,” contrary, he said, to its promises.

Ever since, disproving the idea that Western leaders had assured Moscow the bloc wouldn’t encroach on its borders has become an obsession for think tanks and lobby groups. For example, UK policy institute Chatham House brands the suggestion that any pledge was made not to enlarge the controversial military bloc one of the key “myths and misconceptions in the debate on Russia,” while NATO’s own website likewise claims it is wholly manufactured.

Significant evidence to the contrary has long-been easily accessible, but now the National Security Archive has published a tranche of never-before-seen, highly revealing documents detailing how then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin was consistently manipulated by his US counterpart Bill Clinton on the question during the mid-1990s, while bold, false promises of a “strategic partnership” of the countries faded into nothingness.

Take for instance the transcript of a cordial July 5 1994 telephone conversation between the pair, at which time the US president was preparing to depart for Poland – which had been pushing for rapid absorption by NATO – and the Baltic states, before meeting with Yeltsin at the G7 summit in Italy.

Yeltsin urged Clinton to raise the plight of Russophones in Estonia and Latvia, because “a public statement from you that the US will not support any infringement on the rights of the Russian-speaking people” would mean these countries “will act differently.” He noted Lithuania’s quick granting of citizenship to its Russian minority had prompted Moscow to withdraw its troops from Vilnius, and the same could happen by August in Tallinn and Riga if assurances were made. Yeltsin also wished to discuss NATO expansion.

In response, Clinton swore he’d “raise the issue of the Russian minorities,” and reassured Yeltsin that while NATO might “eventually expand,” he’d set out “no timetable and no requirements.” Instead, he indicated that he’d “like us to concentrate” on Partnership for Peace, a US-led initiative seeking to “achieve a united Europe where people respect each other's borders and work together.” Yeltsin could be entirely forgiven for thinking the Partnership was Washington’s primary focus, and the military alliance an afterthought, by the conclusion of the chat.

The Russian president’s optimism about “a mutually beneficial partnership with the US on the basis of equality” is writ large in a letter he sent to Clinton in November that year. He speaks of this prospective coalition as “the central factor in world politics,” pledges to cooperate constructively with the US on issues related to Bosnia, Iraq, North Korea, and Ukraine, and eagerly awaits their meeting at the December 5 Conference on Security and Cooperation in Budapest, where “we have much to talk about … first of all, transforming European stability.”

As it was, the Hungary summit was a disaster, with Clinton’s speech at the event focusing on NATO as “the bedrock of security in Europe,” and declaring “no country outside will be allowed to veto expansion” – a clear reference to Russia. In response, Yeltsin fulminated, “it is a dangerous delusion to suppose the destinies of continents and the world … can somehow be managed from one single capital,” and adding that “[moving] the responsibilities of NATO up to Russia's borders” would be a grave error.

An internal US diplomatic cable from the next day shows lessons were quickly learned from this episode. Namely, the urgent need to keep quiet publicly about US plans for extending the military alliance, while offering bogus private assurances to Moscow any enlargement would only occur after consultation between the two countries, and that Russia was still in the running for bloc membership.

Fast-forward to May 1995, Clinton visits Moscow to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Allied victory in World War II, and these lies are enthusiastically maintained in a one-on-one meeting with Yeltsin. The pair’s rapport is clearly chummy, referring to each other as friends, although serious matters are very much on the table too.

“How do you think it looks to us if one bloc continues to exist while the Warsaw Pact has been abolished? It's a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands,” the Russian president pleaded. “Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner? We need a new structure for Pan-European security, not old ones! Perhaps the solution is to postpone NATO expansion until the year 2000 so that later we can come up with some new ideas.”

Ever suave and calculating, Clinton sought to allay his fears, somewhat amazingly suggesting Moscow should view his approach to NATO “in the context of greater integration of Russia into other international institutions,” dangling the prospect of various sweeteners, including membership of the G7, if Yeltsin quietened his anti-NATO rhetoric, and kept his opinions on the bloc’s expansion to himself. Clinton knew well that such compliance was easily bought – as his Russian “friend” himself acknowledged, his position heading into the 1996 presidential runoff was “not exactly brilliant.”

Indeed, his polling stood in the single digits, and Communist candidate Gennady Zyuganov was widely forecast to win via landslide. Yeltsin spoke of needing “positive reports” in the press, and to “head off even the smallest wrong moves,” proposing any discussion of NATO enlargement be kept theoretical until the year 2000, and urging the White House resident not to do anything to “rile the situation up before the elections.”

“I’ve made it clear I’ll do nothing to accelerate NATO [expansion]. I’m trying to give you now, in this conversation, the reassurance you need. But we need to be careful that neither of us appears to capitulate,” Clinton slickly pledged. “For you, that means you’re not going to embrace expansion. For me, it means no talk about slowing the process down or putting it on hold or anything like that.”

So it was that Yeltsin agreed to maintain an omerta on the military bloc, and enlist in the Partnership for Peace. Despite plans for NATO expansion already being well-laid by that point, and very much in motion, the Kremlin remained silent about developments – the president’s acquiescence was further ensured by extensive covert and overt US assistance in his election campaign, which was fundamental to transforming an initial 6% standing in the polls to an extremely comfortable victory.

Less than three years later, NATO’s engulfing of the former Soviet sphere finally began, with the incorporation of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. This push was opposed stateside by, among others, George Kennan – formerly a committed ‘cold warrior’, and key figure in the creation of the alliance.

“I think it is the beginning of a new Cold War … The Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else,” he said in May 1998, after the US Senate ratified enlargement. “Of course, there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are – but this is just wrong.”

With tensions between Kiev and Moscow at an all-time high, with the question of Ukraine’s NATO membership at the heart of the dangerous dispute, Kennan’s words give every appearance today of a prophet’s warning coming terrifyingly true.

By Kit Klarenberg, an investigative journalist exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions. Follow him on Twitter @KitKlarenberg

========================================================================================