Muslim Brotherhood, an FTO

Mohammed Morsi was removed from office in Egypt by the Egyptian military due to his tyrannical and deadly regime which is the doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood, of which he is a charter member. Only recently, Saudi Arabia has in addition to Egypt declared the Muslim Brotherhood to be a foreign terror organization. In addition to the Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi also declared Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic State of Iraq and al Nusra as has Bahrain and the UAE. It must be noted that Turkey and Qatar have refused to follow suit.

A turn must be made now to see just what Britain is doing regarding the Muslim Brotherhood. The UK has seen over the many years a major spike of Islamic movement and the troubles are mounting especially in England. Fighters have been trained and sent from the UK to Iraq and Syria and then often return to Britain trained in Islamic jihad and it is playing out in the streets of London as we saw with the murder of Lee Rigby. Prime Minister Cameron, of Britain has officially ordered an investigation into the Muslim Brotherhood and it is long overdue. The question remains, how honest and revealing will be the results of this investigation and to what potential and additional radical fallout?

Okay, so we have a handful of countries that are finally taking a proactive posture to address Islamists and the Muslim Brotherhood, but what about Barack Obama and the United States?  Well, CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood is firmly planted in federal government and within our education institutions as well as the FBI and law enforcement.

Muslim Brotherhood America


Let’s go deeper. CAIR is trying hard to stop a documentary showing in various locations around America titled Honor Diaries. See for more information. But, while al Jazeera, funded by the Muslim Brotherhood is now broadcasting in America, there are even a handful of members of Congress that are in full cadence with the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR. CAIR is working diligently to stop this documentary from airing anywhere in America and with some success.

But how stupid can people really be to ignore the results of the Holyland Foundation Trial, how they ignore Anwar al Walaki who was a supporter of al Qaeda that went through the ranks of several mosques in America most of all Dar al Hijrah in Virginia. Sadly we have a Virginia legislator, Alfonso Lopez, a democratic candidate for Congress that is angered by any vocal opposing views of Dar al Hijrah such that he is on the offensive. Read more here.

There is much behind the actions, the publications and the contents of the prayers at Dar al Hijrah and many other like mosques located in Atlanta, New York, New Jersey, Tennessee, Dallas and on the West Coast.

But given the political correctness of the Obama administration and that of the State Department, which was in fact born from previous administrations but taken to new levels since 2008, it seems America will not assume the same objectives of Saudi, UAE, Bahrain or even Great Britain. Maybe a petition is in order posted on the White House website is in order to declare CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood to be a foreign terror organization.

Now, while there is a global reach of al Jazeera, it seems Hamas is getting bolder as they are launching too a satellite television station. Hamas is joining the ranks of social media tool users to convey messages serving the Palestinian causes.

Remember it is the Palestinians that are historically bent on removing all Jews from Israel to reclaim the land and they have been attacking Israel in various forms for many years. Currently, the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has been working both sides of Israel and the Palestinians to come to a peace agreement, where it was announced this week that after more than a year of talks, once again, all parties left the negotiating table last week.

Oh, one more thing, the Russian KGB established the PLO, the Palestinian Liberation Organization in 1964. More than 400 Palestinian representatives were hand chosen by the KGB. More background can be found here.

In summary, come on America, first learn all of the history and facts and then begin to expose and fight back. Sharia law cannot co-exist with our Constitution.

Operation Fearless or Operation Feckless

Well who is B. Todd Jones anyway and why does he matter? Well he is now the Director of Alcohol. Tobacco and Firearms and he replaced Kenneth Melson after the ATF gun-walking scandal. Jones is a PC progressive lawyer and has not taken any measures to understand how rogue the ATF has become. There was Operation White Pistol, Operation Fast and Furious and then there was Operation Fearless which operated in several states.

Once again today, hearing rooms in Congress were busy today, one filled with B. Todd Jones and the House Oversight Committee drilling Jones on this operation.

This case included armed felons, mentally challenged people, stolen goods and school safe zone violations. At least the aggressive questions were bipartisan.




Read on and try to keep your jaw from dropping.

Congressional members slam ATF director in hearing on gun stings

Washington, D.C. — In his first appearance before Congress as ATF  director, B. Todd Jones faced blistering bipartisan questioning Wednesday about  mistakes and failures in undercover storefront operations in Milwaukee and  across the nation.

Republicans and Democrats alike ticked off myriad problems in the operations:  letting armed felons leave the storefronts, locating operations near schools and  other safe zones; an agent having his guns stolen; paying such high prices for  guns that firearms came straight from stores; and buying stolen goods, including  police officers’ guns.

Members of the Committee on House Oversight and Government Reform hammered  Jones the hardest on the agency’s  use of people with mental disabilities to promote the operations and then  arresting them, something that occurred in Milwaukee; Wichita, Kan.;  Portland, Ore.; Pensacola, Fla.; and Albuquerque, N.M.

Those problems were all revealed in a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel investigation that began with an  examination of a troubled storefront sting in Milwaukee’s Riverwest  neighborhood. The ongoing reporting has prompted an internal ATF review, an  investigation  by the U.S. Justice Department’s inspector general and on Wednesday the  second of two congressional hearings.

Jones told the committee that the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms  and Explosives does not “target people with developmental disabilities,” adding  that agents didn’t know the people had mental disabilities.

Congressional members were skeptical.

“You don’t think that your agents, dealing with a man with an IQ in the 50s,  knew he was mentally disabled?” asked U.S. Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.).

U.S. Rep. Kerry Bentivolio (R-Mich.), a former teacher who taught children  with disabilities, said people with low IQs are easy to spot.

“Anyone with any life experience can ask simple questions,” he said. “I was  surrounded by these kids. They are some of the best, nicest people who try their  best and just want to please. I am appalled you would use these individuals like  this and arrest them later.”

Said Jones: “Hindsight is 20/20.”

At the hearing, Jones acknowledged it was a mistake for ATF agents to pay two  teens in Oregon — one with an intellectual disability — to get tattoos depicting  Squids smoking joints.

Jones said several times that the mental capacity of the low IQ individuals  did not surface until raised by defense attorneys in court, saying they were  part of the argument for lighter sentences. However, in several cases  evaluations were done and IQ tests administered, according to court records. And  federal prosecutors agreed that the individuals had diminished capacity.

The director also said his agency has not implemented training for agents on  how to identify such people, more than a year after a Journal Sentinel  investigation revealed a Milwaukee  man with an IQ of 54 was hired by ATF to promote the store and then was  charged. He was paid in cigarettes, merchandise and cash.

U.S. Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-New Mexico) said such training has been  used by other law enforcement agencies for a decade.

“I am flabbergasted they are not available to you, that you are not utilizing  them,” she said.

Director admits flaws

In nearly three hours of testimony, Jones admitted deep problems in  the stings, especially Milwaukee’s Operation Fearless, but added the storefront  technique, if done properly, has value.

He said new procedures — drafted in the wake of Operation Fearless — will  prevent such problems from recurring. The agency has refused to release any  documents related to any new policies or to describe all the reforms that were  put in place.

Jones added no such storefront operations are underway.

“We have hit the pause button on storefronts so we can get them right. Now,  if we can’t do them right, we won’t do them,” Jones said. “Unless there is an  intelligence purpose for it — other than to generate numbers — we aren’t doing  them.”

Echoing ATF news conferences to tout numbers when various storefront  operations closed, Jones then ticked off the number of guns seized and people  arrested in the half-dozen flawed operations.

Committee Chairman U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said such numbers fail  to distinguish if the guns were purchased by ATF agents shortly after they were  bought at stores, and they don’t detail the kinds of individuals arrested.

“This was about pumping up the number of weapons and the number of arrests,”  Issa said after the hearing.

Issa and other members of Congress has been demanding documents for more than  a year on the Milwaukee sting. Last month, Issa  issued a subpoena for those and from stings in other cities. The deadline  was Monday, but Issa said the documents have not been received.

In the hearing, Jones said he was not briefed on Operation Fearless — though  the agency has said the case was briefed at headquarters several times.

“It did not migrate up the food chain,” Jones said.

Stories prompted changes

The Milwaukee operation was included in the Monitored Case Program, one of  the reforms made following the ATF’s highly criticized “Operation Fast and  Furious,” where agents allowed thousands of guns to flow into Mexico, with some  ending up at murder scenes, including that of a slain U.S. border guard.

Jones said changes have been made to the Monitored Case Program as a result  of the Milwaukee operation.

Jones did not reveal whether anyone has been disciplined as a result of  Operation Fearless or any of the other flawed operations.

U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) questioned why Jones put  two key supervisors responsible for Operation Fearless — Bernard “B.J.” Zapor  and Fred Milanowski — in top positions in the Phoenix Field Division.

“Here we have the Phoenix office, probably the highest profile on the heels  of Fast and Furious, and yet this same person was in charge of an office that  executed Operation Fearless,” Chaffetz said. “Where is the accountability?”

Jones defended the decision.

“The movements were made for very good reasons based on their record of  performance. That is not to excuse the mistakes made in Operation Fearless,”  Jones said.

Jones was pressed on how much the storefront operations cost. He did not  provide numbers on Wednesday, frustrating several members asking him about  it.

“What we need to find out is how much was spent on these 37 storefronts,”  said U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) “We need better accountability.”

Speier also asked if the storefront operations generated crime and if agents  were overpaying for guns.

Jones said prices paid for guns were in line with the black market prices.  The Journal Sentinel investigation found agents knowingly bought guns that were  coming straight from stores, including one in Milwaukee where agents paid $2,000  for a rifle purchased from Gander Mountain for $700 the same day. Records show  agents immediately traced the gun as coming from the store.

Jones said generating crime is always a concern with such storefront  operations, adding agents count on local law enforcement to tell them if it is  happening. In Pensacola, the Journal Sentinel found, agents were openly buying  stolen goods, leading to increased burglaries in the area.

In Atlanta, agents bought guns that were stolen from Atlanta police  officers,and never told the local police department about other stolen  guns they had bought, resulting in local police searching for weapons that the  ATF already had, the Journal Sentinel found.

Under questioning by U.S. Rep. Doug Collins, (R-Ga.), Jones could not say if  the stolen police guns were ever returned.

“Did you look over this case before you came here today?” Collins asked. “Are  you aware that the Atlanta Police Department expended considerable resources,  interviewing witnesses in an attempt to recover the weapons because the ATF  agents did not report the guns as recovered? Why didn’t the ATF return the guns  to the Atlanta Police Department?”

Jones did not have an answer. He also didn’t know if his agency had a policy  to notify other law enforcement agencies if agents buy a stolen police gun.

“I may be stepping out of bounds to say for certain we do, but I would be  surprised if we did not have a policy,” Jones said.

As the hearing wrapped up, committee members wanted additional answers and  requested another hearing with Jones. No date was disclosed.

“We just can’t let this happen again,” said U.S. Rep. Blake Farenthold  (R-Texas) of the many problems.


MY analysts are better than your lying eyes

Alright, I am an analyst, but damned happy I don’t work for Mike Morrell, who was the ‘acting’ director at the CIA at the time of the Benghazi murders. I have worked this event since the moment it happened and have published my reports in various locations on the web.  But today (April 2, 2014), Mike Morrell appeared before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence chaired by Mike Rogers.

Okay, so here goes what was said by Morrell in sworn testimony along with a few, snotty but hard comments by me. This covers Morrell’s opening statement and his responses to questions.

Mike Morrell



In Morrell’s opening statement, I came away with a few questions.

1. The White House used Morrell’s talking points, which were in fact wrong and he knew it, as he and a handful of others changed the talking points several times, so why did Morrell and others allow the lies?

2. Morrell and the rest took out all references to a terror attack and to any al Qaeda involvement, so they all obscured the threat and the risks to the CIA and all Americans stationed abroad, why?

3. Susan Rice, you know on those 5 Sunday talk shows said. ‘the best information at the time’, well yeah sure since all the truth was stripped out by Morrell, ‘his’ analysts and then those pesky types in the inter-agency.

4. Did ‘his’ analysts bother to include the information of the 200+ prior attacks in Libya, any interviews with the February 17th Brigade, Blue Mountain, any of the Brits that were there or any of the 30+ CIA’ers at the annex at the time? Nah, nor did Hillary’s assigned clan that authored the Accountability Review Board summary. Oh, one more thing, how about the live video stream that was fed back to DC? Was that included by ‘his’ analysts? Nah, again.

5. No one has been brought to justice for these murders, why? Well many answers, least o which JC Martin Dempsey said he was never given authorization. Well, was authorization given to anyone? Admiral McRaven at JSOC? General Ham? General Austin? General Odierno? Anyone?

6. How come no one on the panel of the ARB included ANY testimony of the Red Cross, the Brits much less those at the CIA annex that fateful night who filed OIG complaints?

7. Mike Morrell included in his opening statement that he submitted a 23 page document for the record and requesting it also be published on the web for public view. This is where it gets jiggy, as there is a classified version and an un-classified version, where he makes the distinction that the difference is only that all reference to al Qaeda has been stripped as it would reveal sources and methods….ah what? Just how exactly? Then what Susan Rice had and for public consumption was the un-classified version….sigh.

8. Also in Morrell’s opening statement he offered that he handled the analysis and the talking points with total objectivity and the matter of policy and politics was ‘never’ included in his assessment….yeah okay, sure dude. He also offered the notion that he worked to alter the talking points and he did not deliberately downplay the events, he admits mistakes and could have tendered better performance. Really?

9. There were three key points he wanted to ensure got on the record today. 1. His CIA analysts are the most talented in the agency and they concluded this event was due to protests with good reason, there was no outside input or any coordinated collaboration across the intelligence community. (sheesh) 2. His senior analysts wrote the first draft of the un-classified talking points and many changes were made by the CIA and other agencies but NOT the White House and the protests were consistent with the intelligence. (ah jeez, that is kinda opposed to #1 eh?) 3. Morrell also worked to get the analysis right and he did in fact have the CIA Chief of Station’s emails (2) but they did not matter to his final analysis. Let us remember here that the Chief of Station had an estimated 30+ assigned at the annex at the time. (head-desk).

10. Oh, Mike Morrell also mentioned that he did not know that the mission post relied on and looked to the CIA annex for additional security given the fact that all previous requests for additional security was rejected. Okay, so one must assume then that Morrell’s Station Chief did not have a good relation at all with CIA headquarters or for sure with anyone at the State Department either.

11. On 9-11, when AQ attacked three locations in the United States, Morrell was in fact with GW Bush in Sarasota at the moment the first attack occurred. Morrell was asked for his thoughts on who did this and Morrell immediately told President Bush it was bin Ladin. So, Morrell clearly understands the threats and gets reports on the threat chatters, but he could not bring himself to pony up the real deal on the matter in Benghazi. (shaking my head again).

12. Oh, ‘his’ analysts also use press reports for their assessments, which Morrell admitted today. Really the press? Whose in the press? No slight meant to on the ground journalists who often do stellar work, but by the time many of their items are filed and published, heh the core of the story is edited for political correctness…. (moving on).

13. The Chief of Station, Benghazi sent two emails (one on the 15th and his last one on the 16th) with facts and judgments to Morrell but ‘his’ analysts thousands of miles away trumped and Morrell admitted too that he was the one who sorted out the press reports, clues and intelligence. (raised eyebrow now).

14. Morrell said he did NOT take out the reference to al Qaeda from the talking points, his summary went to the NSC and the WH on Friday the 14th. But in the next sentence he said he took out the warning language put in by one of his analysts in deference to the State Department. (remember Morrell works at Beacon Global Strategies, a Hillary protected think tank).

15. Morrell today was presented with an email where the beginnings and the middle of the talking points began and percolated. In his own handwriting, there were many notes but he also wrote in some key names of those that needed to be included in the talking points creation and editing. (Director of OTA, Robert Cardillo, Alan Pino, Matt Olsen, Jake Sullivan, Mark Giliano, Lisa Monaco and Ben Rhodes, NSC and DI). All of these people got the emails on the talking points for approval and editing. Morrell tells us too that he never spoke to the White House or to Susan Rice on the talking points.

16. The Chief of Station’s email never went to anyone in the list above, the emails remained exclusively within the CIA that included the analysts and David Petraeus. The email did have in the text extremists (PC terminology) and there were up to three reasons for the attack in order: a) in response to the 9/11 anniversary b) calling for revenge of Ayman al Zawahiri and al Libi c) a YouTube video. So Morrell then concluded on his own, this was an attack but the matter of the reason for the attack being due to the protests/demonstrations. Morrell also tells us that part of his analysis was due in part to 12 reports of protests, press reports, the NSA, CIA and DoD. Yet, his analysts did not have ‘all’ reports for their summary as he told the committee. (But his analysts are the best in the agency?)

17. When asked the question, if you were seeking the best information on conditions or events in country, who would you go to for that? Morrell responded that he would go to his analysts and not the Chief of Station. He has one top analyst, a woman that is his ‘go-to’ person, she is his best source. (Guess his Chiefs of Station must be nothing more than WalMart greeters to Morrell)

18. Morrell also said in testimony that the CIA Public Affairs Office and the liaison to Congressional Affairs took out the AQ reference in the talking points and got a copy of the analysts reports using AQ AND the reference to attack. (ah, dude which is it now?) Sometime later the word attack was changed to demonstration. And Mike Morrell also said his analysts make judgments. (Facts be damned)

19. When asked about his threat assessment today, Morrell said that the terror threat is still robust including al Qaeda. We defeated al Qaeda leadership but the AQ ideology is still spreading. The threat of AQ is very significant and will grow. (Clapper concurs on this but Barack Obama says otherwise, feel secure yet or how about those Americans working in foreign lands?)

20. Morrell was also asked about how the CIA types that work in foreign lands feel, he responded that those working across the globe don’t feel abandoned. (Ah, just who did he ask, any of the 30 working in Libya by chance?)

21. Mike Morrell did offer this tidbit, ‘the CIA should not be in the business of creating un-classified talking points or talking to the public, this was part of the written lessons learned post the Benghazi attack’. It should also be noted that there were 2-a-day deputy meetings for several days after Benghazi. Those meetings included members from the State Department, NCTC, DoD, NSC, CIA, FBI and DoJ. These meetings mostly included what measures so be taken in the future to keep another Benghazi from happening again. (Oh, you mean, that now all the diplomatic rules and laws established after the Tehran hostage situation should now be followed?)

Well, I that is about all I could take, there are still more to learn, but really, not any different than what is written above.

In summary however, I must add this one stipulation. Congressman Ruppersburger ( Just call me Dutch) wants to move past Benghazi, but he does need to be reminded of this:

All the people assigned to Benghazi between both locations were left to perish as no one knew when the attacks would officially stop. Between the two locations, there were almost 40 people assigned in Benghazi and we cannot forget the real time communications going on including ‘critics’, critical situation reports and the real time video feeds. Oh, one last thing, we continue to hear that 4 Americans died in Benghazi, but, ah, actually there are 29 people dead of unknown work status, meaning were they too working as contractors or paid informants….

Sorry there was another Ft. Hood shooting that was going on as I was writing this but here is another update….those CIA’ers in Benghazi listened to Mike Morrell’s testimony today. To say the least they are not pleased, saying either he still does not know what happened that night or he is covering for somebody. Heck, I think it both, and more than one somebody. Ah well, read for yourself on what those on the ground had to say.

Over for now, may be another update soon.







Dempsey there but not John Kerry (Israel)

Well, people, the matter of Israel at the core of two epic issues remains, the matter of a peace agreement with the Palestinians and the matter of negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program. So, while Barack Obama has capitulated with Iran with wide spread news and failures, Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is in Israel gaining an assessment on Israel’s war plans with Iran.

ABOARD A GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT — Israel and the United States are now in broad agreement about the threat that Iran poses to the region and how to deal with it, the top US military official said Tuesday.

“I think they are satisfied that we have the capability to use a military option if the Iranians choose to stray off the diplomatic path,” Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said of Israeli officials. “I think they are satisfied we have the capability. I think they believe we will use it.”

Acknowledging there were differences in the past, Dempsey said Israel and the United States are closer now in their assessment of the threat Iran poses and America’s willingness to act.

Dempsey made the remarks after wrapping up a two-day visit to Israel, where he met with military and government officials.

The international community has reached an agreement with Iran to lessen sanctions against the country in return for curbing its nuclear program.

In the past, Israeli officials have expressed wariness about the international accord with Iran and also disagreed with the United States at times over the pace at which Iran could field a nuclear weapon. Israel had raised the prospect of a unilateral attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“Our clocks are more harmonized than they were two years ago,” Dempsey said.

“They just wanted to know that we are maintaining and continuing to refine our military options,” he said.

Jim Michaels writes for USA Today.

John Kerry


Then the matter of John Kerry and his broken talks with Abbas, Kerry bailed out.

JERUSALEM, Jan. 13 (UPI) — U.S. Secretary of  State John  Kerry called off his Monday visit to Israel at the last minute, Israeli  broadcaster Arutz  Sheva reported.

The cancellation is apparently in reaction to poor results in Kerry’s attempt  to broker an agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the  broadcaster said.

The next stages of the diplomatic negotiations were expected to be finalized  at Monday’s meeting.

Currently, Israel hasn’t responded to Kerry’s suggested security arrangements  in the Jordan Valley that would replace the presence of Israeli troops.

The Palestinian Authority objects to Israel’s demand that Israel be  recognized as the state of the Jewish people. It also refuses to give up on the  so-called “right of return” for displaced Arabs and their descendants to  Israel.

Read more:

Oh yeah, one more thing, the issue of releasing Jonathan Pollard just to keep the talks moving forward, well that is for the most part off too. Pollard does not want to be released just to save John Kerry and the White House….I don’t blame him.


Putin in the Red Zone, WH and NATO in Lockeroom

While Vladimir Putin is moving to Federalize Crimea and Ukraine, the Baltic States are not getting any support from NATO as Article 5 (an attack on one is an attack on others) is but a quiet whisper. The United States has an agreement with Ukraine titled the Budapest Memorandum. This is a handshake that the United States will come to the aid of Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up their nuclear weapons which they did, gave them up to Russia. But while eyes are on Russian forces at Ukraine’s border with Russia, many other Baltic States are in deep worry as to what comes next. John Kerry met with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov for four hours on March 31 in Paris to work out the next moves of each while Kerry required Russia to move their troops. Russia has refused, yet there was some troop movement where some take this as a sign to calm tensions. It needs to be known however, such is not the case.

Russia is performing military drills at the border of Finland.

Finland Frets as Russia Launches Military Drills on Its Doorstep

According to Dr. Jonathan Eyal, international director at London’s Royal United Services Institute think tank, there is “no question” that these exercises show that Russia is testing its power in the region, which was reshaped by the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

“In pure capability terms, the Russians are preparing an operation,” Eyal said. “The question is: Is there an actual military threat? I do not think there will be.”

Eyal said that while Russia’s annexation of Crimea has put a spotlight on its foreign policy, tension with Finland and Sweden is not new. This was shown as recently as last year when Russian jets flew toward Swedish airspace, causing Stockholm to scramble its air force, he said.

But he said that Scandinavia and the Baltic states have sensed renewed danger in recent days because “Putin is an opportunist, and if the opportunity arises he will pick up on it.”

Andrew Kutchins, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the proximity of the drills had made the alarm most palpable in Finland.

“The people of Helsinki are nervous,” he said. “What Putin is doing is sending shock waves through Europe.” However, Kutchins added that the likelihood of immediate military action appeared “very far-fetched.”

This anxiety was heightened Sunday after one of Putin’s closest former advisers told the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet that the Kremlin would seek “historical justice” by reclaiming Finland and ex-Soviet countries as part of an enlarged Russian Federation.

“Putin’s view is that he protects what belongs to him and his predecessors,” wrote Andrei Illarionov, according to a translation by the Moscow Times.

“Parts of Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic states and Finland are states where Putin claims to have ownership,” said Illarionov, who is now a senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.,-based Cato Institute.

Illarionov, who was chief economic adviser to Putin until 2005 and is described by the Moscow Times as an outspoken Kremlin critic, said Putin could argue the Communist revolution of 1917 was a “treason against national interests.”

“It is not on Putin’s agenda today or tomorrow,” Illarionov added. “But if Putin is not stopped, the issue will be brought sooner or later.”

“Finland isn’t Ukraine”

The reason experts think Finland is more secure than Ukraine is that although neither are members of NATO, the former is more protected by its European Union membership.

“Finland isn’t Ukraine,” said Oliver Bullough, commentator and author of “Last Man In Russia.” “It might not be a NATO member but it is in the European Union and you can bet that if Russia were to start invading members of the E.U., the E.U. would have something to say about it.”

Bullough said the Russians had a “grudging respect” for the Finns because of the way they resisted Moscow’s Red Army during World War II. Apart from Britain and the Soviet Union, Finland was the only European nation involved in the war to avert a foreign occupation.

Research consultant Kathleen McInnis pointed out that Finland is connected to NATO in that it has taken part in NATO-led actions, including Kosovo and Afghanistan.

“Recently there has been discussion in Finland about joining NATO, but opinion remains in favor of a defense partnership with Sweden,” said McInnis, who is based at the London-based think tank Chatham House.

Add to that Finland’s recent agreement to start discussions with Sweden over a defense partnership, and an incursion by Moscow looks less likely.

Perhaps the key difference between Finland and Ukraine is that Putin does not have a tangible excuse with which to exercise the Kremlin’s influence abroad.

Nuclear drills

In the swift annexation of Crimea, he spoke of the need to protect ethnic Russians living in the peninsula from what he called the illegitimate fascist regime in Kiev.

But Eyal said that it is wrong to assume Russia’s only option is a brute-force invasion.

“Russia could put pressure on Scandinavia not to come to the aid of the three Baltic states [Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania], which do have Russian ethnic minorities,” he said. “Or they could warn in advance for Finland and Sweden not to join NATO. It’s a key foreign policy for Russia to prevent NATO’s enlargement.”

Albina Kovalyova reported from Moscow. Alexander Smith and Alastair Jamieson reported from London.

So what is being said about Finland?

One of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s closest ex-advisers has claimed that the ex-KGB agent ultimately wants to reclaim Finland for Russia.

Andrej Illiaronov, Putin’s economic adviser between 2000 and 2005 and now senior member of the Cato Institute think tank, said that “parts of Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic States and Finland are states where Putin claims to have ownership.”

“Putin’s view is that he protects what belongs to him and his predecessors,” he said.

When asked if Putin wishes to return to the Russia of the last tsar, Nicholas II, Illiaronov said: “Yes, if it becomes possible.”

Illiaronov admits that Finland is not Putin’s primary concern at present but, if not stopped in other areas of Eastern Europe, the issue will one day arise. Russian troops are currently massing on the eastern border of Ukraine, following Russia’s recent annexation of Crimea.

“Putin said several times that the Bolsheviks and Communists made big mistakes. He could well say that the Bolsheviks in 1917 committed treason against Russian national interests by providing Finland’s independence,” Illiaronov told a Swedish news website.

He believes that Putin is not planning to invade Ukraine for territorial gain but rather “the goal is a pro-Russian puppet government in Kiev.”

“Six years ago Putin conquered Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia. The west let him do it with impunity, and now he has got Crimea,” he continued.

“Now, eastern and southern Ukraine is destablised so that the self-defence forces can take power there. If the situation allows, it may be a military invasion.”

Finland was a part of the Russian Empire for 108 years but broke away in 1917 at the end of the first world war.

The Scandinavian nation was attacked at the beginning of the second world war by the Soviet Union, with Finland fighting the winter war and the continuation war in resistance and losing 10% of its pre-war territory.

Finland is not a member of Nato, so any invasion of its land would not constitute an attack against all members under Article 5 of Nato’s founding Washington Treaty.