A Conversation with Kris Roman (Leader of Euro-Rus)

Hello Kris, thank you for taking the time out of your schedule to talk with us today. I know our readers would like to learn more about your organization, Euro-Rus. And I am equally sure they would like to hear your own personal views on the current world situation and the pivotal events that are currently shaping European-Russian relations.

KR:  Hello, it’s my pleasure to talk with you today. I’m sure all your readers understand how very necessary it is for Europe and Russia to have good relations, and how European-Russian relations (good or otherwise) affect the entire world. 

To start things off, please tell us a bit about yourself, where you’re from, and what your organization Euro-Rus is all about – in particular its mission, goals, etc.

KR:  Well, I was born in the Flemish city of Dendermonde, Belgium in 1965. Back then, the world was quite different than it is now. I’m a child of the Cold War. I should say, right off the bat, my education was typical – it was very anti-Russian. Our elders always told us that the Russians would come and invade us and use nuclear weapons against us – just like the 1983 movie The Day After. In that film, America is destroyed by Soviet nuclear weapons and the protagonists struggle to survive. I was instructed to see that movie as a realistic scenario. At home, at school, in the media, everywhere – we heard talk of the “Red Threat.” I would like to stress, before I continue, that Euro-Rus is not a “Belgian” organization. Like its name, Euro-Rus strives to be active across the entire European-Russian region. The central governing board of Euro-Rus is in Belgium simply because I live here. Above all, Euro-Rus is a geopolitical think tank.

Because I’m from Flanders (the Dutch speaking part of Belgium) I have always been close to the Flemish Nationalist Movement – eventually I also became familiar with the nationalist movements throughout the rest of Belgium and Europe. Around the age of 20, I joined a Flemish nationalist opposition party that sought to establish an independent Flanders and fight illegal mass-immigration. In this particular movement, anti-Russian/anti-communist sentiment was always very high. Instead of learning the positive nature of my patriotism, I had to learn how “evil” the Russians were. Even more disturbing, I was told that Nazi aggression was historically necessary and even “good” for the Flemish independence movement. Can you imagine that? Without shame several high ranking members of the party even talked about the need to destroy the Slavic sub-humans. To the outside world they were mere “anti-communists,” but internally (and in essence) they were nothing more than Russophobes. Foreign politicians came to talk at many of their conferences about “the great atrocities committed by the Russians,” etc. And like many others, I believed this propaganda. How could I not? From my earliest childhood, I was constantly told of the “wickedness” of the Russians. This is the environment in which I grew up. Over time, the anti-Russian feelings I had in my youth (due to indoctrination), eventually turned into pro-Russian sentiment. Very strange is the fact that at only 10 years of age I already knew the Russian alphabet. At that tender age I had already possessed a strong magnetic affinity for Russia.

Eventually, I wanted to start an organization that had “Europe and Russia” as its main theme. Of course, the question naturally arose: how does one go about this in a thoroughly Russophobic country ? So my friends and I organized an experiment. We invited a lot of people – folks that we already knew – for an evening of Russian culture. We served a complete Russian dinner, good vodka – and all in the company of beautiful Russian women. At the start of the evening I asked everyone present: “What does Russia mean to you?” Initially, and without exception, they all reflected the same kind of answer. They said, “Kris, we all like you very much, but loving Russia is a bit too much for us.” After the meal, the vodka and the company of the beautiful women, they answered me (again, without exception): “Kris, Russia is wonderful.” So, it is my understanding that we can indeed convert people’s views by showing them the truly beautiful parts of Russian culture.

In 2003, I started sending out an informational newsletter on Russia. This is how Euro-Rus was founded. We served as a kind of informational center about Russia with cultural activities. It wasn’t long before we developed into an organization with a strong pro-Russian geopolitical message. And so, we’ve organized many congresses and round table discussions through the years. We also organize rallies and cultural trips to Russia, and we often participate in media events and interviews (like this). Overall, it could definitely be said that, at least in Europe, we are a unique organization. While there are indeed some European parties and movements which have “Russia” in their programs as one of many themes, we have “Russia” in our group platform as the main theme. Today Euro-Rus is highly esteemed in Europe, Russia and around the world. People hate us or love us, but many people know that we specialize in all issues pertaining to European-Russian relations and geopolitics, and so they naturally come to us quite often for advice in these matters.

As a Belgian of Flemish ancestry, and as someone who is politically conservative, what sparked your interest in Russia and “all things Russian” as it were? What was the main catalyst that gave you such a pro-Russian epiphany? Aside from all of the anti-Russian propaganda you were subjected to in your youth (and the questions that naturally arose in your mind), has living so close to Brussels (the headquarters of both the EU and NATO) influenced your gravitation toward Russia – a country which is much more conservative than the nations of Western Europe?

KR: My parents moved to Brussels right after my birth. Growing up, I observed how rapidly Brussels changed. In 1975, the street I grew up on was still populated entirely by native Europeans. Only ten years later, by 1985, we were practically the only European family that remained in the area. I understood then that the policies of the European political class were very harmful for us native Europeans. For this reason, I became active in a local Flemish patriotic party. I want to stress that the propaganda against the Soviet Union during this period – and indeed, all throughout the Cold War – was very aggressive. Everywhere we went, we heard the hateful rhetoric of our politicians telling us (ad nauseam) that the Russians will attack us, they’ll nuke us, they’ll set up concentration camps, etc., etc. All of Western Europe was afraid of the Russians. Naturally then, I was afraid of the Russians as a child, just like everyone else. When I started becoming politically active I soon recognized that the U.S. propaganda, which dominates our lives in every conceivable way, was one big lie. I was able to see that the Wall Street mafia wants very much to organize a war between the kindred European peoples. Needless to say, I am very opposed to this idea. European people killing each other on battlefields under alien U.S. command? No way! So, I understand the importance of European-Russian friendship. If I lived in Italy or Spain – places that are relatively far from EU or NATO headquarters – I would feel the same way. But yes, the fact that I lived close to the two headquarters of the U.S. occupation (the EU and NATO) did accelerate my pro-Russian political opinions.

Until the 1970s, Belgium was a conservative country. Prior to this we had the reform of the Catholic Church – the Second Vatican Council (“Vatican II”) – which made the church a kind of “left wing” religious institution. From that time on, Belgium was home to the most left wing church in the world. Everything that was conservative about our nation, society and culture was destroyed. Now we have the most liberal laws in the world. In fact, 95 percent of the people in Flanders are de facto atheists. Divorce, abortion, the “pampering” of immigrants and refugees – all of these destructive liberal issues and policies are rampant in Flemish society. To be conservative in Belgium is indeed a revolutionary act. 

People often ask me why I love Russia so much. My answer has two parts. The objective part is what this interview is about: Europe and Russia both have the same interests and the same problems. We need each other. The other part of the answer is subjective. If a man loves a woman, he doesn’t necessarily “know” why he loves her. He simply loves her. It’s not the mind but the heart that’s in charge of these feelings. 

On your website and in many of your organization’s posters, one can find slogans such as the “Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis” and “Long live our Great Europe – from Gibraltar to Vladivostok!” Such rousing statements calling for the geopolitical union of Europe and Russia are also used in a number of New Right and Neo-Eurasianist circles. Many political pragmatists would consider the unification of Europe and Russia to be a highly idealistic goal, which is to say unnecessary or (in any case) unattainable. However, others who look more objectively at world events and geopolitical reality are able to see that such a potential union between Europe and Russia is absolutely crucial if Europe is going to retain any semblance of its traditional identity – ethnically, culturally, spiritually, socially, etc. The premise here is that it is only Russia which possesses enough cultural, political, military and moral clout to save Europe from the current suicidal course it is on. Would you agree with this view? And please also tell us whether Euro-Rus derives any of its own political/ideological inspiration from the New Right and/or Neo-Eurasianist views.

KR: We are fighting for a dream. Some dreams come true, others do not. Our dream is that there will never again be a war between European brothers. By the word “European,” I mean all of the people living between Gibraltar and Vladivostok. We, of Euro-Rus, consider ourselves to be the architects of a grand Idea. For example, before a house can be built, the architect must first draw up the plans. As geopolitical “architects” we propose a plan that would eventually unite Europe and Russia under the “roof” of one great political system. Furthermore, we are absolutely convinced that our project is necessary for the survival of all Europeans. As the westernmost projection of the Eurasian landmass, Europe has no future without Russia; likewise, the entire Eurasian continent has no future without Russia. Russia is our neighbor. To some Eastern Europeans I say: “Whether or not you happen to like your neighbor, it is always best to have good relations with your neighbor. And whether you like it or not, Russia is our neighbor.”

I believe that Europe will have many difficult moments in the years ahead. The only way to survive will be as Russia’s partner. Ultimately, the United States is heading for a big collapse – even Samuel Huntington understands this. The U.S. will implode. Obama knows there’s no future in the United States for the Euro-American people or “whites.” So the future forecast is already quite clear: the USA will be too weak and too busy with its own survival to “help” Europe or maintain its ongoing occupation of European states. We know from recent trends in American politics that the U.S. has already decided not to invest anymore in Europe. Of course, the U.S. military is indirectly involved in the Ukraine, however this has absolutely nothing to do with defending European interests or values – the only interests being defended are those of the U.S. ruling elites and their multinational corporations, for instance the Biden family and Monsanto.

In any event, the U.S. has clearly made a number of political miscalculations in recent months and years. The Americans tried pitting Europe against Russia via sanctions, and ultimately it is Europe that is paying the price. We Europeans are most effected by Washington’s new “mini Cold War.” Now, all across Europe, people are in the streets protesting and voicing their outrage against the anti-Russian/anti-European policies of Washington. Since Vladimir Putin became the President of Russia, he has offered on many occasions to extend Russia’s hand toward Europe in friendship and mutual cooperation. Until recently, Europe refused Russia’s hand. Soon we will pass the point of no return. Economic crisis after economic crisis, mass immigration from non-European countries, together with a rise in abortions, immorality and atheism will bring Europe to the brink of destruction. Indeed, Europe is now at the brink. The only question is: will we or won’t we cross that fateful line from which there is no return?

Our organization, Euro-Rus, contains the key to survival. We say NO to U.S. army bases in Europe; NO to the nefarious exploits of the U.S. secret services in Europe (Echelon, mass surveillance, data sharing, etc.); NO to mass immigration and refugees coming from other continents; and NO to the decadent “pop culture” emanating from Hollywood. We say YES to family values and traditions; YES to wholesome European culture; YES to the right to life; YES to greater education for our youth; and YES to national protectionism and the protection of European borders.

Regarding my own political inspiration, there are definitely a few strains of thought which have influenced me. The European New Right is one such philosophical movement that has inspired me, although I have never been a member of any New Right party or group. Many of the leading figures of the New Right make a number of valid points and they certainly have interesting points of view, however I do not totally agree with them either. My views and the views of Euro-Rus are partly influenced by the New Right and partly by Eurasianism, and also by left wing ideologies. I personally appreciate authors like Nikolai Starikov. So, I think we are a unique blend of the so-called “Left and Right.” In our meetings, we bring together people who would normally kill each other in the streets because they have been told by the liberal elites (who care for neither side) that they are ideological enemies. Yet those who are clever enough to look past these alleged differences understand that the political/ideological divide between Left and Right is an artificial one. And so they find a way to come together and work together – thanks to the guiding vision of Euro-Rus. We are an organization which is conservative, defending family values. Does this make us “right-wingers”? Likewise, are we “left-wingers” simply because we defend an economic system which is opposed to the egoistic liberal system? The struggle of today is not Left versus Right, but a humane free world versus heartless dictatorship; Freedom versus the chip-implant; Freedom versus Big Brother. In short: Moscow versus Washington.

That said, I want to stress the fact that we have absolutely no problem with the American people. For us, the American opposition is our ally. I hope that the American people will organize a putsch or coup of some kind and take power back into their own hands. After more than 200 years they have the right to kick the Wall Street occupiers out. Our problem – like the American people’s problem, like the entire world’s problem – is exclusively with the U.S. government and various U.S.-based lobbies. Interestingly enough, I heard recently that if Vladimir Putin were to be a presidential candidate in the next U.S. election, he would have a great shot at winning. Perhaps Mr. Putin is what America needs.

In your opinion, what would constitute the necessary preconditions (politically, socially, economically, militarily, etc.) for a potential supranational union between Europe and Russia? I think most would agree that NATO would have to be dismantled and sent back to Washington. But what role (if any) should the EU play in negotiating a potential merger with Russia?

KR: The collaboration for such a supranational project has to come from both sides. There has to be a mutual “love” in this process between both parties – Europe and Russia. Today, one can easily observe that the Western mainstream media has manipulated European-Russian relations to the point where any kind of mutual European-Russian love that exists is swiftly turning into pure hatred. For the West, Russia is an aggressor and a dangerous mafia state. Of course this is absolutely incorrect. From the Russian standpoint, conversely, the West is decadent, morally corrupt and moribund – and this is partially true. But not everything in Europe is totally bad. If we mix together what is good in Europe and what is good in Russia, we can certainly construct an ideal situation. Practically, for this to work, there must be much more collaboration between Europe and Russia. A great part of this collaboration must be based on military cooperation. I think all level heads would agree that the original mission of NATO no longer applies in today’s world – it is no longer valid because there is no longer a Soviet Union. NATO was created solely on account of the West’s great overriding fear of the Soviet Union. Of course, NATO is dominated by the United States. The military head of NATO in Europe can only be an American – this is in NATO’s constitution! This is the clearest sign that Europe is occupied by the United States. Therefore it is imperative for European countries to leave NATO and to join a kind of Euro-Russian army. This is not a utopian dream, this is quite possible.

As for the EU, it (like NATO) has no love for the people of Europe. More than 80 percent of all our laws are dictated by the EU. If a European country decides to do something the EU doesn’t want, the EU can retaliate. The EU is a kind of “bread and circuses” dictatorship where people think they are free simply because they can go watch a football game free of charge. But make no mistake, the EU is the soft image of Big Brother – which also serves as the political arm of NATO. It is important to remember that almost all EU member states are members of the NATO alliance. For all these reasons Euro-Rus is opposed to the EU. We believe that Europe and Russia need to establish a strong economic and military partnership. This will serve as the first step in securing a strong, peaceful and prosperous continental space.

What is your opinion of the recently established Eurasian Economic Union? Is this supranational institution a good first step toward achieving a future union between Europe and Russia? Or do you perceive the EEU to be either an eastern imitation of the EU or perhaps merely a limited regional attempt to consolidate the as-of-yet disorganized post-Soviet space? And please share with us your opinion of the Eurasian Union idea in general.

KR: The Eurasian Economic Union is a wonderful idea. We, at Euro-Rus, envision the future Euro-Russian Union to be formed along very similar lines. In our view, it is imperative that Europe joins the Eurasian Economic Union – a Union in which no political bureaucrats or unilateral “cowboy” governments intervene in the internal political affairs of other member states. In this regard, it must be said that Russia respects the internal affairs of EEU member states much more than the EU respects its own members. The simple truth is that the EU doesn’t respect the fundamental right to self-determination for its members.

I wish to say something else about the European Union: While it is true that, theoretically, the idea of the EU could be used for good, in reality it is something very malevolent in the lives of all Europeans. The U.S. government has used the EU for its own Atlanticist aims and has manipulated it every step of the way since its founding. Today the EU is a very corrupt organization with a host of scandals. The European Parliament is a joke and a circus; it possesses no power and no influence whatsoever. All of the ministers and presidents of Europe are not elected by the people. That’s why they are officially called “commissars” and why some also call the EU “the Soviet Union deluxe.” Nevertheless, the old Soviet Union was very clear in its aims, and it was never as bad or as “evil” as many might assume. The EU, on the other hand, IS evil. The EU has never been clear in its aims – many EU laws are very unclear and deliberately ambiguous. This means people can be condemned for almost anything. A lot depends on the interpretation of individual judges. Today in Europe we have countless cameras on our streets. Government officials tell us that it is “for our own safety.” The real reason is to control people. Our phones tell the police where we are 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Our internet and digital TVs tell the government what we like and what we do. There is no more privacy in one’s life, and yet the majority of people still believe otherwise. In many ways, we are like chickens in a poultry run. All the chickens are happy because somebody feeds them. What nobody told them is that they will inevitably be slaughtered. Those anti-establishment “chickens” in the West who want to warn others about their impending slaughter – i.e. the activists and whistleblowers – are declared by their governments as being either insane or enemies of the state – or both!

To make a long story short, the EU is not an option for a free and peaceful Europe. Russia leads the Eurasian Union. And having visited Russia many times, I can honestly say that the people of Russia have much more freedom than EU citizens. This is reflected in the differing levels of happiness one can observe in today’s Russia and Europe. By and large, people living in the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union are happier than those who live inside the boundaries of the EU.

Euro-Rus has been following and indeed supporting the presidency of Vladimir Putin for many years; a man whose wise domestic leadership has erased much of the damage caused by the 15 years’ worth of horrendous leadership (or lack of leadership) displayed by his two pro-Atlanticist predecessors, Yeltsin and Gorbachev – quite possibly the two worst Russian heads of state in over a thousand years of Russian history. It would appear now that ever since Crimea’s democratic return to the Motherland in 2014 – and Russia’s intervention in Syria against ISIS (or more specifically against globalist-funded anarchy) – Russia has finally re-emerged as a great power on the international stage. Would you agree with this?

KR: President Putin has gone on record saying that the fall of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical tragedy. I agree with him. The geopolitical recipe of having a big country (the largest in the world), a patriotic people, nuclear weapons, and vast natural resources made the USSR the greatest planetary threat to U.S. hegemony in the 20^th century. Certainly when you study the political careers and policies of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, it is easy to see that they were nothing more than Wall Street puppets – albeit very dangerous and destructive puppets who left behind them a great disaster for the Russian people. By the time Yeltsin left office, Russia was reduced to the status of a Third World country. Then came the man from the KGB – Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. He had one mission: to restore Russia’s natural destiny as a great power. What Putin has accomplished in a period of 15 years is nothing less than miraculous. In 2000, the economic situation in Russia was dire. Today Russia is once again a world power – it has the best army in the world, Russians are again very patriotic and very proud to be Russian, the Orthodox religion is flourishing, the economic situation is much better, and the people have a renewed sense of hope.

In order to make Russia a world power again, Putin had to fight against the anti-Russian policies of the U.S. government and its veritable horde of liberal international institutions and NGOs, and also against the 5th and 6th columnist traitors within Russia itself (some of whom were even inside the Kremlin). Today Russia is indeed a world power. This is because the conservative forces inside Russia don’t only think about the next election (as so-called “conservatives” do in the U.S.), but they think about the far off future. This is statesmanship! This highlights the crucial difference between someone who is a simple vote-seeking politician and one who is a real leader. To reach this point, Russia didn’t need any form of dictatorship. I want to reiterate: Every time I visit Russia, I can easily observe how much more freedom I possess there than in the EU.

So, to be clear: yes we support the leadership of Vladimir Putin in addition to all of the other truly conservative leaders in Russia – people such as Dmitry Rogozin, Sergey Shoygu, Sergey Lavrov and many more. We respect the hard work they do on behalf of Russia. What is good for Russia, is good for Europe. We have common interests.

A growing number of geopolitical analysts, international relations experts, political commentators, and economists have gone on record stating that a multipolar world order (and thus the end of U.S. global hegemony) is already a global reality. This certainly seems to be a valid point when looking at the growing influence of such diverse international alignments as BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization). One can also see a rudimentary anti-NATO military alliance forming in the current coalition between Russia, the Shia powers (Iran, Iraq, and Hezbollah), the secular Arab community (epitomized by the Assad regime), and the Kurds (who are also predominantly secular). Do you agree that a new multipolar world is emerging? If so, what does this mean for the United States?

KR: Things are changing rapidly today. We are definitely moving toward a multipolar world. The fact that Russia is again a world power is decisive. For example, China is nothing without Russia. China understands that the alliance with Russia is a win-win situation. Russia doesn’t interfere in the internal affairs of China. Russia doesn’t act like some obnoxious dictator telling other countries what they have to do. Nobody likes a dictatorship. Other powerful countries like China, India, Iran, Brazil – they all smell the sweet scent of freedom in the distance. They sense that a free and sovereign future – without the USA telling them what to do – is indeed a very real possibility in the 21^st century. They see the success of Russia on the world stage and, naturally, they want to participate in it. Today they buy Russian weapons instead of American-made ones. In the past, it was dangerous for a country to defy Washington by proudly displaying its sovereignty and following its own independent path – Gaddafi understood this well. Today it is dangerous to act against Russia. Those who understand this fundamental change in the dynamics of international relations include Georgia, Turkey and ISIS, among many others.

Today BRICS is a very important international group of nations – it will probably accept more members in the near future. Then there is of course the Shanghai Cooperation Organization – another very important group. There are indeed a growing number of organizations undermining the concept of a unipolar world dominated by the United States. And certainly, for the United States this is a total disaster. The collapse of the United States is perhaps much closer than one can imagine. Inside the United States, immigration is changing the ethnic composition of the entire country, and this alone can spur an impending implosion. Outside the U.S., the coalition led by Russia is growing. Nobody wants to deal with the American cowboys anymore. Since its founding, the USA has been involved in 226 wars. In the last 50 years alone, the United States military has killed approximately 30 million people worldwide. Is it actually possible for people to forget this – to “brush it under the rug” as it were? Have people forgotten Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Vietnam, Belgrade, the bombing of hospitals, and the slaughter of innocent women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan? “Now is the time for revenge” is the predominant mindset in the countries most affected by American imperialism. Do you think the world doesn’t know about the enormous help Israel gets from the United States in order to kill innocent Palestinians each day? The Israeli crimes in Palestine are not “local incidents” – these crimes against humanity constitute world news, which everyone can watch daily from Alaska to Indonesia, South Africa to Greenland. American support for the terrorist state of Israel will comprise only part of the total U.S. collapse.

And so, the U.S. now has three options: (1) to concede the fact that U.S. world hegemony is over, and that the USA is not more “exceptional” than any other country, and to stop crying in a corner like a little child; (2) to start a final Third World War to try and restore the American Empire – this is a very dangerous option because the chances of total U.S. destruction (and of course total world destruction) are very high; (3) to stop U.S. imperialism entirely, to fix its own internal problems, and to cease intervening in the affairs of other nations. If the U.S. will follow this latter course of action, then it will have a better chance of surviving the times ahead. Although I have to say, throughout all history, I don’t know of a single empire which, at its end, decided to voluntarily forfeit its hegemonic stranglehold around the necks of its vassals. (Perhaps Britain?) In any case, almost all empires ended with implosion and all-out war occurring simultaneously. For the American people this must be difficult to hear. Even so, the truth must be stated as it is, and not sugar-coated. In the end, I don’t believe that Washington and Wall Street will relinquish their grip. The arrogance, greed and heartlessness of America’s leading families will stamp out any appeal to reason.

Regarding the Syrian conflict, I think most rational – which is to say, unbiased – analysts would concede two main points: (1) ISIS/ISIL was born out of the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, and (2) various NATO countries – including the USA, Britain, France and Turkey – have been actively supporting ISIS via their channeling of weapons, money and training to both the so-called “moderate rebels” (which are merely the “front men” for ISIS) and the Saudi regime, which is the actual source of all serious Wahhabi/Islamist activity all across the world. What are your thoughts on this? Why has the West been so duplicitous in its actions? Or perhaps the real question is: Has the West been duplicitous at all? If actions speak louder than words, hasn’t the West actually been brazen in its unequivocal support for ISIS!?

KR: The West always uses double standards: “Do as I say, not as I do.” The Russians already know – and have known since time immemorial – that all of the decadence in Russia has its origin in the West. The West is the home of George Orwell’s classic book 1984: “Freedom is slavery,” “peace is war,” etc. A lot of what the West is saying and (more to the point) doing has to be reversed. A friend of mine who lived in the States once told me: “Europe is not a copy of the U.S. – Europe tries to copy the U.S., but copies it a hundred times worse.”

The West is the undisputed master in creating Frankenstein monsters like ISIS. Yet every time a new monster is created, the West seemingly forgets that their manufactured abomination will eventually, one day, return home. The ISIS Frankenstein is doing what the West wants: creating “divide and conquer” chaos so that the U.S. can more easily control the Middle East. Thanks to ISIS the U.S. military can continue its destruction of Syria. Officially the U.S. military is bombing ISIS, yet in reality it is bombing the positions of President Assad. It is very strange that the Russian air force can bomb 100 times more ISIS targets in a single week than the American military did in an entire year. The U.S. can find water on Mars, ice on Pluto, but not a tremendous column off hundreds of ISIS cars and trucks. I am very glad the Russian army found them. At least now everyone knows who the liars really are.

The stakes have now been raised with Turkey’s recent act of war against Russia. I am of course referring to the November 24^th shooting down of the Su-24 bomber over Syria, or the proverbial “stab in the back,” as President Putin described the incident. And indeed the evidence now suggests that this was a preplanned sneak attack initiated by Turkey in order to protect the vehicular pipeline which has already transported an untold amount of oil from ISIS controlled territories directly into Turkey. Evidence has come to light via Kremlin sources and investigative journalists inside Turkey that the Turkish government has been trading weapons for oil with Syrian-based terrorists for a number of years. The Russian Defense Ministry has released hundreds of satellite images clearly showing the “living oil pipe” (in the words of President Putin) which, up until Russian forces began bombing these targets, had been streaming into Turkey from ISIS controlled parts of Syria on a daily basis. What’s more, the Turkish president’s family (and his son in particular) seems to be the principal beneficiary of this illegal trade in blood oil. Let us also remember that the Turkish government operatives in Syria (the so-called “Grey Wolves”) committed an unmistakable war crime by firing on the two Russian pilots as they descended in their parachutes, killing one. Given all the evidence supporting Turkey’s underhanded behavior and outright support for ISIS, and considering NATO’s uncompromising support for its “Turkish ally,” isn’t NATO itself an accomplice to ISIS if one looks at the situation logically?

KR: I am not sure if NATO knew in advance of Turkey’s plans to shoot down the Su-24. If NATO did, then it would definitely constitute an act of war against Russia. But I think what happened was that Turkey did something without thinking through all of the negative consequences that would follow. The fact that terrorists downed a Russian passenger Metrojet over Egypt was an unmistakable act of war against Russia. Russia of course retaliated – and continues its anti-ISIS campaign. I think it’s important to note that by bombing ISIS, Russia is also “bombing” the economic and political interests of the Erdogan family. The oil seized by ISIS is used in Turkey as a kind of bribe, to pay voters, to give advantages, etc. Most of all, the blood oil of ISIS is used as a guarantee that the Erdogan family will remain in power. By destroying the ISIS oil trade, Russia disrupted the Erdogan family’s plans. And so, this Turkish mafia family panicked – the disruption of the “family business” caused them to do something crazy and dangerous – to shoot down the Russian bomber. It was an act of desperation on the part of Erdogan, happening at a time when there were already military agreements in place between Turkey and Russia. For this reason Russia did not yet deploy its state-of-the-art S-400 anti-aircraft system – so as not to scare the Turks, because they were still considered an ally in the fight against ISIS. The attack was indeed a “stab in the back” (as President Putin stated) because the Turks already knew that the Su-24 bomber was not escorted by fighter jets (and was therefore unprotected) due to the agreements. So, I guess you could say that at least mentally, Turkey is a Western country: sneaky and cowardly.

Now, all of this is problematic for NATO, because the Russians are now perfectly justified to install the S-400 everywhere in the region. The S-400 system can engage up to 80 targets all at once, and can cover a range of hundreds of kilometers. This makes any hostile aircraft an easy target for the Russian military. And NATO knows this. That’s why NATO only supported its Turkish ally in words after the downing of the Su-24, paying lip service to the idea that Turkey is a sovereign nation which has a right to defend itself, etc. – even though the Su-24 was actually shot down over Syria. But my point is, in the wake of this incident, NATO only supported its Turkish ally in words, not deeds. NATO understands that a potential clash with Russia will be won by Russia – U.S. military specialists have already gone on record stating this. In other words, the Pentagon and NATO certainly do not believe their friendship with Turkey is something worth risking World War III over. Some in NATO would even like to see Turkey kicked out of the alliance due to the fact that the Turkish leadership is totally irresponsible and perhaps even insane, based on the recent statements of some. For example, not long ago the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mevlüt Cavusoglu, openly declared that if there was ever a war between his country and Russia, Turkey “can conquer Russia in less than seven days.” Everyone can see, with statements like this, that if Turkey did up the ante in any way, Russia would be forced to respond very strongly and with overwhelming power.

Right now in Syria there is a kind of no fly zone for airplanes that are not Russian or Syrian. Certainly, Russia will shoot down any aircraft that threatens its military personnel in the future. Although she lost a bomber in the November 24^th incident, Russia came out all the stronger. NATO was definitely surprised by Russia’s strong and resolute answer to Turkey – bombing and destroying all of Bilal Erdogan’s trucks so that he will no longer be able to transport anymore oil into Turkey on behalf of his father Recep Erdogan (the Turkish president). Russia has now increased its daily sorties over Syria, upping them from 200 a day to 800. That’s a lot! Hopefully the Turkish president has learned something in all this: don’t mess with the Russian Bear.

One thing I particularly appreciate when I read your press statements and listen to your interviews is that you are not afraid to highlight the very real global conspiracy which is taking place – and you aren’t afraid to name those responsible. For example, you draw attention to the highly destructive role played by various elite liberal groups such as the Bilderberg Club and the Council on Foreign Relations. You also regularly point out the havoc and hypocrisy caused by some of the more overtly racist or supremacist factions of global liberalism – namely the Zionists and the American neocons. If you would, please expound on the topic of these evil “powers behind the throne,” and inform our readers as to their true intentions.

KR: Well, I want to say first of all that I don’t use the word “conspiracy.” This is because today everything is pretty much out in the open, which is to say we have far more information today than we had years ago. If one person knows something, it’s a secret. If two people know something, it might still be a secret. But if three people know something, then there’s a leak. It’s no longer a secret. The mainstream media can try to stifle these leaks, but groups like the Bilderberg Club and the Council on Foreign Relations are not a secret. They might be secretive in their dealings, but their mission and their goals are available for the entire world to see. There is a great wealth of information online which is available to anyone who wants to take the time to read it. Of course, at the same time, we must always be on the lookout for false information. Crazy people can also have blogs and write, for example, that Napoleon was defeated at the Battle of Waterloo by Julius Caesar. But getting back to the secret clubs like Bilderberg and CFR, I don’t think one can dispute the fact that they are all about one thing: power. And having an awful lot of money is the surest way of attaining power. Groups like Bilderberg and CFR, which are international in scope, have both money and power.

Previously, all countries had a class of national elites, and these elites fought each other for greater territorial power. Since 1945, the world has had a new kind of elite – a supranational liberal elite. This kind of elite class is not tied to land or people – these are archaic concepts in their opinion. This kind of elite is truly global, using the U.S. military to fulfill their plans of world domination. They are the standard bearers of the unipolar world. And in fact, the U.S. military and NATO operate as their private armies. Anyone who opposes the hegemony of this elite class of liberals will be murdered. Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Hugo Chavez and others were all killed because they wanted to escape from the slavery of the U.S. dollar. The countries and regimes which threaten the hegemony of the dollar, and therefore the plans of the unipolar world, are targeted for a “hit” by the Wall Street mafia. Such countries include Syria, Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia. Today, it is Russia which threatens the hegemony of the Wall Street mafia (or international “banksters”) like no other country. All of these countries support each other out of necessity, in order to survive as free and sovereign states. Bilderberg and other elite liberal groups did not expect this growing coalition of resistance. By the way, Daniel Estulin wrote a very good and well-researched book on the Bilderberg Club. In his book, Estulin reveals that Bilderberg wants to reduce the entire world’s population by 80 percent. Bilderberg apparently refers to this 80 percent as “useless stomachs.” Global crises, pandemics, and apocalyptic wars will ensure that Bilderberg’s objectives are achieved. But just as Hitler was mistaken – he thought he could win the war in a few months – so also is Bilderberg mistaken. They will not win this war. Unfortunately, however, it will indeed cost millions of innocent lives.

Right now, Russia is the greatest power opposing the plans of Bilderberg and the CFR. These groups know that if Russia falls, Europe falls with her. If Europe and Russia fall, then Eurasia will follow suit. And if Eurasia falls, then the entire world will collectively descend into the abyss of a global dictatorship under the command of the international caste of liberal elites. That’s the domino effect which the international bankers are trying so hard to put into motion. As for their ultimate aims, read Orwell’s book 1984.

Turning now to the ongoing refugee crisis in Europe, I would like to get your in depth analysis of this ever widening human tragedy, which contains within itself a multiplicity of interconnected problems – demographically, socially, culturally, politically, economically, ethnically, etc., etc. In many ways, what is unfolding now reminds one of Jean Raspail’s 1973 apocalyptic novel The Camp of the Saints. Perhaps Raspail was something of a 20^th century “prophet.” In any event, some have said that the refugees are being used by the U.S. government as “human weapons” against native Europeans so as to throw the entire continent into chaos. In my opinion, there is a great deal of truth in this assertion, since it is ISIS – or in postmodern Orwellian jargon, it is the “moderates” – from which the migrants are fleeing in record droves. But no one in either the mainstream or alternative media seems to mention this all important fact. It is ISIS that has caused the great migration of refugees into Europe and it is the U.S./NATO conglomerate which is responsible for the birth and maturity of the Frankenstein monster known as “ISIS.” Why isn’t this point brought up, even within the alternative media?

KR: The refugee crisis (like every Western-made crisis) is artificial. It is a fact that many of the refugees paid up to 10,000 U.S. dollars per person to secure their seats on boats headed for Europe. This is abominable in my view, because these people – most of whom are able-bodied men – should instead be fighting the ISIS terrorists who have taken over their homes. In my opinion, real Syrians (like Assad’s government troops) fight for their country. All of the cowards, on the other hand, flee to Europe leaving behind their women and children who remain trapped in the middle of a hellish war zone. And the biggest winner in all this is the liberal capitalist system. In order for the system to stimulate economic growth, company costs must remain low. And the only way European companies can stimulate economic growth enough to keep the upper 1 percent of the banking class happy is by slashing the wages of the workers. It is a fact that for every 1 percent of immigration to Europe, wages are lowered by 1.2 percent. In Europe companies are now openly asking for greater numbers of refugees so as to reduce costs and increase their profits. Of course, on the other side of the balance sheet, the refugees will end up destroying our European social welfare system. The slogan “no job, no money” means that people will have to resort to accepting wages of 400 euros per month. This is a return slavery. To destroy their political and economic opposition, the import of slaves from all over the world is a very welcome phenomenon for the liberal capitalist elites. They also know that the mass import of refugees destroys the basic unity of Europeans culturally and ethnically. To destroy our future, the liberals invented feminism. First they told us to have less children, then to abort them – and now they tell us that we have to import refugees because we don’t have enough children. How is it that some people still don’t recognize the madness of the global liberal agenda?

And certainly, the refugee invasion is strongly supported by a number of liberal lobbies in the United States. I’m not sure if the CIA is chiefly to blame, but when one says “the CIA is responsible,” I believe that that’s not far from the truth. I mean, who funds these refugees? Are we to believe that tens of thousands of totally impoverished people have enough money stashed away to pay for boat tickets? And when they arrive, they certainly don’t look like they’re malnourished – some are even coming here with tremendous guts projecting out in front of them! One would have to be totally naïve to think that the United States government is not funding this artificial crisis in a covert yet nevertheless major way. This mass-immigration is strategically important for the United States, because it weakens its European vassal – it prevents Europe from developing independent foreign and domestic policies of its own, which in all cases would be more oriented toward Russia/Eurasia rather than North America.

When Raspail wrote the book you mentioned above (The Camp of the Saints), the year was 1973 – a time in which Europeans didn’t even give the issue of immigration a second thought, because it was too negligible to really notice unless you lived in a major metropolitan city like Paris or London. Fast-forwarding to 2009, I wrote an article titled “The Arrival of 60 million Africans.” This was at a time when the European Union opened an office in Mali with the goal of importing 60 million Africans. The office was founded by the European-African Partnership. It would appear that this EU policy goal is unfolding as we speak.

Finally, Kris: Are you optimistic about future European-Russian relations, and if so: why?

KR: In general, I’m pessimistic when we speak about the near future. For over 20 years I’ve said that the U.S. will use NATO to provoke a nuclear conflict with Russia. I understood this to be especially true when George W. Bush spoke about the so-called “Axis of Evil” in his 2002 State of the Union Address. In that speech, he singled out a few countries like Iran, Iraq and Libya. Of course, the latter two have already experienced illegal U.S. invasions and have had their leaders killed in cold blood. Thanks to Russia, the U.S. “master plan” didn’t work in Syria. The last two countries on the list of the “Axis of Evil” are China and Russia. It doesn’t take a “rocket scientist” to understand that these two countries will be the last ones which the United States will attack in order to provoke yet more regime changes. With China and Russia, any future U.S. attack can only have a slight chance for success, because it will probably necessitate an all-out nuclear war. In the end, I believe the alliance of Russia, China and other allied countries will win. But the price will certainly be high. Europe will be the main battlefield. And yes, it will be the end of Europe as we know it. Believe me, I hope I’m wrong.

As for the more distant future or long-term forecast of Euro-Russian relations, I am very optimistic, even after a possible Russian-American conflict. It delights me to notice how more and more people understand the importance of good European-Russian relations and, more specifically, friendship. I’ve noticed that after the intervention of Russia in Syria, a lot of people who were originally hostile to Russia now openly say things like, “Putin is a good leader – he’s the only one doing the right thing,” etc. This kind of reaction is good in my opinion.

Ultimately, the way the United States is treating Europe is also good – because it will inevitably push us in the direction of Russia. As you know, the U.S. prompted Europe to organize sanctions against Russia. This cost us a lot of money. And believe me, European businesses and the general population have suffered the effects. Nobody wants war in Europe. Everybody understands that the United States is nothing other than one big economic war machine. Without war, the United States cannot survive. More importantly, not a single sane European would want to fight and die for another U.S. war. On the other hand, a bankrupt and declining Europe will not refuse the helping hand of Russia. The U.S. knows this. For this reason the U.S. wants to cripple Europe – to erase Europe and all Europeans from the map completely. American elites know that we will not be the servants of Wall Street indefinitely. And we Europeans understand that being under the Russian umbrella is a hell of a lot better than being under a Yankee one!

Please inform our readers about any upcoming events Euro-Rus will be hosting and how they can get in touch with you directly.

KR: Unfortunately, hackers recently attacked our website. Apparently this means that we really disturb some people. For now, we’re currently in the process of developing a new site – a better one. All of our information will be up and ready to go soon on the new site. In the meantime, I encourage your readers to visit the links listed below this interview.

Kris Roman, thank you for joining us.

KR: It was a tremendous honor and a pleasure. Thank you.