Accuracy in Media

Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham acted surprised that David Koch would give an interview to Barbara Walters and talk about his radical “libertarian” views. Koch appeared in Walters’ ABC special program on “The 10 Most Fascinating People Of 2014.” The interview was featured in various stories highlighting Koch’s personal views as a “social liberal.” He’s for abortion and homosexual rights. But that’s not all. He’s also a major supporter of the Cato Institute, which recently featured NSA defector Edward Snowden at its “Surveillance Conference.”

David Koch’s foreign policy views are very far to the left as well—a fact that many conservatives may not realize.

We have heard it from the left so many times that Koch is an extreme “conservative” or right-winger that we have taken this claim for granted. It is definitely not the case. He’s sinking a lot of money into Republican and some conservative groups, but that doesn’t make him a conservative. In fact, as the Walters special showed, he doesn’t accept the conservative label. However, he does emphasize his free market views on economic and fiscal issues.

I am trying to get some comment from David Koch about Cato’s embrace of Snowden. The Koch brothers have an extensive public relations apparatus that includes the major Koch spokesman, Philip Ellender, a registered Democrat in Louisiana who serves as the President and COO of the Government & Public Affairs department of Koch Companies Public Sector. I have asked Robert A. Tappan, Director of External Relations for Koch Companies Public Sector, to provide an explanation of the Koch Brothers support for Cato and Snowden.

David and Charles Koch were two “shareholders” in the Cato Institute, and were involved in a lawsuit that resulted in John Allison (the former CEO of BB&T) replacing Ed Crane, who retired as Cato’s CEO. According to a press release, “For Charles Koch and David Koch, the agreement helps ensure that Cato will be a principled organization that is effective in advancing a free society.”

What this means in terms of Cato’s embrace of Snowden is a matter of discussion. Snowden is a captive of Vladimir Putin’s Russia, which is definitely not a free society but is a place where Koch Industries does business. (Koch Industries also does business in Communist China.) Do the Kochs approve of Cato’s embrace of Snowden? David Koch, who served as the Executive Vice President of Koch Industries, Inc., continues to serve on Cato’s board. Cato’s 2013 annual report lists the Charles Koch Foundation as a financial backer.

As we have reported in the past, the Cato Institute published a three-page interview with Snowden mouthpiece Glenn Greenwald in the July/August 2014 issue of the Cato Policy Report. Cato called Greenwald’s NSA disclosures “explosive,” which is true in the sense that the communications intelligence agencies of free countries like the U.S. and Israel have been hobbled by the publicity given to the stolen documents he received and publicized. National security experts also say Snowden’s disclosures facilitated Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the rise of ISIS.

Robert A. Levy, chairman of the Cato Institute’s board of directors, has written that if a deal is worked out, Snowden could return to the U.S. and “be held accountable for other actions, not yet disclosed, that amount to espionage—traditionally defined as transmitting national defense information with intent or reason to believe that it will be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of a foreign nation.”

In view of these comments, not knowing the full extent of the damage he has done, why would Cato give Snowden a platform? His video appearance at the Cato Surveillance Conference had to have been arranged with the help of the Russian security agents who guard Snowden and regulate access to him. Why would Cato participate in such an arrangement?

David Koch also serves on the board of the Reason Foundation, which sponsors Reason magazine. It, too, is pro-Snowden, having published such articles as, “Thank You, Edward Snowden.” The author called Snowden a “whistleblower,” which is a falsehood.

Martin Edwin Andersen, the first national security whistleblower to be given the “Public Servant Award” by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, strongly disputes the idea that Snowden is a whistleblower. He calls Snowden a national security leaker who engaged in theft, fled the country to escape justice, and is now “in the protective embraces of Olympic Russian police-state champion Vladimir Putin.”

By the way, Cato also supports Obama’s policy of appeasing the Castro regime in Cuba. It ran an article when Chuck Hagel was nominated as Obama’s Secretary of Defense, saying the former senator was correct in calling the idea “goofy” that the Havana regime constitutes a terrorist threat to the United States. Cato said nothing about the American terrorists who fled to Cuba and are being protected by the Castro regime. One, Joanne Chesimard, is a convicted cop-killer. The other major American terrorist in Cuba, William Morales, was a bomb-maker for the FALN, which killed four Americans in the 1975 Fraunces Tavern bombing in New York City.

Obama’s scheme to normalize relations with Cuba does not include the return of these terrorists to face justice in the U.S.

Hagel has since left the administration, but the Koch-funded Cato Institute is still around, exercising its influence on Washington policy makers. Cato hailed the release of the Senate Democrats’ so-called “torture report,” calling it “long overdue.”

The Kochs’ support for this group may prove to be more surprising than the “news” to some conservatives that David Koch is a liberal on social issues. The Koch Brothers are very liberal on foreign policy, too. We previously commented on a Charles Koch Institute forum featuring a foreign policy talking head who has no problem with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

So why are the Kochs sinking money into Republican-oriented and even some conservative groups? It’s time for traditional conservatives to examine what appears to be a Koch plan to move the Republican Party to the left on social and foreign policy issues.

Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.


  • Mountford

    I am not surprised at this article, there is so much deceit going on in politics in the United States, that it is a wonder we are still referred to as the United States. As a matter of fact it is hardly ever referred to in that manner, it is just America to most writers. This also may be the reason the Left refers our country as a Democracy, instead of a Republic. This makes me wonder what to call the Koch’s, plotters?

  • catisout

    Their priority in their many policy seems to be economic. The candidates they supported are by and large social conservatives and probably not on the same page as them on foreign policy (chapter maybe).

  • John Cunningham

    Isn’t America great? A person has the right to do and believe as they wish. Take Sarah Palin, she was Governor of Alaska and, once people heard about her very amazing success story, they wanted her to run as VP Candidate in 2008.

    Once Liberals and Liberal Republicans found out about her and the potentiality this amazing person was, they descended upon her and her family and crucified every Palin past present and future. In my estimation, one of the blackest days in American History.

    The Koch Brothers have the right to believe as they wish and spend their hard earned money on whom they please. Thank God they have been very helpful to Conservatives lately.

  • gwsmith

    It’s hard to pigeon hole the right. The left is easy.

  • Soxtory

    The Kochs are very prominent in NY society; there would likely be no opera, ballet and symphony in Lincoln Center, in fact no Lincoln Center if not for them. That they are not bothered by homosexuals should surprise nobody.

    Neither were Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater. Most libertarians are pro choice. They also are huge donors to hospitals in the city.

    Cliff Kincaid is off base here. Keep the focus on the libtards.

  • Douglas Mayfield

    I second the point which John Cunningham makes below. The bedrock of all freedoms is freedom of speech and that includes spending money which you have earned to support your views.

    I won’t attempt to analyse whether the Kochs are conservative since Mr. Kincade has not provided his definition of that word (I do thank him for the article) but I will say that I don’t believe that one’s views on social issues should be a ‘litmus test’ for whether or not one is conservative.

    I do believe that one’s views on such subjects are personal and probably should not come under the province of government which operates ‘at gun point’, that is, using force.

  • Rene Guerra

    Lenin said very felicitously that –myopically, either for even a meager profit or for a worship of the free market or for an adherence to fascist corporatism, he must have intuited– “The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”

    Those three ill manifestations of capitalism –libertarian capitalism– help the hardcore-Left…precisely to destroying capitalism.

    But that’s not the only harm libertarians inflict on societal freedom, harm which inevitably percolates down to individual freedom –which libertarians boast is the cornerstone of the free societies they envision– libertarians are in full congruence with the hardcore-Left in terms of:

    1- their common disrespect for innocent human life, i.e., their support to abortion on demand…when absolute respect of INNOCENT human is the most fundamental foundation of human-society. And human life starts since the moment of conception.

    2- their common support for homosexualism, i.e., the employment of homosexuality as a fulcrum for a movement imposing acceptance of homosexuality as normalcy, and imposing the grant of special privileges to homosexuals. The hardcore-Left does is as a tool to rupture the social fabric of any society targeted for takeover. The libertarians do it for the sake of “unfettered freedom”. The same applies to polygamy, polyandry and, in extreme cases, pedophilia and hebephilia and ephebophilia.

    3- their common support for weakening law and order.

    4- their common support for weakening the military.

    5- their common support for isolationism

    6- their common support for weak diplomacy

    7- their common support for strictly defensive and reactive national defense policies.

    No, libertarianism is not conservatism, let alone grassroots-conservatism.

  • Rene Guerra

    Hey, democracy is but one of the manifestations of republicanism…as a matter of fact, the best form of republicanism. On its turn, effective democracy is the best form of democracy.

    Contending that a democracy is not a republic is perfectly akin to contending that a char is not furniture.

    All genuine democracies are republics, but not all republics are democracies.

    A republic is a social arrangement wherein there is no monarchy or anything similar…and that’s all.. The USSR was a republic, China is a republic, Iran is a republic, Cuba is a republic. But none of them was/is a democratic republic, as, in contrast, the United States was constituted when the Constitution starts with WE THE PEOPLE. That is, making it explicit and definitive that supreme sovereignty rests with us, WE THE PEOPLE…which is the cornerstone of democracy: supreme sovereignty solely in the hands of the people, neither government, nor casts, nor classes, nor religions, nor political parties, not ideological movements, etc.

  • jadegreen_eyz

    Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes, “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts”.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Anti-communist Fred Koch built the empire, the Koch brothers simply inherited it. In fact, witnessing the evils of communism first hand, motivated Koch as a capitalist. Fred Koch understood marxist dialectic, so it is hard to understand why his sons would fall for the marxist liberation views that lurk within libertarianism. The libertarian platform is an anti-God, anti-authority platform promoting immorality which George Washington warned was an enemy of “free government” in his farewell address.

    I think conservatives are failing by compromising on legislation, and literally killing the sovereignty of our nation with free trade agreements. The Libertarians have at least the appearance of standing and resisting the opposition. Conservatives are becoming synonymous with the word cave. It’s like the show “Happy Days” when the character Chachi was introduced. How do you stay true to the original, when all you want to do is compromise?

    Ultimately, I think it is the pervasive and inescapable rebellion against the family father’s authority that has so captured and effected damage in this nation. Rebellion against the father’s authority is a goal of Marx that has had incredible success in altering the behavior of our nation. That which the Koch brothers appear to not be immune.

    What the left really despises is the father Fred.

    Read about Fred Koch here:

  • terry1956

    Some good points there.
    I think Fred would have supported these days the Constitution Party rather than the LP or the GOP but done like his sons by supporting conservative and libertarians running on the GOP ticket except in districts where and when it makes more sense to support someone running on the Constitution Party ticket, the Libertarian Party ticket or in some cases running as a Democrat.
    Unlike his sons I think Fred would have only supported pro life people and those who are thinking enough to understand that foreign trade is not free and that the founder’s promised that usually the federal government would get most to all of its tax revenue from import taxes.
    The superior nature of the Constitution Party Platform trade and tax planks goes further than any of the parties in endorsing the founder’s promise although I think they are confused on the internal federal excise taxes.
    Constitutionally millions of non corporate business can not be forced to collect federal excise tax because that would make it a direct tax but corporate business can be required to collect the tax although at the current levels such as 13.50 a gallon on liquor, over a dollar a pack for cigarettes few people would buy those products from corporate business so it would not make sense to have the taxes that high.
    The plank is also confused about the federal role in roads which in the states outside of US military bases should be almost no role except for establishing post roads, establishing not running or even subsidizing.
    It is similar with the post office clause in article 1 section 8, establish not operate. not deliver mail to homes and business, not have a monopoly, not even subsidize.
    Also I just don’t get what they are talking about in the Constitution Party plank on endorsing a excise tax on ads.

  • terry1956

    Yeah, could be, maybe similar to the Soros support of Marxist.
    Soros is for a one world government under control by a few top business leaders like him not a one world government under control of the Socialist Vanguard.
    Although the Soros Fascist corporatist and the International Marxist both are seeking a single world wide central government.

  • terry1956

    Well the hardcore left does not support isolationism but they are against US unilateralism, They want the UN to do it, some conservatives and libertarians are for isolationism in defense or as you describe strictly for defense and only a reactive defense like Ron Paul, while other libertarians are in agreement with many conservatives and the founder’s in being unilateralist.
    We should not be in a permanent alliance with any foreign nation or group of foreign nations.
    We should never be under the command of a foreign nation or group of foreign nations.
    We should never ask for permission of a foreign nation or group of foreign nations to go to war.
    Except where there is a clear and present danger, the president must get permission from Congress to go to war.
    We must have a strong state Militia and County Posse system that in total vastly is stronger and outnumbers federal forces.
    As the Tennessee state constitution says those who serve in the Militia sh ould select their own officers including non commission officers at the company and lower levels.
    The exceptions being those who report directly to the governor.
    The Posse/ Constable and Sheriff system for law enforcement allows the local neighborhood voters to hire and fire the peace officers, plus help them out as well as keep them in check through regular citizens serving on the Posse.
    Military, Militia, Posse and jury service should be voluntary but counties should be free to charge a higher tax for those who are able to serve but refuse to, those who are actually COs could serve as medics, watchers etc and still get the tax break.

  • terry1956

    On the other hand many libertarians are pro life, because rationally they know that murder should not be a choice in a civilized society.
    one of the problems today with marriage is the requirement to get a government license- libertarians are right about that but for the purpose of contracts the state has a duty to define marriage as only between 1 man and one women, and to forbid sex and marriage with minors.
    social security benefits and military pension benefits can be worked out by allowing the person owed the benefit to pass them on to just one adult who can be a spouse, a homosexual partner, an adult son or daughter or adult grandchild or just a adult friend.
    As it is now I’ve heard from divorced people more than one adult can get the social security benefit if the person owed the benefit was married more than once.
    As part of unit cohesion the commanding officer of a company or platoon should decide who can serve under their command unless a higher officer has overriding needs for the mission.
    Being that most of our defense should be via the volunteer state militias then those who serve get to select the commanding officers.
    So if a majority of those who serve do not want a women or homosexual in the platoon or company they can vote against a officer who selects one or more of those to be in the group.
    Yes this would mean that some platoons, some companies, maybe even some battalions and some brigades would have no women. no homosexuals, no blacks, no asians, no latinos, no atheist, no moslems, no mormons, no cathloics, but many would, likely most would allow them and some would not allow men, heterosexual, white protestants but many would, most would.

  • terry1956

    It helps to read Calculus of Consent by James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock.
    the problem when most tout democracy today is they mean either simple majority rule, simple majority represented rule, plurality rule or plurality represented rule.
    Since the state of GA. is the only state that has run off elections in the primary and general election, often what we have today in the other 49 states is plurality represented rule at best.
    We have not had proper Constitution Government
    Since ratification of the 17th amendment, the freezing of US House members at 435 and the illegal federal judges rulings in the 1960s and 1970s requiring all state, county and local districts being represented equally or near equally based on population.
    Judges since the 1890s are no longer required to tell the jury they can judge the law as well as fact if judging the law is justice for the defense.
    John Adams said it was the duty of the jury to do that.
    Except in New Hampshire in state cases usually the defense is not even allowed to bring it to the attention of the jury.
    Both the Constitution Party and Libertarian Party platforms correctly supports jury veto.

  • terry1956

    Properly most of the internal goverence in the US should not go above the county level.
    Below the County level we have the Anglo/American system of tithes or ten households, then hundreds or 100 households.
    The median population size of the 3000 plus counties is about 30,000, so with around 2 to 5 average per household then half the counties could be represented at the county commission by 150 or less commissioners or 1 from each Hundred.
    Or there could be a lower governing body for each voting district which varies from state to state but the average is 1500 voters which is an average of around 2000 to 3000 people per district thus each could send a representive to the county with half the counties having around 10 to 15 voting districts or towns and 10 to 15 county commissioners.
    Even a county with 100,000 people would have 50 towns or less and 50 county commissioners or less.
    Only around 1% of the counties has a million or more people and less than 20% has 100,000 or more.
    Each county should have equal representation in the state senate branch of the state legislator regardless if they have 10 million as LA County or 80 people like Loving County Texas.
    Its best to have the ratio for the state house like New Hampshire at 1 for around every 4000 people or even more representatives for smaller population size districts.
    The 17th amendment should be repealed and both branches of the state legislator should choose the 2 US senators for their state.
    If the legislator refuses then the governor should be allowed to appoint the US Senator which the legislator should be allowed to recall at any time.
    The state legislator should be allowed to recall a US Senator or Both at anytime anyway.
    The US House should have Constitutional Maximum number of representatives which is 1 for every 30,000 people, over 10,000 districts, over 10,000 representatives.

  • terry1956

    I agree that people, corporations, churches should be allowed to say what they want for or against someone running for office but they should not be allowed to give them even 1 penny because that is a bribe, especially to someone holding office.
    Of course federal and state taxpayers should not give them a penny except for reasonable security protection.
    That would seem to mean that only the rich could run for office but that would not be true.
    One thing we need to do is look at the Charters of PBS and NPR and if legal turn over much of their broadcast spectrum into public access stations that would broadcast at least monthly if not weekly public meetings in which members of congress and state legislators, county and local commisioners are expected to attend along with the people competing for their office.
    If not PBS and NPR spectrum, then other spectrum not being used by the private sector should be made available.
    Plus the meetings should be put on the internet and video archived or in the case of radio, audio archived.
    Of course it would help to cut down on the size of US House and state House districts by increasing the number a lot and cutting down on the size.
    In case of the US House that can be done without a Constitution Amendment as long as the size does not go below 1 for every 30,000 people and that is where it should go without a amendment.
    With an Amendment I would favor 1 US House district for at least every 3000 people and here in Tennessee the same for state house districts which would require a state constitution amendment since it says no more than 100.
    Yes that would mean over 100,000 US House districts and representatives and there is no reason except a rare event for them to meet in DC.
    Total Pay would no be a big part of the budget either, if each got 200,000 a year each that would just be just 20 billion dollars.
    Of course I hear New Hampshire pays its over 400 state House members and its state senators only 100 dollars a year.
    So 100,000 US House members at 100 dollars a year would be a total of just 10 million which is less than the total pay now.
    Without an amendment there might be 11,000 US House members after the 2020 census with 1 for every 30,000 people.
    at 100 dollars a year each that totals just 1.1 million dollars.

  • Formally_Worried_Independent

    You are wrong on everything you posted.
    1. Libertarians are NOT for unfettered abortion, only in rape, incest, and the unlikely need to save the mother.
    2. Libertarians do NOT support special privileges to homosexuals or any other group, we just don’t care if you are homosexual.
    3. We believe more strongly in law and order than most Americans, we don’t believe in some of the laws currently on the books.
    4. We believe in the strongest national DEFENSE America can muster without trying to control the entire worlds affairs.
    5. We believe in the strongest diplomacy available, nuclear deterrent and it’s usage when needed.

    6. We Libertarians are tired of both the stupid left and self rightous right telling us how to live our lives.

  • Formally_Worried_Independent

    {the state has a duty to define marriage as only between 1 man and one women} Very wrong assumption, where do transgender and hermaphrodites fall into your stupid bias?
    Get out of peoples personal lives and stick to reducing taxes and government, you do well on those topics. Conservatives act as bad as dems with their hypocracy, hmm lets reduce government, but lets still enact laws per our bias which only increases government. You can’t have ot both ways and call yourself a conservative.

  • terry1956

    its a matter of legal terms so that contractual parties don’t get messed over.
    sitting the legal term marriage as just between one man and one women protects the contractual parties, that has been the correct legal term first under English law over 1000 years before English- American law also used it as a legal term.
    If two grown volunteer adults want something else between each other they can state it in a contract but if they use the word marriage then legally it should not be something else.
    The point of the radical gays is to force employers to give their gay partners which of course would cost the employer a expense that he or she did not agree to.
    if the radical mono gays win on this then why not the radical poly heterosexuals, poly bi sexual and poly homo sexuals which of course would bankrupt most employers.

  • terry1956

    Actually I calReplyl myself a English-American legal culture libertarian, sometimes a constitutional libertarian or an American First Patriot.
    Which means I also understand the cultural Marxism and globalist corporate fascism having being working hard to under mine the morals in the USA.
    trans gender, or homo sexual or bi sexual or polys don’t need the legal term marriage to enforce volunteer agreements.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    I placed a vote for write-in Constitution Party candidate Virgil Goode in the last presidential election.

  • scamp640

    Oh, you’re hurting my feelings by call me a “libtard.” Did you make up that clever taunt? Oh, that is so clever. Let me try out that rhetorical device. You are a Repubtard. No, that makes me sound silly. Let me try another. You are a conservetard! No, that is kind of clunky. How about I just acknowledge that anytime somebody uses the phrase “libtard” I automatically assume they have an IQ of about 65 and assume that they listen too much to Rush, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin. Wow, just sad.

  • scamp640

    Cultural Marxism. You don’t even have a clue what this term means. It does not make you sound sophisticated. It makes you sound like you read it from the cover jacket of an Anne Coulter book you found at the remainder table at Barnes and Noble.

  • TheOtherRosie

    The writer of this article doesn’t seem to get that part of being a conservative is Equal Rights for all Americans. Hating gays doesn’t make you a conservative, it makes you a bigot.

  • TheOtherRosie

    Fortunately, most conservatives are not the bigots that Cliff Kincaid apparently is.

  • They’re losertarians.

  • Don

    The above article seems to be a propaganda piece in itself. For folks who want to up hold liberty then condone NSA wire tapping all Americans. These days we never know who are what is behind organizations labeled conservative or liberal. I would just settle for the raw truth of the matter and allow the goodwill and discerning citizen decide and make judgment. Conservative values are blessed, but why do we have wade through so much fodder to find leaders who walk the talk.

  • These idiots are anti American

  • Counselor1

    Does anyone know an exact Postal service mailing address for this Robert Tappan, (Kansas or D.C. )or better yet, for Charles Koch himself? I want to ask personally whether the Koch’s agree with or disagree with the idea of a Basic Income Grant broached by some Libertarians (Milton Friedman and Charles Murray, in Within Our Grasp.)

  • Counselor1

    Sorry, Murray book title is “In Our Hands.”

  • ?????? ?????

    it would be very very silly to assume that `snowman` or `snowden` is a real traytor. He most definitely is an American operative providing for one of the best strategic communication ops undertaken by USA intelligence EVER. On the other hand Koch brothers and their conglomerate of disinformation like CATO institute – is absolutely for sure semi criminal mafia closely associated with Moscow organized crime

  • ?????? ?????

    The so called neoconservative elite in the United States may not play
    a subordinate or peer, but The leadership role with respect to the
    actions of Moscow.

    The most important ally, and perhaps a mentor to the new Russian
    geostrategy is neoconservative US elite.

    -The war in the Middle East ;
    -prevention of the growth of the regional role of Iran;
    -prevention of the strengthening of the European Union;

    -prevention of the EU access to cheap energy sources, finally-

    -containment of China up to the US military confrontation with China ;

    – in all of these priorities are consistent with the interests of the
    neo-cons and with the new Russia’s geostrategy.

    Moreover, by implementing its own new geostrategy, Moscow is the main
    partner for the neocons, if not their tool.

    It is very significant in this context that we observe a sympathy in
    the Russian political class to the neo-conservative political figures.

    First of all, we are talking about a positive perception of George
    Bush Sr., who is described as a politician who allegedly sought to
    establish equal relations between the US and post-Soviet Russia,

    and George W. Bush, who had good relations with Vladimir Putin.

    It is also significant to observe a defined complementarity of Russian
    propaganda to the Stratfor company and its head – George Friedman, who
    visited Moscow in December 2014, made a number of lectures and
    meetings with senior Russian officials.

    No less significant was the story with the intention of the Russian
    authorities to bring Sheldon Adelson as a consultant to create a
    gambling zone in the Crimea from March 2014 (the project had to be
    abandoned under the pressure of the public).

    Finally, an indisputable role of Assistant Secretary of State
    Victoria Nuland – the bright representative of the neo-cons – in the
    Ukrainian crisis, IS so important for a new geostrategy of Russia, as
    well as its selection as a partner for “bilateral discussion of this
    crisis” format :

    format was called “Nuland-Karasin”.

    These and other facts quite clearly indicate the degree of similarity
    between the interests of
    -the American neoconservatives.

    In this connection,we should pay particular attention to the role of
    this group in support of the candidates in the upcoming US
    presidential election.

    “New Cold War” if it will be fully deployed in the information space
    of the United States,

    will be the best context for the comprehensive strengthening of the
    position of the neoconservatives in the American policy, including –
    in the presidential elections.

    The leading role in the formation of the American neoconservatives’
    architectured “new cold war” is complemented by an active involvement
    of other allied elite groups in different countries and regions.

    First of all, we are talking about

    -Israel (Netanyahu government),

    -Saudi Arabia (fraction supporters of the “hardliners” led by Muhammad
    bin Salman),

    – Egypt and Pakistan(allies of Sauds),

    as well as

    -the “hawks” in Iran (Ayatollah and conservative circles – Islamic
    revolutionary guard ).

    An important partner of the US neo-conservatives and the Russian authorities

    are anti-American elite groups in the People’s Republic of China,
    acting as an internal opposition to the current chairman of the China
    Xi Jinping

    Conclusions and recommendations

    New Russian geostrategy and the concept of “multi-polar cold war”
    without exception, affect all countries of the world in a variety of

    However, the totality of this phenomenon in the current situation it
    is important to identify those critical points, on which the
    preservation of modern architecture of international security is

    First of all, it is clear that this requires the implementation of the
    five strategic priorities:


    Ensuring the continuity of foreign and domestic policy following the
    administration with respect to the course of the Obama administration.
    The consolidation of the US establishment on a platform alternative
    to neoconservatism.
    We should never allow candidate of the neo-conservatives to win in
    the elections in 2016.

    2) European politicians must soberly assess the combination of factors
    such as the growth of far-right sentiment and a further increase in
    migration flows into Europe from Africa and the Middle East.

    It must be recognized that the adventurous policies of some European
    states in alliance with the neo-conservative circles in the United
    States during 2010-2015 contributed to the destabilization of the
    region and the emergence of the current problems.

    Europe must develop a strategy to counter the “right turn” in
    politics as a necessary condition for the preservation of the unity
    and stability of the EU.

    It must be greatly strengthening the control over financial flows
    coming from Russia and the United States to support the right-wing and
    ultra-left political organizations.