The Green Perestroika Deception

The dissolution of the Soviet Union is often seen as the triumph of liberal democracy over socialism. However, Anatoliy Golitsyn’s Perestroika Deception hypothesis, proposes that perestroika and glasnost were not retreats from socialism but rather strategic adaptations rooted in Lenin’s NEP.

One step backwards to take two steps forward.

---

Vladimir Stanchinskiy, a Soviet pioneer in ecological science, introduced groundbreaking theories on biocenoses and energy flows in the late 1920s and early 1930s, concepts remarkably similar to those later attributed to H.T. Odum in the 1950s. He placed a strong emphasis on proportionality and the intricate systemic relationships within ecosystems. A pivotal figure in the All-Russian Society for the Protection of Nature (VOOP), his contributions were highlighted at their influential 1929 All-Russian Conservation Congress. When faced with criticism from the Deboronites - a Marxist philosophical group that had refurbished Bogdanov's systems theory in the field of environmental protection - Stanchinskiy adeptly reformulated his ideas, replacing static notions of equilibrium with proportionality and emphasising dynamic, self-organising processes to align seamlessly with the principles of Bogdanov’s systems thinking.

As Stalin tightened his grip on power, one of the casualties was the forcible dissolution of nearly all voluntary associations, with only a few exceptions. Notably, the All-Russian Society for the Protection of Nature (VOOP) - a vocal environmental advocacy group - was allowed to continue operating even under Stalin’s repressive regime. This exception raises questions about VOOP's potential strategic value, as few organisations - especially outspoken ones - escaped this fate. Stanchinskiy himself was not so fortunate; his groundbreaking work was sidelined, and he ultimately faced repression, culminating in his arrest and ultimate demise in 1942.

Decades later, Stanchinskiy’s work found new life, likely during Khrushchev’s tenure. According to Golitsyn’s Perestroika Deception, Khrushchev devised a strategy that ultimately culminated in Gorbachev’s Glasnost and Perestroika. This approach reflected a growing interest in systemic methodologies while also reviving Lenin’s NEP-style pragmatism, as Golitsyn observed. Khrushchev’s era brought a renewed emphasis on integrating scientific principles into environmental management, potentially laying the groundwork for deeper global engagement in the years to come.

In the early 1960s, the Soviet Union’s All-Russian Society for the Protection of Nature (VOOP) joined the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), marking an important step in the nation’s engagement with global environmental discourse. While Stanchinskiy’s systemic ideas had been sidelined during the Stalin era, they likely influenced the Soviet Union’s approach to ecology, indirectly contributing to the development of HT Odum’s systems ecology. This burgeoning field would later serve as a foundation for international environmental collaboration.

---

JFK’s Assassination and LBJ’s Environmental Agenda

The assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963 brought Lyndon B. Johnson to power, ushering in an era of intensified federal focus on environmental issues. Johnson’s administration marked a significant escalation in federal environmental activity, driven by key legislative efforts and a series of executive orders - largely overshadowed as the world’s attention was drawn to the escalating conflict in Vietnam, providing a convenient backdrop for advancing environmental policies.

Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration made significant strides in federal environmental policy, with much of this progress achieved through landmark legislation. While the first major law - the Clean Air Act (1963) - was passed under John F. Kennedy, Johnson’s presidency saw the enactment of the Water Quality Act (1965) and the Endangered Species Preservation Act (1966), marking a significant escalation in federal environmental efforts. These initiatives laid the groundwork for comprehensive federal engagement in environmental protection, emphasising resource management, pollution control, and public health, and paving the way for further advancements in subsequent administrations.

Supplementing these legislative actions were a number of executive orders issued during Johnson’s presidency which addressed environmental and resource management issues -

• Executive Order 11237 (1965):
  Coordination of Planning and Land Acquisition for Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Programs.
  This order facilitated federal coordination in acquiring and preserving land for public recreation and conservation.

• Executive Order 11258 (1965):
  Prevention, Control, and Abatement of Water Pollution by Federal Activities.
  This required federal agencies to take responsibility for controlling water pollution caused by their activities.

• Executive Order 11282 (1966):
  Prevention, Control, and Abatement of Air Pollution by Federal Activities.
  This extended federal environmental responsibility to air pollution, mandating agencies to reduce emissions from federal operations.

• Executive Order 11312 (1966):
  Flood Control and Coastal Management.
  This directed federal agencies to plan and act on flood control and coastal management projects, emphasising protection against natural disasters with environmental implications.

• Executive Order 11327 (1967):
  Air Quality Research and Standards.
  This order prioritised federal research into air quality and the effects of air pollution on public health and ecosystems.

• Executive Order 11378 (1968):
  Environmental Quality in Urban Development.
  This required federal agencies involved in urban development projects to consider environmental impacts and prioritise environmental quality.

Legislative Momentum and International Linkages

• 1965 White House Report: The President’s Science Advisory Committee’s report, ‘Restoring the Quality of Our Environment’, was one of the first official documents to warn of rising atmospheric CO2 levels due to fossil fuel combustion.

• 1966 NSAM 345: This memorandum emphasised the strategic use of environmental science and technology as a diplomatic tool, including cooperation with NATO allies and the Soviet Union. It reflected a growing recognition of environmental issues as a global challenge and the potential for fostering collaboration between geopolitical adversaries. This also set the stage for the development of global surveillance systems tied to ecological monitoring.

• 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference: This conference established the biosphere as a central concept for global environmental governance, linking public health, resource management, and ecological monitoring. It laid the groundwork for initiatives like the Man and the Biosphere Programme, shaping future efforts in international environmental cooperation.

Under Lyndon B. Johnson, the United States strategically integrated environmental protection into its broader geopolitical objectives, embedding ecological concerns as a key pillar of international diplomacy. This deliberate alignment marked a transformative step in framing environmental issues as vital to global governance, not merely as domestic policy challenges. By using environmental cooperation as a tool for fostering alliances - including with NATO and even the Soviet Union - Johnson's administration established the foundation for a new era of international collaboration. These efforts effectively laid the groundwork for the institutionalised environmental policies and global partnerships that would flourish under Nixon's leadership.

---

Nixon's Environmental Strategy.

While Nixon was often portrayed by the media as a staunch Republican, his administration’s approach to governance defied simple categorisation. Nixon not only established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and centralised health administration but also advanced significant steps toward global environmental governance. The Moynihan memo, dated September 17, 1969, proposed that NATO undertake global environmental surveillance - a groundbreaking suggestion largely overshadowed by the media’s focus on its more alarmist claims about global warming. Amidst the signing of the SALT agreements and the attention surrounding the 1972 UNEP Stockholm Conference, a pivotal yet underappreciated moment occurred on May 23, 1972, when the United States and the Soviet Union signed the Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Environmental Protection. This rare collaborative effort between the Cold War superpowers marked a significant step in addressing environmental challenges through diplomacy, mutual research, and shared policy.

The Stockholm Conference of 1972 gave rise to the establishment of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), whose early initiatives included the creation of the Global Environmental Monitoring System (GEMS). A key partner in this effort was the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), established by the foundation-funded International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) in 1969. SCOPE’s first report, commissioned by Maurice Strong and released in 1971, served as a foundational input for the Stockholm Conference. Following the conference, Maurice Strong commissioned their third report, SCOPE 3: Global Environment Monitoring System (GEMS), which outlined a comprehensive action plan for implementing this groundbreaking initiative - a global surveillance framework in the name of environmental protection.

But worthy of mention are related individuals, as Russell E. Train and Henry Kissinger were both actively involved in the negotiation of the US-USSR Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Environmental Protection. At the same time, Russell E. Train was advancing Nixon’s initiative related to NATO running global environmental surveillance. This connection is significant, as a senior member of SCOPE during these years was Viktor Kovda, a prominent Soviet scientist. Kovda not only played a key role in inviting ICSU to cooperate with UNESCO during their early years but, as a committed scientific socialist, was unquestionably aware of Train’s dual objectives during these negotiations. Furthermore, Moscow would have been fully informed about the Moynihan memo and Train’s involvement in both US-Soviet environmental cooperation and NATO’s global surveillance initiative, as such strategic information would have been of critical interest to Soviet authorities.

The US-USSR Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Environmental Protection outlined the need for both superpowers to collaborate on environmental matters, including sharing key information and using environmental protection as a catalyst for legislative and policy development in both nations. And just a few months later, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) was established, driving future efforts in global environmental modeling and computational analysis. This institution became a critical node for aligning environmental research with geopolitical objectives, fostering collaboration and scientific innovation during a tense period of Cold War diplomacy.

The Global Environmental Monitoring System (GEMS) agenda progressed rapidly following its inception. In 1974, UNEP/GC/24 outlined not only the inclusion of public health surveillance as a key priority within global surveillance efforts but also noted rising skepticism among delegates, who questioned the true motives behind such initiatives. Despite these concerns, Moscow signed onto the US-USSR Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, fully aware of the broader global surveillance programme, including NATO’s involvement.

The creation of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in 1972 appears to have been a critical step in facilitating this overarching vision. IIASA provided a platform for East-West scientific collaboration, enabling the development of systems-based approaches to global challenges, including environmental monitoring. This framework culminated in the 1979 First World Climate Conference (FWCC) in Geneva, where an implied ‘carbon consensus’ acknowledged human activity’s role in climate change and emphasiszed the need for coordinated international surveillance.

By 1990, the Second World Climate Conference further formalised these efforts, prioritising global satellite systems through the establishment of GCOS, GOOS, and GTOS. These initiatives laid the groundwork for subsequent advancements, including President Clinton’s 1996 global disease surveillance initiative and the Department of Defense’s Global Emerging Infectious Surveillance (GEIS) programme in 1997. The Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), launched in 2003, integrated these monitoring systems globally, culminating in the 2019 Canberra Declaration, which emphasised live-streaming satellite technology, made possible through advancements like Surrey Satellite Systems in 2018.

In March 2024, Elon Musk was outed for deploying satellites capable of providing unprecedented global surveillance, from which there will be ‘nowhere to hide’. This revelation highlighted the culmination of decades of progress in global monitoring systems. Musk’s satellite network, tied to broader technological developments, marked a new era of comprehensive global surveillance under the guise of environmental and security applications.

---

Gorbachev, UNEP GRID, and Environmental Strategy (1985)

Mikhail Gorbachev’s rise to power in 1985 coincided with the establishment of the Global Resource Information Database (GRID) under UNEP GEMS, an initiative aimed at centralising environmental data for global monitoring and governance. In his early speeches, Gorbachev frequently emphasised Glasnost, Perestroika, and the importance of international cooperation, framing the environment - alongside the threat of nuclear armageddon - as a universal concern transcending ideological divisions.

• 1985 Vienna Conference on Climate Change: This first major global climate conference underscored the critical importance of environmental governance, directly tying into the capabilities of the Global Resource Information Database (GRID) to provide actionable data for global decision-making.

• 1987 Speech at the UN: In his address to the United Nations, Gorbachev highlighted the interconnectedness of global challenges, including environmental degradation, nuclear disarmament, and economic inequality, as a rationale for collaborative governance and international cooperation.

• Perestroika and Lenin’s Ideas: Gorbachev frequently referred to Perestroika as a continuation of Lenin’s vision, emphasising adaptive modernisation as a means of addressing contemporary global and domestic challenges, rather than an ideological departure from socialism.

---

The Perestroika Deception: Environmentalism as a Trojan Horse

The Perestroika Deception theory suggests that Gorbachev’s reforms were not genuine liberalisation but strategic maneuvers to rebrand socialism for a new era. While the theory primarily cites Lenin’s New Economic Policy as a model, it lacks detailed mechanisms for how this rebranding unfolded. However, with the backdrop detailed above and Gorbachev’s consistent emphasis on environmental issues in his early speeches, it is likely that environmentalism played a key strategic role.

By positioning the Soviet Union as a responsible global actor on environmental issues, Gorbachev gained access to Western technology, trade, and goodwill. This positioning coincided with the announcement of UNEP GEMS GRID, which marked the launch of a global surveillance database. At its inception, GRID consolidated more than 30 separate data streams - including air quality, water monitoring, and public health surveillance - providing a critical foundation for global environmental governance while simultaneously aligning with broader geopolitical objectives.

But this also happens to align with the broader drive for environmentalism, which, under the framework of the 1972 US-USSR Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, emphasised the coordination of environmental policies in both East and West. By embedding environmental governance as a shared global concern, the agreement created a platform for synchronised policy directions across ideological divides. This alignment not only served the goals of scientific collaboration but also provided a subtle mechanism for introducing mutually agreed policy trajectories, further embedding environmentalism into global governance structures on both sides of the Iron Curtain.

---

Conclusion

This timeline illustrates a coherent strategy of using environmentalism as a vehicle for advancing geopolitical goals, rooted in the systemic thinking of Vladimir Stanchinskiy and operationalised through Mikhail Gorbachev’s reforms. The parallels between Lenin’s New Economic Policy (NEP) and Perestroika underscore the continuity of strategic adaptation within the Soviet framework, making the Perestroika Deception theory not only plausible but deeply credible.

Key takeaways:

• Environmentalism served as both a genuine area of concern and a geopolitical instrument: By emphasizing environmental issues, the Soviet Union gained access to Western technology, trade, and goodwill, while promoting global cooperation aligned with its strategic objectives.

• Gorbachev’s environmental rhetoric and initiatives aligned with long-term strategies dating back to the 1960s: Initiatives such as UNEP GEMS GRID and the 1972 US-USSR Agreement on Environmental Cooperation reflect a consistent effort to use environmental governance as a platform for East-West alignment.

• The integration of ecological and economic systems under the guise of global cooperation reflects a calculated adaptation of scientific socialism: By framing environmentalism as a universal concern, the Soviet Union effectively aligned its internal goals with global trends, embedding its ideological objectives into collaborative frameworks.

• The strategic use of environmentalism underscores the complexity of Cold War diplomacy: This approach reveals the enduring influence of systemic and organizational thinking in shaping global governance, blending science, economics, and politics into a cohesive strategy that transcended ideological divides.

• The alleged elimination of the ‘Soviet threat’ allowed environmentalism to emerge as a unifying global concern: In his November 4, 1987 speech, Gorbachev framed capitalism’s militarization and neocolonial policies as dependent on the perception of a Soviet threat. By positioning socialism as aligned with ‘the interests of all humanity’, he suggested that removing the Soviet threat could pave the way for cooperative global governance, where environmentalism could play a central role.

• With the collapse of the Iron Curtain, this threat was ostensibly removed, shifting global attention toward environmental challenges as a new framework for collaboration and control: In the absence of the Soviet Union as a geopolitical rival, environmentalism became the ideal platform for uniting disparate nations, transcending ideological divides while embedding systemic governance structures and frameworks for global control.

The timeline is notable because, as Stanchinskiy reformed his ecological theories to align with Bogdanov’s Tektology, contemporary environmental protection efforts became intrinsically tied to Bogdanov’s systems theory approach. At its core, Tektology emphasised a controlling entity or mediator to harmonise competing systems—an idea rooted in Eduard Bernstein’s 1899 work, which advocated for a mediator-based approach to balancing socialism with pragmatic adaptation.

This mediator concept connects directly to Lenin’s New Economic Policy (NEP), which sought to stabilise and modernise the Soviet economy by balancing socialist ideals with market mechanisms. Decades later, Gorbachev’s Perestroika echoed the NEP’s adaptive modernisation, integrating systemic thinking to address contemporary challenges. Environmentalism, framed as a universal concern, became the strategic vehicle to align governance systems East and West, embedding systemic approaches across ideological divides.

Gorbachev underscored this vision in his November 4, 1987 speech, To Feel Responsible for the World’s Destiny, where he declared: “For socialism this policy secures a merging of its class interests as a system and the interests of all humanity. And for capitalism, too, there is no other sensible way than coexistence and competition. Joint action alone can lessen and remove the global danger of an ecological ‘heart attack.’” This statement effectively positioned the Soviet Union as the defining voice of the ‘interests of all humanity’, preserving its class structure under the guise of global responsibility, while capitalist societies were left to grapple with environmental challenges framed as a competition.

In this way, the integration of Bogdanov’s controlling entity, Lenin’s NEP, and Gorbachev’s Perestroika, coupled with his framing of socialism as the steward of humanity’s ecological future, reflects a continuity of strategic adaptation within the Soviet framework. This narrative not only elevated environmentalism as a unifying global concern but also gradually wove a subversive web that enabled the Soviet Union to embed systemic socialism into global governance, while leaving capitalist societies to shoulder the burden of addressing alleged environmental crises.