Posted by Internationalist 360° on February 26, 2025
Kit Klarenberg
A Swiss soldier tours another secret P-26 bunker
On January 25th, prominent Palestinian-American journalist and activist Ali Abunimah, cofounder of Electronic Intifada, was violently arrested by undercover operatives in Switzerland, en route to a speaking event. He proceeded to spend three days and two nights in jail completely cut off from the outside world, during which he was interrogated by local defence ministry intelligence apparatchiks without access to a lawyer or even being informed why he was being imprisoned. Abunimah was then deported in the manner of a dangerous, violent criminal.
Abunimah’s ordeal caused widespread outcry, not least due to Switzerland being the oldest ‘neutral’ state in the world. Such is Bern’s apparently indomitable commitment to this principle, it initially refused to join the UN lest its neutrality be compromised, only becoming a member in September 2022, following a public referendum. Moreover, the country routinely scores highly – if not highest – in Western human rights rankings, and has provided a safe haven for foreign journalists and human rights activists fleeing repression.
Abunimah’s flagrantly political persecution and ruthless treatment, undoubtedly motivated by his indefatigable solidarity with Palestine, stands at total odds with Swiss neutrality. So too Bern’s secret, little-known involvement in Operation Gladio. Under the auspices of this monstrous Cold War connivance, the CIA and MI6 constructed underground shadow armies of fascist paramilitaries that wreaked havoc across Europe, carrying out false flag terror attacks, robberies, and assassinations to discredit the left, install right-wing governments, and justify vicious crackdowns on dissent.
Switzerland’s Gladio unit was known as Projekt-26, the numerals referring to the country’s separate cantons. Its existence was uncovered in November 1990, as a result of an unrelated Swiss parliamentary investigation triggered months earlier. This probe was launched after it was revealed local security services had kept detailed secret files on 900,000 citizens, almost one seventh of the country’s total population, throughout the Cold War.
The inquiry found during the same period, P-26 operated “outside political control”, and specifically targeted “domestic subversion”. Its membership ran to around 400, with “most” being “experts” in “weapons, telecommunications and psychological warfare.” The unit moreover “maintained a network of mostly underground installations throughout Switzerland,” and was commanded by “a private citizen who could mobilise the force without consulting [the] army or government.” Parliamentarians also concluded P-26 “cooperated with an unidentified NATO country.”
It was some time before that “NATO country” was confirmed to be Britain. Subsequent investigations shed significant light on London’s mephitic relationship with P-26, and the unit’s role within the wider Operation Gladio conspiracy. Much remains unknown about the extent of its activities, and will most certainly never emerge. But while P-26 was officially disbanded after its public exposure, the recent persecution of Ali Abunimah strongly suggests MI6 continues to exert unseen influence over Switzerland’s politics, and intelligence, military and security apparatus today.
‘A Scandal’
Discovery of P-26 prompted a dedicated inquiry into Switzerland’s “stay behind” network, overseen by local judge Pierre Cornu. It was not until April 2018 that a truncated version of his 100-page-long report was released, in French. No English translation has emerged since, and a dedicated multi-page section on P-26’s relationship with US and British intelligence is wholly redacted. Still, the report acknowledged the unit’s operatives were trained in Britain – Gladio’s secret “headquarters” – and remained in regular, covert contact with London’s embassy in Bern.
Redacted excerpt of Cornu’s report on P-26’s relationship with the CIA and MI6
Oddly, a 13-page summary of Cornu’s report, published in September 1991, was far more revealing. It noted British intelligence “collaborated closely” with P-26, “regularly” tutoring its militants in “combat, communications, and sabotage” on its home soil. British advisers – likely SAS fighters – also visited secret military sites in Switzerland. Numerous formal agreements were signed between the clandestine organisation and London, the last being inked in 1987. These covered training, and supply of weapons and other equipment.
A secret P-26 bunker in Bern
Describing collaboration between British intelligence and P-26 as “intense”, the summary was deeply scathing of this cloak-and-dagger bond, describing it as wholly lacking “political or legal legitimacy” or oversight, and thus “intolerable” from a democratic perspective. Until P-26’s November 1990 exposure, elected Swiss officials were purportedly completely unaware of the unit’s existence, let alone its operations. “It is alarming [MI6] knew more about P-26 than the Swiss government did,” the summary appraised.
P-26 was moreover backed by P-27, a private foreign-sponsored spying agency, partly-funded by an elite Swiss army intelligence unit. The latter was responsible for monitoring and building up files on “suspect persons” within the country, including; “leftists”; “bill stickers”, Jehovah’s witnesses, citizens with “abnormal tendencies”; and anti-nuclear demonstrators. To what purposes this information was put isn’t clear. Many documents detailing the activities of both P-26 and P-27, and the pair’s coordination with British intelligence, apparently couldn’t be located while Cornu conducted his investigation.
Obfuscating the picture even further, in February 2018 it was confirmed 27 separate folders and dossiers amassed during Cornu’s probe had since mysteriously vanished. Local suspicions this trove was deliberately misplaced or outright destroyed to prevent embarrassing disclosures about “neutral” Switzerland’s relationship with US and British intelligence, and NATO, emerging abound to this day. At the time, Josef Lang, a left-leaning former Swiss lawmaker and historian, who had long-called for the Cornu report to be released unredacted form, declared:
“There are three possibilities: the papers were shredded, hidden or lost, in that order of likelihood. But even if the most innocent option is the case, that’s also a scandal.”
‘Clandestine Networks’
The unsolved murder of Herbert Alboth amply reinforces the conclusion that shadowy elements within and without Switzerland were determined certain facts about the country’s involvement with Operation Gladio would never be known. A senior intelligence operative who commanded the “stay behind” unit during the early 1970s, in March 1990 Alboth secretly wrote to then-Defence Minister Kaspar Villiger, promising that “as an insider” he could reveal “the whole truth” about P-26. This was right when Swiss parliamentarians began investigating the secret maintenance of files on “subversives”.
Alboth never had an opportunity to testify. A month later, he was found dead in his Bern apartment, having been repeatedly stabbed in the stomach with his own military bayonet. Contemporary media reports noted a series of indecipherable characters were scrawled on his chest in felt pen, leaving police “puzzled”. Strewn around his home were photographs of senior P-26 members, “stay behind” training course documents, “exercise plans of a conspiratorial character,” and the names and addresses of fellow Swiss spies.
On November 22nd 1990, one day after P-26 was formally dissolved, the European Parliament passed a resolution on Operation Gladio. It called for the then-European Community, and all its member states, to conduct official investigations “into the nature, structure, aims and all other aspects of these clandestine organizations or any splinter groups, their use for illegal interference in the internal political affairs of the countries concerned,” their involvement in “serious cases of terrorism and crime,” and “collusion” with Western spying agencies. The resolution warned:
“These organizations operated and continue to operate completely outside the law since they are not subject to any parliamentary control and frequently those holding the highest government and constitutional posts are kept in the dark as to these matters…For over 40 years [Operation Gladio] has escaped all democratic controls and has been run by the secret services of the states concerned in collaboration with NATO…Such clandestine networks may have interfered illegally in the internal political affairs of member states or may still do so.”
Yet, outside formal inquiries in Belgium, Italy, and Switzerland, nothing of substance subsequently materialised. Today, we are left to ponder whether Gladio’s constellation of European “stay behind” armies was ever truly demobilised, and if British intelligence still directs the activities of foreign security and spying agencies under the noses of elected governments. Given London’s intimate, active complicity in the Gaza genocide, and ever-ratcheting war on Palestine solidarity at home, Ali Abunimah is an obvious target for MI6.
So too Richard Medhurst, a British-born, Vienna-residing independent journalist and prominent anti-Zionist arrested upon arrival at London’s Heathrow airport in August 2024 on uncertain “counter-terror” charges. On February 3rd, Austrian police and intelligence operatives ransacked his home and studio, confiscating many of his possessions, including all his journalistic materials and tools, before detaining and questioning him for hours. Believing this to be no coincidence, Medhurst asked the officers if London had ordered the raid. An officer replied, “no, Britain doesn’t talk to us.”
Coincidentally, Austria is another ostensibly “neutral” country which MI6 embroiled in Operation Gladio. Following World War II, British intelligence armed and trained a local “stay behind” cell comprised of thousands of former SS personnel and Neo-Nazis. Innocently named the Austrian Association of Hiking, Sports and Society, like its Swiss counterpart, the unit operated with such secrecy that “only very, very highly positioned politicians” were aware. For his part, Medhurst is absolutely convinced London is behind his ongoing persecution:
“Some of these Austrian accusations are very similar to the British ones…I think it’s being coordinated with Britain…British police seized a Graphene OS device from me and [it’s] very unlikely they’d be able to crack it…I suppose that’s why Britain asked the Austrians to raid me, grab anything they could find and go on this massive fishing expedition. The warrant even mentions my arrest in London to try and bolster their case.”
https://libya360.wordpress.com/2025/02/ ... itzerland/
******
Denmark Prepares for Russian “Invasions of NATO Lands”
By Ron Ridenour - February 26, 2025 1
Denmark Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen. [Source: aa.com]
Continues Supporting Ukraine War and Tripling War Budget
“We have decided to offer Ukraine NATO membership. But it is also clear that we must all agree on it if it is to happen,” said Denmark’s Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen following the Ukraine Defense Contact Group meeting at NATO headquarters in Brussels on February 13.
Poulsen must have referred to the previous U.S. president’s wish for Ukraine to be in NATO, because the new president’s defense minister, Pete Hegseth, said the opposite following Donald Trump’s 90-minute telephone talk with Vladimir Putin: No NATO for Ukraine, and give up territory, meaning Donbas and Crimea, which joined the Russian Federation by referendum.
Pete Hegseth [Source: x.com]
The call came the day before the NATO meeting. Trump said he and the Russian president had “agreed to have our respective teams start negotiations immediately”—meaning this would bypass Volodymyr Zelensky and Europe.
Hegseth asserted, at the NATO Brussels meeting, that Trump was the “one man in the world” capable of bringing both sides together, and insisted U.S. attempts to negotiate peace were “certainly not a betrayal” of the Ukrainian soldiers fighting Russian forces.
Presidents Trump and Putin meet in Helsinki, July 10, 2018. [Source: abcnews.go.com]
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said Putin supported Trump’s idea that the time had come to work together. A date to begin peace negotiations has not been set.
Poulsen and other European leaders, as well as Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky, appeared flustered by being left out of Trump-Putin’s upcoming peace-in-Ukraine meeting. Denmark and other EU-NATO leaders say they will continue to send weapons to Ukraine for an unknown period, thus diverging from their decades-long dependency upon and support for all U.S. wars. (See my CAM Scandinavian series.)
While deftly defying the U.S.’s new government decision to end the proxy war against Russia, Poulsen and other defense ministers expressed relief that the U.S. would not leave NATO. However, President Trump and his defense secretary said Europe should increase their defense funding from 2% of GNP to 5%. Denmark is suggesting it could increase its current share of 2.4% to 3.5%. Denmark and other European leaders are already succumbing.
In 2024, the official defense budget figure was $5 billion. Denmark’s additional “donations” to Ukraine’s war, as of August 2024, was $10.28 billion plus an additional $760 million for EU’s Ukraine Fund.
The day following NATO’s Brussels meeting, Poulsen said that, with new “war taxes,” the sum could reach $14 billion annually, that is three times as much for just national defense.
In Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s six years as government leader, with two different cabinets, the defense budget has nearly doubled. She is proud that Denmark’s population of six million people is number one in donating the most aid per capita of the 52 countries which are participating in the proxy war against Russia, and is number four in absolute funding in sending weaponry, tanks and jets.
This pair of warring leaders sit in one of Denmark’s F-16 jets, 19 of which were sent to Ukraine.[Source: kyivindependent.com]
Intelligence Report: Russian Threat Against the Danish Commonwealth
The Danish government and the mass media do not mention that, if Russia invades one NATO country, all others are required to defend the one attacked, according to Article 5 of its charter.
Denmark’s Defense Intelligence Service (FE) at least mentions Article 5 as a deterrent for Russia to invade one of Europe’s NATO countries. On February 9, FE released its “View 2024” report. It concluded that the likelihood of a possible invasion of one or more NATO countries increases as Russia’s “balance of [military] power shifts in its favor”—over the 30 European countries, if the U.S. and Canada were not to engage.
The 32 NATO countries have a total of 3.33 million troops (2022) compared to Russia’s 850,000.
Six hundred million people inhabit the 30 European NATO countries, compared to Russia’s 140 million. The two North American countries have 335 million and 40 million.
One wonders how these Danish spooks can be serious! What could motivate such futile aggression, especially since much of Russia’s huge territory has not been explored, and untold quantities of minerals exist there. Yet FE presents the possibility that the U.S. might not “support European NATO countries in a war with Russia,” which would encourage Russia to do battle against just 30 countries with four times the population of Russia.
Alas, ordinary Danes believe this irrational propaganda. Even my love’s reading group believes that Russians lust after conquering Europe. All but her obey the constant reminder to prepare for three days of food and water provisions with oil lamps and flashlights expecting that electricity fails, and no government contact can be expected when/if Russia invades.
The Defense Intelligence Service report continues: “Russia sees itself in conflict with the West and prepares for a war against NATO. This does not mean that a decision has been taken to start such a war, but Russia is rearming and building the capacity to take such a decision.”
Russia’s capacity to wage war against Europe generally “depends also on how the war develops in Ukraine…[Once the war ends] Russia could free its great military resources and extend its military ability to conduct a direct threat to NATO.”
FE spooks propose a three-stage strategy, given that Russia wants to take over Europe:
Stage 1: “In six months [Russia] will be able to fight a local war against a country at its border.” Russia has 14 borders; six of them are members of NATO.
Stage 2: “In two years [Russia] will constitute a reliable threat against one or more NATO-lands and thus be ready for a regional war against several lands in the Baltic Sea area.”
Stage 3: “In five years [Russia] will be ready for a large-scale war on the European continent where USA will not be involved.”
The rest of the report encourages Denmark/Europe to escalate war production, rearm massively in order to deter Russia from its apparent thirst for warring against an entire continent. That thirst also includes “threatening behavior…with far-reaching plans…in the Arctic…[including] control right up to the North Pole.”
FE admitted that a direct Russian takeover of Greenland and the Faroe Islands is not expected, given U.S. interests in the Arctic. Nevertheless, Denmark is increasing its military-surveillance presence in that area several fold. Those measures do not prevent hybrid instrument attacks.
FE concludes: “If Russia obtains more resources to rearm in the Arctic, it is probable that Russia will continue and possibly increase its offensive behavior.”
Hard Core Europeans Ready to Send Troops
“Ukraine’s Western partners have been quietly working on a plan to send troops to [Ukraine], an AP report claimed on Saturday. Britain and France are leading the effort, though details remain scarce.”
After Trump was elected in November 2024, some European leaders met with Zelensky, in December, at NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte’s residence in Brussels. They came from Britain, France, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Poland and the Netherlands.
“I won’t get into the particular capabilities but I do accept that, if there is peace, then there needs to be some sort of security guarantee for Ukraine, and the UK will play its part in that,” Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer said, on February 13, if Ukraine does not come into NATO.
Addressing the Munich Security Conference one day later, Zelensky said that, if Ukraine is not accepted into NATO, another NATO will have to be made in Ukraine, an “Armed Forces of Europe.”
He and other European leaders meant it was “unacceptable” that the United States would negotiate terms of peace in Ukraine without its own leader and European NATO leaders involved. While some of them mull over the idea of sending their own uniformed troops to protect Ukraine, the prime minister of Europe’s number one weapons donor—Denmark’s Frederiksen—skirted the issue. She is waiting for Yankee troops to occupy her country at any time. She is one of many European leaders banking on fortifying their national armies, in order to deter further Russian intrusions.
Danish Media in Shock
Since the FE’s latest report, followed by Trump-Putin talk, and the NATO and Munich meetings, Denmark’s media have been saturated with alarming articles and editorials; TV and radio broadcasts, all bemoaning the new reality that Denmark and Europe can no longer rely on the U.S. to go to war, at least in their zone.
A major TV debate program, “Deadline” paired off a political journalist and an academic political analyst on the topic of whether Trump is a fascist or not. That subject, in and of itself, was unheard of concerning any leader in the United States of America Racist Military Empire (US-ARME).
Former FE chief analyst Jacob Kaarsbo told the Christian Daily: “Donald Trump’s approach to peace in Ukraine is a knee drop for Putin. He expects nothing from Russia…Putin perceives that Trump does not believe in democracy, and that he will rather make a deal with Russia than stand fast with that, which holds Europe and USA together.”
Christian Daily’s headline five days following the “intelligence” report was “Europe and Denmark have a long way to go to be able to take care of themselves.” The sub-head stated that this is “the worst security situation since 1939,” thus suggesting Putin as another Hitler.
My hope that Trump’s semi-isolationist presidency would encourage Denmark and Europe to look inwardly and see the need for finding their own sovereignty—which would be based upon peaceful cooperation with the world instead of the “good ole bang-bang you’re dead” Yankee winner-takes-all approach—is clearly not on their agenda.
West Historic Aversion to Russia’s Sovereignty
There are never any media reports, or politician references, to the historical context of the West’s actions and threats to take over or annihilate Russia. Great Britain has long wanted to quell Russia, and fought with France against Russia’s Patriotic War of 1812.
In the summer of 1918, the UK, U.S. and 15 other countries invaded Russia while World War I still raged after the new revolutionary Russia withdrew from World War I to establish its vision of Peace, Land, Bread. So subversive were they.
Democratic President Woodrow Wilson sent 13,000 troops, part of 300,000 (70,000 Japanese) to prevent Russia from building a cooperative, socialist society, in order to abolish greedy capitalism’s winner-take-all ideology and profiteering. The Russian aristocratic White Army had about one million troops. Russia’s working people and a quickly organized Red Army fought those forces until total victory in 1925.
U.S. soldiers fighting a counter-revolutionary war in Siberia. [Source: foreignpolicy.com]
Twenty years later, after the Soviet Union led the victory over Nazi-Fascist European forces, the UK-U.S. tried again to conquer Russia and the entire Soviet Union’s 15 republics. Even before the last bullet was fired in Europe, Prime Minister Winston Churchill devised Operation Unthinkable. Had Churchill the atomic bombs he needed from his understudy Harry Truman, he would have invaded Moscow, Stalingrad and Kiev, in the summer of 1945.
Churchill had asked President Truman for use of his atomic weapons, but Truman needed the few being made for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Two other factors prevented such an untoward act. Labour Party leader Clement Attlee defeated Churchill in an election and took office on May 23. He treated Russia/USSR as real allies.
Nevertheless, Truman heeded Churchill’s wish and started his own operations to destroy the Soviet Union following Japan’s surrender. The Cold War/Truman Doctrine organized several operations: Pincher (1945); Broiler, Frolic, Sizzle (1948); Trojan, Shakedown and Dropshot (1949).
Dropshot called for 400 atomic bombs to be dropped upon 200 targets over 100 Soviet cities. The United States government planned to attack in 1950-51.
Illustration from A Compassionate Spy showing the proposal to nuke 200 targets over 100 Soviet cities. They would have annihilated several million humans and conquered the rest. [Source: covertactionmagazine.com]
This would have made the U.S. an unstoppable empire to end all empires. Yet, two conscientious scientists at the Manhattan Project—Klaus Fuchs and Ted Hall—gave the Soviets secret formulas, which enabled them to complete their own atomic bomb ahead of the time estimated by the U.S.
Klaus Fuchs (left) and Ted Hall (right). [Source: pace.edu]
Journalist Dave Lindorff wrote: “What put a thunderous halt to the U.S.’s planned genocidal attack was the surprise on August 29, 1949, when the Soviets tested their atomic bomb, which was based on Ted Hall and Klaus Fuchs’s information that they gave the Soviets. Truman, the U.S.’s intelligence apparatus, Pentagon strategists and nuclear scientists were stunned. They had not expected the Soviets to get their own bomb before 1953 or 1954.”
For the complete story, see Lindorff’s co-produced documentary film, A Compassionate Spy; and his book, Spy for No Country: The Story of Ted Hall, the Teenage Atomic Spy Who May Have Saved the World (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2023).
Since 1991, Denmark has followed the U.S. in all its aggressive wars. Two weeks before Russia’s February 24, 2022, military incursion into Ukraine, PM Frederiksen told the world that her country was inviting Yankee troops and weaponry of known and unknown types to occupy Denmark permanently.
“Denmark and the USA have a special bond—a strong community of values, and since the end of World War II, the USA has been Denmark’s most important ally, and the guarantor of our security and safety through NATO,” she told a news conference on February 10.
PM Mette Frederiksen [Source: stiften.dk]
“That is why we are starting concrete negotiations with the USA on a new Defense Cooperation Agreement (DCA)…with closer Danish-American cooperation.”
A similar DCA was signed with Sweden and Finland during the same month; Norway already had such an agreement. The DCA will mean 47 U.S. bases. They will be separate or part of already-existing national military bases: Sweden 17, Finland 15, Norway 12, Denmark starting with 3).
The U.S.-ordered DCA treaties allows it to place weapons without the nation’s knowledge or investigation. The U.S. is also the sole police-judge of any crimes committed by U.S. personnel.
“We Cannot Count on USA…”
One of four Christian Daily articles published on February 14 concerning the new U.S.-Europe paradigm was written by security-political analyst Jens Worning. The former Danish general consul in St. Petersberg concludes that Denmark’s geopolitical position is in an “historic existential crisis, because our most important ally challenges us.”
Jens Worning Sørensen, in 2022, when DR TV headlined its story about the 70th birthday of Putin as the “World’s most hated leader.” [Source: dr.dk]
Denmark’s three-year long logo “Ukraine Shall Win,” Worning surmised, “died” at NATO’s meeting the day before he wrote. “Is it still valid to call USA our ally?”
Worning’s last words echo the newspaper’s own editorial: “In practice, we cannot count on USA as our guarantor for military security…Trump sends a clear signal that aggressive dictators deserve more room than invaded lands.”
https://covertactionmagazine.com/2025/0 ... ato-lands/
*****
Transcript of ‘Judging Freedom’ edition of 26 February
Transcript submitted by a reader
Napolitano: 0:32
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for “Judging Freedom”. Today is Wednesday, February 26th, 2025. Professor Gilbert Doctorow will be here with us in just a moment on Europe Stands Alone. But first this.
0:48
[commercial message]
1:57
Professor Doctorow, welcome here, my dear friend. Always a pleasure to chat with you. I wonder if Emmanuel Macron on his flight over the Atlantic from Washington back to Paris felt fulfilled or gratified. I mean, another way to put this is what leverage do President Macron and Prime Minister Starmer have with President Trump?
Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 2:24
Not much. They are respected in a way that Donald does not respect the Canadians, for example, and all the– and Germany, for example. He has a certain romantic inspiration with the United Kingdom, so he is not about to insult the prime minister the way he did Angela Merkel during his first term. As for Macron, I don’t think that he feels very comfortable with Macron, but Macron has nothing to offer him. And I think what came out of the meeting they had in the White House and the press conference which followed it, which was easily available on YouTube by a variety of carriers, showed that Macron thought that he had done mission accomplished and that he had brought Donald Trump on line for the European role in the post-peace Ukraine.
3:34
But as even a Russia-hostile news organization like the “Financial Times” commented yesterday morning, Donald Trump had not been forthcoming. He had not committed the United States to anything, even if Macron said that he thought he did.
Napolitano: 4:01
Very interesting. Why would the Europeans even expect Trump to include them in negotiations with the Russians?
Doctorow:
Well, they are committed, they have taken enormous expenses in following a line that was set down by the Biden administration. They have spent a lot, and they still have the prospect of spending a great deal more if they are involved in the post-peace situation. Now, there is a– let’s make a division here between the leaders of the countries and the national interests involved. Just as in your show, there’s a lot of discussion about-
Napolitano:
Let me stop you. Did you say there’s a gap between the national interest and what the leaders of these countries– we’re talking about France and Great Britain– want?
Doctorow: 5:03
And not just France and Great Britain. All of those EU countries that have signed on for the Biden program of marginalizing Russia and punishing Russia, They are led by people who, in the vernacular of critics, would be called compradors. They are people who are bought into the American empire, who personally profit from it, and who are indifferent to their own nation’s interests. Now, that isn’t a remarkable thing to say. A similar thing could be said about American foreign policy, which for 30 years by well-regarded polls showed that the majority of Americans were not interested in being the policemen to the world.
Napolitano: 5:58
Well, does the European public fear and despise Russia the way European leaders do?
Doctorow:
That’s a difficult question. There are certain people who do, of course. “Fear” is the better word and fear leads to despising. The key word here is “fear”. Yes, they do fear Russia, and they might well, because they’ve stirred it up. They have poked the bear in the eye repeatedly.
Let’s be honest about it. When the Russians moved into Ukraine, the Europeans suddenly understood that they are defenseless and they are defenseless without the American NATO participation. Now I’ve gone over this question, why are they defenceless? They spend 10 times more money on defense than Russia did before it went into the war.
6:56
So why do they have nothing to show up, to put up? Well, I can give you an example from the country I live in, from Belgium. I spoke to– it was at a luncheon that we had at one of these fancy clubs where the speaker was from the Defense Ministry of Belgium. And we were asking him about the budget and asking him about mobilization. And he said, what?
That Belgium cannot mobilize, it has no money in the budget for it. And then he told us where the money is going. Maybe 80 percent of the Belgian Ministry of Defense budget is going on personnel. That is the salaries and benefits of the serving military and the very large component of retired military, not on new hardware, simply to pay the existing forces, as small as they are, that Belgium has.
Napolitano: 7:48
Well, let me ask you about Great Britain. When Prime Minister Starmer two weeks ago offered to send troops to Ukraine, was that essentially a farce? Does he have the troops to send?
Doctorow:
No, of course he doesn’t. As far as I know, the active military force of Britain is something like 50,000 people. I could be wrong, but this way or that. But there’s a reason why these were so small. And it’s not because these countries were dependent on America for their defense. As Donald Trump has been saying, they haven’t paid their fair share. No, no, they knew what they were doing. The reason why Europe was defenseless was because Europe saw no need for defense.
8:33
Europe understood that there was no hostile country in their neighborhood. They did not, until they were provoked and pushed by Washington, they did not see Russia as threatening. The United States policy so provoked Russia that it invaded Ukraine, and that was the epiphany moment for Europe. when they saw that they were defenseless. But it’s not because they had been stupid before. It’s not because they had been cheapskates before– they’d spent a vast amount of money that was wasted– it’s because there was no threat until the United States created a threat by forcing its way into Ukraine by the coup d’état that triggered a very strong Russian reaction.
Napolitano: 9:21
Do the European leaders by and large– and we can use as our examples President Macron and Prime Minister Starmer– believe that Russia is worthy of trust with respect to any agreement that it enters into? Or are they like Victoria Nuland and Senator Graham, Senator Lindsey Graham, who believe that Russia needs to be rid of Vladimir Putin, can’t be trusted, wants to expand to the old Soviet borders, wants to invade Eastern Europe?
Doctorow:
Well, let’s differentiate here. When we speak about Macron, we’re speaking about a chameleon. His only interest is holding power and he will do whatever is opportunistic at the moment. So he has been for the last three years one of the leading voices condemning Russia, trying to mobilize Europe under his direction to defeat Russia. But as the situation changes, as the United States position becomes crystal clear, and as he finally realizes when he gets home and thinks it over that he didn’t persuade Donald Trump of anything, he will slowly– he will not be embarrassed to change his direction. He’s been changing his direction every two days for the last five years, so it’s not new. Mr. Starmer, I don’t think is so bright, and I don’t think he is such an opportunist. He would find it embarrassing to flip-flop the way Macron does quite naturally.
Napolitano: 10:44
What do you think Prime Minister Starmer hopes to achieve by his trip or his visit to the White House tomorrow? Apparently he is going to offer to increase the government’s military budget from 2 percent of GDP to 2.3 percent of GDP. I don’t know what that is in actual numbers. And he’s going to invite the president to dinner with the king. Well, that’s not going to animate Donald Trump, is it?
Doctorow: 11:22
Well, he wouldn’t mind having a dinner with the king. That would animate Donald Trump, but doesn’t obligate him to do anything. The numbers, as far as I know, were 12 billion pounds, which must be 15 billion dollars, something like that. This is the increase.
Napolitano:
But what does Starmer, to be blunt, what does Starmer hope to get from his trip to the White House tomorrow?
Doctorow:
The Americans backstopping the mission of European peacekeepers in Ukraine. They all know that without the United States logistical support, intelligence support from the satellites, they cannot possibly send troops there who will not be murdered very quickly by the Russian forces. So that is a critical point, and he hopes to bring Donald Trump around to this idea of being the final guarantor. It won’t work.
Napolitano: 12:20
Do Prime Minister Starmer and President Macron– I suppose we could throw in, we haven’t discussed him yet, Chancellor-in-waiting Merz– understand the Russians will never accept a foreign peacekeeping force in Ukraine, any more than America would accept Chinese troops in Mexico?
There are a number of reasons for it, and one that is very little discussed is, which way are they looking? The assumption that Macron set out, and that Starmer will certainly repeat when he’s in the Oval Office, is that the Russians can’t be trusted.
The Russians have already twice invaded, first in 2014 when they took Crimea and now, and then in 2022 when they invaded Ukraine and headed towards Kiev, the capital. They can’t be trusted. They’re aggressive, they’re recidivist. These are dictatorships, dictatorships are fragile, they only can maintain their people in place by foreign wars. And so, well, that’s the story that he’ll deliver.
13:38
I don’t think that Donald Trump will be buying any of it. But if you have such a position, if the Russians can’t be trusted and are intent on war, then you’ll be looking east. You’ll have all the peacekeepers looking east and they won’t be looking up over their heads while the Ukrainians restart their genocidal activities that precipitated the Russian invasion in 2022. That is firing east into Russian settlements. That is what touched off the war. And there you have it. The Russians have seen this–
Napolitano:
Do you know if the Ukrainians are still firing east using American ATACMS and British Storm Shadows, I think they’re called?
Doctorow:
Yeah, I don’t believe they are. What we read about, hear about now are primarily drone attacks. And let’s be clear about it. The drone attacks are much more difficult to stop than the ATACMS or Storm Shadows. These are first, these highly sophisticated missiles are extremely expensive. The Ukraine has few of them. They are husbanded, they are used sparingly, and they are reasonably easy to shoot down with the standard high-accuracy air defenses, of which Russia has perhaps the leading air defense.
15:17
Now the drones are a different story. They’re harder to detect. And maybe you shoot down a great, some of them, but whole swarms of them come in. You hear about a hundred or more drones being sent east by the Ukrainians, being sent west by the Russians, and inevitably some of them get through.
And we knew about this last week. We knew about the success of the Ukrainian drone in destroying an oil pipeline pumping station that was essential to maintain flows of petroleum, raw petroleum from Kazakhstan into the pipeline network in Turkey, I believe. It works. You can destroy things with the drones. The drones cost a fraction of the cost and the Ukrainians make many of them themselves in the underground small-scale plants.
16:19
This is a factor in what has slowed down the Russian advance, and why all calculations of how they can sprint and go to the Dnieper in two days are mistaken. With drones, a relatively small number of Ukrainian skilled forces can cause serious risk to the lives of an advancing Russian battalion. Therefore, they have to proceed very carefully. And this frustrates those of us, particularly the military experts, who are trying to tell us that the war is close to an end.
Napolitano:
Well, yes, the military experts that appear on this show, all of whom have a professional lifetime of experience in this, all tell us, you know, it’s not months, it’s weeks. Are you suggesting that the use of drones will extend the life of the Ukrainian military?
Doctorow:
It is extending the life. But all these experts are not spending much time looking at Russian television. They would see and hear from the soldiers on the ground who are being given the microphone by the Russian war journalists that it’s tough slogging, you have to be very careful of the little birdies, that is both the reconnaissance and the kamikaze birdies. They are deadly and the Russians use them to great advantage. We see on the screen this tank, that personnel carrier, whatever, every day being destroyed by one or another Russian–
Napolitano: 18:03
Well, are the Ukrainian, is the Ukrainian military pushing the Russians back or is the Russian military continuing to move inexorably but slowly westward?
Doctorow:
The second scenario, You described it very accurately and concisely. The Russians are advancing cautiously and not like a steamroller all along the front, but in select places where they see that the Ukrainians are weaker.
Napolitano: 18:36
What is the reaction of Russian elites to some of the more extreme statements articulated by President Trump? “Ukraine started the war, Zelensky is a dictator.” Comments of that nature, I would imagine they’re ecstatic over what he says, or do they not take him seriously because he sometimes says one thing on one day and the opposite on the next.
Doctorow:
Well, they don’t want to spoil the air. So they’re not directing attention to these inconsistencies in Donald Trump’s statements. I’d give them credit in being, that is, Russian television. Let’s be honest about it. These talk shows bring on serious experts, and they are given the microphone, and nothing is ever censored or cut from the transmissions on air.
19:35
But nonetheless, the hosts know what is acceptable and not acceptable to be aired. And the conversations are steered accordingly. There is nothing disparaging said about Donald Trump. What is paid attention to is less his words than his deeds. And I think the Russians were much more interested in what happened in the voting in the United Nations on Monday than they were in any particular remark that Donald Trump said about Zelensky.
Napolitano:
Why do you think, Professor Doctorow, president Trump is offering Ukraine continued military assistance in return for access to minerals in the earth, if he really wants to bring about peace? Why doesn’t he just turn off the Joe Biden military spigot?
Doctorow: 20:27
Well, he’s not adding anything to the flow.
Napolitano:
Well, what is he getting in return? Excuse me, what is he offering Ukraine in return for the mineral assets, or are those mineral assets payback for what Trump says is a loan and Biden says was a grant.
Doctorow:
It’s the retrospective payback. It is not the very– he’s very careful. And when he was speaking with Macron, he did not support the notion that the United States is going to commit anything further to Ukraine. I think it is of great importance to Donald Trump to be able to argue to the American people that he has taken back the enormous expense that the United States incurred without any strings attached under the Biden administration. He is going to spare himself the embarrassment of an Afghanistan 2.
21:31
He is stuck with a losing hand in Ukraine, but if he can at least have the external signs of recovery of America’s investment in this failed war, he will look good.
Napolitano:
Where are these minerals for which he’s negotiating? Some of our military people tell us that the vast majority of them are in the four provinces or oblasts that are now controlled by Russia in eastern Ukraine.
Doctorow:
Again it would be better if they paid more attention to what the Russians are saying. The Russians are saying on television that about 30 percent of these minerals are in the eastern provinces or the oblasts that Russia holds.
22:18
And indeed in his offer, in Vladimir Putin’s offer to Trump a day ago, to make available to the United States its resources in rare earth and other critical elements for modern and future electronics production. He mentioned both Russia’s vast expanse going out to the Far East where these deposits are located in various places, and to jointly exploit those elements that are in the four provinces, the oblasts that Russia has taken from the Ukraine.
So he also said that Russia’s holdings in all of these minerals and metals is, as he said, an order of magnitude greater than Ukraine’s and that is believable.
Napolitano: 23:19
Right, right, very interesting. Dr. Doctorow, thank you very much. As always, it has been a fascinating conversation with you. And as always, we are deeply appreciative. And as always, we look forward to seeing you next week.
Doctorow:
Thanks so much.
https://gilbertdoctorow.com/2025/02/26/ ... -february/
******
Budanov’s Fearmongering About A Russian Invasion Of Poland Is A Response To The Latest Polls
Andrew Korybko
Feb 27, 2025
He hopes to shift Polish public opinion in support of dispatching peacekeepers after May’s presidential election.
GUR chief Kirill Budanov fearmongered earlier this week about the “worst-case scenario” of Russia invading Poland and then rest of the former Warsaw Pact countries if Ukraine loses the current conflict. His prediction contradicted what Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria the day prior about how the US reaffirmed that it would rush to his country’s aid if it was attacked by Russia. A possible explanation for Budanov’s curious comments is that they’re a response to the latest polls.
Almost 60% of Poles believe that Ukraine must “seek peace as soon as possible” while slightly more than half are against continued military aid to Ukraine (presumably even as a loan like Warsaw said last fall would be the way forward). These views influenced the ruling coalition’s decision to rule out dispatching peacekeepers to Ukraine, which imperils European warmongers’ plans as explained here since Poland now has NATO’s third-largest military whose participation is pivotal to the success of any such mission.
Budanov knows this and therefore might have thought that fearmongering about a Russian invasion of Poland could shift Polish opinion in support of dispatching peacekeepers, perhaps after May’s presidential election like populist-nationalist Confederation’s candidate Slawomir Mentzen warned. In connection with that, he recently tabled a resolution at the Sejm prohibiting the deployment of Polish troops to Ukraine, but the ruling coalition suspiciously ensured that it was defeated.
Mayor of Lvov Andrey Sadovoy also speculated that Poland’s approach towards dispatching peacekeepers to Ukraine might change after the presidential election, though that might of course be dependent on the outcome, particularly whether or not the ruling coalition’s candidate wins. If the (very imperfect) conservative opposition’s one bests him, such as with the support of Confederation in the second round per a deal ahead of fall 2027’s next parliamentary elections, then it might not happen.
Sadovoy is also angry with Mentzen after the latter recorded a video during his recent trip to Lvov where he stood in front of a Bandera statue and condemned him as a terrorist. Mentzen also referenced the revived Volhynia Genocide dispute that’s toxified their ties since last fall. Sadovoy responded by taunting Mentzen to record a video at the Donbass frontline. He also questioned whether or not Mentzen is even able to enter Ukraine in a hint that he might soon be banned or even placed on its infamous kill list.
Through these two moves, Mentzen placed himself at the center of the two most sensitive issues at the heart of the newly troubled Polish-Ukrainian partnership, peacekeepers and Volhynia. How this relates to Budanov’s fearmongering about a Russian invasion of Poland is that they could counteract whatever effect the GUR chief’s words might have on shifting public opinion and therefore ruin his plans. The chances of that happening would spike if Mentzen is banned from Ukraine or placed on its kill list.
Nevertheless, the outcome of the next presidential election might be what ultimately determines whether or not Poland dispatches peacekeepers to Ukraine like Budanov clearly wants, hence why it can’t be concluded with full certainty that the ruling coalition’s decision to rule this out is sincere. After all, they banded together to ensure that Mentzen’s resolution on prohibiting the deployment of Polish troops to Ukraine was defeated, which implies that they might change their mind if their candidate wins.
https://korybko.substack.com/p/budanovs ... -a-russian
Romania Is At The Center Of The Struggle Between Liberal-Globalists & Populist-Nationalists
Andrew Korybko
Feb 27, 2025
What’s unfolding in this Balkan country is nothing less than the opening of another New Cold War front, albeit this time an ideological one which also interestingly pits nominal NATO allies against one another as the EU and the US take opposite sides.
Observers were shocked on Wednesday after former Romanian presidential front-runner Calin Georgescu was temporarily detained and charged on six counts amidst police raids against some of his closest supporters as he was preparing to file for his candidacy in May’s election redux. The first round last December was annulled on the basis that an unnamed state actor promoted him on TikTok prior to the vote but it was later discovered that this was just another party’s marketing campaign gone wrong.
It was explained here how Georgescu’s election could have ruined the US “deep state’s” escalation plans against Russia while this analysis here added more context after the annulment. The immediate run-up to the latest developments saw Vice President Vance lambast the Romanian government as anti-democratic for what it did last December. Wednesday’s events were then followed by Musk retweeting a video of State Department whistleblower Mike Benz describing the “deep state’s” interest in Romania.
Benz drew attention to how Romania agreed to host NATO’s largest airbase in Europe and has played a crucial role in clandestinely transferring Pakistani military equipment to Ukraine. These are important points, as is the “Moldova Highway” that’s mentioned in the two analyses cited above since it completes the last part of the corridor stretching from Greece’s Mediterranean ports to Western Ukraine, but there’s more to what’s happening that just geopolitics. Ideology is arguably just as significant of a factor.
Romania has been under liberal-globalist control for decades after these forces exploited its political dysfunction and endemic corruption to continually install their preferred candidates into power. Georgescu represents the most promising opportunity in years for a populist-nationalist revolution that could finally resolve the aforementioned systemic challenges and thus restore Romania’s sovereignty. His appeals to history, religion, and national interests genuinely resonate with many of his compatriots.
Georgescu can therefore be described as a “Romanian Trump”, but both figures are really just tapping into the populist-nationalist zeitgeist that’s been spreading across the West for years in reaction to the liberal-globalists’ socio-political and economic excesses. He’s his own man, as is Trump, and both simply embody the trend of the times. Like all revolutionaries (or counter-revolutionaries from the perspective of regaining the power that was seized from the people), however, they’re also facing lots of resistance.
It took Trump over eight years before he was able to neutralize the “deep state’s” subversive plots so it’s no surprise that Georgescu, who only just recently began his political career, is having a hard time. Trump was a trailblazer though whereas Georgescu is following in his footsteps so it’s possible that Trump could lend Georgescu a helping hand to greatly speed up the time that it takes for him to neutralize his own “deep state’s” subversive plots. It’s here where the ongoing struggle between the US and EU is relevant.
“Vance’s Munich Speech Vindicated Putin’s Summer 2022 Prediction About Political Change In Europe” and made clear that the US stands on the side of all populist-nationalist movements on the continent. The Romanian “deep state’s” latest attempt to take down Georgescu is essentially a gauntlet thrown at the Trump Administration by its liberal-globalist opponents in Brussels who fully back Bucharest. They want to test whether the US will do anything in response to the EU’s rolling coup in Romania.
What’s unfolding in this Balkan country is nothing less than the opening of another New Cold War front, albeit this time an ideological one between liberal-globalists and populist-nationalists, which also interestingly pits nominal NATO allies against one another as the EU and the US take opposite sides. It’s incumbent on the Trump Administration to do what’s needed to ensure that Georgescu is allowed to run as president in May’s election redux and that the vote is truly free and fair instead of flawed as usual.
To that end, targeted sanctions against Romanian figures, credibly threatening to withdraw its troops from Romania, suspending arms contracts, and extending full political support to populist-nationalist protesters could pressure the authorities into reconsidering the wisdom of doing Brussels’ bidding. At the same time, a comprehensive pressure campaign could also backfire if the German-led EU exploits it as the pretext for deepening its already immense control over Romania, though that could backfire too.
It was explained here in response to the likely next German chancellor’s pledge to “achieve independence” from the US that military, economic, and energy factors make that a lot easier said than done. If provoked, like could soon happen if the German-led EU pushes back against the US’ potentially impending pressure campaign on Romania, then Trump could weaponize each of them in his own such campaign against the EU and Germany that he stands a good chance of winning on both fronts.
Altogether, what just happened in Romania places the country at the center of the intra-Western ideological dimension of the New Cold War, which will determine the future of Europe. Liberal-globalists will either entrench their power in full defiance of Trump, possibly at enormous costs to their countries, or they’ll be democratically deposed by populist-nationalists who share the same worldview as his team. This struggle is historic and the consequences of its outcome will reverberate for decades.
https://korybko.substack.com/p/romania- ... e-struggle
