How MI6 built Syria’s extremist police
By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | October 16, 2025
On September 19th, in a speech marking the end of his five-year tenure as MI6 chief, Richard Moore hailed the achievements of Britain’s foreign spying agency under his watch. Key among the stated gains was “the end of 53 years of the Assads in Syria.” He openly admitted MI6 “forged a relationship” with HTS, Damascus’ Al-Qaeda and ISIS-tied presumptive rulers – “a year or two before they toppled Bashar.” Moore went on to boast:
“Syria is a good example of where, if you can get ahead of events, it really helps when they suddenly, unexpectedly move at a faster pace. This nimbleness is a fundamental requirement for MI6 – and I think we remain pretty good at it. John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, while discussing a piece of joint business, said to me recently: ‘You guys can really hustle.’”
Al Mayadeen English has previously exposed how HTS was groomed for power for years prior to its violent palace coup in December 2024 by Inter-Mediate, an MI6-adjacent consulting firm run by Jonathan Powell. A key architect of the criminal 2003 Anglo-American Iraq invasion, he now serves as British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s national security adviser, coincidentally taking up the position mere days before HTS illegitimately proclaimed themselves Syria’s government. It’s been subsequently revealed that Inter-Mediate has maintained a dedicated office in Syria’s Presidential Palace ever since.
Moore’s fresh admissions, while vague, offer further confirmation that London’s foreign spying agency has a longstanding relationship with HTS, which remains a proscribed terrorist group under British law. A key, confirmed mechanism by which MI6 entrenched HTS’ power in north west Syria over the years before the extremist group’s seizure of power was by financing and managing, via cutouts, “moderate opposition service provision”. This took the form of entities including the infamous White Helmets, which supposedly provided “demonstrations of a credible alternative” to Bashar Assad’s government.
While the clandestine efforts were ostensibly intended to weaken HTS’ hold on power and push “moderate” groups, leaked documents indicate British spooks were well-aware these initiatives were cementing the group’s credibility as a governance actor, assisting its “growing influence”, and meant many Syrians regarded HTS as “synonymous with opposition to Assad.” Eerily, the same documents note the group and its armed affiliates – including Al-Qaeda – were “less likely to attack opposition entities that are receiving support” from British intelligence, such as the White Helmets.
We are now left to ponder whether British-run “service providers” were explicitly left alone because of MI6’s secret relationship with HTS. In this context, the earliest and most obvious indication of a dark alliance between London and Syria’s new rulers may date back to January 2019, when HTS took power outright in north west Syria. Almost instantly, the Free Syrian Police, a British-created “moderate opposition service” provider, was formally dissolved. Its members were then invited to continue their activities under HTS’ banner.
‘Revolutionary Entities’
Like the White Helmets, the FSP were components of a wider effort by London to establish a series of statelets across occupied Syria, complete with parallel governance structures staffed by locals trained and funded by Britain, the EU, and US. Western propaganda and media reporting – heavily influenced by MI6 – universally portrayed these breakaway colonies as “moderate” success stories. In reality, they were deeply chaotic and dangerous, run by murderous violent factions, often under obscenely strict interpretations of Sharia Law.
In March 2017, the BBC published a fawning profile of the FSP, noting its British funding, and claiming the group “demonstrates to Syrians that it is not necessary to carry weapons in order to administer law and order in the country.” The British state broadcaster repeatedly stressed, the FSP “does not co-operate with extremist groups.” However, nine months later, it was revealed that London’s “moderate” police force enjoyed intimate relationships with multiple extremist groups, including HTS forerunner Jabhat al-Nusra.
Several FSP stations were found to be closely linked to and take directions from extremist courts run by these militants, which executed citizens who violated local extremist legal codes. FSP operatives were also not only present when women were stoned to death for disobeying al-Nusra’s extreme codes, but even closed roads to allow executions to take place. Meanwhile, portions of sums sent to the FSP by its foreign sponsors were regularly handed over to extremist factions for “military and security support”.
While these disclosures caused a scandal, and British funding for the FSP was temporarily suspended, it was reinstated within mere weeks, sparking outcry among aid experts. Officials justified their decision on unstated “mitigating context” to the revelations, and the issues in question being “already known” by the Foreign Office. Indeed, leaked documents reviewed by Al Mayadeen English indicate close collaboration with extremist groups and courts was hardwired into the FSP from the group’s inception, and not concealed from donors.
The documents, submitted to the Foreign Office by ARK – founded by MI6 veteran Alistair Harris – noted the FSP were “revolutionary entities who share a general ideological affinity with the Syrian rebels,” conducting “rudimentary policing operations” in opposition-controlled territory. FSP stations varied significantly “in terms of their effectiveness, their mandate and their overall level of organisation” in the areas comprising their beat. “Their authority” was dependent on “several factors, the most important of which” were:
“The strength of the relationship between an FSP station and local armed groups; the centrality of an FSP station in the work of a local rebel court or other judicial structure; the sophistication and maturity of an FSP station’s overarching command structure.”
‘Direct Engagement’
The leaks further state, “FSP networks enjoy the strongest relations with more moderate Syrian rebel groups.” Yet, chief among “key armed groups that have established relationships with FSP stations” was Nur al-Din al-Zinki. The group was said to have greatly “empowered” FSP offices across occupied Aleppo, establishing the force “as primary policing bodies in towns in which it is strong.” In reality, Nur al-Din al-Zinki didn’t adhere to any meaningful definition of the term “moderate”.
During the initial years of the foreign-fomented Syrian civil war, the group committed countless horrendous atrocities, including beheading a Palestinian teenager in 2016. Its fighters subsequently joined HTS en masse. The readiness of ARK – and by extension British intelligence – to rub shoulders with dangerous armed elements is writ large in another leaked file, outlining potential risks to the project. If “armed actors” denied the FSP “operating space”, ARK would conduct “direct engagement” with the relevant militants to resolve the issue.
Other hazards included almost inevitable submission of “fraudulent invoices” by FSP operatives, and “significant physical risk” to them, “including possible assassination of police or justice actors.” Still, the British were so keen on the project, millions were pumped into the force over many years, with sophisticated communications equipment and vehicles provided. ARK also looked ahead to rebel groups increasing their “influence and territorial reach” in Syria, believing this would “[yield] benefits for the FSP” and expand its sphere of operations.
Fast forward to today, and courtesy of HTS, the British-created FSP is now Syria’s national police force. Ever since Assad’s fall, they have acted accordingly, brutally repressing internal dissent, while standing by as the new government’s militants massacre Alawites and other religious minorities in the country. Just as Inter-Mediate’s office in Damascus’ Presidential palace raises grave questions about the extent of London’s control over HTS, we must ask who all past beneficiaries of “moderate opposition service provision” in the country are truly working for.
As The National reported in February, the White Helmets have been formally invited by Syria’s HTS-run Health Ministry to “run the emergency services countrywide.” The creation of such groups years prior to Assad’s ouster is a palpable example of the ability of “hustlers” in British intelligence to “get ahead of events” in Moore’s phrase, and ensure MI6 has the people, organisations and structures in place to effectively take over countries if and when an enemy government falls.
How MI6 Fabricated Iran Nuke Fraud
By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents | September 24, 2025
On September 19th, the UN Security Council voted to reimpose savage economic restrictions on Iran over its nuclear program. European leaders have in recent months repeatedly accused Tehran of refusing to abide by the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action’s terms. A core, repeated claim is the Islamic Republic has collated a uranium stock over 40 times the level permitted under that deal. No supporting evidence for the charge has been provided, and the source of this information isn’t clear.
It may nonetheless be highly significant London has taken the lead in calling for the restoration of sanctions, independently imposed punitive measures on Iranian individuals and commercial entities, and employed relentlessly bellicose rhetoric about the Islamic Republic’s purported breaches of its JCPOA commitments. In August, then-Foreign Secretary David Lammy declared Tehran had “consistently failed to provide credible assurances on the nature of its nuclear programme.” In the wake of the UNSC vote, British ambassador Barbara Woodward proclaimed, “we urge [Iran] to act now.”
As this journalist has previously exposed, the JCPOA resulted from a long-running MI6 black propaganda campaign to falsely frame the Islamic Republic as possessing nuclear weapon ambitions, if not nukes outright. Under the Agreement’s terms, Tehran received sanctions relief in return for granting the International Atomic Energy Agency virtually unhindered access to its secret nuclear complexes. Despite the IAEA consistently certifying Iran’s compliance, the Trump administration shredded the Agreement in May 2018, and launched a “maximum pressure” campaign to cripple the country.
Information gathered by the IAEA under the Agreement appears to have assisted Israel’s criminal 12 Day War in June, raising the obvious question of whether the Agreement was always intended as an espionage operation, in preparation for future conflict with Tehran. This interpretation is amply reinforced by leaked documents, indicating the IAEA provided Zionist entity intelligence with names of Iranian nuclear scientists who were subsequently assassinated. Meanwhile, the papers show Agency chief Rafael Grossi enjoys an intimate, covert relationship with officials in Tel Aviv.
These disclosures understandably motivated Iranian lawmakers and President Masoud Pezeshkian to halt any and all cooperation with the Agency. The sanctions eased by the JCPOA being the product of an MI6 black propaganda effort, to falsely convince the West and its overseas proxies and puppets Tehran posed a global nuclear weapon threat, provides the Republic with even more urgent justification for ignoring the Agreement’s terms. Iran’s grounds for rejecting any accommodation with the same countries now seeking to sanction her are inarguable.
‘Supportive Relations’
At the centre of MI6’s black propaganda war on Iran was longtime British intelligence officer Nicholas Langman, a veteran dark arts specialist who has been repeatedly publicly exposed perpetrating the dirtiest imaginable deeds for London’s foreign spying agency the world over. He was for example intimately implicated in Britain’s contribution to the CIA’s global post-9/11 torture program. However, rather than being penalised or defenestrated for his actions and unmasking, he appears to have been richly rewarded, and consistently failed upwards.
A leaked CV shows 2006 – 2008, Langman led MI6’s Iran Department. Here, he oversaw a team seeking to “develop understanding” of Iran’s “nuclear program”. Then, 2010 – 2012, he led an “inter-agency” effort to infiltrate the IAEA, while “[building] highly effective and mutually supportive relations across government and with senior US, European, Middle and Far Eastern colleagues for strategy which enabled major diplomatic success [sic] of Iranian nuclear and sanctions agreement.”
Nicholas Langman’s leaked CV
It was during the latter period that public and governmental attitudes across the West – and in vassal states – towards the Islamic Republic became highly belligerent, and negative. One by one, governments and international bodies – including the EU and UN – imposed ravaging sanctions against Tehran, devastating its economy, influence, and standing. MI6 journeyman Langman triumphed in his mission to foment concerted global hostility against Iran, based on the bogus spectre of the country posing a nuclear threat.
The question of whether British ‘intelligence’ on Iran’s nuclear program was the product of torture is an open and obvious one. Langman moved straight to leading MI6’s Iran Department from running the agency’s station in Athens, Greece. There, in late 2005, he was exposed by local media as having overseen an operation to abduct and ferociously mistreat 28 Pakistani guestworkers, wrongfully suspected of having had contact with individuals accused of perpetrating the 7/7 bombings in London in July that year.
That Langman wasn’t reprimanded over the incident strongly suggests he enjoyed a high level of protection, and London approved of his vicious intelligence-gathering methods – known to invariably produce false testimony from detainees. MI6 was not only an enthusiastic collaborator in the CIA’s global extraordinary rendition program, but led its own operations. Markedly, in at least one case, the British sought to sideline the CIA and ensure exclusive access to “intelligence” from a detainee in which Langley also had an interest.
The Obama administration was during its first year in office formally committed to non-interference in the Islamic Republic’s affairs, to the extent State Department apparatchik Jared Cohen was almost fired for publicly demanding Twitter halt planned maintenance during June 2009 protests in Iran, to ensure demonstrators could continue posting. It’s therefore unknown whether Washington was in on MI6’s Iran nuke con. If not, it wouldn’t be the first time British intelligence has misled the international community, with catastrophic results.
‘Possible Manipulation’
In July 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a scathing report on “the US intelligence community’s prewar intelligence assessments on Iraq.” It reserved particular disdain for how the CIA et al had “[relied] too heavily on foreign government services and third party reporting, thereby increasing the potential for manipulation of U.S. policy by foreign interests [emphasis added].” This was a reference to MI6’s central role in gathering – or concocting – intelligence on Baghdad’s purported WMD capabilities:
“Due to the lack of unilateral sources on Iraq’s links to terrorist groups like al-Qaida [redacted], the [US] Intelligence Community (IC) relied too heavily on foreign government service reporting and sources to whom it did not have direct access to determine the relationship between Iraq and [redacted] terrorist groups… The IC left itself open to possible manipulation by foreign governments and other parties interested in influencing US policy.”
As far back as the late 1990s, Britain’s foreign spying agency took the lead on sourcing dud ‘intelligence’ to manufacture consent for the against Baghdad. Under the auspices of a psychological warfare effort dubbed Operation Mass Appeal, MI6 black propaganda specialists circulated false information to foreign editors and reporters on its payroll “to help shape public opinion about Iraq and the threat posed by WMD,” which was then recycled by Western leaders and news outlets to reinforce its credibility.
In September 2002, then-MI6 chief Richard Dearlove personally approached British Prime Minister Tony Blair, claiming his agency had cultivated a source inside Iraq with “phenomenal access”, who could provide the “key to unlock” Iraq’s purported WMD program. Their assorted claims subsequently formed the basis of a dossier, which made a number of wild charges about Baghdad’s chemical and biological weapon capabilities. A prominently reported allegation was that Iraq could deploy WMD against Western countries within just 45 minutes. Its source was an Iraqi taxi driver.
This claim was repeated in a radio address by George W. Bush that month. In January the next year, as the invasion of Iraq rapidly loomed, the President declared in his State of the Union address, “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” That December, then-CIA chief George Tenet admitted this assertion was completely fallacious, and “these 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President.”
The Zionist entity justified its unprovoked assault against Iran in June in large part on an intelligence dossier, which concluded the Islamic Republic had reached the “point of no return” in acquiring nukes. Its findings relied heavily on a May IAEA report that provided zero fresh information, but concluded Tehran supposedly maintained “undeclared nuclear material” until the early 2000s. While intended to trigger regime change, Tel Aviv’s broadside ended promptly in embarrassing failure, despite extensive foreign support, including US airstrikes.
Undeterred by the fiasco, Benjamin Netanyahu remains determined to crush the “Iranian axis”, while Trump has declared he would bomb Tehran “without a question” in response to indications the Islamic Republic has enriched uranium beyond agreed levels. We could be on the precipice of another war. As with the Iraq invasion, the perilous trail that brought us to this grave point could lead back to London. Yet again, MI6 may have taken the lead in concocting ‘intelligence’, justifying further US-Israeli aggression against the Islamic Republic.
Spying on Iran: How MI6 infiltrated the IAEA
Leaked confidential files indicate the IAEA was infiltrated by a veteran British spy who has claimed credit for sanctions on Iran
By Kit Klarenberg | The Grayzone | July 1, 2025
A notorious British MI6 agent infiltrated the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on London’s behalf, according to leaked documents reviewed by The Grayzone. The agent, Nicholas Langman, is a veteran intelligence operative who claims credit for helping engineer the West’s economic war on Iran.
Langman’s identity first surfaced in journalistic accounts of his role in deflecting accusations that British intelligence played a role in the death of Princess Diana. He was later accused by Greek authorities of overseeing the abduction and torture of Pakistani migrants in Athens.
In both cases, UK authorities issued censorship orders forbidding the press from publishing his name. But Greek media, which was under no such obligation, confirmed that Langman was one of the MI6 assets withdrawn from Britain’s embassy in Athens.
The Grayzone discovered the résumé of the journeyman British operative in a trove of leaked papers detailing the activities of Torchlight, a prolific British intelligence cutout. The bio of the longtime MI6 officer reveals he “led large, inter-agency teams to identify and defeat the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons technology, including by innovative technical means and sanctions.”
In particular, the MI6 agent says he provided “support for the [IAEA] and Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons [OPCW] and through high level international partnerships.”
Langman’s CV credits him with playing a major role in organizing the sanctions regime on Iran by “[building] highly effective and mutually supportive relations across government and with senior US, European, Middle and Far Eastern colleagues for strategy” between 2010 and 2012. He boasts in his bio that this achievement “enabled [the] major diplomatic success of [the] Iranian nuclear and sanctions agreement.”
The influence Langman claimed to have exerted on the IAEA adds weight to Iranian allegations that the international nuclear regulation body colluded with the West and Israel to undermine its sovereignty. The Iranian government has alleged that the IAEA supplied the identities of its top nuclear scientists to Israeli intelligence, enabling their assassinations, and provided critical intelligence to the US and Israel on the nuclear facilities they bombed during their military assault this June.
This June 12, under the direction of its Secretary General Rafael Grossi, the IAEA issued a clearly politicized report recycling questionable past allegations to accuse Iran of violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Three days later, Israel attacked the country, assassinating nine nuclear scientists as well as numerous top military officials and hundreds of civilians.
Iranian former Vice President for Strategic Affairs Javad Zarif has since called for the IAEA’s Grossi to be sacked, accusing him of having “abetted the slaughter of innocents in the country.” This June 28, the Iranian government broke ties with the IAEA, refusing to allow its inspectors into the country.
While Iranian officials may have had no idea about the involvement of a shadowy figure like Langman in IAEA business, it would likely come as little surprise to Tehran that the supposedly multilateral agency had been compromised by a Western intelligence agency.
Langman’s name placed under official UK censorship order
In 2016, Langman was named a Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George, the same title bestowed on fictional British spy James Bond. By that point, the supposed secret agent held the dubious distinction of being publicly ‘burned’ as an MI6 operative on two separate occasions.
First, in 2001, journalist Stephen Dorril revealed that Langman had arrived in Paris weeks prior to Princess Diana’s fatal car crash in the city on August 31 1997, and was subsequently charged with conducting “information operations” to deflect widespread public speculation British intelligence was responsible for her death.
Then, in 2005, he was formally accused by Greek authorities of complicity in the abduction and torture of 28 Pakistanis in Athens. The Pakistanis, all migrant workers, were suspected of having had contact with individuals accused of perpetrating the 7/7 bombings in London, July 2005.
Brutally beaten and threatened with guns in their mouths, the victims “were convinced their interrogators were British.” When Greek media named Langman as the MI6 operative who oversaw the migrants’ torture, British news outlets universally complied with a government D-notice – an official censorship order – and kept his identity under wraps when reporting on the scandal.
London vehemently denied any British involvement in torturing the migrants, with then-Foreign Secretary Jack Straw dismissing the charge as “utter nonsense.” In January 2006 though, London admitted MI6 officers were indeed present during the Pakistanis’ torture, although officials insisted the operatives played no active part in their arrests, questioning or abuse.
Following his withdrawal from Athens, Langman returned to London to head the UK Foreign Office’s Iran Department, a shift which highlights his importance to MI6 and suggests the British government had no qualms about his allegedly brutal evidence gathering methods.
Britain’s Foreign Office collaborates closely with MI6, whose agents use it as cover just as the CIA does with State Department diplomatic postings.
MI6’s man on Iran takes credit for “maximum pressure” strategy
While leading the Foreign Office’s Iran Department from 2006 – 2008, Langman oversaw a team seeking to “develop understanding” of the Iranian government’s “nuclear program.”
It’s unclear exactly what that “understanding” entailed. But the document makes clear that Langman then “generated confidence” in that assessment among “European, US and Middle Eastern agencies” in order to “delay programme [sic] and pressurise Iran to negotiate.” The reference to “Middle Eastern agencies” strongly implied MI6 cooperation with Israel’s Mossad intelligence services.
In April 2006, Tehran announced it had successfully enriched uranium for the first time, although officials denied any intention to do so for military purposes. This development may have triggered Langman’s intervention.
The Islamic Republic has rejected any suggestion it harbors ambitions to possess nuclear weapons. Its denials were corroborated by a November 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate expressing “high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted” any and all research into nuclear weapons. This assessment remained unchanged for several years, and was reportedly shared by the Mossad, despite Benjamin Netanyhau’s constant declarations that Iran was on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon.
Langman’s IAEA support work overlaps with Iran sanctions blitz
International governmental attitudes towards Iran changed abruptly between 2010 and ‘12. During this period, Western states and intergovernmental institutions initiated an array of harshly punitive measures against the country, while Israel ramped up its deadly covert operations against Iran’s nuclear scientists.
This period precisely overlapped with Langman’s tenure at the Counter-Proliferation Centre of the UK Foreign Office. His bio implies he used this position to influence the IAEA and other UN-affiliated organizations to foment a campaign of global hostility towards Iran.
In June 2010, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1929, which froze the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps’ assets, and banned overseas financial institutions from opening offices in Tehran. A month later, the Obama administration adopted the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act. This set off a global chain of copycat sanctions by Washington’s vassals, who often imposed even more stringent measures than those levied by the UN and US.
In March 2012, the EU voted unanimously to cut Iranian banks out of the SWIFT international banking network. That October, the bloc imposed the harshest sanctions to date, restricting trade, financial services, energy and technology, along with bans on the provision of insurance to Iranian companies by European firms.
BBC reporting on the sanctions acknowledged European officials merely suspected Tehran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, but lacked concrete proof. And behind the scenes, the MI6 operative Langman was claiming credit for helping legitimize the allegations against Iran.
Nuclear agreement lays foundations for war
Following the Western-led campaign isolation of Iran from 2010 – 2012, over its purported nuclear weapon program, the Obama administration negotiated a July 2015 agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Under the JCPOA’s terms, the Islamic Republic agreed to limit its nuclear research activities in return for sanctions relief. In the years that followed, the IAEA was granted virtually unlimited access to Tehran’s nuclear complexes, ostensibly to ensure the facilities were not used to develop nuclear weapons.
Along the way, IAEA inspectors collected vast amounts of information on the sites, including surveillance camera photos, measurement data, and documents. The Iranian government has since accused the Agency of furnishing the top secret profiles of its nuclear scientists to Israel. These include the godfather of Iran’s nuclear program, Mohsen Fakrizadeh, who was first publicly named in a menacing 2019 powerpoint presentation by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The following year, the Mossad assassinated Fakrizadeh in broad daylight with a remote-controlled machine gun.
Internal IAEA documents leaked this June indicated that IAEA Secretary General Rafael Grossi has enjoyed a much closer relationship with Israeli officials than was previously known, and suggested he leveraged his cozy ties with Tel Aviv to secure his current position.
During a June 24 interview with Fox News’ war-crazed anchor Martha MacCallum, Grossi did not deny making the inflammatory claim that “900 pounds of potentially enriched uranium was taken to an ancient site near Isfahan.” Instead the IAEA director asserted, “We do not have any information on the whereabouts of this material.”
Well before Grossi rose to the top of the IAEA with Western and Israeli backing, the agency appears to have been penetrated by a British intelligence agent who took responsibility in his bio for engineering the West’s economic attack on Iran.
The IAEA has not responded to an email from The Grayzone seeking clarification on its relationship with Langman and the MI6.
Leaked files reveal the Steele Dossier was discredited in 2017 — but sold to the public anyway
By Kit KLARENBERG | MintPress News | April 8, 2025
On March 25, Donald Trump signed an executive order declassifying all documentation related to Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI’s 2016 investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump. The order has unexpectedly resurrected buried documents that cast new light on the Steele dossier — and when it was known to be false.
It is unclear what new information will be revealed, given substantial previous declassifications, two special counsel investigations, multiple congressional inquiries, several civil lawsuits, and a scathing Justice Department internal review. It has long been confirmed the FBI relied heavily on Steele’s discredited dossier to secure warrants against Trump aide Carter Page, despite grave internal concerns about its origins and reliability, and Steele’s sole “subsource” for all its lurid allegations openly admitted in interviews with the Bureau he could offer no corroboration for any of the dossier’s claims.
Such inconvenient facts and damning disclosures were nonetheless concealed from the public for several years following the dossier’s January 2017 publication by BuzzFeed News, now defunct. In the intervening time, it became the central component of the Russiagate narrative, a conspiracy theory that was a major rallying point for countless mainstream journalists, pundits, public figures, Western intelligence officials, and elected lawmakers. In the process, Steele attained mythological status. For example, NBC News dubbed the former MI6 operative “a real-life James Bond.”
Primetime news networks dedicated countless hours to the topic, while leading media outlets invested enormous time, energy and money into verifying the dossier’s claims without success. Undeterred, legacy reporters relied on a roster of mainstream “Russia experts,” including prominent British and U.S. military and intelligence veterans, and briefings from anonymous officials to reinforce Steele’s credibility and the likely veracity of his dossier. As award-winning investigative journalist Aaron Maté told MintPress News :
Media outlets served as unquestioning stenographers for Steele. If his dossier’s claims themselves weren’t sufficient to dismiss it with ridicule, another obvious marker should have set off alarms. Reading the dossier chronologically, a clear pattern emerges – many of its most explosive claims are influenced by contemporary media reporting. For instance, it was only after Wikileaks published the DNC emails in July 2016 that the dossier mentioned them. This is just one example demonstrating the dossier’s true sources were overactive imaginations and mainstream news outlets.”
Even more damningly, leaked documents reviewed by MintPress News reveal that while Western journalists were hard at work attempting to validate Steele’s dossier and elevating the MI6 spy to wholly undeserved pillars of probity, the now-defunct private investigations firm GPW Group was, in early 2017, secretly unearthing vast amounts of damaging material that fatally undermined the dossier’s content, and comprehensively dismantling Steele’s previously unimpeachable public persona. It remains speculative what impact the firm’s findings might have had if they had been released publicly at the time.
‘Financial Incentives’
“In order to build a profile of Christopher Steele… as well as the broader operations of both Orbis Business Intelligence and Fusion GPS,” which commissioned the dossier on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, GPW consulted “a variety of sources.” This included “U.S. intelligence figures,” various journalists, “private intelligence subcontractors” who had previously worked with Steele and Orbis, and “contacts who knew the man from his time with [MI6]…and, in one instance, directly oversaw his work.”
The picture that emerged of Steele sharply contrasted with his mainstream portrayal as a “superstar.” One operative who “acted as Steele’s manager when he began working with [MI6] and later supervised him at two further points” described him as “average, middle of the road,” stating he had never “shined” in any of his postings. Another suggested Steele’s founding of Orbis “was the source of some incredulity” within MI6 due to his underwhelming professional history and perceived lack of “commercial nous.”
Yet another suggested Steele’s production of the dossier reflected his lack of “big picture judgment.” Sources consulted by GPW were even more critical of Fusion GPS chief Glenn Simpson. One journalist described him as a “hack” without “a license or the contacts to do… actual investigations,” instead outsourcing “all” work ostensibly conducted by his firm to others while skimming commissions. They also “openly admitted” to disliking Simpson, described by GPW as “not an uncommon attitude amongst those to whom we spoke.”
GPW also scrutinized “credibility and perceptions of the dossier in Russia,” specifically whether Steele‘s claims that high-ranking Kremlin-linked sources in Moscow provided him with information had any merit. The firm consulted “Western and Russian journalists, former officials from the FSB and the Russian security services more broadly, a former high-ranking official at the CIA who oversaw the agency’s Russian operations, and several private-sector intelligence practitioners operating in Moscow” for this purpose:
The prevailing sentiment from our contacts was one of extreme skepticism as to the accuracy of… the [dossier]. Most found it unimaginable… senior Russian officials would risk life imprisonment (or worse) by speaking to a former foreign intelligence official about such sensitive issues. At the very least… it would have cost Steele a great deal more… than he could afford… Former intelligence operatives (from both the U.S. and Russian services) seriously doubted Steele would have been able to retain Russian sources from his time in MI6.”
GPW also examined “possible sources for the dossier” that had been hypothesized in the media to date. Among them was former FSB General Oleg Erovinkin, who was found dead in his car in Moscow in December 2016. After the dossier’s release, the Daily Telegraph suggested his death was “mysterious” and could have resulted from providing information to Steele. A former high-ranking official in U.S. intelligence mockingly dismissed the proposition, noting that career security and intelligence officer Erovinkin was “unlikely to have needed the money.”
While conceding that financial incentives could encourage such a breach… [if] Steele had offered Erovinkin £100,000, the mooted budget for the entire project, ‘Erovinkin would have said he needed to see three more zeros before opening his mouth. It’s just a ridiculous proposition to think he would speak to a former intelligence officer from the UK, or anyone else for that matter, for such a paltry sum of money.’”
Overall, GPW concluded: “The quality and level of the sourcing was greatly exaggerated in order to give the dossier and its allegations more credibility.” This impression was reinforced by “informed sources from both government and the private sector” in Russia who were “very dismissive” of the dossier’s content. Many pointed to “woeful inaccuracies” contained therein “and its author’s general lack of understanding around Russian politics and business.” This “deficiency was particularly acute with respect to the dossier’s coverage of Alfa Bank.”
‘Reputational Damage’
GPW’s investigation also proved prescient in other areas. For example, several knowledgeable sources the company consulted — including former senior Russian and U.S. intelligence officials — suggested the dossier’s “most likely sources” were Russian émigrés, “providing… their own views.” They also noted the Steele dossier’s “hyperbole and inaccuracies” were “typical of the hyperactive imaginations of the subcontractors widely used in the business intelligence sector.” This was not confirmed until July 2020.
That month, the Senate Judiciary Committee released notes taken by FBI agents during February 2017 interviews with Igor Danchenko, Steele’s “subsource” and the dossier’s effective author. A Washington think tank journeyman jailed years earlier on multiple public intoxication and disorderly conduct charges and investigated by the FBI for potentially serving as a Kremlin agent, Danchenko admitted he had been fed much of the dossier’s salacious content by his Russian drinking buddies, who lacked any high-level access. Steele then embroidered their dud information further.
Other striking passages in the leaks refer to a conversation between GPW and “a source from within the business intelligence sector in London [who] knows Christopher Steele well, both socially and professionally, and is familiar with his company.” They relayed various details and “commentary” gleaned “directly from speaking to Steele.” For example, they noted that contrary to its self-description as a “leading corporate intelligence consultancy,” Orbis was “not a major operation” and seemed to employ just two junior analysts “who looked like recent graduates.”
The source revealed that “other, larger firms in the sector were approached before Steele and turned the work down before he took it on,” and the dossier was his solo project. “The rest of the company wasn’t involved at all, either to help on the research side of things or to look through the product before it went out,” and “Steele basically collated the information himself.” They further suggested the dossier’s sources let their imaginations run wild, believing their claims would never see the light of day:
I think they got carried away — they didn’t think the material would ever be made public because at that point it was very unlikely that Trump was going to get into power…Steele was rather naive about the whole thing. He didn’t think that it would get exposed in the way it did.”
In other investigative briefs, GPW noted it was unusual that “Steele would have permitted (or indeed facilitated) the distribution of such questionable material under his name,” given the dossier’s apparent falsity. The firm postulated that “in sharing the material with U.S. government figures,” the former MI6 operative “may have thought he was currying favor with them by doing so,” but ultimately, “he never intended for the dossier to be made public in the manner it was.”
One possible answer to this question is found in a defamation case brought against Orbis by Petr Aven, Mikhail Fridman, and German Khan in Britain in May 2018. In July 2020, a British court ruled that the dossier’s allegations against them and Alfa Bank were “inaccurate and misleading,” awarding damages “for the loss of autonomy, distress and reputational damage.” During the trial, Steele made a notable disclosure:
Fusion’s immediate client was law firm Perkins Coie… it engaged Fusion to obtain information necessary for Perkins Coie to provide legal advice on the potential impact of Russian involvement on the legal validity of the outcome of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Based on that advice, parties such as the Democratic National Committee and [“Hillary for America”] could consider steps they would be legally entitled to take to challenge the validity of the outcome of that election.”
In essence, the dossier was commissioned by Clinton’s campaign as a contingency in the event she lost the election. However, as GPW’s source close to Steele noted, when the MI6 operative took on the work, the prevailing perception was that “it was very unlikely” Trump would win. As a result, Steele may have had the motivation to fill the dossier with unverified material, believing it would never be used for its intended purpose. He also had a commercial incentive to exaggerate his high-level access. A serving CIA official told GPW:
Steele was known to have been ‘up and down the alley’ pitching for business – a reference to the major defense firms, such as Lockheed Martin, which are located close to one another in Arlington, Virginia. She did not know which firms Steele had worked for in particular, if any, but he has visited several of them in person at their headquarters.”
A core mystery at the heart of the Steele dossier saga has never been satisfactorily resolved — one that Trump’s latest declassification order could help illuminate. In his December 2019 report on Crossfire Hurricane, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz criticized the FBI’s use of the dossier to obtain warrants against Carter Page but insisted Steele’s assorted claims “played no role” in the bureau opening its investigation of Trump’s campaign, reportedly on July 31, 2016.
As extensively documented by Aaron Maté, this claim is difficult to reconcile with the numerous contacts and meetings between Steele and senior FBI and Justice Department officials in the weeks leading up to that date. The former MI6 officer provided material that would later comprise the dossier to senior U.S. government officials, including Victoria Nuland, prior to the official opening of Crossfire Hurricane. Nuland reportedly encouraged the bureau to investigate the contents.
According to the FBI’s electronic communications that initiated Crossfire Hurricane, the probe’s founding predicate was a vague tip provided to the bureau by Australian diplomat Alexander Downer. He claimed that low-level Trump campaign staffer George Papadopoulos had “suggested” to him over drinks in London that “the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion [emphasis added] from Russia that it could assist… with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging” to Clinton. The EC further acknowledged that “It was unclear whether he or the Russians were referring to material acquired publicly or through other means. It was also unclear how Mr. Trump’s team reacted to the offer.”
As Maté told MintPress News, this was an “extraordinarily thin basis upon which to investigate an entire presidential campaign.” He added that “upon officially opening Crossfire Hurricane, FBI officials immediately took investigative steps that mirrored the claims in the Steele dossier, even though they were supposedly unaware of it.” The FBI’s first probes into individual Trump campaign figures — Carter Page, Michael Flynn, and Paul Manafort — began in August 2016. All are mentioned in the dossier. Maté concludes:
To accept the official timeline, one has to stipulate that the FBI investigated a Presidential campaign, and then a President, based on a low-level volunteer having ‘suggested’ Trump’s campaign had received ‘some kind of suggestion’ of assistance from Russia. One would also have to accept that the Bureau was not influenced by the far more detailed claims of direct Trump-Russia connections – an alleged conspiracy that would form the heart of the investigation – advanced in the widely-circulating Steele dossier.”
A Third Way to end the war in Ukraine
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | March 29, 2025
In an unguarded moment, perhaps, ex-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson blurted out recently in an interview that the ultranationalist elements who rule the roost in Kiev are a formidable obstacle to ending the war in Ukraine. For Johnson, this might be a blame game to absolve himself of responsibility, given his own dubious role as then PM (in cahoots with President Joe Biden) in undermining the Istanbul agreement in April 2022 to rev up the simmering conflict and turn it to a full-fledged US-led proxy war against Russia.
What Johnson will not admit, though, is that the ascendance of the MI6, Britain’s intelligence agency, in the power structure in Kiev goes back by several years. MI6 was responsible for the personal security of President Zelensky. MI6 took advantage by positioning itself to choreograph the future trajectory of the war and subsequently in the planning and execution of major covert operations directed against the Russian forces — and ultimately to carry the war into Russian soil itself.
According to reports, the UK intends to establish a base in the Odessa region on the Black Sea coastline. See my article The Hundred Years War Donald Trump should know about, Deccan Herald, January 29, 2025.
So, indeed, the MI6’s unholy alliance with the notorious Azov militia units comprising Ukrainian ultra-nationalists fired up by neo-Nazi ideology who wield control of the power apparatus in Kiev even today, is a key factor in the war, which complicates the prospects for President Trump’s efforts to end the war. Suffice to say, Britain’s strategic defiance of Trump with PM Keir Starmer string up of an insurgency among Europeans to pre-empt any US-Russia rapprochement is a calculated strategy.
Hopefully, President Trump’s decision Tuesday to order the FBI to forthwith declassify files concerning Crossfire Hurricane investigation may throw some light on the so-called Steele dossier (named after an ex-MI6 officer) containing doctored ‘evidence’ that had formed the basis of Hillary Clinton’s fake allegation that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 US election cycle.
Reports had appeared, incidentally, that incumbent president Barack Obama and then vice-president Biden were very much in the loop on the Russia hoax.
The point is, the entrenched neo-Nazi groups in Kiev, with Zelensky as their frontman, are not in the least interested in budging from their maximalist demands on a total Russian withdrawal and so on for ending the war, which are backed by the Europeans unconditionally who would know fully well that such hopelessly unrealistic demands are deal breakers. The Kiev regime and European leaders are joined at the hips as interest groups in the war continuing.
Put differently, so long as the regime in Kiev remains in power (although Zelensky’s presidential term has expired), any forward movement in the peace process will remain a pipe dream.
The best course of action would be that Zelensky steps down on his own volition and a fresh election is allowed to be held under the supervision of the parliament speaker but all that is too much to expect. Given the massive scale of war profiteering, Zelensky holds a dream job.
The alternative will be Zelensky’s ouster through coercive means as the US once did to an equally corrupt proxy, Ngo Dinh Diem, in 1963 during the Vietnam War. But Trump is unlikely to do that. And in any case, the deep state is hostile towards Trump and Zelensky gets political support from Democrats.
Besides, Zelensky’s violent exit may only bring in another figure with neo-Nazi backing to power. In fact, the ex-army chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi, who also has MI6 support, is waiting in the wings in London serving as Ukraine’s envoy.
In such a dismal scenario, the only way out seems to be a Third Way. Russian President Vladimir Putin may have proposed just that in a speech in Mumansk on Thursday possibly to draw Trump’s attention, as the Riyadh talks are not getting anywhere and Zelensky shows no signs of interest in a ceasefire.
Putin said at the outset, “I would like to state – first and foremost – that, in my view, the newly elected President of the United States sincerely wishes to end this conflict for a number of reasons – I will not list them now, as they are numerous. But in my opinion, this aspiration is genuine.”
He then worked his way to the issue of the neo-Nazi formations who receive western weaponry and financial aid and have the resources to recruit new personnel, holding de facto power in Kiev and are effectively running the country. Putin stated: “This raises the question: how is it possible to conduct negotiations with them?”
Clearly, the Russians are sceptical of the outcome of the expert level talks in Riyadh last Monday. The European summit in Paris 3 days later had vowed not to relax the sanctions against Russia or to give Russian banks access to the SWIFT clearing system. In short, the exports of Russian agricultural products and fertilisers to the world market is not going to be feasible. Kiev has already raised objection to the US-Russian understanding in this regard.
Simply put, an important element in the so-called Black Sea initiative is not workable. How to cut the Gordian knot?
Taking stock of Kiev’s all-round resistance to ending the war, Putin said:
“In such situations, international practice follows a well-established path. Within the framework of the United Nations peacekeeping operations, there have been several cases of what is termed external governance or temporary administration. This occurred in East Timor, I believe in 1999, in parts of the former Yugoslavia, and in New Guinea. In short, such precedents exist.
“In principle, it would indeed be possible to discuss, under UN auspices with the United States and even European countries – and certainly with our partners and allies – the possibility of establishing a temporary administration in Ukraine. To what end? To conduct democratic elections, to bring to power a competent government that enjoys public trust, and only then to begin negotiations on a peace treaty and sign legitimate agreements that would be recognised worldwide as consistent and reliable.
“This is just one option; I do not claim that others do not exist. They certainly do. At present, there is no opportunity – and perhaps no possibility – to lay out every detail, as the situation is evolving rapidly. But this remains a viable option, and such precedents exist within UN practice…”
What Putin didn’t mention but is equally relevant is that the war in Ukraine will meet with sudden death the moment UN governance in Ukraine gets established. Indeed, let the UN decide the composition of any peacekeeping forces to be deployed in Ukraine for conducting elections. There won’t be any need for a ‘coalition of the willing’ of Europeans for deployment in Ukraine, either.
Of course, the big losers will be MI6 and the politicians in power in the EU countries who lined up behind Biden as his retinue to wage a doomed proxy war against Russia and eventually ended up bringing the roof down on Europe’s economy. These decrepit politicians need the war as a distraction since they will be held horribly accountable by their public for creating conditions under which the welfare state is no longer affordable.
The Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi is expected to visit Moscow next week on Tuesday. It is entirely conceivable that the topic of UN governance in Ukraine will figure in Wang Yi’s talks.
Stepan Bandera’s Sinister MI6 Alliance Exposed
[Source: ar.inspiredpencil.com]
By Kit Klarenberg | Covert Action Magazine | March 20, 2025
October 15, 2024, marked the 65th anniversary of Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-B) and Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) founder Stepan Bandera’s assassination by the KGB in Munich, in then-West Germany.
The date passed without mention anywhere. This may reflect how prior public commemorations of the life and death of Nazi collaborator Bandera—widely credited as the father of Ukrainian nationalism—in Kyiv sparked significant controversy and condemnation across Central and Eastern Europe, particularly neighboring Poland.
The complicity of Bandera and the fascist movements he birthed during World War II is well-documented. His influence over modern-day ultranationalist and Neo-Nazi factions in Ukraine, such as the Azov Regiment, has also been acknowledged in the mainstream media.
Yet, Bandera’s secret Cold War bond with British intelligence has never been seriously explored by Western news outlets. Now, examination of little-known declassified CIA records by CovertAction Magazine exposes the malign contours of a long-running, ruthless conspiracy between Bandera and MI6 to destabilize the Soviet Union.
This dark handshake only expired because MI6’s fascist asset was resistant to joining forces with other Ukrainian anti-Communist forces, therefore jeopardizing plans by Washington and London for all-out war with the Soviets in Donbas. That plot, intended to ultimately collapse the entire USSR, has eerie, direct echoes of the current Ukraine proxy war. So too Britain’s willingness, then and now, to go even further than the U.S. in building alliances with the most reactionary, dangerous Ukrainian ultranationalist elements, in service of balkanizing Russia.
“Bandit Type”
MI6 first contacted Bandera while he was exiled in post-war West Germany in 1948, via Gerhard von Mende. An ethnic German hailing from Riga, Latvia, von Mende has been described as the “enthusiastic Nazi” who headed Berlin’s Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territory, or Ostministerium. Among other connivances, von Mende was charged with recruiting fifth columnists from the USSR’s Central Asian republics, to undermine and attack Communist authorities. He has been credited with influencing subsequent British and American support for Islamic extremists.
Per a declassified CIA biography, after Nazi Germany’s defeat, von Mende was “interned as a ‘guest’” at the Agency’s Camp King, where Nazi officials and soldiers were interrogated and tortured. In some cases, inmates were unwittingly dosed with LSD under PROJECT BLUEBIRD, a forerunner to the CIA’s notorious MK-ULTRA mind-control program. Subsequently, von Mende became an asset for West Germany’s Nazi-riddled BND, the CIA, and MI6, continuing his spy recruitment in the USSR via a front company.
Through this position, von Mende was kept abreast of UPA activities and capabilities, and maintained an intimate personal relationship with Bandera. The Ukrainian fascist ideologue’s thuggish West German network was by then hard at work killing hundreds of local citizens suspected by the CIA and MI6 of harboring Communist sympathies. While the OUN-B chief’s “ask” of British intelligence was initially judged too high, that perspective rapidly changed. By 1949, MI6 was helping Bandera airdrop his chaos agents into Ukraine.
A year later, Britain’s foreign spy agency began formally training these operatives to gather intelligence and carry out sabotage and assassinations on Soviet soil. This sinister compact was established despite stern CIA and State Department opposition. At this point, the Agency had identified a comparatively moderate alternative to Bandera’s murderous ultranationalist mob, the Ukrainian Supreme Liberation Council (UHVR). The group was led by Ukrainian-Greek Catholic priest Ivan Hrinioch, a “longtime CIA asset” and former high-ranking OUN-B operative Mykola Lebed.
During World War II, Lebed oversaw the UPA’s massacre of tens of thousands of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. However, he subsequently disavowed this genocidal carnage, and led UHVR’s push to unite Ukrainian émigrés, who had fractured due to bloody, internecine squabbles toward the conflict’s end. Under the auspices of Operation AERODYNAMIC, for decades the Agency exploited the UHVR to foment “nationalist flare-ups” throughout the Soviet Union, “particularly” in Ukraine, and “encourage divisive manifestations among” the population, to “exert pressure on the Soviet regime.”
By this time, Bandera had fallen out of favor with many Ukrainian nationalists, and was even renounced by what remained of OUN-B’s Kiev-based leadership. This, his genocidal past, and overt anti-U.S. actions and statements due to Washington’s refusal to publicly advocate for Ukrainian independence, all deterred the CIA from employing him. However, MI6 was unperturbed and pushed ahead with its Bandera operations. This created a ludicrous situation, with London and Washington supporting bitterly antagonistic Ukrainian nationalist factions, which frequently undermined and attacked each other.
As a British intelligence memorandum on “the crisis over Bandera” noted, by 1950 Ukrainian nationalist leaders had “become aware of the fact that the British and Americans were backing rival groups,” putting the agencies’ joint anti-Soviet project at risk. It was decided to dispatch a co-signed message to UPA headquarters via Ukrainian CIA and MI6 agents parachuted into Lviv, calling for an end to “present disagreements” between opposing nationalist factions, which London and Washington professed to “deplore and earnestly hope may be resolved.”
It signed off with the now-infamous, Bandera-coined nationalist slogan, “Glory to Ukraine” (“Slava Ukraini”). The memo’s MI6 author, moreover, recalled an in-person meeting they had with Bandera in London. The spy described him thusly:
“Convincing and sincere… a professional underground worker with a terrorist background and ruthless notions about the rules of the game, acquired by hard experience, along with a thorough knowledge of the Ukrainian people… a bandit type if you like, with a burning patriotism which provides an ethical background and a justification for his banditry.”
The MI6 operative cheerfully added that genocidal mass murderer Bandera was “no better and no worse than others of his kind I have had dealings with in the past,” and “genuinely grateful for the help given to him” by British intelligence, “but at the same time is certainly trying to get all he can out of it.” The CIA begged to differ, however, commissioning a study of London and Washington’s conflicting positions on the “Ukrainian underground” and Bandera, and how to resolve this divergence.
UPA poster from the 1940s. OUN/UPA’s formal greeting is written on two of the horizontal lines “Glory to Ukraine!” “Glory to the Heroes!” The soldier is standing on the banners of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. [Source: euromaidanpress.com]
“Political Overtones”
A subsequent appraisal repeatedly declared Bandera and OUN-B to be “completely unacceptable” to the CIA, “both from the political and the operational standpoints.” It proposed the Agency and MI6 take joint ownership of the UHVR and its anti-Soviet wrecking project in Ukraine, and “exchange political, operational and intelligence data resulting from these operations.” Meanwhile, the CIA would “take independent action to neutralize” OUN-B’s “present leadership,” including Bandera himself. It is unknown if this was pitched to MI6, although London’s steadfast opposition was inevitable.
The “British position,” as described in the study, was Bandera’s “importance” had been perennially “underestimated by the Americans, as a rallying symbol in the Ukraine, as leader of a large émigré group [and] as a leader favored by the homeland headquarters.” This did not conform to the reality on the ground as detected by the CIA, but MI6 had a vested interest in maintaining the fascist demagogue as an agent. An April 1951 Agency memo summarizing recent “talks” with British intelligence “on operations against the USSR” noted:
“[MI6 is] seeking progressively to assume control of Bandera’s lines… [MI6 argues] Bandera’s name still carried considerable weight in the Ukraine… [and OUN-B is] the strongest Ukrainian organization abroad, is deemed competent to train party cadres, [and] build a morally and politically healthy organization.”
By contrast, the CIA observed Soviet authorities “had been successful to a remarkable degree in transforming the mentality of the younger generation” of Ukrainians, resulting in them vehemently rejecting Bandera and his brand of rabid nationalism. While the Agency, therefore, favored “political neutralization of Bandera as an individual,” MI6 balked, as this “would lead to a drying up of recruits” and “disrupt British operations.” However, the declassified paper trail shows London eventually tired of their fascist asset.
In February 1954, a senior MI6 official who led liaison with OUN-B for two decades made a “final attempt to bring Bandera to reason” in London, due to the genocidaire’s refusal to reconcile and unite with opposing Ukrainian nationalist elements. The high-ranking British spook offered him “one last chance” to make amends with émigré leaders. Bandera “refused this suggestion with arrogant finality,” thus making “the break” between Bandera and MI6 “complete.”
All British intelligence-run Ukrainian agents who remained loyal to Bandera were duly jettisoned. MI6 informed other nationalist leaders the agency “would not resume” its relationship with him “under any circumstances.” Bandera remained exiled in Munich, West Germany, and continued to run belligerent cloak-and-dagger operations against the Soviet Union, while ratcheting up his anti-Western rhetoric. The CIA and MI6 viewed these activities as a significant problem, with no obvious solution.
As CIA records of a January 1955 “joint U.S.-UK conference” put it, despite the “unanimous desire” of British and American intelligence to “‘quiet’ Bandera,” it was equally vital the KGB was “not allowed to kidnap or kill him.” This could make Bandera “a martyr” among Ukrainian ultranationalists, a prospect to be avoided if at all possible. Hence, London and Washington kept him alive and well, while permitting West Germany’s BND to run him as an agent. Their old friend Gerhard von Mende was his handler.
West German authorities wished to punish Bandera and his in-country network for crimes including kidnapping, but von Mende consistently intervened to insulate his compatriot from prosecution. A July 1959 CIA report noted the BND’s use of Bandera was such a “closely held” secret within the agency, it was not even formally cleared with the West German government “due to political overtones.” Despite this omertà (code of silence), the BND moved to secure Bandera a U.S. visa.
It was hoped he would connect with Ukrainian émigrés Stateside, while ingratiating himself with the CIA and State Department. Per an October 5, 1959, Agency memo, the BND believed “it should be a simple matter” for the CIA “to influence the issuing of a visa” for Bandera, as “many less desirable and less ‘exploitable’ individuals” had already visited the country via Agency assistance. A formal request was submitted to Washington. Just ten days later, though, the KGB finally caught up with him.
Despite their mutual wish that Bandera not be “martyred” by Soviet intelligence, it is likely that the CIA and MI6 breathed a collective sigh of relief upon hearing of his death. The OUN-B and UPA founder’s destabilizing, disruptive influence within the Ukrainian anti-Communist underground was a significant impediment to Anglo-American spying agencies’ implementation of a far grander plan than has hitherto been tried. Namely, fomenting all-out war against the Soviet Union, using Ukrainian ultranationalists as foot soldiers.
This is the first instalment of a two-part investigation. Stay tuned.
Trump takes on the ‘collective west’
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | March 1, 2025
The dramatic scene in the Oval Office on Friday evening signals that President Donald Trump is decoupling the US from the ‘forever war’ in Ukraine that his predecessor Joe Biden left behind. The war is poised to end with a whimper, but its ‘butterfly effect’ on our incredibly complex, deeply interconnected world will define European and international security for decades to come.
The western media which is hostile toward Trump, have seized the opportunity to caricature him as an impulsive figure in a role reversal with Zelenskyy. In reality, though, Trump has been literally driven to this point by the Biden administration.
The highly charged emotional reaction by the European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen commiserating with President Zelensky speaks for itself: “Your dignity honours the bravery of the Ukrainian people. Be strong, be brave, be fearless. You are never alone, dear President.” Trump’s refusal to give Von der Leyen an appointment may partly explain her fury as a woman scorned. Truly, the ‘Collective West’ find themselves at a crossroads and do not know which road to take. Without US air cover and satellite inputs, western troop deployment in Ukraine will be impossible. Even French Emmanuel Macron would agree that his troops will be put through a meat grinder.
Both Von der Leyen and Macron had a whale of a time as cheerleaders of Biden’s war but any further adventures in Ukraine will be suicidal, to put it mildly. Ukraine’s military will collapse if Trump freezes support. None of the European powers will risk a collision with Russia.
Trump knows by now that the western narrative of Biden’s war is a load of bullshit peppered with falsehoods and outright lies, and that the war erupted only out of the diabolic western plot to poke the bear, which got provoked finally and hit out.
The CIA’s coup in Kiev in February 2014 was a watershed event paving the way for a NATO presence on Ukrainian soil. Indeed, terrible things happened, which have been shoved under the carpet — for instance, then German foreign minister (current president) Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s dubious links with the neo-Nazi Ukrainian groups who acted as storm troopers in the 2014 coup. Just think of the grotesqueness of it — a German social democrat patronising neo-Nazi groups!
Most certainly, Trump knows that the US deep state had set in motion an agenda to destabilise the Russian Federation and dismember it as the unfinished business no sooner than the Soviet Union was dissolved. The Chechen War has no other explanation. In fact, Putin has accused US agents of directly aiding the insurgents.
Again, the Bill Clinton administration floated the idea of NATO expansion as early as in 1994. It came out of the blue but was obviously a work in progress since the disbandment of the Soviet Union. By the mid-nineties, even Boris Yeltsin understood that he was played nicely. The return of Evgeny Primakov to the Kremlin and Yeltsin’s overture to Beijing were the surest signs of a course correction.
Those familiar with Soviet history had known all along that Ukraine would be the theatre where the US would try to seal the fate of Russia. If further confirmation was needed, it came with the CIA’s colour revolution in Ukraine in 2003 where the election was rigged (as is happening in Romania today) and carried to a third round till the proxy emerged victorious and surely, Viktor Yushchenko brought the NATO membership issue to the table. At the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, George W. Bush insisted that the alliance formally offered membership to Ukraine!
Today, Britain’s MI6 calls the shots in Kiev. Zelenskyy admitted recently that much of the money given by Biden simply ‘disappeared’. Sordid tales of massive kickbacks and corruption are galore. Biden ignored them. The Biden family’s involvement in Ukraine’s cesspools is widely known. Contrary to his pledge earlier not to do so, Biden felt constrained finally to grant a presidential pardon to son Hunter Biden so that he wouldn’t end up in jail.
Suffice to say, Zelensky’s ‘strategic defiance’ stems out of his quiet confidence that western leaders — starting with Boris Johnson and Biden — who have been fellow travellers in the gravy train during the past three years of the war are beholden to him till eternity.
The axis between Zelensky and his European Union supporters is cajoling Trump, pressuring him and flattering him in turn to get him on board the bandwagon so that the war rolls on for another four years. Last week alone, the presidents of France and Poland and the British prime minister descended on the White House one after another seeking assurance that the war in Ukraine will continue. But Trump has refused to oblige.
Zelensky and his European backers want a ‘forever war’ in the western border lands of Eurasia, the traditional invasion route to Russia. And last week Trump again ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine. He also pointed to the ongoing talks on “major economic development transactions which will take place between the United States and Russia.”
Trump repeated last week that the war could be ended “within weeks” and warned of the risk of escalation into a “third world war.” Basically, he realises that this is an unwinnable war, and is apprehensive that a prolonged war may transform into a quagmire sinking his presidency and derailing the grand bargain he hopes to strike with the two other superpowers, Russia and China, to create synergy for his ambitious MAGA project.
Trump has chalked up 2026, the Quarter Millennial of the United States Declaration of Independence, for hosting the leaders of Russia and China on American soil to celebrate the high noon of his quest for world peace. The European political elites weaned on the liberal-globalist ‘rules-based order’ cannot understand Trump’s deep-rooted convictions and his abhorrence of war.
The big question now is wether the unprecedented fracas in the White House yesterday could backfire on Zelensky, since Washington has significant leverage vis-a-vis Kiev and given the latter’s heavy dependence on the US for some of the critical elements of its defence.
Following the Oval Office argument, Zelenskyy has issued a lengthy statement admitting that it is “crucial” for Ukraine to have Trump’s support. A patch-up cannot be ruled out but the transatlantic system has received a big jolt, as the overwhelming majority of European countries have voiced support for Zelensky. In fact, there hasn’t been a solitary voice censuring Zelensky. Britain kept mum. Keir Starmer, UK prime minister is hosting a meeting of European leaders on Sunday which Zelensky is due to attend. It is unlikely that Europeans will push the envelope further
In this dismal scenario, the best hope is that Zelensky’s ouster, which seems probable, will not be a violent bloody event, considering the power rivalries within the regime in Kiev. At any rate, his replacement may not be a terrible thing to happen since it would necessitate holding the long overdue election and lead to the emergence of a legitimate leadership in Kiev, which has now become a dire necessity for what Trump would call ‘common sense’ to prevail.
Electronic Intifada director’s violent arrest and MI6 infiltration into ‘neutral’ Switzerland
By Kit Klarenberg | Press TV | February 22, 2025
On January 25th, prominent Palestinian-American journalist and activist Ali Abunimah, co-founder of the Electronic Intifada website, 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 defense 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, that 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 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 mobilize the force without consulting [the] army or government.”
Parliamentarians also concluded that 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 Abunimah strongly suggests MI6 continues to exert unseen influence over Switzerland’s politics, 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.
Oddly, a 13-page summary of Cornu’s report, published in September 1991, was far more revealing. It noted that 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 organization and London, the last being inked in 1987. These covered training, and supply of weapons and other equipment.
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 purpose 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 in 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 sure that 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 materialized. Today, we are left to ponder whether Gladio’s constellation of European “stay behind” armies was ever truly demobilized, 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, Abunimah is an obvious target for the MI6 spy agency.
So too Richard Medhurst, a British-born, Vienna-residing independent journalist 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 in which MI6 was 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 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,” he said.
“The warrant even mentions my arrest in London to try and bolster their case.”
Secret terror blueprints for US NSC to ‘help Ukraine resist’ exposed
By Kit Klarenberg | The Grayzone | February 16, 2025
Newly-leaked documents reveal a crew of military academics pitching the US National Security Council a series of extreme strategies for Ukraine, from IED’s inspired by Iraqi insurgents to sabotaging Russia’s infrastructure to propaganda “from ISIS’ playbook.”
Conceived under the auspices of the UK’s University of St. Andrews, the plans were outsourced through third parties to ensure “plausible deniability.”
Explosive leaked documents reviewed by The Grayzone show how a shady transatlantic collective of academics and military-intelligence operatives conceived schemes which would lead to the US “helping Ukraine resist,” to “prolong” the proxy war “by virtually any means short of American and NATO forces deploying to Ukraine or attacking Russia.”
The operatives assembled their war plans immediately in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, and delivered them directly to the highest-ranking relevant US National Security Council official in the Biden administration.
Proposed operations ranged from covert military options to jihadist-style psychological operations against Russian civilians, with the authors insisting, “we need to take a page from ISIS’ playbook.”
ISIS was not the only militant outfit upheld as a model for Ukraine’s military. The intelligence cabal also proposed modernizing IEDs, like those staged by Iraqi insurgents against occupying US troops, for a potential stay-behind guerrilla army in Russia, which would attack rail lines, power plants and other civilian targets.
Many of the cabal’s recommendations were subsequently enacted by the Biden administration, dangerously escalating the conflict and repeatedly crossing Russia’s clearly-stated red lines.
Included among the proposals were providing extensive training to “Ukrainian expatriates” in using Javelin and Stinger missiles, enabling “cyberattacks on Russia by ‘patriotic hackers’ with deniability,” and flooding Kiev with “unmanned combat air vehicles.” It was also foreseen that “replacement fighter aircraft” would be provided by “many sources,” and that “non-Ukrainian volunteer pilots and ground crews” would be recruited to fight air battles in the manner of the Flying Tigers, a World War II-era force composed of American Air Force pilots, which was formed in April 1941 to help the Chinese oppose Japan’s invasion before Washington’s formal entry into the conflict.
The document was written and cosigned by a quartet of academic armchair warriors with colorful pasts. They included historian Andrew Orr, the director of the University of Kansas Institute for Military History. His recent academic contributions include a chapter in an obscure academic volume entitled, “Who is a Soldier? Using Trans Theory to Rethink French Women’s Military Identity in World War II.”
Joining him was Ash Rossiter, assistant professor of international security at the United Arab Emirates’ Khalifa University, and described as “ex-British Army Intelligence Corps.” Also participating was Marcel Plichta, then a doctoral candidate at St. Andrews. He’s described as a veteran of the US Defense Intelligence Agency, and his LinkedIn profile indicates he interned at NATO before working in roles with Pentagon contractors, then joined the DIA as an intelligence analyst. Along the way, Plichta claims to have “[nominated] known or suspected terrorists to the national watchlisting and screening community.”
Also involved in the academic cabal was Zachary Kallenborn, a self-styled US Army “mad scientist” currently pursuing his PhD in War Studies at King’s College London, with a focus on drones, WMD, and other edgy forms of modern warfare. Kallenborn, who has moonlighted at the DC-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, contributed to the Ukraine war planning by offering proposals for Iraqi insurgent-style “smart” IED attacks on Russian targets, and planting bombs on Russian trains and railways.
St. Andrews University senior lecturer Marc Devore
The cabal appears to have been led by Marc R. DeVore, a senior lecturer at Britain’s St. Andrews University. Little about his personal or professional background can be ascertained online, although his most recent academic publications discuss military strategy. Around the time the secret proposal document was being drafted, he published an article with Orr for the Pentagon’s in-house Military Review journal entitled “Winning by Outlasting: The United States and Ukrainian Resistance to Russia.” Moreover, he is a fellow at the elite Royal Navy Strategic Studies Centre, a Ministry of Defence-run “think tank.”
Emails show DeVore passed the group’s handiwork directly to Col. Tim Wright, who was the Director for Russia in the Biden administration’s National Security Council (NSC) at the time the emails were sent, according to his LinkedIn profile. Since July 2022, Wright has been the Assistant Head for Research and Experimentation in the Futures Directorate of the British Army.
The Grayzone attempted to contact Orr, Rossiter, and Devore by phone and email in order to solicit comment about their role in proxy war scheme, and about whether St. Andrews University was aware it was being used as a base for planning terror attacks against Russia. None have responded to our requests.
Surging the Ukrainian diaspora to the front
Once the Ukraine proxy war erupted with full force in February 2022, the cabal of military academics quickly laid out what they described as “ideas of varying practicality that may not have been considered that Western states can collectively take to strengthen Ukraine’s ability to resist and hopefully preserve its independence.” Dedicated sections spelled out five suggestions, along with “background for such action and possible avenues for implementing them.” They boasted that the “fastest proposals” in the document were “executable in little over a week.”
First on the list was arming Ukrainian emigres with anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, due to Kiev’s lack of “trained crews to operate the large numbers of missiles” being shipped to them by the West. They cited the little-known October 1973 Operation Nickel Grass as a means of “providing trained crews along with the hardware.” Under that mission’s auspices, Tel Aviv’s embassy in Washington “mobilized Israeli students studying at American universities,” who were then “rushed… through a rapid training program” by the US military.
This included teaching the conscripts how to use weapons similar to Javelin and Stinger missiles. The Israelis were then airdropped onto the frontlines of the 1973 Yom Kippur War against Syria and Egypt, where they “achieved ample tank kills before the two-week war had concluded.” The academics proposed doing “the same for Ukraine,” due to “large numbers of Ukrainian young men” living in the West, some of whom would have completed compulsory military training before emigrating.
This diaspora, it was believed, could easily be identified and recruited due to their registration with Ukrainian “consulates or embassies” in the West, then given “intensive classes” in using “shoulder-launched missiles” before being dispatched to Kiev.
“Volunteer cyber warriors” conceal state hacking
The quartet’s plans extended into the realm of cyberware, calling for “Western intelligence agencies” to “provide cyber tools and suggestions” to “volunteer hackers who want to strike their blow for Ukrainian independence, while also warning them what targets we do not want attacked.”
A “major task for these volunteer cyber warriors,” the four wrote, “could be to make certain that videos of Russian indiscriminate attacks, the use of objectionable weapons such as thermobarics, Ukrainian civilian casualties, Russian casualties and poor befuddled captured Russian conscripts” were made available to Russian audiences. Simultaneously, “patriotic hackers” could seek to bombard Russians with propaganda “about domestic opposition to the war.”
The intelligence cabal made clear they aimed to achieve the same psychological impact as the world’s most notorious terrorist organization, declaring, “we need to take a page from ISIS’ playbook in agilely communicating our message to Russians.”
The activities of these “volunteer cyber warriors” were designed to provide cover for more formal, state-level hack attacks on Russian cyber infrastructure. “The greater the volume of freelance cyber-attacks on Russia, the greater also will be the opportunities for Western intelligence agencies to launch surgical cyber-attacks to disrupt key systems at key moments… because these will be more plausibly attributable to the truly amateur component,” the four academics evangelized.
The description offered strongly resembles the so-called “IT Army of Ukraine,” a volunteer cyber militia propped up in the days after Russia’s invasion. Since then, it’s been overseen by Mikhailo Federov, the Ukrainian digital czar credited by the BBC with pressuring Samsung and Nvidia to cease operations in Moscow, and getting PayPal to de-bank all its Russian clients.
Ukraine’s cyber army collaborates closely with Anonymous, the once-countercultural online hacker collective whose work now tracks closely with the objectives of the CIA. The authors of the proposal to the NSC hinted at the relationship, writing, “Hacking groups such as Anonymous have already begun targeting Russia. This effort could be enlarged and enhanced.”
The Ukrainian cyber army has taken credit for various acts of online vandalism. However, it also appears to have been involved in hacks targeting Russia’s power grids and railways. An attack on Russian taxi service Yandex that caused a large September 2022 traffic jam in Moscow was jointly attributed to both Ukraine’s ‘IT Army’ and Anonymous.
US Army “mad scientist” and self-proclaimed “war doctor in training” Zak Kallenborn
“Modern” IEDs for blowing up Russian infrastructure
The academic cabal’s plans for attacking Russia through unconventional means extended explicitly into the realm of terrorism. A series of detailed recommendations for attacking Russian railway systems and roads with improvised explosive devices was put forward by Zachary Kallenborn, a self-described “PhD Student in War Studies at King’s College London researching risk analysis, perception, management, and theories with topical focuses in global catastrophe, drone warfare, WMD, extreme terrorism, and critical infrastructure.”
“Fuel tanks for diesel locomotives are typically on the bottom, underneath the engine,” Kallenborn wrote. “It wouldn’t be very difficult to plant and disguise small explosives between the wooden slats of the railway then detonate when the locomotive is above it… Ideally, guerrillas operating behind Russian lines would place the anti-locomotive lines.”
Throughout 2023, a group of self-described Russian and Belarussian anarchists conducted a series of attacks on railways, cell towers, and infrastructure inside Russia. Calling themselves BOAK, or the Combat Organization of Anarcho-Communists, the group of radical saboteurs earned glowing promotion in Western media. It is unclear if it received any outside assistance, however.
Kallenborn’s proposal, drafted in conjunction with the US War Department’s Joint IED Defeat Organization, suggested the US and its allies could “draw upon the lessons they painfully learned in Iraq and Afghanistan to help Ukraine orchestrate an IED campaign behind Russia’s lines.”
With the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents as models, Kallenborn proposed two technologies, “public-private key ring cryptography and ‘smart’ IEDs… to greatly increase the effectiveness of such a campaign.”
To wreak havoc inside Russia, Kallenborn envisioned a modern “stay behind” force similar to those unleashed onto Europe during Cold War era Operation Gladio, when the CIA and NATO organized fascist gangs and mafiosi to conduct anti-communist terrorist attacks.
Meanwhile, “smart” IEDs with “modern components” such as “microcontrollers,” which are now “abundant and cheap,” would allow Ukrainian attackers to “exercise additional discretion, reducing potential for collateral damage,” and “detonate the IED regardless of what the targets do.”
“The circuitry of microcontrollers can internalize most of the circuitry that would originally have been hard-wired into IED initiation switches,” Kallenborn wrote. “All microcontrollers have multiple inputs and outputs allowing multiple inputs, all while controlling multiple devices. Because microcontrollers are programmable, attackers can automate complicated algorithms to maximize an IEDs effects, and reduce collateral damage. Microcontrollers can even, relatively easily, circumvent many common countermeasures.”
Secretly employing contractors to pilot drones
While taking inspiration from non-state actors like ISIS and the Taliban, the Western academics plotting on the Ukrainian government’s behalf had elaborate plans for conventional warfare as well.
They assessed that drones had already “proven effective thus far” in the proxy war, so they urged greater deliveries of Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2s, which they said were “virtually the only airborne platform with which Ukraine is successfully striking Russian ground forces.” They proposed flooding Kiev with “additional TB2s,” pointing out that since Ukraine was already openly using them, and “had more on order before the conflict began,” Turkey’s role in supplying yet further drones could be concealed, leaving its neutrality publicly intact.
Ankara “could potentially transfer significant numbers of TB2s rapidly” from a variety of sources, the academics assumed, and fly them using local “private sector contractors.” If Turkey was unwilling or unable to go along with this plan, alternatives could be sought. “Given how commonly UCAVs are operated by private sector contractors, these could all be remotely piloted by private sector personnel employed by Ukraine, rather than uniformed members of NATO armed forces,” they noted.
Since drones can be operated “from considerable distances away from the frontline (potentially with pilots operating from neighboring countries),” they offered the further “advantage” over contract pilots, in that they would “be comparatively safe and certainly unlikely to be captured and paraded in front of Russian cameras.” While US-produced unmanned systems such as Predators and Reapers were an option, and could be provided “in large numbers,” they “would appear the most provocative” from Russia’s perspective, and make active US involvement too obvious.
Prophetically, the paper noted Ukraine could be provided instead with “commercial-off-the-shelf drones such as the DJI Mavic and Phantom,” which not only had recording equipment capable of producing “tactically useful intelligence,” but could “be modified to carry explosives.” Moreover, “their wide-spread availability” made “attribution of these platforms to a supplying nation difficult.” It is surely no coincidence that ever since, both drones have been deployed extensively by Kiev to slow Russian advances and swarm military and civilian infrastructure.
By contrast, despite alleged initial successes, Bayraktar TB2s quickly vanished from the skies of Donbass. As several Ukrainian officials have admitted, Russian innovation in air defense and electronic warfare rendered the drones effectively useless. Conversely, the paper noted that while Ukraine’s Air Force was still conducting missions, Kiev would soon “run out of aircraft.” The prescribed remedy was to re-equip the country with Soviet-produced MiG-29 fighters, which “Ukrainian pilots know how to operate” already.
This plan, however, required a number of countries to hand over their ancient fleets of MiG-29s. The academics expressed concern that Central and Eastern European states might be “reticent” due to the risk of “Russian retaliation,” which could be circumvented by “promising gifts” to them, such as weapon upgrades. A year later, in March 2023, Slovakia granted Kiev its entire squadron of thirteen MiG-29s in exchange for a US promise of twelve Bell AH-1Z attack choppers equipped with Hellfire missiles.
Poland initially promised to match Slovakia’s splurge, but only wound up delivering a token amount. The deal has remained on hold since Krakow’s August 2024 announcement that it wouldn’t provide any further MiG-29s until it received a fleet of F-35s, which aren’t expected to arrive until 2026. Peru, likewise tapped by the academics as a potential source for the aircraft, reportedly initially greenlit supply of its MiG-29s to Ukraine, but then reneged. Latin American governments more widely have refused to dispatch any arms whatsoever to Ukraine, despite US pressure.
Air wars waged against Russia by “non-Ukrainian” pilots
Perhaps the most disquieting passage of the document is its last, in which its authors survey historical examples of air forces employing foreign pilots in major conflicts. The paper notes that the aforementioned Flying Tigers “were discharged from the US armed forces” to fight Japan in China, “with the clear understanding that they would be welcomed back thereafter.” Also cited was Finland’s employment of an “entirely” foreign squadron in its 1940 war with Moscow, as well as Zionist settlers’ reliance on an air force “comprised almost entirely of foreign volunteers” during their military campaign against indigenous Palestinian and Arab forces in 1948.
The academics wished to apply these precedents to the Ukraine proxy conflict, creating “volunteer fighter groups today to bolster Ukraine’s air defense” composed of “a reasonable number of Western pilots.” They wrote that these airmen “might volunteer if their national armed forces offered leaves of absence” – as might their civilian counterparts, if US commercial airlines could be “pressured into allowing their pilots, who are fighter-qualified Air Force Reserve or Air National Guard pilots, to take such leaves of absence.” The document boasted that “volunteer fighter groups could substantially disjoint Russia’s air campaign.”
F-16s were considered “the most logical option” due to “the number of NATO members that use F-16s,” including Poland. Accordingly, “Polish spare parts could be trucked into Ukraine comparatively quickly,” with the US “airlifting replacements” to Warsaw. From almost the first day of the proxy war, its most hawkish supporters have demanded that Kiev be provided with these fighter jets, referring to the planes as a “game changer” which would tip the conflict’s scales decisively in favor of Ukraine.
Despite much initial fanfare, when F-16s finally arrived in Kiev in late July of 2024, President Volodomyr Zelensky almost immediately complained the country had only received a handful of jets, and did not have enough pilots trained to fly them. The panic spread to Washington, where Sen. Lindsey Graham publicly urged any “retired F-16 pilot… looking to fight for freedom” to sign up. By the month’s end, the first of F-16s had crashed in uncertain circumstances.
While references to Ukraine’s “game changing” use of F-16s have all but disappeared from the media in the months since, the leaked proposal’s contents raise serious questions on how many supposedly Ukrainian strikes deep inside Russia were actually perpetrated by Western military operatives, acting at the behest of, and with material assistance from, NATO and the US.
“Western European and American fighter pilots tend to fly substantially more hours and train more realistically than their Russian or Ukrainian counterparts,” the academics claimed, meaning they were ideal candidates for conducting “combat missions” against Moscow’s positions, forces, and territory. However, the academics cautioned against Western pilots flying close to the frontline, for fear that “foreign volunteers fall into Russian custody, where an example could be made of them, or they could be paraded in front of the camera.” This was perhaps a nod to CIA pilots Gary Powers and Eugene Hassenfus, whose capture by the Soviet Union and Nicaragua, respectively, humiliated US intelligence.
It’s still unclear how much these proposals determined the course of operations by Ukrainian forces against their Russian foes. But the leaks reviewed by The Grayzone reveal for the first time how, in just a matter of weeks, a small cabal of academics secretly furnished some fairly unconventional war plans on a platter for the CIA and MI6.
Just as Britain did with its Project Alchemy, the Biden administration appears to have outsourced responsibility for crafting its battlefield strategy in Ukraine to a nexus of pinheads with dubious backgrounds, situated thousands of miles from the frontline and its gruesome realities. Almost three years later, with a generation of Ukrainians lost to the proxy war’s meat grinder, the authors of these battle plans are likely still pecking away at their laptops somewhere in the musty halls of academia.
Britain: Operation Gladio’s Secret ‘Headquarters’
By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | February 11, 2025
Operation Gladio was a covert NATO program using clandestine units for false flag attacks and political destabilization, with Britain and the CIA playing a central role.
‘Operation Gladio’ is the collective name for a notorious Cold War-era program whereby Anglo-American intelligence services and NATO, in conjunction with mafia elements and fascist paramilitaries, constructed a pan-European nexus of clandestine “stay behind” armed resistance units. Their ostensible purpose was to remain ever-poised to respond to potential future Soviet invasion. In reality, these guerrilla factions carried out false flag attacks, assassinations, robberies, mass casualty bombings, and other incendiary acts to discredit the Western left, while fomenting a “strategy of tension”. Their objective was simple:
“You were supposed to attack civilians, women, children, innocent people from outside the political arena. [This would] force the public to turn to the state and ask for greater security… People would willingly trade their freedom for the security of being able to walk the streets, go on trains or enter a bank. This was the political logic behind the bombings. They remain unpunished because the state cannot condemn itself.”
This candid explanation was provided by an Italian fascist, jailed for life in 1984 for a car bombing 12 years earlier that killed three police officers, and injured two. The attack was intended to be blamed on the Red Brigades, a left-wing militant group. This false flag’s unraveling played a significant role in subsequently blowing the Operation wide open publicly. However, three-and-a-half decades later, much remains unclear and uncertain about Gladio, and the evidential trail went cold long ago.
Perhaps the most striking feature of Operation Gladio is also its least well-known. The effort is typically understood and widely portrayed as a primarily CIA-led effort. In reality, Britain served as the inspiration, headquarters and training ground for all Europe’s “stay behind” secret armies throughout the Cold War, with MI6 taking the lead on arming these factions and directing their incendiary activities. This little-acknowledged history has enormous contemporary relevance, given London secretly continues to perpetuate the Gladio model overseas today.
In November 2024, The Grayzone exposed how a cloak-and-dagger Ministry of Defence-created cell of military and intelligence veterans, dubbed Project Alchemy, is charged with “keeping Ukraine fighting… at all costs”.
Since the proxy war’s first days, the unit has strategised and orchestrated a vast array of belligerent acts, both covert and overt, to escalate the conflict and prevent a negotiated settlement. Chief among their initial recommendations was the creation of a “stay behind”, Gladio-style force, to carry out assassinations and sabotage in Russian territory.
‘The Meanest’
Uniquely revealing insight into Britain’s central role in Operation Gladio is provided by interviews with Francesco Cossiga, published in November 2010 by Bulletin of Italian Politics, a political science journal. A prominent politician throughout Rome’s bloodspattered “years of lead” and beyond, the journal notes Cossiga had “always been proud of his association” with Gladio, and took personal credit “for the creation of anti-terrorist rapid response units in Italy”, tied to Rome’s “stay behind” paramilitaries.
During the interviews, Cossiga revealed these “special services” were born following a tour of Europe, where he studied “different models” of special forces units for inspiration. Repeated visits to the base camp of Britain’s SAS, where he was shown “mock-up villages” used to train soldiers deployed to Northern Ireland during London’s brutal “counterinsurgency” against the province’s Catholic minority, convinced him to “opt for the British model”. Cossiga explained, “the meanest of all were the British” – and besides, if Gladio’s activities ever came to public light:
“I could always defend myself by saying I had chosen the model used in the oldest parliamentary democracy in the world.”
Moreover, Cossiga testified, Britain was “the headquarters” of every European “stay behind” organisation. Namely, Fort Monckton, where MI6 operatives are trained in every covert discipline, including surveillance, sabotage, assassinations, entrapment, and other black ops. According to Cossiga, Italy’s Gladio legions and “special services” similarly received instruction in these murderous dark arts at the facility, and from the SAS. A secret base in Sardinia was also “made available to the CIA and to other intelligence services,” to enhance “stay behind” operations in the country and beyond.
Despite all this, and a 1959 Italian intelligence agency report stating plainly “domestic threats” were a dedicated “stay behind” target, Cossiga vehemently refuted any suggestion Operation Gladio was ever “intended to combat subversion” by local political elements. Its sole purpose, he insisted, was to “resist invasion” by the Soviet Union, which never materialised. Yet, Cossiga’s unconvincing veil of denial slipped somewhat when asked whether he believed it possible for security and intelligence agencies “to act without the implicit or explicit approval of a government”:
“Yes it is. A certain autonomy exists, and it’s not as if an intelligence service has to tell its government what it does. The government sets objectives but it doesn’t have to know the means by which the service goes about achieving those objectives. Nor does it want to know. An intelligence service that respects the rules doesn’t exist. It’s a contradiction in terms. If MI5 had to obey the law it might as well use Scotland Yard’s Special Branch [Britain’s political police].”
‘Repressive Backlash’
Cossiga’s discussion of the murder of Aldo Moro – purportedly his “confidant and friend”, with whose “political philosophy” he ardently adhered – raises further alarm bells. Moro was a veteran centre-right Italian statesman, who served as the country’s prime minister five times during the 1960s and 70s. Highly respected then and now, he was kidnapped by the Red Brigades in March 1978, en route to a historic meeting where he would greenlight a coalition administration, formally bringing Italy’s Communist party into government for the very first time.
After 55 days in captivity, Moro was executed, his bullet-riddled corpse left in a car trunk in central Rome to rot, and for authorities to find. According to Cossiga – then-interior minister – official rescue efforts were exhaustive and wide-ranging. “We tried everything,” he proclaimed, including “air patrols… fitted with infrared sensors that would pick up heat from human bodies” in order to find the abducted premier. Cossiga also supposedly prepared the SAS-trained Comsubin, an Italian special forces unit, to conduct raids to find Moro.
Cossiga recounted how “one evening” during Moro’s captivity, authorities “received information” he “might be in a certain place.” Comsubin was thus mobilised, with a doctor charged with “[throwing] himself over Moro if there was a shootout.” Cossiga excitedly noted the medical professional in question was not only his “classmate at school”, but “later became the effective commander of Gladio!” That extraordinary coincidence may account for why, as Bulletin of Italian Politics reports, Comsubin in fact “did not conduct any raids” whatsoever while Moro was imprisoned.
This glaring contradiction tends to confirm the conclusions of Italian security and intelligence veteran Roberto Jucci – that the hunt for Moro was set up to fail. In March 2024, he publicly exposed how the formal, foreign-advised committee established to save Moro was “composed largely” of individuals tied to Propaganda Due – aka P2 – a CIA-tied Masonic lodge inextricably linked with Operation Gladio. These rabidly anti-Communist actors were, per Jucci, determined to destroy Moro “politically and physically”, therefore preventing the development of radical politics locally.
Jucci’s disclosures caused domestic and international shockwaves at the time. Yet, declassified British Ministry of Defence files dating to November 1990, in the immediate wake of Operation Gladio’s public exposure, show officials in London were well-aware of the mephitic role played by P2 in sabotaging the mission to rescue Moro. The Masonic lodge was described as just one “subversive” force in Italy employing “terrorism and street violence to provoke a repressive backlash against Italy’s democratic institutions,” in service of a “strategy of tension.”
Those documents also note that “circumstantial evidence” indicated “one or more of Moro’s kidnappers was secretly in touch” with Rome’s “security apparatus at the time,” and Italian spooks “deliberately neglected to follow up leads which might have led to the kidnappers and saved Moro’s life.” One might reasonably ask how London’s secret state could’ve been possessed of such knowledge. An obvious answer is that, given Britain’s enduring status as Operation Gladio’s “headquarters”, MI6 was, one way or another, embroiled in the plot to neutralise Moro.
Featured Video
No More Ukraine Proxy War? You’re a Traitor!
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The lies about the 1967 war are still more powerful than the truth
By Alan Hart | June 4, 2012
In retrospect it can be seen that the 1967 war, the Six Days War, was the turning point in the relationship between the Zionist state of Israel and the Jews of the world (the majority of Jews who prefer to live not in Israel but as citizens of many other nations). Until the 1967 war, and with the exception of a minority of who were politically active, most non-Israeli Jews did not have – how can I put it? – a great empathy with Zionism’s child. Israel was there and, in the sub-consciousness, a refuge of last resort; but the Jewish nationalism it represented had not generated the overtly enthusiastic support of the Jews of the world. The Jews of Israel were in their chosen place and the Jews of the world were in their chosen places. There was not, so to speak, a great feeling of togetherness. At a point David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding father and first prime minister, was so disillusioned by the indifference of world Jewry that he went public with his criticism – not enough Jews were coming to live in Israel.
So how and why did the 1967 war transform the relationship between the Jews of the world and Israel? … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Bill Francis on Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate… Sheree Sheree on I was canceled by three newspa… Richard Ong on Czech–Slovak alignment signals… John Edward Kendrick on Colonel Jacques Baud & Nat… eddieb on Villains of Judea: Ronald Laud… rezjiekc on Substack Imposes Digital ID Ch… loongtip on US strikes three vessels in Ea… eddieb on An Avoidable Disaster Steve Jones on For Israel, The Terrorist Atta… cleversensationally3… on Over Half of Germans Feel Unab… loongtip on Investigation Into U.S. Milita… loongtip on Zelensky’s Impossible De…
Aletho News- No More Ukraine Proxy War? You’re a Traitor!
- Sexual Blackmail Makes the World Go ‘Round
- Powerful Israeli Strikes on South Lebanon and Bekaa
- UAE-backed militia in Yemen reaches out to Israel for alliance against ‘common foes’: Report
- The UAE’s reverse trajectory: From riches to rags
- Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate Speech” Laws Linking Censorship to Terror Prevention
- Majority of Belgians oppose theft of Russian assets – poll
- Czech–Slovak alignment signals growing dissatisfaction with Brussels’ authoritarianism
- Colonel Jacques Baud & Nathalie Yamb Sanctioned: EU Goes Soviet
- Who gets to be a hostage? The language that legitimises Palestinian captivity
- If Americans Knew
- Amnesty: ‘Utterly preventable’ Gaza flood tragedy must mobilize global action to end Israel’s genocide
- Israel Propagandists Are Uniformly Spouting The Exact Same Line About The Bondi Beach Shooting
- Ha’aretz: Free the Palestinian Activist Who Dared to Document Israel’s Crimes in the West Bank
- Garbage Is Poisoning Gaza
- Palestinian journalist recounts rape and torture in Israeli prison
- Gaza is crumbling, but its people persevere – Not a Ceasefire Day 69
- Pro-Israel billionaire Miriam Adelson green-lights a Trump 3rd term
- Australians Being Massacred Shouldn’t Bother Us More Than Palestinians Being Massacred
- Garbage, stench, sewage, and rats plague Gaza – Not a Ceasefire Day 68
- The Zionist Billionaire Circle Hiding in Plain Sight
- No Tricks Zone
- The Wind Energy Paradox: “Why More Wind Turbines Don’t Always Mean More Power”
- New Study Reopens Questions About Our Ability To Meaningfully Assess Global Mean Temperature
- Dialing Back The Panic: German Physics Prof Sees No Evidence Of Climate Tipping Points!
- Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon Challenges The Climate Consensus … It’s The Sun, Not CO2
- Regional Cooling Since The 1980s Has Driven Glacier Advance In The Karakoram Mountains
- Greenland Petermann Glacier Has Grown 30 Kilometers Since 2012!
- New Study: Temperature-Driven CO2 Outgassing Explains 83 Percent Of CO2 Rise Since 1959
- Climate Extremists Ordered By Hamburg Court To Pay €400,000 In Damages
- More Evidence NE China Is Not Cooperating With The Alarmist Global Warming Narrative
- Ecological Impacts Of Offshore WindParks Are Worse Than Expewcted, New Study Finds
Aletho News 