Can We Really Cut Half of The Military Budget? You Bet!
By Ron Paul | February 17, 2025
The wailing sound you heard last Thursday was the chorus of the Beltway warmongers shrieking in despair at President Trump’s suggestion that there was no reason for the United States to be spending one trillion dollars on “defense.”
“… [O]ne of the first meetings I want to have is with President Xi of China and President Putin of Russia, and I want to say let’s cut our military budget in half. And we can do that, and I think we’ll be able to do that,” the President told reporters.
With this statement, President Trump blew up one of the biggest myths of our time, particularly among Republicans, that spending more on the military is essential to keeping us safe. There is a vast and well-funded network of political and industrial interests that depend on maintaining that myth, from the weapons manufacturers to the mainstream media to the think tanks and beyond. Why? Because most of what is called “defense spending” has little to do with defending this country and a lot to do with enriching the politically well-connected.
Maintaining that global military empire has bankrupted the United States while making us less safe and less free. President Trump seems to understand this. But the military-industrial complex and its cheerleaders have for decades pushed the idea that we could not survive without continuously increasing their budgets.
Thanks to the work of the “Department of Government Efficiency” we are learning that much of what has been sold as “essential spending” is nothing of the sort. Take USAID, for example. We were led to believe that this agency was feeding the poor while promoting the best kind of American values overseas. Thanks to DOGE, we learned that the money was going to absurdities like funding transgender puppet shows in Peru.
We are also learning that a great deal of USAID money was going to actually overthrow democratic governments overseas – as well as manipulate foreign media and promote censorship of “dissident” voices at home and abroad. Not only was USAID not helping countries overseas – it was actually harming them!
Just as with USAID, when we are able to see just where that one trillion military budget is going Americans are going to fully realize that they have been lied to for decades. That is why we need a full audit of the Pentagon and full transparency of the results.
We also need a change in policy. Americans are beginning to understand the economic costs of maintaining a global military empire. US taxpayers are forced to cover more than half of the entire NATO budget while European countries rattle sabers at Russia and threaten war. If Europe feels so threatened by Russia, why don’t they cover the costs of their own defense? Why do poor Americans have to pay for the defense of rich Europeans? Haven’t we had enough of this?
I very much hope that President Trump follows through with his plan to drastically reduce our bloated military budget. We can start by closing the hundreds of military bases overseas, bringing back our troops from foreign countries, and eliminating our massive commitments to NATO and other international organizations.
We will be richer, safer, and happier.
Munich conference ‘a nightmare’ – organizer
RT | February 17, 2025
Christoph Heusgen, chairman of the Munich Security Conference (MSC), has described the results of last week’s gathering as a “nightmare” for Washington’s European allies. He claimed that the US under President Donald Trump “lives on another planet,” referencing comments made by American Vice President J.D. Vance at the Germany-hosted event.
Vance criticized EU nations for increasingly mirroring the USSR in their suppression of dissent and the detachment of elites from voters. He cautioned that if the trend continues, the US could withdraw its support for its European allies.
During an interview with ZDF on Sunday — his final day as MSC chairman — Heusgen noted that, at the very least, Europeans now have clarity about the Trump administration’s stance. He added that while some Republican senators expressed commitment to “trans-Atlantic unity” in contrast to Vance, they were also cautious in their public statements.
EU officials reaffirmed their pledges to support Kiev at the MSC, while Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky called for a united European army, asserting that Ukraine could play a significant role in such an initiative. Heusgen advised Europeans to “do what Zelensky says” and stand together. However, skepticism remains among certain EU member states, such as Poland, regarding the concept of a transnational military force to serve as a European counterpart to NATO.
The Trump administration has signaled no intention of involving either NATO or the US in any future security arrangements in Ukraine following a potential ceasefire with Russia. Additionally, Washington has expressed interest in recouping expenditures related to the Ukraine conflict through privileged access to mineral resources under Kiev’s control.
Zelensky has previously advocated various forms of security for Ukraine that even his staunchest supporters deem exceedingly ambitious — from full NATO membership to deploying a 200,000-strong foreign military contingent, the mass placement of Western missiles, and even a Ukrainian nuclear capability.
As he concluded his closing remarks at the MSC on Sunday, Heusgen became emotional, having to cut himself short. He was addressing the mounting pressures on the “rules-based order,” urging EU politicians to uphold it despite a visible rift with the US.
Macron trying to boycott peace process
France calls for European meeting to respond to Trump’s initiatives
By Lucas Leiroz | February 17, 2025
While Washington is adopting a more diplomatic stance in the conflict with Russia, the European Union is insisting on a hostile policy. French President Emmanuel Macron is reacting quite negatively to the diplomatic advances, trying to consolidate a unified European position on the issue. The French goal is clearly to boycott any peace process, thus trying to prolong the conflict – even if this harms European strategic interests.
Recently, Macron called for an emergency summit of European leaders to discuss the Ukrainian issue. He believes that it is necessary for the EU to show an alternative to the initiatives taken by the US, otherwise European countries will end up being excluded from all the peace talks.
The meeting of the leaders is expected to take place in Paris at the same time as Russian and American diplomats meet in Saudi Arabia. There are not many details available on the subject yet, but it is known that Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski was one of the first to be invited by Macron – which is natural, considering that Poland is one of the countries with the highest military and political involvement in the Ukrainian conflict.
It is important to understand the context in which Macron made his decision. While, on the one hand, the US engaged in direct dialogue with Russia and excluded Europe from the process, on the other, the Europeans met at the Munich Security Conference to discuss relevant issues regarding the main geopolitical developments, but failed to reach any fruitful consensus on the issue of peace in Ukraine.
In addition, US special envoy Keith Kellogg categorically stated that the EU will not be included in the peace negotiations, which further aggravated the Europeans’ anger – certainly motivating Macron to call the meeting in Paris. In fact, it seems clear that the EU feels “betrayed” by the US by being excluded from the talks. European states seem desperate to prevent Donald Trump’s initiatives from succeeding, which is why the EU is expected to continue endorsing the war even if the US changes its stance.
All these moves were expected. While Trump has a more realistic and pragmatic stance, most European leaders are aligned with the Democrats’ policies, which are marked by a strong ideological influence. In other words, the Democrats-EU axis is interested in doing everything possible to protect the unipolar liberal order because it is ideologically linked to Western agendas. On the other hand, Trump and the Republicans have a more de-ideologized approach, simply seeking what is best for American strategic interests at the moment.
The main problem in this balance is that Macron has bold ambitions for Europe that clash with current American interests. He does not want the EU to be left out of major geopolitical decisions, hoping that the bloc’s countries will be able to deliberate on what they consider best for themselves and the entire region.
Macron seems not to have understood yet that Europe is suffering the consequences of its own past decisions. The EU chose to be excluded from major international discussions precisely at the time when it adopted a policy of alignment with the US. Now, the bloc is simply having to adapt to every change that occurs in the White House, without any right to a sovereign position, and simply accepting orders from Washington.
There is nothing Europe can do to change this, other than through a profound review of the bloc’s entire foreign policy. Europeans need to break with the idea of a “unified West” and start defending their own interests as an independent power. For this to happen, European states would have to undergo serious changes, such as leaving NATO, since the Atlantic alliance is nothing more than an international army controlled by Washington. Without these deep changes, the EU will have to continue obeying American decisions.
The efforts of Macron and other European leaders will be completely fruitless when it comes to Ukraine. It is possible that the peace negotiations will fail and the conflict will continue, but this will be due to the inability of the US itself to meet Russian strategic interests, as European opinion will have no impact on the diplomatic process.
On the other hand, it is highly possible that France and other European countries will adopt a dissident stance in the Trump-led Collective West and continue supporting Kiev with weapons and money, even if the US stops any participation in the conflict. Macron is trying to project European power in Ukraine through an aggressive and bellicose stance, so his decisions are expected to worsen the hostilities.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
Trump To Force Ukraine Peace on Europe
John Mearsheimer, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | February 15, 2025
The Trump administration has been clear that peace in Ukraine will entail no NATO membership, no return of Ukrainian territories, and no US security guarantees. Furthermore, the US is preparing to leave both Ukraine and Europe. The Europeans are outraged about the US preparedness to make peace with Russia, yet they have presented no other alternatives than sending more weapons. The Europeans and Ukrainians also oppose that a deal is being made behind their backs, yet they have boycotted all diplomacy for the past three years. Europe is waking up to a realist reality as the terms for a peace agreement will be decided in Moscow and Washington.
End of the American Empire?
Professor Glenn Diesen with Colonel Douglas Macgregor
Glenn Diesen | February 14, 2025
I had a conversation with Colonel Douglas Macgregor about the state of the US empire and what Trump attempts to do to reverse the relative decline of the US. Trump has been very aggressive against the deep state, which has become wasteful and ideological over the past decades. Trump is making huge moves to get the US out of Ukraine, which will also enable the US to get out of Europe. The greatest weakness in Trump’s foreign policy appears to be his approach to the Middle East, where he risks unleashing a major regional war. Trump’s tactic of bluster and noise to disrupt the status quo and create greater room for manoeuvre will trigger huge movements in the region that cannot be controlled.
Hegseth Replaces Deception with Reality
Washington presents the terms for a peaceful settlement
By Glenn Diesen | February 13, 2025
US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth presented some realities and conditions for peace that burst the bubble of deception – which has kept the war going. Hegseth argued there would be no NATO membership for Ukraine, Ukraine would not recover its territories, and the US would not offer any security guarantees. Such a position has been criminalised across the West as a betrayal of Ukraine, but the opposite is true as ignoring reality has been the source of destruction. To quote Niccolò Machiavelli: “Men will not look at things as they really are, but as they wish them to be – and are ruined”.
Hegseth outlined a painful reality that is dangerous to ignore. First, regarding territorial losses:
“We want, like you, a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine, but we must start by recognizing that returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective. Chasing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering”.
Second, NATO expansion was taken off the table:
“the United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement”.
Third, the US will not participate in any security guarantees:
“Security guarantees must be backed by capable European and non-European troops. If these troops are deployed as peacekeepers at any point, they should be deployed as part of a non-NATO mission and should not be covered under Article 5… To be clear: As part of any security guarantee, there will not be U.S. troops deployed to Ukraine”.
The End of Dangerous and Immoral Deception
They understand in Ukraine that the war has been lost and that even more men, territory and infrastructure will be lost if the war continues. Yet, there has been a belief that if Ukraine only fights a bit longer, then its determination would convince NATO to enter the war. However, this is a proxy war where Ukrainians are used to fight Russia. The efforts to keep hope alive and speak about future NATO membership have been a NATO deception to keep the long war going.
On the first point, the territorial losses are painful, humiliating and will complicate any future Ukrainian recovery. Yet, the alternative is not between losing the territories currently under Russian control or recovering them, rather it is between losing the territories currently under Russian control or losing even more.
On the second point of removing NATO membership from the table, it was always common sense that any future peace would have to be based on restoring Ukraine’s neutrality. The well-known and well-documented reality is that Russia considers NATO’s incursion into Ukraine to be an existential threat, and Russia would never accept it, much like how the US would not accept Russian military bases and missile systems in Mexico. Any appeal to allowing Ukraine to decide its membership in military alliances or appeal to international law does not change that reality. Threatening the survival of the world’s largest nuclear power was always going to trigger a fierce response, although Russia’s industrial and logistical advantage meant it would win with conventional weapons. We can remain in our bubble and denounce all common sense as Russian propaganda and treason, but refusing to accept how things are instead of how we wish them to be, will result in more devastation.
On the third point of the US not participating in offering any security guarantees, it is important in any peace agreement to remove all incentives for restarting the conflicts. Security guarantees could incentivise Ukraine to restart the conflict with NATO on its side, which would be reasonable given the humiliating and devastating peace agreement it will have to accept. The US refusing to participate and arguing that NATO’s Article 5 will not apply, suggests that the Europeans would stand alone. European leaders have already been clear that they will not place their troops in Ukraine without assurance of support from the US. In other words, there will be no serious security guarantees.
Is this an unfair and one-sided peace by taking into account Russian security concerns and largely ignoring valid security concerns of Ukraine and its great suffering? Yes, it is. But this is also the consequence of losing a war. A much more favourable peace was available in March 2022, but the US and UK sabotaged it and the Europeans remained quiet. NATO is now out of weapons, Ukraine is out of manpower, and Russia has won the war. Russia has the advantage and rejects any ceasefire in which the fighting can restart in a few years, they want a permanent favourable political settlement. The US did not give Russia “a gift” by accepting these terms as the media now suggests, the alternatives were either to accept the current Russian terms or accept much worse terms as the Ukrainan army collapses.
NATO expansionism was a manifestation of unipolarity after the Cold War. Peace in a unipolar system does not depend on mitigating mutual security concerns, on the contrary peace derives from overwhelming dominance to the extent one does not have to take into account the security concerns of adversaries. Unipolarity is over, and it is therefore necessary for the US to make priorities as it cannot dominate everywhere. Making it abundantly clear that America intends to shift strategic focus away from Europe and towards Asia, Hegseth also argued that the US was no longer “primarily focused” on European security. Shock waves go through a Europe that created an ideological bubble for itself with comfortable narratives of liberal hegemony that are divorced from reality.
The Immorality of Ignoring Reality
The Europeans have learned to speak and frame all issues in the language of morality. While this creates a sense of virtue, it is also the source of intolerance as opposing voices are always scorned as immoral. As the US has popped the bubble, it is worth reflecting on what has been done in the alternative social reality we constructed for ourselves.
The West has championed narratives that were intended to signal support for Ukraine. Fake narratives were created to preserve the war enthusiasm in the West and mobilise public support for a long war. Governments, the media and fake “NGOs” claimed for three years that Ukraine was winning, Russia was taking more losses, the Russians were running out of weapons, the Russian economy would collapse etc. These were all lies, and those who threatened the narratives with facts were smeared, censored and cancelled.
The reality is that only a small minority of Ukrainians wanted NATO membership before 2014, and NATO knew it would likely trigger a war. The Western-backed coup in 2014 that toppled the democratically elected government was unconstitutional and did not have majority support in Ukraine. The CIA, MI6 and the government they installed in Ukraine began covert operations against Russia from the first day after the coup, before Russia took Crimea and a revolt started in Donbas. NATO and Ukraine sabotaged the Minsk peace agreement from 2015 to 2022 even though they had accepted it as the only path to a peaceful settlement of the conflict. Zelensky’s landslide election victory in 2019 based on a peace platform was reversed following threats from Western-funded “NGOs” and right-wing groups. The US and NATO rejected Russian demands for security guarantees in 2021 even as they knew Russia would take military action without it. The US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul negotiations in 2022 in which Russia would have pulled its troops back in return for Ukraine restoring its neutrality – something both Russia and Ukraine agreed to. Then, the NATO countries boycotted all diplomacy and rejected any negotiations to end the war for almost three years as hundreds of thousands of young men died needlessly on the battlefield. Promises of future peace and NATO membership after the war motivated both the Ukrainians and the Russians to keep fighting. Russia can, for example, accept that the historical Russian city of Odessa remains part of a neutral Ukraine, but will annex the region if it risks ending up as NATO territory and a front against Russia. Even now that the war has been lost and a majority of Ukrainians want negotiations, there is still opposition to peace negotiations in Europe. This has all been done under moral slogans and the banner of “supporting Ukraine”.
The people who called for diplomacy, mutual understanding and negotiations over the past 10 years were not propagandists for the Kremlin who had to be smeared and purged from society, they merely rejected NATO’s fake war narratives and recognised the disaster awaiting by refusing to see the world as it is, as opposed how we wish it would be.
If deception destroyed Ukraine, then perhaps reality can save it.
https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1889710026325107022
West’s ‘project Ukraine’ should never have started – ex-US Army officer
RT | February 13, 2025
Russia and the US are “starting to make headway” in resolving the Ukraine conflict by resuming direct communication between their leaders, retired US Army Lieutenant Colonel and international security consultant Earl Rasmussen has told RT. The West’s “project Ukraine should never have started,” he added.
Rasmussen’s comments follow a phone conversation between US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, on Wednesday – the first direct talks between the leaders of the two powers since 2022. Trump said they agreed to have their teams start negotiations to resolve the Ukraine conflict “immediately.” Both Moscow and Washington have indicated that the two leaders will meet face-to-face in the near future.
“We actually have a dialogue between the two leaders… This is a major step forward, considering the previous administration, which almost did a cancel culture attempt on Russia,” Rasmussen said on Thursday.
Rasmussen also commented on Trump’s post-talk statements in which he indicated that Washington will not support Ukrainian accession to NATO as part of a peace deal with Moscow. This signifies Trump’s commitment to ending the conflict as soon as possible, he believes.
“Realistically, Ukraine, I just can never picture it being part of NATO. And I think for the Ukrainian nation and Europe and Russia… neutrality is the best place,” he said, noting that Trump’s acceptance of this fact is “a step forward and a recognition of reality.”
“I think it’s good. I think both leaders want to end the violence and the killing. But you need to recognize Russia’s valid security concerns and their reality on the ground,” he added.
Moscow has cited Kiev’s NATO aspirations and the bloc’s expansion toward its borders as root causes of the conflict, demanding that any settlement include Ukrainian neutrality and demilitarization. It also insists that Kiev recognize the new territorial realities and drop its claims to former Ukrainian regions that chose to join Russia.
Rasmussen suggested that the next step forward is to get Kiev on board with the peace plans. He indicated, however, that this process could be tricky with Vladimir Zelensky at the helm, and suggested that “maybe that’s why we’re pushing for elections” in Ukraine – “to have a transition” of power. Zelensky’s presidential term expired in May last year, but he has refused to hold elections, citing martial law.
Rasmussen also warned that there may be “issues with the political hierarchy in Ukraine,” along with “some pushback from the European leaders” regarding a resolution to the conflict, but said this can be overcome as the global public supports the idea of peace.
Panic Grips European Leaders as EU Left Out of Trump-Putin Call
By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 13.02.2025
Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart Donald Trump discussed Ukraine, the Middle East, energy issues, and the exchange of citizens in a telephone call that lasted for one and a half hours, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov revealed.
The phone conversation between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump has triggered a litany of reactions from European politicians.
Britain’s Foreign Secretary David Lammy posted a joined statement by several European states that read: “Our shared objectives should be to put Ukraine in a position of strength. Ukraine and Europe must be part of any negotiations.”
UK Defense Secretary John Healey claimed that no peace talks could be done “about Ukraine without Ukraine.”
Boris Pistorius, Germany’s defense chief, lamented the development as “regrettable” arguing that the Trump administration had made “concessions” to Russia, while asserting that “it would have been better to speak about a possible NATO membership for Ukraine or possible losses of territory at the negotiating table.”
Joining the bandwagon, Germany Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock added that “peace can only be achieved together. And that means: with Ukraine and with the Europeans.”
In addition, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk declared that “All we need is peace… Ukraine, Europe and the United States should work on this together.”
For his part, French top diplomat Jean-Noel Barrot insisted that “There will be no just and durable peace in Ukraine without Europeans.”
Meanwhile, Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur chimed in, saying: “Europe is investing in Ukrainian defense, and Europe is rebuilding Ukraine with European Union money, with our bilateral aid – so we have to be there.”
And finally, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte called for turbo-charging defense production among member states, adding: “We have to make sure that Ukraine is in a position of strength.”
NATO boss issues warning to Putin
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte at NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium on February 12, 2025. © Dursun Aydemir / Anadolu via Getty Images
RT | February 12, 2025
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte warned Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday that the US-led military bloc would deal a crushing blow to Moscow if it attacks any of its member states.
In recent years, senior officials from European NATO member states, including Rutte, have alleged that Russia is harboring aggressive plans toward the military bloc. Putin has repeatedly dismissed this speculation, calling it “nonsense” and a ruse to justify increased military spending.
Answering reporters’ questions at a press conference in Brussels on Wednesday, Rutte said, “At the moment, if Putin would attack NATO, the reaction will be devastating. He will lose. So, let him not try it, and he knows this. The deterrence and defense is very strong.” However, NATO needs to spend more on defense to be able to defend itself four or five years from now, he added.
Rutte urged member states to make “some difficult decisions this year about… defense spending, doing much, much more than the 2% we pledged.” He went on to say that while the West has “fantastic” arms manufacturers, “they are not producing enough,” which needs to be urgently addressed.
The question regarding supposed Russian aggression was prompted by a report issued by Denmark’s Defense Intelligence Service on Tuesday. According to the document, within five years of ending or freezing the Ukraine conflict, Moscow would be ready to conduct a large-scale onslaught on Europe, based on the assumption that NATO’s defense spending remains at the current level.
“Russia is likely to be more willing to use military force … if it perceives NATO as militarily weakened or politically divided,” the intelligence agency claimed, adding that “this is particularly true if Russia assesses that the US cannot or will not support the European NATO countries in a war.”
Last month, Rutte similarly urged NATO member states to “shift to a wartime mindset” to “prevent war.”
Those who refuse to spend more on defense might as well “get out your Russian language courses or go to New Zealand,” the NATO secretary-general warned at the time.
In December, Rutte suggested that European member states should redirect some of the funds they currently spend on welfare toward their militaries.
On Tuesday, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) claimed that the Ukrainian special services, with Western support, were preparing a false-flag provocation in the Baltic Sea involving Russian-made naval mines, in the hope of dragging NATO into a direct military confrontation with Moscow.
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.
Moscow accuses EU state’s leaders of ‘whipping up war psychosis’
RT | February 7, 2025
The Finnish authorities have been churning up an atmosphere of “war psychosis” and urging people to prepare for a possible war with Russia, according to Moscow’s ambassador to the EU country, Pavel Kuznetsov.
In an interview with RIA Novosti published on Thursday, Kuznetsov said that Finland’s leadership is instilling fear in the population using claims of “Russia’s aggressive plans.”
Helsinki is promoting various initiatives to strengthen military preparedness among civilians, the envoy said.
“There is increased media coverage of bomb shelter renovations, the expansion of shooting club networks, and the extension of the maximum age for reservists,” Kuznetsov observed, adding that such measures are being “widely promoted.”
According to the ambassador, such actions are part of the Finnish government’s attempt to justify the country’s “hasty” NATO accession and increased defense spending.
Finland, which shares an almost 1,300-kilometer-long border with Russia, officially joined the US-led military bloc in April 2023 following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict. The Finnish government has since strengthened its defense policies, including expanding military training and civil preparedness programs.
Multiple outlets have reported a sharp rise in interest among Finns in weapons training. Shooting ranges have seen membership soar, and the government has announced plans to open more than 300 new shooting facilities to encourage the trend.
In November 2024, Finland issued guidance on how to prepare for an armed conflict, emphasizing the importance of readiness in the face of potential threats.
Several other Nordic countries have also published information advising their populations on how to prepare for a possible war or other unexpected crises.
Sweden has sent out millions of updated booklets entitled “In case of crisis or war,” while Norway has issued pamphlets urging people to be prepared to survive on their own for a week in the event of extreme weather, war, or other threats.
Denmark’s emergency management agency has informed the public how much water, food, and medicine individuals need to get through a crisis lasting three days. In December, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen told a local broadcaster that she has been stocking canned food and other essentials in case of a Russian attack.
NATO has long declared Russia to be a direct threat, and Western officials have repeatedly claimed that if Moscow wins the Ukraine conflict, it could attack other European countries.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has dismissed any possibility of a military advance against NATO as “nonsense.”
Putin told US journalist Tucker Carlson last February that the bloc’s leaders are trying to scare their people with an imaginary threat from Moscow, but that “smart people understand perfectly well that this is a fake.”
At the same time, Russia has repeatedly warned against what it describes as NATO’s unprecedented military activity near its western borders in recent years.
Featured Video
Col Doug Macgregor: US-Iran Deal, Israel’s Nightmare
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The US and Israel’s ‘obsession’ with Iran – The real reasons
By Damian Lataan | November 6, 2011
Actually, it’s not so much that the U.S. and Israel are seemingly ‘obsessed’ with Iran, but more that the neoconservative’s of the U.S. and Israel’s right-wing Zionists are. However, this apparent obsession is only a deliberately created illusion. Israel’s real obsession is the creation of a Greater Israel and the destruction of those that prevent Israel’s expansionist dreams; Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon, both of whom are supported by Iran.
The stated casus belli for any Israeli/US attack on Iran will be that Iran is building a nuclear weapon with which it intends to ‘wipe Israel off the map’. The ‘Iran has a nuclear weapons program’ and the ‘wipe Israel off the map’ are two memes that have gone hand in hand in the propaganda and rhetoric of Israel’s Zionists and their neoconservative allies in the US and, indeed, around the world for years.
There are, however, a range of problems with these allegations. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Sinopec’s Jiyang shale oil base in Shandong Province produces 2 million tons of crude oil
- Trump demands Arab states normalize with Israel in exchange for Iran ceasefire: Report
- The True Story of Israel’s Creation: Debunking Israel’s Foundational Lies from Their Leaders’ Mouths
- Daily Mail lies: Oct 7 victim saved from rape by non-existent Muslim prohibition on violating scarred women
- The Ivanka Trump Assassination Plot Distraction
- Iran shoots down Israeli spy drone over Hormozgan province
- Col Doug Macgregor: US-Iran Deal, Israel’s Nightmare
- Oreshnik strike a retaliation for Kiev’s ‘terrorist attacks’ – Moscow
- Fars debunks NYT claims ‘Israel’ was exempted from US-Iran agreement
- Taking Iran’s lead, a global resistance front is needed against US-backed Israeli war machine
- If Americans Knew
- Israel has no mercy on Gaza, Lebanon; Trump throws a curveball into Iran negotiations – Daily Update
- Israel escalates attacks in Gaza, as it demands total disarmament – Daily Update
- Flotilla activists’ allegations of rape, sexual assault multiply – Daily Update
- Israel’s long record of using banned incendiary weapons on civilians
- How Jeffrey Goldberg weaponized Jewish trauma to pave the way for war with Iran
- ISRAELI MEDIA: They Were Children During the Nakba. This Is What They Remember 78 Years Later
- Pro-Israel commentator warns critics face ‘buzzsaw’ of ‘Jewish money’ after Massie defeat
- How Dumb Does Ted Cruz Think Americans Are?
- Amid global outrage at treatment of flotilla activists, Israeli Prison Service says abuse is standard procedure: Daily Update
- Autopsies of Gaza Medics Killed by Israeli Troops Show Some Were Shot in the Head
- No Tricks Zone
- Real-World Observations Do Not Support The Position That Climate Change Is Human-Caused
- Germany’s AfD Party Calls Debunked Climate Scenarios “Greatest Fraud In Human History”
- Researchers Find Rapid Global Warming Phase At End Of Last Ice Age (Ca.18,000 Years Ago)
- Even The DNA Of Single-Celled Plankton Can Upend Alarmist Arctic Sea Ice Melt Claims
- Scandal: Although Climate Panic Is Canceled By IPCC, Europe’s Policymakers Continue With Their Crushing Policies
- How Once Hardcore Climate Alarmist Lucy Biggers Realized It Was All A Scam, Brainwashing
- German Expert: “No Climate Crisis” …”Warming Generally Better For Humanity”
- New Paleo Research: Modern ‘Climate Change’ Has Had No Apparent Impact On Precipitation Patterns
- 90% Subsidized… Bielefeld Germany’s €7 Million Hydrogen Garbage Truck Fleet Sits Idle
- New Study: Declining Trends In 1980-2023 Tropical Cyclone Frequency, Accumulated Energy
Aletho News 