As Uncle Sam compels Ukraine to cry uncle—daggers seek backs. A spectre haunts Europe—the jackals of Algeria’s doomed OAS—resurrecting as the U-OAS, before which Europe gathers to forge its mettle
Just a thought, but the current unwinding of the deep state, USAID , Soros links etc etc , reminds me of the destruction of the Templars , who like the deep state had financial and influence tentacles everywhere, and strangely, strong links to Israel( then the Holy Land ) and like USAID et al , sought to destroy Trump, they leaned too heavily on the French king who destroyed them ( not exactly a parallel with Trump I admit).
If you felt inclined an essay along these lines would be interesting I think. Just a thought.
That’s a fascinating comparison. The image of the Knights Templar being burned at the stake in Paris feels oddly reminiscent of Vance’s Munich speech, where he rhetorically incinerated the European elite! Just as the Templars lost their purpose—and protection—after the fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, today’s European elites seem increasingly disposable following the collapse of Project Ukraine. With the West shifting priorities, they may find themselves scapegoated for failure, much like the Templars once were. I pass by the statue of Godfrey of Bouillon nearly every day here in Brussels—once a King of Jerusalem, now just another forsaken monument. Thank you for this suggestion. I will delve into this further and start sketching out an essay but there are other works that are ahead on the production line!
Again beautifully written and well substantiated with historically verifiable events and fact.
But ...there is always a 'but'... it can also go another way.
As I always explain to my kids, statistics are great help, but in the end it boils down to 'it happens or it does not', thus reducing all beautiful predictions to a 50/50 chance ;)
History also shows that minute evenets trigger huge ones and sometimes huge changes to predicted outcomes.
All in all Europe may be a practically teethless tiger, but as I stated in another comment, it still has some 600 million inhabitants, a big economy and good industrial base, some 1,35 million well equipped troops, basically dwarfing whatever Russia can bring to the table.
What if Europe manages to get its act together?
Will they still want to side the USA after what happened?
Ofc the latter would be the more sound (and ruthless) 'business deal', but Europe is notoriously 'romantic'.
Thank you, yes in the end something either happens or it doesn't, although if one makes their predictions vague enough, that score can be increased. I'd go a bit further and say this article was more speculation on current motivations, but one that would be difficult if not impossible to falsify, therefore knocking it well clear of any sort of scientific category.
I certainly noticed your comments on Europe's military potential. Here we don't need to look into the future, what's happening today? Where are the arms this huge industrial base is producing? Why is roughly half of European military hardware purchases going to US-produced weapons? And if they try to reduce their purchases of or even boycott US arms, the Bad Orange Man can hit the kill switches on the billion dollar F-35's.
Industrial might does not automatically translate into military potential. I've written an article about the Garrison State concept and why girlbossery will struggle with implementing policies which empower rural and working class men.
A quick skim of history reveals that sheer population size, particularly in prosperous societies, doesn’t guarantee military prowess. Numbers alone can’t forge the cohesion, resolve, or adaptability needed to triumph in war. Ibn Khaldun, the 14th-century Arab historian, captured this in his concept of asabiyyah—a sense of group solidarity and shared purpose that binds a people together, often strongest in smaller, less pampered communities.
He argued that wealthy, populous societies grow soft and fragmented, losing the fierce unity that drives martial success, while leaner, hungrier groups wield asabiyyah like a blade. History backs this up with examples of small, determined forces toppling vast populations through grit and strategy.
The Spanish conquest of Latin America is a prime case—Hernán Cortés, with a few hundred men, brought down the Aztec Empire of millions in 1521, exploiting internal divisions and ruthless resolve.
The Mongol invasions further prove the point—Genghis Khan’s hordes, often outnumbered, swept through China and Persia in the 13th century, their mobility and ferocity overwhelming sedentary empires. Even the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae in 480 BCE, though ultimately defeated, held off a Persian army of tens of thousands, their asabiyyah-like brotherhood buying time for Greece.
Needless to say that Euro elites despise "toxic masculinity" and martial values and their war on European national pride means that very few high-T men are going to fight and die for a vague and bureaucratic supra-state called the EU. The only pools of asabiyyah Europe currently has--its nationalists--are systematically being mopped up by Brussels. Let's not forget the radical ideology, kept hidden in the media cellar, fuelling Ukrainian resistance to Russia!!
The claim that Europe’s supposed army of over a million well-trained soldiers has any true military potential against Russia ignores this lesson and oversimplifies a messy reality, especially when logistics enters the picture. Europe doesn’t have a unified army of that size—its militaries are fragmented across dozens of nations, with NATO’s European members collectively fielding around 1.5 million active personnel as of 2025.
But numbers mislead without the logistical backbone to sustain them, and here Europe leans heavily on America. Since NATO’s inception in 1949, the US has been the linchpin of alliance logistics—providing strategic airlift (think C-17 Globemasters), sealift capacity (via the Military Sealift Command), and prepositioned stocks of fuel, munitions, and equipment across Europe.
Without this, Europe’s ability to project and sustain a large force collapses. Take fuel alone: NATO’s Cold War-era pipeline system, once a marvel, has atrophied, and modern conflicts like Ukraine show that high-intensity warfare burns through supplies at a staggering rate—Russia’s been firing 10,000 artillery rounds daily at peaks, outpacing Europe’s production capacity. Europe’s domestic logistics are a patchwork—rail gauges differ, bridges can’t always handle heavy armor, and bureaucratic red tape slows cross-border movement.
The US fills these gaps with its global supply chain, from spare parts for F-35s (which Europe can’t maintain without Washington’s nod) to the sheer tonnage of ammo and gear shipped across the Atlantic. Again, the US has a kill switch for each and every European F-35 and the Bad Orange Man will not be shy about using them if he does not approve of Europe using them against Russia.
Now, let's speculate on Europe’s expeditionary potential without America. Let’s say Europe musters a force to confront Russia on the eastern front—Poland, the Baltics, maybe Ukraine.
A realistic ceiling might be 100,000–150,000 troops, roughly two corps, drawing from nations like Germany, France, and Poland, who’d lead the charge.
Equipment-wise, that’s about 500–700 main battle tanks (Leopards, Leclercs), 1,000 infantry fighting vehicles, and a few hundred artillery pieces (PZH 2000s, Caesars). Air support could lean on 200–300 fighters (Eurofighters, Rafales), but here’s the issue: sustaining this force beyond a few weeks is a nightmare.
Europe’s strategic airlift is thin—France and Germany have a handful of A400Ms, but nothing like the US’s 200+ C-17s. Sealift? Civilian ferries and a few roll-on/roll-off ships could move initial gear, but they’re slow and vulnerable. Ammo stocks are already low—Germany’s admitted it can’t supply Ukraine long-term, let alone itself—and domestic production (e.g., 155mm shells) lags far behind Russia’s.
And then there is Russia’s Oreshnik area saturation hypersonic missile system that is beyond the reach of Europe's already depleted air defense capacitates, and which will devastate any efforts to move troops or supplies towards Russia.
Meanwhile Russian irregular forces will infiltrate Europe's many teaming ghettos and start rallying locals to fight the oppressive system!
This is why I believe Europe is "fronting" on all this butch war pig talk and will fold like cheap suits when the pressure rises.
You make a number of good points. The weakest point of Western Europe in general is indeed the girlbossery and its lack of T-levels remaining ( Imean look at the boss of the NATO…if that is not a girl, then what is?). The Scandinavian, Eastern European and Baltic states are made of different material though. And what will Turkey do? No girlyboss, pretty high T-levels, good and large army, well established weapons industry. There are so many factors at play, it makes it hard to predict IMO. Well, ofc only if Europe at all manages to get its act together. If Europe does not show any success in that field sometime soon, it will never manage. Also, we may be looking at new vectors shaping the map. I for one do not (want to) believe Russia is very strong now and by the time it is again, Putin may not be around anymore. An organized Europe and a more moderate Russia might find each other as partners in that case. That is one of the possible outcomes too. Anyway, I realize this subject can lead to endless deliberations, so, thank you very much for the extensive answer. It was again enlightening!
Not if their cordon sanitaires and fire walls hold up. In most European nations the mainstream parties all think the same and the populist right is still short of any sort of majority--except in Hungary and Slovakia and maybe in Italy. At the EU level there are no direct elections. On the other hand things may deteriorate so badly that current European leaders may find ways to get out.
Mr. Batcho, Back in the early seventies we all heard about the Holocaust but never heard the word Holodomor in our history books. But my question is about Great Britain and Europe.
How does a Great Britain, falling apart from the inside, have any potential for calling the shots? Same question about immigration flooded Europe? Internally they are weak, so what power can they have over time?
Europe is staring down its own century of humiliation, much like China endured from the mid-19th to mid-20th century. This crisis has struck at the worst possible moment—right in the middle of their half-finished experiment to transfer sovereignty from nation-states to the EU. Had they stayed out of the Ukraine debacle in 2022, they might have had a fighting chance. Now, they’re cooked. Their best move? Grab China’s belt loop and hope for the best.
As for the Holodomor, serious discussion of it only gained traction as the Soviet Union began to unravel. A modest Holodomor Industry has emerged since then, though it has never approached the cultural or political weight of the Holocaust.
Thank you. This is very well written, and I appreciate the references to literature (and the Rolling Stones). I am also afraid that the parallel between the Banderites and the OAS may be fitting (and let us not forget that the OAS lived on, mainly in the most dangerous fascist propaganda/terrorist outfit of post-war Europe, Aginter Presse, a central element of the Fascist International which, of course, also included the Banderites). I will make sure to visit your blog again.
Thank you so much for your kind words—I truly appreciate your thoughtful feedback. I’m delighted that you noticed the Rolling Stones references; it’s always rewarding when those details resonate with someone. I often wonder if anyone notices!
Regarding the Aginter Presse, I hadn’t come across it before, but it does seem to align with the broader "strategy of tension" and the activities of groups like the P2 Masonic Lodge in Italy during the 1970s. The parallels to Operation Gladio and other stay-behind networks are fascinating, and it wouldn’t surprise me if these historical strategies resurface in some form, especially given the evolving geopolitical landscape post-Ukraine.
Thanks again for engaging with my work—it means a great deal.
A lot has been written about Gladio and the european stay behind armies, much less about the Gehlen network of nazi spies embedded behind the lines in the east. To this network, paperclipped by the US and later forming the BND, the OUN was a natural ally and of great use shaping the post 2014 Ukrainian society. The BND connections likely persist today modulated by Israeli penetration of German security services.
Denazification was one of the stated goals of the SMO, it would probably benefit europe to join russia in achieving that to get out of the hostage situation and in the future possibly earn it a chair at the table. The recent rocket strike on chernobyl was an ominous signal to europe.
As a teenager—back when conspiracy theories were leftist, meticulously researched, and genuinely cerebral—I used to tune into Mae Brussell’s broadcasts on a local college radio station. My memory might be a bit rusty, but buried somewhere in my brain is a trove of information on the Gehlen network. That said, I doubt the BND is still involved in Gehlen-style operations—Germany has changed significantly. These days, the real power seems to lie with the BfV, whose mission is more about enforcing absolute ideological conformity within Germany, and I imagine their reach extends into the BND.
The CIA and MI 6 took over from the Germans. The CIA at first was reluctant to use Stepan Bandera, MI 6 had no such qualms. Yes, the OUN is the focal point of Banderism. Yes, Paperclip is a good metaphor to cover all of this. Yes, Paperclip etc. haunts us to this day (see Christopher Simpson, "Blowback"). About the "Israeli penetration of German security services" I know nothing. Care to explain?
A challenging source that I consider cerebral—its qualification depends on one’s ability to cross-reference it and establish authenticity. At the time, coinciding events in German media supported this, notably an article in Der Spiegel titled ‘From Rags to Bloody Riches’ (if I recall correctly). The Falklands reserves were known in financial circles back then, but this was the first mainstream media article to mention it. It reframed the motivations for the Falklands War in a new light—one that was uncomfortable for the British and subtly aligned with aspects of the postings’ content. My take was that it functioned as a form of two-factor authentication to verify identity through an auxiliary, privileged channel. This approach seemed necessary given the context and stated goals.
Does authenticity guarantee truth? Not necessarily but In a negotiation where both parties already know the facts, lying becomes irrational. The Patagonian reference is also known as the Andinia plan.
It does not only align with the "strategy of tension". One of the protagonists of the strategy, Stefano delle Chiaie, was a member of Aginter Presse, and AP's leader, former OAS member Yves Guillot aka Yves Guerin-Serac was directly involved in the opening shot of the Strategy of Tension and "Years of Lead" in Italy, the Piazza Fontana bombing.
(Highly recommended, if you haven't seen it. There is absolutely no chance that this programme would be aired today.)
There is a lot more.
The best academic take on this dark subject matter that I am familiar with is Jeffrey M. Bale's PhD thesis, republished and updated in "The Darkest Side of Politics, I, Postwar fascism, covert operations, and terrorism".
To get back to the original subject: As a German, I believe that terrorist attacks by Ukrainian right-wing extremists, battle-hardened, trained by the US and Canada and mad as hell due to their very own "Dolchstoßlegende", are a clear and present danger.
Europe has managed a political hat trick. A weak military, a weak economy, and a weak society. It is difficult to know if the current talking points are bluster, delusion, or are actually believed by the so called “leaders”. The EU, like the leftists in the USA, were sure they were on the right side of history, particularly after Biden was elected. Clearly that 2016 swerve to the right was only an aberration and the dialectic would be proven correct. Unfortunately, the citizens of the US had seen the emperor’s naked ass and had had enough.
The single advantage the EU politicians have for keeping power is their docile and disarmed native born population. In the US, deep down, the politicians know most Americans have a bad attitude about being pushed around, and are used to having their say. They also know 100+ million citizens are gun owners and they possess 400+ million guns. Millions of them are veterans and combat veterans, hunters, sport shooters and trained defensive shooters. In the US the 1st Amendment is backed up by the 2nd, and that makes it less likely to ever be needed.
As for Europe?
I’ll quote President John F. Kennedy, and I hope the EU is listening.
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
A very literary , even poetic analysis of the mechanisms of realpolitik, very rare in these times , and therefore appreciated.
We shall shortly see if the analysis and poetry are prophetic or mere fancy.
Thanks and yes I agree, we have to see what the future brings.
Just a thought, but the current unwinding of the deep state, USAID , Soros links etc etc , reminds me of the destruction of the Templars , who like the deep state had financial and influence tentacles everywhere, and strangely, strong links to Israel( then the Holy Land ) and like USAID et al , sought to destroy Trump, they leaned too heavily on the French king who destroyed them ( not exactly a parallel with Trump I admit).
If you felt inclined an essay along these lines would be interesting I think. Just a thought.
That’s a fascinating comparison. The image of the Knights Templar being burned at the stake in Paris feels oddly reminiscent of Vance’s Munich speech, where he rhetorically incinerated the European elite! Just as the Templars lost their purpose—and protection—after the fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, today’s European elites seem increasingly disposable following the collapse of Project Ukraine. With the West shifting priorities, they may find themselves scapegoated for failure, much like the Templars once were. I pass by the statue of Godfrey of Bouillon nearly every day here in Brussels—once a King of Jerusalem, now just another forsaken monument. Thank you for this suggestion. I will delve into this further and start sketching out an essay but there are other works that are ahead on the production line!
Very interesting and well written summation. At these “hinge moments” of history supporters of the “Ancien Regime” are left behind.
Again beautifully written and well substantiated with historically verifiable events and fact.
But ...there is always a 'but'... it can also go another way.
As I always explain to my kids, statistics are great help, but in the end it boils down to 'it happens or it does not', thus reducing all beautiful predictions to a 50/50 chance ;)
History also shows that minute evenets trigger huge ones and sometimes huge changes to predicted outcomes.
All in all Europe may be a practically teethless tiger, but as I stated in another comment, it still has some 600 million inhabitants, a big economy and good industrial base, some 1,35 million well equipped troops, basically dwarfing whatever Russia can bring to the table.
What if Europe manages to get its act together?
Will they still want to side the USA after what happened?
Ofc the latter would be the more sound (and ruthless) 'business deal', but Europe is notoriously 'romantic'.
Thank you, yes in the end something either happens or it doesn't, although if one makes their predictions vague enough, that score can be increased. I'd go a bit further and say this article was more speculation on current motivations, but one that would be difficult if not impossible to falsify, therefore knocking it well clear of any sort of scientific category.
I certainly noticed your comments on Europe's military potential. Here we don't need to look into the future, what's happening today? Where are the arms this huge industrial base is producing? Why is roughly half of European military hardware purchases going to US-produced weapons? And if they try to reduce their purchases of or even boycott US arms, the Bad Orange Man can hit the kill switches on the billion dollar F-35's.
Industrial might does not automatically translate into military potential. I've written an article about the Garrison State concept and why girlbossery will struggle with implementing policies which empower rural and working class men.
A quick skim of history reveals that sheer population size, particularly in prosperous societies, doesn’t guarantee military prowess. Numbers alone can’t forge the cohesion, resolve, or adaptability needed to triumph in war. Ibn Khaldun, the 14th-century Arab historian, captured this in his concept of asabiyyah—a sense of group solidarity and shared purpose that binds a people together, often strongest in smaller, less pampered communities.
He argued that wealthy, populous societies grow soft and fragmented, losing the fierce unity that drives martial success, while leaner, hungrier groups wield asabiyyah like a blade. History backs this up with examples of small, determined forces toppling vast populations through grit and strategy.
The Spanish conquest of Latin America is a prime case—Hernán Cortés, with a few hundred men, brought down the Aztec Empire of millions in 1521, exploiting internal divisions and ruthless resolve.
The Mongol invasions further prove the point—Genghis Khan’s hordes, often outnumbered, swept through China and Persia in the 13th century, their mobility and ferocity overwhelming sedentary empires. Even the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae in 480 BCE, though ultimately defeated, held off a Persian army of tens of thousands, their asabiyyah-like brotherhood buying time for Greece.
Needless to say that Euro elites despise "toxic masculinity" and martial values and their war on European national pride means that very few high-T men are going to fight and die for a vague and bureaucratic supra-state called the EU. The only pools of asabiyyah Europe currently has--its nationalists--are systematically being mopped up by Brussels. Let's not forget the radical ideology, kept hidden in the media cellar, fuelling Ukrainian resistance to Russia!!
The claim that Europe’s supposed army of over a million well-trained soldiers has any true military potential against Russia ignores this lesson and oversimplifies a messy reality, especially when logistics enters the picture. Europe doesn’t have a unified army of that size—its militaries are fragmented across dozens of nations, with NATO’s European members collectively fielding around 1.5 million active personnel as of 2025.
But numbers mislead without the logistical backbone to sustain them, and here Europe leans heavily on America. Since NATO’s inception in 1949, the US has been the linchpin of alliance logistics—providing strategic airlift (think C-17 Globemasters), sealift capacity (via the Military Sealift Command), and prepositioned stocks of fuel, munitions, and equipment across Europe.
Without this, Europe’s ability to project and sustain a large force collapses. Take fuel alone: NATO’s Cold War-era pipeline system, once a marvel, has atrophied, and modern conflicts like Ukraine show that high-intensity warfare burns through supplies at a staggering rate—Russia’s been firing 10,000 artillery rounds daily at peaks, outpacing Europe’s production capacity. Europe’s domestic logistics are a patchwork—rail gauges differ, bridges can’t always handle heavy armor, and bureaucratic red tape slows cross-border movement.
The US fills these gaps with its global supply chain, from spare parts for F-35s (which Europe can’t maintain without Washington’s nod) to the sheer tonnage of ammo and gear shipped across the Atlantic. Again, the US has a kill switch for each and every European F-35 and the Bad Orange Man will not be shy about using them if he does not approve of Europe using them against Russia.
Now, let's speculate on Europe’s expeditionary potential without America. Let’s say Europe musters a force to confront Russia on the eastern front—Poland, the Baltics, maybe Ukraine.
A realistic ceiling might be 100,000–150,000 troops, roughly two corps, drawing from nations like Germany, France, and Poland, who’d lead the charge.
Equipment-wise, that’s about 500–700 main battle tanks (Leopards, Leclercs), 1,000 infantry fighting vehicles, and a few hundred artillery pieces (PZH 2000s, Caesars). Air support could lean on 200–300 fighters (Eurofighters, Rafales), but here’s the issue: sustaining this force beyond a few weeks is a nightmare.
Europe’s strategic airlift is thin—France and Germany have a handful of A400Ms, but nothing like the US’s 200+ C-17s. Sealift? Civilian ferries and a few roll-on/roll-off ships could move initial gear, but they’re slow and vulnerable. Ammo stocks are already low—Germany’s admitted it can’t supply Ukraine long-term, let alone itself—and domestic production (e.g., 155mm shells) lags far behind Russia’s.
And then there is Russia’s Oreshnik area saturation hypersonic missile system that is beyond the reach of Europe's already depleted air defense capacitates, and which will devastate any efforts to move troops or supplies towards Russia.
Meanwhile Russian irregular forces will infiltrate Europe's many teaming ghettos and start rallying locals to fight the oppressive system!
This is why I believe Europe is "fronting" on all this butch war pig talk and will fold like cheap suits when the pressure rises.
You make a number of good points. The weakest point of Western Europe in general is indeed the girlbossery and its lack of T-levels remaining ( Imean look at the boss of the NATO…if that is not a girl, then what is?). The Scandinavian, Eastern European and Baltic states are made of different material though. And what will Turkey do? No girlyboss, pretty high T-levels, good and large army, well established weapons industry. There are so many factors at play, it makes it hard to predict IMO. Well, ofc only if Europe at all manages to get its act together. If Europe does not show any success in that field sometime soon, it will never manage. Also, we may be looking at new vectors shaping the map. I for one do not (want to) believe Russia is very strong now and by the time it is again, Putin may not be around anymore. An organized Europe and a more moderate Russia might find each other as partners in that case. That is one of the possible outcomes too. Anyway, I realize this subject can lead to endless deliberations, so, thank you very much for the extensive answer. It was again enlightening!
Destroyers of humanity insanity of Europe continue ☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️✅
Won't these Eurocrats be voted out?
Not if their cordon sanitaires and fire walls hold up. In most European nations the mainstream parties all think the same and the populist right is still short of any sort of majority--except in Hungary and Slovakia and maybe in Italy. At the EU level there are no direct elections. On the other hand things may deteriorate so badly that current European leaders may find ways to get out.
Mr. Batcho, Back in the early seventies we all heard about the Holocaust but never heard the word Holodomor in our history books. But my question is about Great Britain and Europe.
How does a Great Britain, falling apart from the inside, have any potential for calling the shots? Same question about immigration flooded Europe? Internally they are weak, so what power can they have over time?
Europe is staring down its own century of humiliation, much like China endured from the mid-19th to mid-20th century. This crisis has struck at the worst possible moment—right in the middle of their half-finished experiment to transfer sovereignty from nation-states to the EU. Had they stayed out of the Ukraine debacle in 2022, they might have had a fighting chance. Now, they’re cooked. Their best move? Grab China’s belt loop and hope for the best.
As for the Holodomor, serious discussion of it only gained traction as the Soviet Union began to unravel. A modest Holodomor Industry has emerged since then, though it has never approached the cultural or political weight of the Holocaust.
Much appreciated. Thank you.
Thank you. This is very well written, and I appreciate the references to literature (and the Rolling Stones). I am also afraid that the parallel between the Banderites and the OAS may be fitting (and let us not forget that the OAS lived on, mainly in the most dangerous fascist propaganda/terrorist outfit of post-war Europe, Aginter Presse, a central element of the Fascist International which, of course, also included the Banderites). I will make sure to visit your blog again.
Thank you so much for your kind words—I truly appreciate your thoughtful feedback. I’m delighted that you noticed the Rolling Stones references; it’s always rewarding when those details resonate with someone. I often wonder if anyone notices!
Regarding the Aginter Presse, I hadn’t come across it before, but it does seem to align with the broader "strategy of tension" and the activities of groups like the P2 Masonic Lodge in Italy during the 1970s. The parallels to Operation Gladio and other stay-behind networks are fascinating, and it wouldn’t surprise me if these historical strategies resurface in some form, especially given the evolving geopolitical landscape post-Ukraine.
Thanks again for engaging with my work—it means a great deal.
A lot has been written about Gladio and the european stay behind armies, much less about the Gehlen network of nazi spies embedded behind the lines in the east. To this network, paperclipped by the US and later forming the BND, the OUN was a natural ally and of great use shaping the post 2014 Ukrainian society. The BND connections likely persist today modulated by Israeli penetration of German security services.
Denazification was one of the stated goals of the SMO, it would probably benefit europe to join russia in achieving that to get out of the hostage situation and in the future possibly earn it a chair at the table. The recent rocket strike on chernobyl was an ominous signal to europe.
As a teenager—back when conspiracy theories were leftist, meticulously researched, and genuinely cerebral—I used to tune into Mae Brussell’s broadcasts on a local college radio station. My memory might be a bit rusty, but buried somewhere in my brain is a trove of information on the Gehlen network. That said, I doubt the BND is still involved in Gehlen-style operations—Germany has changed significantly. These days, the real power seems to lie with the BfV, whose mission is more about enforcing absolute ideological conformity within Germany, and I imagine their reach extends into the BND.
"back when conspiracy theories were leftist, meticulously researched, and genuinely cerebral" - I wouldn't want them to be any other way.
Not sure about the BfV. One probably shouldn't underestimate the BND, honorary member of the Five Eyes.
The CIA and MI 6 took over from the Germans. The CIA at first was reluctant to use Stepan Bandera, MI 6 had no such qualms. Yes, the OUN is the focal point of Banderism. Yes, Paperclip is a good metaphor to cover all of this. Yes, Paperclip etc. haunts us to this day (see Christopher Simpson, "Blowback"). About the "Israeli penetration of German security services" I know nothing. Care to explain?
Here is a copy of a twenty year old thread..
https://www.wanttoknow.info/germanguy
A challenging source that I consider cerebral—its qualification depends on one’s ability to cross-reference it and establish authenticity. At the time, coinciding events in German media supported this, notably an article in Der Spiegel titled ‘From Rags to Bloody Riches’ (if I recall correctly). The Falklands reserves were known in financial circles back then, but this was the first mainstream media article to mention it. It reframed the motivations for the Falklands War in a new light—one that was uncomfortable for the British and subtly aligned with aspects of the postings’ content. My take was that it functioned as a form of two-factor authentication to verify identity through an auxiliary, privileged channel. This approach seemed necessary given the context and stated goals.
Does authenticity guarantee truth? Not necessarily but In a negotiation where both parties already know the facts, lying becomes irrational. The Patagonian reference is also known as the Andinia plan.
It does not only align with the "strategy of tension". One of the protagonists of the strategy, Stefano delle Chiaie, was a member of Aginter Presse, and AP's leader, former OAS member Yves Guillot aka Yves Guerin-Serac was directly involved in the opening shot of the Strategy of Tension and "Years of Lead" in Italy, the Piazza Fontana bombing.
For an overview, see:
https://www.foiaresearch.net/organization/aginter-press
If you are interested, essential reading and viewing includes (and this is just the top of the list):
Frédéric Laurent, L'Orchestre Noir
Movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9LFPSxdNFA
(There is a German translation available, but I haven't been able to find it in English or with English subtitles.)
Philip Willan, Puppetmasters: The Political Use of Terrorism in Italy
Daniele Ganser, NATO's Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe
BBC, Operation Gladio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGHXjO8wHsA
(Highly recommended, if you haven't seen it. There is absolutely no chance that this programme would be aired today.)
There is a lot more.
The best academic take on this dark subject matter that I am familiar with is Jeffrey M. Bale's PhD thesis, republished and updated in "The Darkest Side of Politics, I, Postwar fascism, covert operations, and terrorism".
To get back to the original subject: As a German, I believe that terrorist attacks by Ukrainian right-wing extremists, battle-hardened, trained by the US and Canada and mad as hell due to their very own "Dolchstoßlegende", are a clear and present danger.
Europe has managed a political hat trick. A weak military, a weak economy, and a weak society. It is difficult to know if the current talking points are bluster, delusion, or are actually believed by the so called “leaders”. The EU, like the leftists in the USA, were sure they were on the right side of history, particularly after Biden was elected. Clearly that 2016 swerve to the right was only an aberration and the dialectic would be proven correct. Unfortunately, the citizens of the US had seen the emperor’s naked ass and had had enough.
The single advantage the EU politicians have for keeping power is their docile and disarmed native born population. In the US, deep down, the politicians know most Americans have a bad attitude about being pushed around, and are used to having their say. They also know 100+ million citizens are gun owners and they possess 400+ million guns. Millions of them are veterans and combat veterans, hunters, sport shooters and trained defensive shooters. In the US the 1st Amendment is backed up by the 2nd, and that makes it less likely to ever be needed.
As for Europe?
I’ll quote President John F. Kennedy, and I hope the EU is listening.
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
Yet again, you managed to bring a perspective no other could. What a great read.
HEIL NETANYAHU!