CIA, MI6, and Mossad Own Europe's Political Class | Col. Lawrence Wilkerson

I take a grim satisfaction from knowing exactly what we did. I know how painstakingly the CIA, MI6 (SIS), and to a certain extent Mossad worked to shape today's Europe. Though Mossad was not initially a willing partner, they eventually joined in once they saw the money involved. To borrow a phrase from certain Asian scholars, we "taught the dogs to bark." 

 

» We bought entire countries' political apparatuses. «

 

We bought newspaper editors, labor union heads, and parliamentarians. We purchased two NATO Secretary-Generals—Jens Stoltenberg and Mark Rutte. We bought entire countries' political apparatuses, starting in earnest around 2002, when billions of CIA dollars began flowing. USAID was the instrument; we weaponized liberal democracy.
 

2022: Biden, with Reich Governor Scholz at his side, promised to

terminate Nord Stream 2. And the perfect lackey just kowtowed.

In that respect, I supported what Trump and Rubio did to the extent that they purged the lower-level operatives who executed these policies—though I did not support their removal of top bureaucrats. But we created the Europe that exists today, on purpose. And now we are paying the piper. It will take another six to eighteen months to root out many of these figures, and God knows how long to cleanse the parliaments. We painstakingly crafted Europe in our own image.

From Anti‑War to Neo‑Con

I recall the anti-war fervor of 2003, when the US invasion of Iraq was seen as outrageous, aggressive, and counterproductive across Europe. The hawks—figures like Colin Powell and Dick Cheney—were despised and ridiculed. Those days are gone. Today's European leaders are indistinguishable from the US neoconservatives of that era. The reaction to George W. Bush back then was a call to battle for that administration, and they set all this in motion.

1965: Humberto Delgado, Portuguese Air Force General, prominent opposition leader against the Estado

Novo dictatorship of António de Oliveira Salazar; assassinated by NATO/CIA/MI6 stay-behind operatives.

 

 

1978: Aldo Moro, leader of the Christian Democracy party, Prime Minister of Italy, and chief architect

of the "Historic Compromise", a coalition government that would bring the  Communist Party (PCI)

into the ruling cabinet; assassinated by NATO/CIA/MI6 stay-behind operatives.

 

1986: Olof Palme, Swedish Prime Minister, leader of the Social Democratic Party, staunch promoter

of the welfare state and Third World liberation movements, condemned the US war in Vietnam and

the apartheid regime in South Africa; assassinated by NATO/CIA/MI6/Mossad stay-behind operatives.

1989: Alfred Herrhausen, Chairman of Deutsche Bank, visionary leader, active promoter of

German-Russian economic relations, and highly influential advisor to Chancellor Helmut Kohl; 

assassinated by NATO/CIA/MI6/Mossad stay-behind operatives. 

  

1991: Detlev Karsten Rohwedder, president of the Treuhandanstalt, the German government agency

tasked with privatizing East German state-owned enterprises, was considered insufficiently flexible

toward certain foreign demands; assassinated by NATO/CIA/MI6/Mossad stay-behind operatives.

 

2003: Jürgen Möllemann, prominent German politician from the Free Democratic Party,

 president of the German-Arab Society, outspoken critic of Israel and promoter of the

Palestinian cause; assassinated by NATO/CIA/MI6/Mossad stay-behind operatives. 

 

2008: Jörg Haider, Austrian right-wing populist politician, governor of Carinthia and

harsh anti-Zionist; assassinated by NATO/CIA/MI6/Mossad stay-behind operatives.

 

Et cetera et cetera et cetera:

 murder, slaughter, genocide: children, women, heads of state; terrorism; intimidation; weapon, drug, organ, 

child trafficking; well poisoning; pedophilia; hijacking; torturing; counterfeiting; looting; piracy; bribery...

 

Forging the CIA

The CIA had never before operated on such a scale. Harry Truman greatly objected to the agency's formation, initially, but he was eventually sold out by William "Wild Bill" Donovan and J. Edgar Hoover—despite Hoover's hatred for Donovan. It is a strange history, but the agency bought this new mission lock, stock, and barrel because it knew billions would pour its way. And indeed they did. They set about changing the European attitude. When the largest anti-war rally in British—and possibly European—history erupted in London in 2003, we did not like that at all. We set out to reverse it.

» NATO's purpose is: Keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down. «
Lord General Hastings Lionel Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay, NATO's first Secretary General, 1952.

1952: Stalin proposed reunifying Germany as a demilitarized, neutral state. Chancellor Adenauer rejected it as "Soviet ruse," prioritizing West Germany's US/British/French occupation regime
over national sovereignty and unity; remained in power and lived to 91. 

Cultivating Stoltenberg

How close was I to this? I was up close and personal in getting Jens Stoltenberg to his position. We saw what he did within his own government, recognized how malleable and susceptible he was to our messaging, and used him as a center pole from which to extend our influence into other governments. He was willing because he knew we had promised him the NATO Secretary-General post. I did not see the infection of the EU up close, but I am sure it followed chapter and verse alongside our manipulation of NATO leadership.

 

» We purchased two NATO Secretary-Generals. « 

 

NATO's Top‑Heavy Bloat

That effort was not difficult. You must understand the history of NATO's top-heavy flag structure. Every time we built a headquarters and placed a three- or four-star general there, the Europeans felt compelled to match us. We built this incredible overhead of flag officers—Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps—across Europe, and they were so influenceable that all you had to do was whisper in their ear. Suddenly, you had this pliant NATO military leadership doing your bidding. The CIA merely had to whisper about Russia, building up the threat as needed.

» We taught the dogs to bark. « 

Russophobia as Propaganda

This Russophobia began early—with Boris Yeltsin's disappearance and Vladimir Putin's arrival on the scene. That is when we started using fear of Russia as a propaganda instrument. In the Dutch media, it was exposed that Mark Rutte, while Prime Minister, would excuse Israeli actions and adopt extra-hawkish positions on Russia and Yemen, all to look good on his job application for NATO. They knew exactly what the Americans would reward.

Since 1871, the US/Anglo prime geopolitical doctrine for Europe:
"Keep Germany and Russia separate and in conflict."
[Or, as Victoria Nuland put it in 2014: "Fuck the EU!"]

 

2026: Pete Blaber, former US Delta Force Commander, on the truth

about the NATO/CIA/MI6/Mossad war against Russia in Ukraine.

  

Weaponizing Historical Guilt

We were also acutely aware—particularly in Germany, but elsewhere too—of how deeply the Holocaust lingered over European consciousness. With Mossad's assistance, we exploited that guilt to the maximum. This is why Germany has the laws and regulations it does regarding anti-Semitism today; we helped build them.

 

Reference: 

Lawrence Wilkerson (August 19, 2026) - Buying Europe's Political Class. (video)

 

» They lose their jobs if there is peace. «  

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (b. 1945) is a retired US Army colonel and former senior government official. A 31-year Army and Vietnam veteran, he became closely associated with Colin Powell in 1989, serving as his assistant as Powell completed his tenure as President Reagan’s National Security Advisor. Wilkerson remained with Powell through his tenure as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, into civilian life, and, when Powell became Secretary of State under George W. Bush, as his Chief of Staff from 2002 to 2005. He later became a prominent critic of the Iraq War, expressing particular regret over his role in preparing Powell's infamous 2003 UN Security Council presentation on Iraq's alleged weaponized anthrax. Since retiring in 2005, Wilkerson has held academic posts at the US Naval War College and College of William and Mary. He is a fellow of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, and regularly comments on US foreign policy, the Middle East, and national security.

Russia Warns UK of Nuclear Poseidon Tsunami

Russian President Vladimir Putin stated at a naval meeting yesterday (July 26) that Russia is finalizing the Poseidon nuclear-powered underwater vehicle for service entry, indicating the system is nearing operational deployment. Poseidon is an unmanned underwater vehicle of about 100 tons, equipped with a nuclear propulsion system providing virtually unlimited range. 

A single nuclear-armed Poseidon torpedo can devastate a coastal city.

It can operate at depths exceeding 1,000 meters and reach speeds of up to 70 knots (around 130 km/h). The system carries a nuclear payload of up to two megatons and is designed to strike coastal targets such as naval bases and port infrastructure, either through direct detonation or by generating a large-scale radioactive tsunami. Owing to its depth, speed, and maneuverability, Poseidon is considered extremely difficult to detect or intercept, with Russian leadership asserting it has no global equivalent.

On June 14, 2026, UK Royal Marines seized the Smyrtos, a sanctioned 
Russian "shadow fleet" oil tanker, in the English Channel. Full circle.

Perfidious Albion returned to its original trade: piracy.

  

Within this context, Putin referenced the potential use of Poseidon against the UK, framing it as a decisive strategic capability. He emphasized that while the underlying technologies exist, further refinement and adaptation to specific operational environments are ongoing. These statements suggest that, once fully deployed, Poseidon could be integrated into contingency planning involving high-value maritime or coastal targets.

Russian President at naval meeting, July 26, 2026.

In parallel, a Russian naval presence near the UK has drawn attention. On July 21, a Russian frigate conducted live-fire artillery exercises in international waters approximately 74 kilometers south of Plymouth, as reported by the UK Ministry of Defence and cited by the BBC. Initial warning shots were observed, and the Royal Navy, alongside a French military aircraft, closely monitored the activity. The French aircraft reportedly requested clarification of the vessel’s intentions via radio communication. Russia stated that the drills, which lasted around 30 minutes, were conducted in accordance with international maritime law and that nearby vessels had been notified in advance to maintain distance.

Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev warned that Russia retains all options to confront Britain, including the Poseidon nuclear-powered drone submarine, part of Russia’s naval nuclear system and described as a "Doomsday" weapon. The remarks followed Burnham's first meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on July 27, 2026. 

The frigate, identified as the Neustrashimy, was also reported to be escorting Russian tankers through the English Channel, where Russian naval transits are not uncommon. No injuries or direct engagements with other vessels occurred. However, the timing and location of the exercise have led to interpretations that it may have served as a strategic signal, particularly in light of recent political developments in the UK.

Ukraine targeted Iranian cargo ship and Russian oil rig in Caspian Sea, July 25, 2026.

Levante, Ukraine, Caspian Sea, Persian Gulf, Red Sea. Regional wars merging. 

 

The new UK leadership is pursuing a more assertive stance toward Russia and Iran, including closer alignment with the US, a posture perceived by Moscow as escalatory. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov reiterated that Russian military activities were conducted within the bounds of international law and denied any intent to issue a direct threat. Nevertheless, he stressed that repeated expressions of unconditional UK support for Ukraine have significantly reduced prospects for improved bilateral relations.

Civil War Comes to the West | David Betz

Recognition of the possibility of civil war in the West exists in politics and related punditry and in a range of scholarship. Many people still deny or are reluctant to talk of it. Perhaps they fear a kind of ‘security dilemma’ that might occur; if people become convinced that civil war is coming because important people say so they might behave in ways that cause or hasten it. Equally, one might surmise, some know the truth but are factionally invested in the conflict and are simply positioning over who will be judged by history to have fired the first shot in it.

Henry Nowak, 18, was fatally stabbed in Southampton in April 2026 by Vickrum Digwa

and controversially handcuffed by police as he lay dying, ignited nationwide riots.

 

Neither, in my view, are credible positions to hold when confronted with the unfortunate reality. Theory is generally clear and convincing about the conditions under which civil war is likely to occur. Walton concluded that in any year just under four per cent of the countries in which the conditions of civil war were present would experience it. Accepting this, even as something of a pessimistic baseline, would suggest over the coming decade the collective West is in deep trouble. Moreover, there is little reason to hope that should one kick off in one major country its consequences would not spread more widely to others.

Civil War in Britain: The Why, The How, The When.
Colin Brazier, July 2, 2026.

 

Moreover, it is not simply that the conditions are present in the West; it is, rather, that the conditions are nearing the ideal. The relative wealth, social stability and related lack of demographic factionalism, plus the perception of the ability of normal politics to solve problems that once made the West seem immune to civil war are now no longer valid. 

 

Organized and directed polarization: liberal 'Left', radical 'Islamism', and 

patriotic 'far-right', all infested with Zionist agents, fanning the flames.

 

In fact, in each of these categories the direction of pull is towards civil conflict. Increasingly, people perceive this to be the case and their levels of confidence in government would seem to be declining even more in the face of the apparent unwillingness or inability of leaders to confront the situation honestly. The result, society-wise, is a reinforcing spiral calling to mind the opening lines of Yeats’ famous ‘The Second Coming’.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold…

The fact of the matter is that the tools of revolt in the form of various appurtenances of modern life are just lying around, knowledge of how to employ them is widespread, targets are obvious and undefended, and more and more formerly regular citizens seem minded to take the shot.

Assume—based on recent statements by credible national political and academic figures—that at least ten European countries face the risk of violent civil conflict. The table above lists fifteen; discard any five you consider least plausible. Even then, the probability of such conflict occurring in at least one of the remaining countries within five years is 87%—rising to 95% if all fifteen are included.

‘Normalcy bias’ is a concept originating in disaster management that refers to the way in which people sometimes fail to react in a timely manner to warnings of imminent danger. The defense establishments of the West ought to guard against a tendency to disbelieve or to minimize the threat of internal conflict. The matter is that conditions which are generally agreed to be indicative of the potential for civil war are vividly present across a range of states which have for a long time been thought beyond such sort of conflict.

      » Configured for civil war. « 

In June 2026, an attempted decapitation of an Irish Belfast man by a Sudanese 'asylum seeker' sparked viral outrage
that rapidly escalated into anti-immigrant riots, arson, and widespread disorder across Northern Ireland. 

Strategic studies may be quite caught off guard, moreover, for two other reasons. First, civil wars are little studied in the same manner as interstate wars. The literature on civil wars is extensive, including important works on its causation, resolution, social origins, outcomes, post-war rebuilding and so on; but it is rarely studied, as is ‘normal war’, from the perspective of military strategy—in other words, how it is or should be fought. The work of Stathis Kalyvas, the most astute contemporary observer of the ‘logic’ of civil wars, is a rare exception.

 

All ingredients in play.

 

However, second, even Kalyvas just over a decade ago concluded that in the long view, civil wars were in decline. His further point, though, was that civil war had undergone three major transformations over the last 200 years to, in the last instance, a form which he struggled to describe—one far less ordered and conventional. That form is becoming evident. To suggest that civil war is imminent and ascendant and precisely in parts of the world thought, heretofore, to be the wealthiest and least restive—is contrary to expectation—but that is where we are.

Quoted from:

David Betz (2023) - Civil War Comes to the West. Part 1 and Part 2.

Military Strategy Magazine, Volume 9, Issue 1, summer 2023, pages 20-26. 
Military Strategy Magazine, Volume 10, Issue 2, spring 2025, pages 6-16.  

 

See also:

David Betz (2025) - United Kingdom Configured for Civil War Within the Next 5 Years. 

Anthony Rubin (2026) - Replacing Europe: An Undercover Look at Mass Migration.

David J. Betz is Professor of War in the Modern World in the Department of War Studies, King's College London where he heads the MA War Studies program. He is also a Senior Fellow of the Foreign Policy Research Institute.

May God’s Vengeance Rest in Iran's Mighty Hands: One Vengeance for All

 One Vengeance for All.

 

 As the US flees Iraq like a thief in the night, 
a twenty-three-year occupation is over.

 

May God's vengeance for the children of Gaza, the victims of 

Epstein Island, and the Minab school rest in Iran’s mighty hands.

 

China, Russia Must Manage 'Orderly' US Decline | Huang J. and S. Karaganov

The year 2026 opened with a series of maneuvers by the United States that continue to unsettle the global landscape. Beneath the surface of international diplomacy, powerful undercurrents are surging. Even as the aftershocks of the military strike on Venezuela linger, Donald Trump has turned his sights toward Greenland, alternating between economic buyouts and martial threats.

 » The Americans are withdrawing to the Western Hemisphere. 

They are transitioning into a "normal" regional power. « 

1941 political cartoon by Theodor Seuss Geisel (Dr. Seuss) satirizing "America First" isolationism. An elderly woman in an "America First" sweater reads "Adolf the Wolf" to two horrified children, remarking: "...and the Wolf chewed up the children and spit out their bones... but those were foreign children, and it didn't really matter."

This predatory posture—where even allies are not spared—raises a fundamental question: Is this the brute assertion of a military hegemon, or the final, desperate thrashings of a superpower in decline? As the rift between the US and Europe widens over the Greenland dispute, and the very foundations of the NATO alliance tremble, what kind of shockwaves will the global order sustain?

Huang Jing: Regarding the abduction of Venezuelan President Maduro and the First Lady—an act of blatant violent aggression—how do you foresee its impact?

Sergey Karaganov: To be clear, we are still operating without full transparency regarding the facts; the abduction is peculiar, appearing almost like a choreographed performance. While clearly the work of US security apparatuses, their local facilitators remain in the shadows. However, the trend is undeniable: Trump and the US are attempting to pivot back to the Western Hemisphere as they retreat from global leadership. This process began 15 to 17 years ago, though it went largely unremarked by the masses. 

Huang: We only truly grasped it about 15 years ago.

Karaganov: Exactly. Circa 2006 or 2007. It was an internal discussion then, but the trajectory was visible. Notably, when Obama took office, his instinct was an "America First" strategy, but he was constrained by the globalist factions surrounding him. The kidnapping of Maduro and the "piracy" of seizing oil tankers are criminal acts. Yet, there is a "silver lining": the Americans are withdrawing to the Western Hemisphere. They are transitioning into a "normal" regional power rather than a global hegemon, shedding the pretense of world leadership. It is a double-edged sword. While we must condemn the incredible crime of abducting an elected leader, we are seeing a strategic retreat. For years, I have argued that we must create the conditions to help the US exit its global role—without triggering a world war.

 

» US decline isn't the problem; the "disorder" of that decline is the catastrophe. «

Aggression as a symptom of decay: POTUS claiming US used classified "Disruptor" 

weapon to paralyze Venezuelan defense systems in order to hijack Nicolás Maduro.

 

Huang: Agreed. I recall your work on "Disorder," suggesting that a chaotic US decline is a threat to us all. This hegemonic fatigue began because the US simply could not sustain the post-1991 international system. You cite 2006; I would argue the definitive cracks appeared by 2008.

Karaganov: The decline of Western hegemony actually dates back to the 1960s. The signs were there, but ignored. When the USSR achieved nuclear parity, the foundation of a 500-year-old Western dominance began to crumble. After the Soviet collapse, the West—and the US specifically—fell into a state of "euphoria," believing they had reversed the tide of history. This lasted barely 15 years before Russia began to reconstitute its position and China emerged as a titan. Blinded by their "victory," the American elite made massive strategic blunders. They essentially subsidized China's rise, naively believing that capitalism would inevitably lead to a "democracy" that would act as a US satellite. When reality failed to meet their visions, they doubled down on failed invasions—Afghanistan, Iraq. By 2008, the internal decision to begin a long-term withdrawal had already taken root.

 

» Russia and China should work together to facilitate an orderly decline for

the United States. This is in everyone's interest, including Washington's. « 

 August 2021, managing 'disordered' collapse: US troops at Kabul Airport use

rifles to deter Afghan civilians attempting to flee during the withdrawal.

 

Huang: I agree, though I’d add a nuance: China’s rise wasn't merely a gift from the US. It was the result of correct internal policies and a desire to integrate into the global system to reform it from within. The US "vision" of a peaceful evolution into a Western-style state was indeed a profound miscalculation.

Karaganov: I don't disagree, but consider this: China’s development was facilitated by the Soviet/Russian security umbrella. Even when China was militarily weaker, the US never dared a direct strike. Furthermore, the US committed the ultimate strategic error. Through their actions, they pushed Russia and China—natural neighbors—into an unbreakable de facto alliance. Over the last 15 years, this "quasi-alliance" has effectively doubled the strategic weight of both nations. It is an monumental failure by Western competitors.

 

» The US will never come to the rescue of Europe. « 

 

Huang: From a historical perspective, we remember how the USSR helped build China’s industrial base. Yet the USSR also suffered from overexpansion—Afghanistan being the fatal error—which led to the fragile US-China cooperation of the 1980s to contain Moscow.

Karaganov: Indeed. But it wasn't just overexpansion; it was arrogance. Khrushchev’s arrogance toward Mao in the 50s and the refusal to aid China’s nuclear program were grave miscalculations.

Huang: Yet China succeeded regardless.

Karaganov: Yes, and that autonomous development secured China’s strategic autonomy for decades. Had we helped then, the rapprochement with Nixon might never have been necessary. History would be unrecognizable. But today, the US is committing the greatest error of the modern era. Post-1991, they mistook their moment for permanent "Globalist" dominion. They tried to export "universal values" through Color Revolutions and the Arab Spring—all of which failed. Now, they are retreating into the Western Hemisphere because they must, not because they want to. 

  

Huang: As you famously said: US decline isn't the problem; the "disorder" of that decline is the catastrophe. Does the invasion of Venezuela reflect a managed exit or a chaotic one?

Karaganov: Let’s put it this way: Russia and China should work together to facilitate an orderly decline for the United States. This is in everyone's interest, including Washington's. The US was an "accidental" global hegemon. Before WWII, they were an economic powerhouse but a geopolitical non-factor. They became the world leader with very little capital investment because Europe collapsed and the USSR was exhausted.

Now, as the "Global South" and China rise, the West realizes it can no longer control the very system of free trade and international law it created. So, they have begun to sabotage their own system—using sanctions and breaking trade rules—because they can no longer win by the old rules. In Ukraine, the Biden administration initially thought they could isolate Russia from Europe. They succeeded in creating a rift, but now that they see Russia is willing to escalate—even to the nuclear level—they are looking for the exit. Trump is vocal about withdrawal, but Biden started the process. I saw it myself: Biden's 2022 New York Times piece, where he set "red lines" for the US (no direct entry, no regime change), was the first signal of the American retreat.

 

 » The source of all ills and evil in the history of humanity. «
 Zelensky, Starmer, Macron, and Merz, December 8, 2025.

Huang: You warned the Americans in 2012: "You are pushing us into a corner, and you will end up in one yourselves." In 2020, you argued that the goal wasn't just defeating Ukraine, but dismantling the Western international system itself—a system used as a tool for hypocritical hegemony. Do you still stand by that?

Karaganov: Absolutely. And we are succeeding. By raising the stakes, we have essentially pushed the US out of the war. We made them realize that Russia would risk nuclear conflict over Europe. Biden never explicitly promised to fight for Europe if it were attacked; he only spoke of "support." Now, Russia’s objective is to break the will of the European elites. Europe has historically been the source of the world's greatest troubles—colonialism, racism, world wars. They are currently drifting toward a Third World War. Our strategic long-term goal should be to push Europe to the periphery of the global stage, creating systemic conditions where their current "sinister" elites are rendered obsolete.

Huang: On that point, you and Trump seem to be in total agreement.

Karaganov: (Laughs) I said it first.

 

[Continue from 27:00 in the video above—highly insightful and well worth the watch.] 

 

Quoted from:
Huang Jing and Sergey Karaganov (January 27, 2026) - Russia and China’s Role in Overseeing an ‘Orderly’ US Decline.

[中俄应该携手合作，帮助美国实现“有序衰落.”]

 

"How can you discuss anything with Kaja Kallas? Neither we will ever discuss anything with her, 

nor will the Americans, and this is obvious. We can only wait until she leaves," Peskov said.

See also:
Pierre-Antoine Plaquevent (January 26, 2026) - The Return of Great Spaces: The end of the globalist world order. 

Huang Jing is a Distinguished Professor at Shanghai International Studies University and a globally recognized authority on Chinese politics and US-Asia relations. Formerly a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and Director at the National University of Singapore, he specializes in the US-China-Russia strategic triangle. He is a prolific author and advisor known for his realist analysis of great power competition and global governance.

Sergey Karaganov is the Honorary Chairman of the Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy and a presidential advisor to both Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin. He currently serves as the Academic Supervisor of the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs at Moscow’s Higher School of Economics. A primary architect of the "Greater Eurasia" concept, he is a leading realist thinker on Russian grand strategy and the transformation of the global order.