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. «  

Lawrence B. 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.

Al-Aqsa Triangle: Hormuz, Bab al-Mandeb, and Suez Chokepoints

Following the partial disruption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, the Bab al-Mandeb Strait is emerging as a second potential global energy chokepoint. The Ansar Allah movement (Houthis) in Yemen has announced an initial naval blockade targeting Saudi vessels, citing the long-standing Saudi air and sea blockade of Yemen. 

Al-Aqsa Triangle: Yemen–Iran strategy to disrupt global trade
by closing the Middle East's three key maritime chokepoints.

Bab al-Mandeb links the Suez–Red Sea corridor to the Indian Ocean and, alongside Hormuz, forms a dual chokepoint system vulnerable to escalation via Iran-aligned actors. A simultaneous disruption would block roughly a quarter of global energy flows and a large share of Asia–Europe trade, with Hormuz carrying 27% of seaborne oil and 20% of LNG, and the Bab al-Mandeb/Suez corridor each handling 11% of global trade and 8% of LNG. 

The Bab al-Mandeb is not yet fully closed. Commercial traffic continues, but the corridor is operating under elevated threat conditions. Attacks on selected vessels have increased, producing selective disruption rather than a comprehensive blockade. In response, some shipping lines are rerouting around the Cape of Good Hope, while others continue transit under heightened security measures, including naval presence and route adjustments. In response to constraints at Hormuz, Saudi Arabia has shifted a significant share of exports to the Red Sea port of Yanbu, where approximately 4 million barrels of crude are loaded daily. Roughly 3 million barrels per day are destined for Asian markets and transit the Bab al-Mandeb.

American worthless signature: The repeated breaches of the agreement by the Great Satan regarding the MOU signed by the Presidents of Iran and the US have once again laid bare a fundamental truth: the signature of the US President is utterly worthless and devoid of credibility. It further reaffirms that coercion and brutality are inseparable components of the US creed and doctrine. Imam Sayyid Mojtaba Khamenei, July 17, 2026.

Rerouting via the Cape of Good Hope adds 6,000 km (3,700 miles) and 10–14 days transit time, in some cases longer. This materially increases fuel, charter, and operating costs. War-risk insurance premiums for Red Sea transit have also surged, adding several hundred thousand USD per voyage. Escalation risk centers on a full blockade scenario. If Ansar Allah forces interdict all international shipping, not just Saudi vessels, the impact would be significantly greater.

 

Strategic Trade Significance: Hormuz vs. Bab al-Mandeb

Hormuz concentrates unmatched upstream energy dependency, funneling roughly 20% of global oil (17–20 million bpd), over 20% of LNG, and a decisive share of global helium vital for high-tech and medical supply chains. Because Saudi and UAE pipeline bypasses cover only a fraction of normal volumes, any disruption creates an immediate physical supply deficit—driving rapid oil and gas repricing with direct spillovers into petrochemicals, fertilizers, and industrial inputs.

Bab al-Mandeb anchors throughput rather than production, serving as the southern gateway to Suez. It carries 12–15% of global trade, including major Asia–Europe container traffic, dry bulk, and mid-single-digit million bpd of oil. Unlike Hormuz, these flows can be rerouted around the Cape of Good Hope, though doing so adds roughly 6,000 km, 10–14 days, and sharp increases in fuel costs, vessel utilization constraints, freight rates, and war-risk premiums.

Consequently, their economic transmission mechanisms diverge. Hormuz is a quantity shock that removes physical supply and forces immediate energy repricing. Bab al-Mandeb is a friction shock that preserves supply but degrades delivery efficiency, triggering broader, slower-moving inflation across manufactured goods, energy derivatives, and food. Fertilizer markets sit at the intersection, relying on Hormuz for Gulf ammonia and urea to exit, and on Bab al-Mandeb for efficient delivery to European and African markets.

Simultaneous impairment escalates systemic risk nonlinearly. Upstream supply contraction combines with downstream logistical breakdown, eliminating volume availability and transit efficiency at once. This dual constraint compresses global inventories, amplifies price volatility, and propagates cost increases across industrial inputs and consumer goods with minimal buffering capacity.

The Bab al-Mandeb handles thousands of commercial transits annually and links the Indian Ocean to the Red Sea and Suez Canal—one of the world's critical trade corridors. Full closure would force large-scale rerouting around Africa, extending delivery times, increasing freight rates and insurance costs, and placing renewed stress on global supply chains.  

 

July 21, 2026: Iran Destroys F-15 Hanger Base, 100 US Troops Lost as Trump Panics.

Cost transmission effects would likely be broad-based. Higher transport costs would feed into fuel prices (gasoline, diesel, heating oil), airfares, food, consumer goods, and imported products. Firms would absorb higher logistics and energy costs, with partial pass-through to end consumers.

July 21, 2026: Bab al-Mandeb Strait Becomes New Shipping Flashpoint as Houthis Signal Blockade.

 

The EU is engaged via Operation Aspides with a mandate limited to protecting civilian shipping. The US and the UK are conducting separate military strikes against targets in Yemen. Historical precedent indicates limited containment success: prior multinational naval deployments with dozens of warships failed to durably constrain Ansar Allah capabilities. Current Ansar Allah systems include even more advanced drones and missiles than in 2025.

Zero Exits: Houthis Blockade Saudi Arabia. 

 

A concurrent escalation in Bab al-Mandeb alongside sustained tension in the Strait of Hormuz would affect the region's two principal energy and trade corridors simultaneously, posing a high-risk scenario for global economic disruption and upward pressure on energy, transport, and consumer prices.

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.

From Nazi Race Theory to Today’s Russophobia | Constantin von Hoffmeister

Europe's history has become a battlefield of lies where the Western powers twist facts to fuel their obsessive Russophobia. They equate liberators with aggressors and cast Russia as the eternal enemy, all to justify their proxy war against the heart of Eurasia. This serves their ambition, not the truth. Real understanding requires confronting the brutal Nazi Eastern project and recognizing its direct continuation in today's Western crusade against Russia.

April 30, 1945: Soviet soldiers raise the Red Flag atop the Reichstag in Berlin.

The past of Europe lies before us like an open book, yet petty men rip its pages in a vulgar shouting match, hurling one crime against another as if the mountain of horrors could cancel itself out and leave truth untouched. This path leads only to darkness. What matters is the shape of the ideas themselves—the maps of power, the theories of blood, and the savage dreams of empire—that drove nations before the guns thundered. To see our way forward, we must stare without flinching at the plans and words that existed before the smoke of total war swallowed everything.

At the center is the Second World War, a cataclysm that remade the continent in fire and ruin. It did not erupt from nothing. It sprang from cold ideological programs and strategic visions created years earlier, each carrying its own brutal blueprint for Europe's future. The Eastern Front became the true heart of the struggle, where rival systems collided with steel and with fanatical doctrines of race, territory, and destiny. Any serious reckoning with Europe's past and future must begin here, where theory turned into organized slaughter and abstract creeds spilled real rivers of blood.

 

2025 Victory Day Parade, held on May 9 in Red Square, Moscow, honoring the 80th
anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany and the end of World War II in Europe.

 

Modern discourse has abandoned an honest examination for cheap myth-making. Twentieth-century figures and governments are stripped of context and recast as cartoon emblems of power, villainy, or resistance. These symbolic lies flood online spaces, turning history into a circus of identity, emotion, and aesthetic posturing. Real analysis cuts through the fog and returns to what was written, planned, and executed, basing every judgment on hard documents rather than fevered fantasy.

The central truth of that age stands naked and hideous: the Eastern program formed the black heart of the Nazis' geopolitical vision. Generalplan Ost spelled it out with machine-like brutality: a vast apparatus for the transformation of Eastern Europe through expulsion, slave labor, and the systematic mass death of Slavic populations. It called for the deportation or outright elimination of some 30 to 45 million Slavs, the seizure of their fertile lands, and the resettlement of ethnic German colonists in their place, forcing the survivors into permanent serfdom. These policies were a settled doctrine long before the war erupted. They filled secret memoranda, planning papers, and strategic outlines that declared one merciless purpose: to carve a colonial empire out of the living bodies of other European peoples, and to install a racial hierarchy of masters and 'subhumans.'

European-Russian Relations: "Two centuries of failure."
Jeffrey Sachs, January 7, 2026.

 

Nazi language itself was a weapon of conquest. Slavs appeared in their texts only as barriers to be smashed, vermin to be cleared, raw material to be worked to death or discarded. Eastern Europe they named Lebensraum—living space—a territory marked for conquest, massacres, and a total reordering under German domination. The Nazis modeled their design openly on earlier Western empires: the cold administration Britain forced onto India, the ruthless westward march of the United States that exterminated native peoples. Thus the logic of Western colonialism turned inward and devoured Europe itself, reducing millions of fellow Europeans to helots in a new racial order.

In the contemporary liberal West, a foul equivalence flourishes, placing the Soviet Union and the Third Reich on the same moral plane as twin totalitarian evils. This lie distorts the facts and erases every trace of responsibility. It ignores the Soviet Union's colossal sacrifice: twenty-seven million dead. The Soviet Union bore the main burden of the land war, shattered the Nazi war machine, and tore open the road to Europe's liberation from a supremacist regime. That sacrifice was decisive. To smear these distinct realities into one stain weakens all judgment in the present. This grotesque revisionism arms today's Russophobes with a convenient myth that delegitimizes the very power which broke the back of fascism. It prepares the intellectual ground for fresh aggression against Russia, the direct heir and guardian of that victory.

 

Colonisation of Eastern Europe, carried out through systematic genocide, extermination, 

massacre, mass starvation, chattel labour, mass rape, child abduction, and sexual slavery.

 

This same venomous spirit rages ever more strongly, sharper and more hysterical since the Ukraine conflict started. The Western powers have unleashed a pathological Russophobia, painting Russia as the eternal Asiatic barbarian that must be broken at all costs. Western media and governments treat the Russian people with the same colonial contempt once reserved for all Slavs. They shrugged or made excuses for the Odessa burnings of May 2, 2014, when dozens of men and women were trapped in the Trade Unions House and burned alive for the crime of opposing the Western-sponsored Maidan coup. Flames consumed the victims while Western-backed forces watched and cheered. The same Western powers now arm the Ukrainian forces and whitewash every atrocity committed against the Russian population. 

The continuity is unmistakable and damning. The Nazi racial hierarchy has merely changed its vocabulary. Today it speaks in the smooth language of "European values," a so-called "rules-based order," and "universal norms" while pursuing the identical goal: the subjugation, fragmentation, and destruction of the East so that the global hegemon may rule without challenge. Russia, the vast heartland, now occupies the exact place once assigned to the Slav on Nazi maps. This is no coincidence but the direct heir of that old colonial hatred, now dressed in humanitarian rhetoric and enforced by sanctions and proxy armies. The burning of Odessa and the shelling of the Donbass are fresh monuments to the same spirit that once drew up Generalplan Ost. The Western powers cannot tolerate a strong, sovereign Russia at the center of the Eurasian landmass, for its very existence refutes their claim to universal rule.

» The West would do well to remember how the Second World War truly ended. «

A healthy future rejects this madness with contempt. Stability arises only through open recognition of plurality. A multipolar order grants every great civilization its rightful space. Russia is the indispensable pole of Eurasia, anchoring a continental balance that prevents any single power from strangling the world. The lessons of the past are merciless: ideologies that elevate one people by crushing another breed only endless war and ruin. Europe and Eurasia form one organic body linked by geography, history, and heritage. True strength lies in their unbreakable union from Lisbon to Vladivostok, not in fresh crusades launched from Washington and Brussels against the Russian core.

The West would do well to remember how the Second World War truly ended. No Allied nation suffered even a fraction of what the Soviet Union endured. Russia's way of remembrance is superior: it honors the veterans, lifts their deeds into the present, and binds them to the living Russian state. It gives them the honor their sacrifice deserves, for without their victory the Russian nation itself would not exist today.

 

 Anka Feldhusen, a fine example of a German Neonazi apparatchik of the 21st century: According
to Ukrainian high-rank officials, one of the "most effective" ambassadors of Germany to Ukraine.

May 9 in Moscow is a ritual of state and commemoration. The Victory Parade on Red Square presents a clear message: the nation survived and remembers why. The past is not recalled as nostalgia but as a foundation for present strength. The meaning lies in continuity. The Soviet banners, the formations, and the repeated gestures all point to a single fact: a society that endured destruction and reorganized itself through collective effort. The participants come from across the country—Kazan, Buryatia, Dagestan, Arkhangelsk—and they appear together in a single formation. Each group retains its identity. Each contributes to a shared structure built on common sacrifice. The battles of Stalingrad, Kursk, and Berlin define that structure. They form the basis of a unity that rests on experience rather than abstraction. The parade demonstrates a principle: diversity organized within a stable order produces cohesion. It does not dissolve difference. It directs it.

 

» The source of all ills and evil in the history of humanity. «

  

This principle extends into the present form of the Russian state. The Soviet heritage did not simply disappear; it transformed. The current structure combines elements drawn from different periods—imperial administration, Soviet discipline, religious symbolism, and ethnic plurality. It does not rely on a single ideology. It operates through continuity and adaptation. The memory of the Soviet soldier functions as a binding force across generations. Symbols such as the ribbon of Saint George reinforce this continuity. They connect past sacrifice to present identity. In this framework, loss becomes part of a longer process of recovery and consolidation. 

Lydia Spivak, a young Red Army junior sergeant, gracefully directs traffic with dance-like movements at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate—days after the city's fall—becoming an iconic symbol of Soviet victory.

Western observers often interpret these forms as theatrical. Their own nations show a different condition, where shared memory weakens and identity fragments into competing claims. Russia moves in the opposite direction. It organizes identity through common experience and preserved memory. This difference explains the persistent conflict between Russia and the liberal West. One seeks to standardize through universal models. The other maintains a structure based on plurality within unity. The continued existence of this model challenges the idea that a single global octopus can define political and cultural life. Victory Day expresses that challenge in concrete form. It states that a multiethnic state, built on shared sacrifice and maintained through continuity, can endure and define itself on its own terms. 

 

Quoted from:
Constantin von Hoffmeister (May 5, 2026) - From 'Subhumans' to 'Orcs': How Nazi Race Theory Lives on in Modern Russophobia.

 

 

 » Germany never fully denazified nor was

this ever even sincerely attempted. «

 

See also:

 Andrew Korybko (May 8, 2026) - Reviewing Medvedev’s Article About Germany’s Remilitarization.

Dmitry Medvedev (May 7, 2026) - Germany’s new militarization: Revival of the spirit or blatant revanchism? 

Sergey Karaganov (January 16, 2026) - "Russia Will Nuke Germany and the UK if Ukraine War Persists." 

 Yuliana Titaeva (2024) - About Our Great Victory.

Wang Xiangsui (2024) - Europe’s Catastrophic Russian Problem.
Timofey Bordachev (2024) - Western Europe Could Become the New Ukraine.

Glenn Diesen (2022) - Russophobia: Propaganda in International Politics.

While Paris celebrated the defeat of Nazism on May 8, 1945, the French army was massacring Algerians in Sétif, Guelma, and Kherrata: Mobilized by the French themselves to hail Hitler’s defeat, Algerians marched waving Algerian flags to remind France of its promise of independence. General Raymond Duval ordered troops to "shoot anyone carrying an Algerian flag," and through June 26, 1945, French forces slaughtered 45,000 Algerian civilians (see also HERE). During the ensuing War of Independence against France (1954–1962), 1.5 million Algerians were killed.