Following on from our discussion on The Lone Gladio Sibel, Pearse and I took a run at some of the wider geopolitical issues around Gladio B. In this highly interesting and provocative conversation we also got into some very interesting philosphical areas, which will no doubt form part of our next conversation. From Porkins Policy Review:
On this week’s episode we continued our roundtable discussion on Gladio B with Sibel Edmonds and Tom Secker. Picking up where we last left off, the three of us explored some of the reasons for Russia’s presumed intransigence in the face of mounting NATO and Gladio operations in their backyard. As a case study for this we looked at Ayman Al Zawahiri’s little-discussed imprisonment by the Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) in Chechnya in 1996 while traveling with four diplomatic passports and a laptop. We discussed why the FSB captured him as well as why they let him go. Tom provided the context of the geopolitical situation in Russia at the time, and how this directly relates to the FSB’s actions with Zawahiri; with a defeated Soviet Union, Russia had to bide its time and begin to piece together what the new NATO strategy represented. Sibel expanded on this by discussing similar “diplomatic” incidents that she saw take place while at the FBI, dealing with foreign nationals caught in counterintelligence operations in the US using “diplomatic passports” who, like Zawahiri, were quietly released back to their home nation.
Later we explored the recent uptick in violence in Chechnya and how this relates to an increase in NATO operations meant to destabilize Russia. I discussed how fragmented ISIS is and how easy it is to turn on the Chechen terrorist movement’s switch. Tom asked both Sibel and me how we thought we ought to feel towards the Chechen terrorist movement: Should we support them because of their desire to seek independence from an authoritarian state? Or instead, should we oppose them as they are a tool of NATO power? Sibel explained how the choices are always the lesser of two evils, and how both NATO and Russia are bad choices. Sibel explained Gladio’s desire to break up areas such as Chechnya and Dagestan into autonomous states so that ultimately chaos will reign supreme. We talked about the prospects for Chechnya to become one of these autonomous NATO-backed nations complete with Gulen-style schools and a Gulen power base. Sibel later spoke about the threat of Russian nationalism to Putin’s tight grip on power. Sibel explained that while NATO despises Putin, they ultimately need him in place as the alternative; strong Russian nationalism would be much more detrimental to the Gladio Deep State. We ended the conversation on a philosophical note when Sibel asked Tom and me whether we would want to live in a unipolar world dominated by NATO, or in a bipolar world dominated by NATO and Russia. This was a wide-ranging discussion that ended with more questions than answers, so we will be continuing our roundtables on these topics — and more — next month.