War, Intelligence and the Hollowing Out of Liberal Democracy

Intelligence Penetration

A peculiar—but undeniably distinctive building— houses Britain's biggest malignancy, its spy services.

Last July, Kit Klarenberg of the Grayzone, writing in Eurasia Review ((Eurasia) told how a notorious British MI6 agent had infiltrated the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on London’s behalf. Nicholas Langman, apparently, claims credit for helping engineer the West’s economic war on Iran. Langman is cited as saying he “worked to prevent WMD proliferation through… support for the [IAEA] and Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons [OPCW] and through high level international partnerships,” and claimed a major role in organizing the sanctions regime on Iran by “[building] highly effective and mutually supportive relations across government and with senior US, European, Middle and Far Eastern colleagues for strategy” between 2010 and 2012.

Western intelligence penetration of UN agencies was discussed yesterday by Col Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, in interview with Judge Napolitano. Wilkerson highlighted that international regulatory and monitoring bodies are heavily compromised by Western and Israeli intelligence agencies, and stated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been heavily penetrated by the CIA, MI6, and Mossad. He argued that UN and IAEA inspection teams have historically been used as covers for espionage. Operatives use their access to map out physical infrastructure and identify target personnel. A specific point of contention raised was how the IAEA insisted on interviewing top Iranian nuclear scientists. Wilkerson noted that this directly allowed foreign intelligence to identify, track, and ultimately target those scientists for assassination. The discussion focused on how recent IAEA resolutions and reports regarding Iran’s nuclear stockpile were “stage-managed” by Western powers. This provided the political justification and legal pretext for military strikes against Iranian facilities. Wilkerson emphasized that while the U.S. and Israel relied on this deep intelligence penetration to decapitate Iranian leadership and map out nuclear sites, it has resulted in a total collapse of trust in international diplomacy. As a result, nations like Iran and Russia now view the IAEA not as an independent watchdog, but as an extension of Western intelligence apparatuses.

Given this context it is hard to escape the conclusion that some form of intelligence penetration accounts for the discrediting of the OPCW In April 2018 over an alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria, which killed dozens of civilians. In response, the US, UK, and France launched retaliatory airstrikes against the Syrian government. The OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) released its final report a year later, concluding there were “reasonable grounds” that a toxic chemical containing chlorine was used as a weapon, likely dropped from aircraft. Because the rebels had no airforce, this pointed directly to the Syrian military. But two OPCW inspectors (referred to as whistleblowers by critics, later identified as Ian Henderson and Brendan Whelan) raised significant concerns. An unreleased internal assessment by Henderson suggested that the chlorine gas cylinders found at the scene were more likely “manually placed” on the ground rather than dropped from an aircraft. The leaked emails accused OPCW management of introducing intentional bias and omitting alternative explanations in the final public report to align with Western political objectives. Critics argued that the conclusions of the investigation were pre-ordained by Washington, London, and Paris to justify their illegal military strikes, the OPCW leadership was pressured to suppress dissenting scientific and engineering data that contradicted the Western narrative, and that the expansion of the OPCW’s powers in late 2018—allowing it to actively attribute blame for chemical attacks rather than just confirming their occurrence—was a Western-driven political maneuver. The OPCW claimed that the two disgruntled employees only had minor, supporting roles and lacked access to the full repository of evidence—including comprehensive medical reports, witness testimonies, and chemical analyses. A 2026 International Labour Organization (ILO) tribunal ordered the OPCW to pay compensation to Brendan Whelan over procedural aspects of his dismissal. For much fuller details of this scandal, refer to the Berlin Group 21’s incomparable investigation (Berlin Group):

A R E V I E W O F T H E O R G A N I S A T I O N F O R T H E P R O H I B I T I O N O F C H E M I C A L W E A P O N S F A C T - F I N D I N G M I S S I O N R E P O R T I N T O T H E A L L E G E D U S E O F C H E M I C A L W E A P O N S I N D O U M A , S Y R I A , I N A P R I L 2 0 1 8 : E V I D E N C E O F M A N I P U L A T I O N , B I A S A N D C E N S O R S H I P

Weaponization of Liberal Democracy

The phenomenon of penetration of UN agencies may be contextualized as part of the broader phenomenon of the weaponization of liberal democracy, whose supposed paragon is described today by former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman, in interview with Judge Napolitano, as being an emerging tyranny that is increasingly governed by erratic, capricious diktats from the White House. The weaponization of liberal democracy means using democratic ideas and legal systems either as a political weapon in foreign policy or as a tool by domestic actors to hollow out democratic institutions from within.

Liberal democracy is a system of government based on individual rights, free elections, and the rule of law (a framework where laws [are supposed to] apply equally to all citizens and leaders). When this system is weaponized, its core values are twisted for political power and control. It is sometimes the result of a Western “democracy-versus-autocracy” narrativization to justify any illiberal harm (thinking: murdering of fishermen in small boats without any evidence or due process) meted out to political opponents in the international arena. Historically and today, foreign interventions are regularly framed as a moral duty to bring a highly dubious “freedom” to other regions. This approach alienates non-Western nations and illiberal democracies that reject Western dominance or refuse to take a side in global power struggles.

Anti-democratic and populist leaders use the legal protections of a [formal, not substantive] democracy to destroy it from the inside. Autocratic leaders use free speech laws, court procedures, and constitutional rights to spread disinformation or paralyze government functions. They pack courts, demonize the political opposition, and control public media (e.g. denying critical media access to the White House, even when to most analysts those media are as conventional and conformist as they come) while pretending to follow normal democratic processes.

Casualties Ukraine

I imagine intelligence agencies have a fine time massaging casualty rates from the NATO War on Russia Over Proxy Ukraine. I learned a long time ago to be very cautious in handling this topic precisely for that reason, but the recent revelation through the mouth of none other than Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, that the current rate of killed and wounded Ukrainian troops was 27,000 a month. Tusk cited information shared by Ukrainian partner. He warned that at this rate, the upcoming fall and winter of 2026–2027 could prove catastrophic. He attributed the mounting losses to intensifying Russian strikes, new rocket-powered and kamikaze jet drones, and targeted attacks on supply lines and infrastructure, noting that about 300 locomotives had been destroyed in recent weeks. The figure of 27,000 fits with a statement from Presidential Office head Kyrylo Budanov on Friday, Aug. 28 that Ukraine must mobilize at least 30,000 people every month to sustain its current position at the front. He also said the government should address coercive recruitment practices, although it would not change the monthly target.

“This is the minimum number needed to maintain what we have.”

I have along assumed, Western propaganda to the contrary, that Ukrainian casualty rates far exceed those of Russia. Whenever there are exchanges, Russia hands over hundreds or thousands of Ukrainian remains while receiving only dozens in return. In September 2026 Russia handed over 252 bodies and received 23 in return; in April, Russia returned 1,000 bodies while receiving 41 from Ukrain.

It has been said that these uneven numbers are because Russia is the main attacking force and holds the land where much of the fighting takes place. The army that controls the territory collects the dead. Ukraine cannot safely reach bodies left behind Russian lines. But far from being unable to collect them, Ukraine has dedicated volunteer and military units whose specific mission is to locate, exhume, and preserve the remains of both Ukrainian and Russian personnel.

The main reason Ukraine recovers Russian bodies is to use them in repatriation swaps. Even amidst intense fighting, Russia and Ukraine maintain direct humanitarian communication to swap the remains of fallen troops. Specialized Ukrainian search teams, such as the volunteer group Platzdarm, actively retrieve bodies from liberated territories and active frontlines. They carefully scan uniforms for identification tags, documents, credit cards, or personal items to log who the soldier was before placing them into refrigerated storage. The process is incredibly slow and hazardous. Teams face severe risk from remote drone strikes, heavy artillery shelling, and extensive mining. Furthermore, retreating Russian forces have frequently been documented booby-trapping the corpses of their own dead with undetonated explosives, forcing Ukrainian de-miners to clear every single body before it can be moved.

Zelenskiy to Washington

Having stopped over in Ireland to meet with CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Zelenskiy is reportedly on his way to speak to Trump in Washington where he will likely address Trump’s insistence that Ukraine stop striking Russian refineries, perhaps by extracting a promise from Trump of more aid to Ukraine and more air defense protections.

This whole episode is a complete farce, as is almost every aspect of the US War for Hegemony by trying to sabotage Russia through Ukraine, and China through Iran. First of all, and in this instance, Ukraine’s strikes on Russian refineries are unlikely to make much difference to the amount of diesel that is available on global markets because the crude oil from those refineries that have been struck is loaded on to ships and sent to India and to China (or elsewhere) for refining in those countries, some of which is then shipped back to Russia for Russia’s own domestic needs. Diesel is a middle distallate and therefore requires highly specialized refineries: it is unclear whether there are sufficient numbers of Indian and Chinese refineries to handle the entirety of this additional flow. Secondly, the reason why Ukraine has been able to hit more and more Russian refineries is because the West greenlights “Ukrainian” strikes deep into Russia by providing the missiles or the components of those missiles, providing the intelligence needed to guide those missiles and the personnel who may be required to ensure accurate usage. So to the extent that it is correct to say there is a decline of diesel as a result of Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries - and that claim itself is contestable - then it is the fault of US policies and those of its European allies who have been forced by the US to take responsibility for arming Ukraine or for paying US manufacturers for the arms.

The main reason for the global shortage of diesel, which will soon cause unprecedented increases in inflation and shortages across all commodities normally shipped through the Strait of Hormuz and/or the Red Sea, are the two recent, unprovoked, illegal strikes against Iran by the US and Israel, and which have wiped out a significant part of the oil production and distribution capabilities of Gulf nations. The prospect that these shortages might be compensated for by the effective US coup d’etat in Venezuela is remote for the immediate or short-term future.

Despite the appearance of a US delegation of authority to Europe for the conduct of the war against Russia over proxy Ukraine, Jennifer Kavanagh for Responsible Statecraft writes that the US is still very much an active player in this conflict (Responsible Statecraft). Several important channels as assistance remain - $13 billion in outstanding USAI contracts as of June 2026.

“Weapons in the pipeline include longer-lead time systems like NASAMs, Patriot missiles and components (Ukraine is reportedly receiving at 10-20 PAC-3s per month under these contracts), counter-drone systems, artillery rockets, and ammunition.”

“Such taxpayer-funded military aid to Ukraine will add up to about $20 billion in aid over the 4 years of Trump’s term. Further, Congress included about $800 million of USAI funding in the 2026 and 2027 NDAAs. The State Department has also approved $3 billion of new arms sales to Ukraine in 2025 and 2026

“The bottom line is that U.S. weapons transfers to Ukraine continue under Trump, amounting to, on average, as much at $5 billion per year. But this is no longer the most important, or expensive, type of support that the United States gives to Ukraine.

“What Ukraine needs much more than weapons, and what the United States continues to provide in increasing amounts, is intelligence, logistics, and operational support. The details of this support are classified, but public reporting offers some insight...

“Beyond intelligence, the United States also provides logistical and maintenance support,including forward and remote assistance to repair American-made equipment, necessary spare parts to keep older systems running, and training. It also facilitates the expensive transfer of European purchases of U.S. weapons…

“The 2024 defense supplemental bill, for instance, allocated about $15 billion to “military training, intelligence sharing, increased presence, and other support activities.” In theory, these funds are intended to cover activities conducted in support of Ukraine that would not occur if the United States remained uninvolved in that conflict. Some portion of this money will go to the salaries of military personnel who would be paid no matter where they work.

“Since about a third of each military service’s budget is personnel costs, we could estimate the cost of extra activities conducted for Ukraine, excluding baseline manpower, at about $10 billion over the course of a year or so. If Trump has truly expanded intelligence sharing with Ukraine, this price tag may have increased over time…

“All told, then, U.S. taxpayers are still spending roughly $20 billion per year on Ukraine. Today, assistance to Ukraine comes primarily in the form of direct operational support, not weapons.”