In the sequel to his revelation of Norway’s and USA’s role in blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines, Seymour Hersh addresses the long standing tradition of Norway’s secret and illegal collaboration with USA. He shows that Norway played a key role in carrying out the provocation which gave USA the pretext to bring about the Vietnam War, a war which ended with more than three million dead and an outrageous number of maimed and injured in Vietnam and its neighbouring countries.

This undeniably raises the question of what role Norway has played for USA’s imperialism in the period following the Second World War. As is well known, Norway also supported the USA and the western powers in the Korean War and contributed, among other things, through Norwegian ships transporting American soldiers to Korea. The Korean War resulted in at least 2.5 million people dead.

Norway’s role as the world’s largest shipping nation probably played an important role here, but this will form the subject of another article. What we can establish is that there has been very close cooperation between Norway and the USA since the Second World War, which has included secret military operations and surveillance of its own citizens for the benefit of the United States, Operation Gladio and so on.

The oil wealth ushered in a new era

As Norway became an oil nation, our country moved up into the imperialist first division. Oil is the number one strategic commodity, and as is well known, the control over international oil trade has been the mainstay for maintaining the dollar as the world’s reserve currency since 1971 in the form of the petrodollar.

Norway’s role in the western U.S. led system was further elevated when oil revenues took off seriously. Today, the «Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global», as it is so misleadingly called, is the world’s largest sovereign investment fund and the world’s largest single shareholder. The fund owns 1.5 percent of the world’s listed shares. We are the Qatar of Europe.

And like Qatar, we have been central in financing a whole series of imperialist wars. Norwegian governments have developed a very special preference for generosity when it comes to imperialist projects, a generosity that Norwegian citizens do not share. More often than not, billions are poured out without foundation in any political process or democratic debate here at home—also often without concrete support in Parliament.

The prime minister, either it being Solberg or Støre, simply shows up at international forums obliging Norway to deliver x number of billion kroner for this or for that. And then primarily towards projects supporting U.S. imperialism.

Norway financed the civil war in The Sudan

Norway spent NOK 13 billion in aid creating the state of South Sudan , as the author Bibiana Dahle Piene describes in her book “Norge i Sudan—På bunnen av sola” (Norway in the Sudan—At the bottom of the sun), as a pure Klondike for the NGOs. They went so far that the Sudanese authorities themselves did not care to build their own systems and institutions. The money—and the workers—always came from outside, usually from Norway.

In the book The International Breakthrough, Professor Terje Tvedt showed us how the transition from a solidarity mindset, to an aid mindset, has cleared the way for an aid industry counting in the billions.
The same thoughts have formed the basis when Norway has given billions of NOK to «save the rainforest», without it being possible to demonstrate any significant effect—disregarding corrupt politicians and scheming speculators, in countries such as Indonesia and Brazil, becoming filthy rich.

The total Norwegian aid budget is approaching an annual NOK 40 billion (4 Billion USD). Also here, «climate» is emerging as the most important investment area. The Solberg government planned to spend approximately NOK 4.8 billion on climate, environment and oceans in 2019. But there is hardly an adequate administration to handle the use of these enormous sums, or for that matter, to ensure any quality of the results.

What is known, however, is that Norway has contributed to creating some gigantic fortunes in the recipient countries, such as, for instance in Angola. In the period from 1999 to 2017, Norway granted NOK 208 million in state-to-state aid to Angola, i.e. money which was managed by the public sector, more precisely by President José Eduardo dos Santos. In total, Norway has given NOK 3.2 billion in aid to Angola. Isabel dos Santos, the president’s daughter, is now accused of greedily helping herself from the country’s treasury to build her own business empire. Her estimated fortune is now 2.2 billion USD, and she stands accused of having built it through corruption and fraud according to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists .

And so we could continue. We don’t know whether the aid works as it is said it should, but we do know that many people have become very rich from it. This applies to corrupt leaders in the «third world», but it also applies to involved financial institutions and the aid organisations own consulting industry.

Without democratic process, Stoltenberg and Støre decided to bomb Libya

On 19 March 2011, the Prime Minister’s Office (SMK) issued a short press release. It read like this:

“Norway is ready to send up to 6 F-16 fighter jets to participate in the enforcement of Security Resolution 1973, says Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg.”

With that, Norway entered a war against Africa’s best functioning and most prosperous country. And more than that, Norway was the leading country in NATO’s bombing campaign. Norway, the red-green government and the Labour Party leaders Jens Stoltenberg and Jonas Gahr Støre bear a significant responsibility for the destruction of Libya leaving it in the hands of jihadist terrorists. They committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, and should be brought before an international war crimes tribunal.

The decision to wage war against Libya was not made by the government. The decision was made in an informal meeting at the prime minister’s residence. In addition to Prime Minister Stoltenberg, Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, the Minister of Defence, the Chief of Defence and a representative from the intelligence services attended. Stoltenberg then called his government coalition partners in SV and the Center Party on his mobile phone pressuring them to accept the bombing and obtain an OK from the opposition.

There is good reason to assume that this was done at the request of Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of State in the United States and the prime protagonist for war against Libya.

When accounts are settled, we know that Norway was the leading bombing nation and that «we» are responsible for the killing of unknown tens of thousands of people and the destruction of Africa’s best functioning and most prosperous country. Jens Stoltenberg was awarded for his efforts by being given the position of Secretary General of NATO.
And of course we have not forgotten that Norway, through the «Oslo Agreement», has contributed greatly to crushing the Palestinian liberation struggle and turning the Palestinian authorities into obedient bound dogs of imperialism through the «donor group’s» control.

17 billion NOK for the war against Syria—without audit or control

Together with Qatar, Norway became one of the biggest investors in the war to destroy Syria. This has cost Norway a total of more than NOK 15 billion as of today.

Norway spent 15 billion on Syria aid—the National Audit Office will check the use of money
We don’t have any figures showing how much Norway’s destruction of Libya cost, but it is quite obvious that Norway was at the forefront destroying the country with its bombs.

Billions to Gates, Clinton and the pharmaceutical industry

Norway and Saudi Arabia were the biggest donors to the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation: Part 3: Norway’s contribution to the fund

Norway’s largest donor to Bill Gates and Gavi. Erna Solberg gives 13 billion tax kroner to the Gates alliance

The EU and Norway will allocate 85 billion for a vaccine against covid-19

Shortly following the coup d’état in Ukraine in 2014, Norway poured hundreds of millions of NOK over the Kiev regime without the possibility of, for example the National Audit Office, having any oversight where the money has gone. And in 2022 we could read that Støre would beat Solberg’s record gifts by a good margin: the Ukraine bill has increased to almost NOK 14 billion—where will we make the cuts?

And now he has topped this again. With the support of all parties in the Parliament (Storting), Støre has decided to inject another 75 billion Norwegian tax kroner into the war against Russia in Ukraine.

Tamed and disciplined left—Political operators and agents of influence

Few public documents have played, and play, such an important role as Stortingsmelding 15 (2008—2009). It is entitled Interests, responsibilities and opportunities Main lines in Norwegian foreign policy , and is probably the most important program document left behind by the red-green government of Jens Stoltenberg.

The NGOs are incorporated into the power apparatus of the imperialist state

Professor Terje Tvedt has made a thorough study of the ideological change in Norway and the Norwegian public in its relationship with the outside world. Here we have previously shown how the «voluntary organisations» have been co-opted by the state and transformed into tools enforcing Norwegian politics, and especially Norwegian foreign policy.

In 2003, Terje Tvedt wrote:

“The very close collaboration between the state, voluntary organizations and research institutes is described as «The Norwegian model». In 2003, several thousand employees in the state administration, in around 150 voluntary organisations, at research institutes and universities were linked in to Norwegian politics in Africa, Asia and Latin America.”

In parliamentary notice (Stortingsmelding) 15, the Stoltenberg government writes:

“While in the past a distinction was made between voluntary aid organizations and political organizations such as Amnesty International, and No to Nuclear Weapons, now the vast majority of voluntary organizations are political operators and influence agents in addition to being operational aid actors. Collected funds are used in close collaboration with the media and international media personalities to maximize visibility and political influence. At the same time, they collaborate ever closer and more often with government actors and the business world. Globalisation, with the associated media and communication revolution, has led to a considerable increase in these actors’ ability to network and influence politics across borders and actors.”

This is a very precise description of how the so-called aid organizations have functioned as an external agency for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in order to realize Norway’s imperialist interests. This applies not least to the Norwegian Red Cross, Norwegian People’s Aid, Norwegian Refugee Council, Church Aid, Save the Children and CARE Norway, as well as NORWAC and other similar organisations.

These organizations also present employment and career opportunities for large parts of the petty-bourgeois left in Norway, and it has also been shown that they to a very large extent have absorbed the ideology and mindset of imperialism. The same applies to the largely state-supported media in Norway.

Therefore, it is no coincidence that Norway today has the most militaristic leftists in Europe, and possibly the world.

In short, Norway is ideally equipped to be the glove that perfectly fits the USA’s hand, and therefore it may come as no surprise, if finally it is documented that Norway has been involved in a serious act of war against Germany and Russia, which blowing up the Nord Stream is. Unfortunately, this is what Norway has become.

Translated from the original: Hvorfor er Norge hansken som passer på USAs hånd? Translation by Erik Skjold. 

Author
Pål Steigan

If you remember your high school U.S. history (it’s ok if you don’t), you were likely taught that the United States abolished the trans-Atlantic slave trade in 1808. While this is technically true, it doesn’t mean that U.S. citizens stopped trading in the enslaved or that state power stopped being used to protect their profits. In fact, a full 25% of all enslaved Africans brought to the Americas arrived after the U.S. ban on the international slave trade.1 Throughout the first half of the 19th century, bound humans remained an important commodity in the circuit of global trade, and the U.S. merchants who engaged in this grotesque commerce used their profits to invest in banks, insurance companies, and industry. This investment helped build the financial, commercial, and industrial infrastructure that opened the doors for U.S. expansion. And the two keys to unlocking this wealth were the ready supply of the enslaved and the Spanish island 90 miles off the coast of continental North America-Cuba.

While Cuba would eventually become the world’s largest sugar producer, at the beginning of the 19th century the island was most important to the Spanish as a military outpost and waystation for ships travelling between the Americas and Spain. Two vital commodities that frequently stopped in Havana’s harbor were gold and silver extracted from mines in Spain’s other American colonies. For example, after 1765 around 243 million pesos fuertes (Spanish silver dollars) were routed through Cuba.2 This was important for U.S. merchants because in the early 19th century Spanish silver functioned as the de facto global currency accepted in most of Europe and, most importantly, accepted in the trade in Asia. With wetted lips U.S. merchants craved access to this river of riches running through Cuba. The key for siphoning off this wealth to the newly independent republic was the slave trade.

In the early years of the 19th century what emerged alongside this river of gold and silver was a plantation system devoted to the cultivation of sugar and coffee and built on the backs of enslaved workers transported from Africa. The brainchild of lawyer and sugar mill owner, Francisco Arango, Cuba’s plantation system greatly expanded due to a seismic political event in the Caribbean- the Haitian Revolution. When the Haitian Republic declared independence on January 1, 1804, Europeans lost the world’s largest producer of coffee and sugar as well as the most profitable colony on earth. The Spanish sought to supplant their losses in Hispaniola with investment in Cuba. This meant the proliferation of plantations, intensive cultivation of sugar and coffee, and, above all, the importation of thousands of the enslaved to do the work.3 With this, U.S. merchants saw their opportunity to join in on the exploitation and get their hands on some of that Spanish treasure.
​
The 19th century would be marked by an ever expanding trade between Cuba and the United States, which was facilitated by the slave trade and integration into global markets. Spanning markets from Europe to Asia, including commodities from human beings to flour, and depending on operators from smugglers to United States diplomats, this commercial circuit played an integral part in the emergence of early U.S. capitalism. To start in Cuba, there were three things U.S. merchants wanted: Spanish precious metals, sugar, and coffee. They wanted Spanish silver and gold because it could be exchanged globally and used to invest in U.S. industry or finance. They wanted sugar and coffee because these were in high demand in Europe and would give them access to European markets and centers of credit. The people in Cuban society best placed to provide them with these commodities were plantation owners. And these Cuban planters needed some things from U.S. merchants. They needed staple products like flour and consumer items like textiles, but, above all, they needed enslaved workers. Unlike the southern United States where a system of forced procreation expanded the enslaved population, it was more common for Caribbean sugar planters to work their enslaved laborers to death and replace them with fresh shipments from Africa.

This trade with Cuban planters helped open up the global market for U.S. merchants. Spanish silver acquired in Cuba could be used to purchase silks, teas, and spices from Asia; Cuban sugar and coffee were in constant demand in European markets; and all this could be accessed by the merchant willing to partake in the odious traffic of human flesh. Of course, this trade was not always conducted legally. This is where smugglers and United States diplomats came in.

The role of smugglers would appear self-explanatory. Experienced smugglers allowed U.S. merchants to avoid paying customs duties, evade Spanish trade restrictions, and continue the international slave trade even after its formal abolition. For their part, diplomats at the U.S. consulate in Havana essentially functioned as commercial agents and legal protectors for U.S. merchants and their interests. U.S. consuls like Vincent Gray used their elite connections, commercial savvyness, and legal expertise to assist U.S. merchants in skirting both Spanish and U.S. laws. If they didn’t know a way around the rules, they knew who to bribe or which powerful contacts to call on to make a problem go away. And if an issue actually made it to court, consuls could be hired to represent merchants. In 1803 Vincent Gray was handling over $300,000 in lawsuits for U.S. merchants over seized merchandise.4 Not one to miss out on the profits, in addition to his work at the consulate, Gray also worked as a slave trader for the wealthy Spanish merchant Antonio de Frias. With the right connections, Havana was a place where fortunes were made.

​U.S. consuls in Europe served a similar function. When the future president John Quincy Adams arrived as consul in St. Petersburg in 1809, he traveled aboard the Horace, a ship carrying sugar and coffee owned by New England merchant William Gray.5 This relationship would prove beneficial for both men as it boosted Gray’s profits while promoting Adams’s political career. European history buffs may remember that this was the time of Napoleon’s “continental system” which sought to blockade trade from Great Britain and the colonies. While the blockade was notoriously porous, it did have an effect on coffee and sugar prices. This meant well-placed merchants could profit at huge margins with the right information and protection. In William Gray’s case, his ship the Horace served as a courier for Adams carrying his official messages while also transporting Gray’s cargoes to and from Russia. In turn, Adams gave Gray insider information on European markets and protected his merchandise from confiscation by Russian officials. Between 1810 and 1811, Adams managed to secure the release of all of Gray’s ships that were seized in the Baltic for breaking trade restrictions. So, while merchants without these connections faced confiscation in Baltic ports, those with the inside tip from Adams profited handsomely. Meanwhile, Adams was rewarded with a $30,000 line of credit from Gray.6

Portrait of New England merchant and lieutenant governor of Massachusetts from 1810-1812 William Gray by Gilbert Stuart

Seeing the type of profits one could make with public influence, some U.S. merchants decided to cut out the middle man and leveraged their wealth into a political career. One of the most notorious slave traders of the time, Rhode Island merchant James D’Wolf, was one of these men. D’Wolf was active in Rhode Island state politics from the time he was first elected to the state House of Representatives in 1798, but he would seek national office when his interests in the slave trade were threatened by the appointment of his antislavery nemesis, Barnabas Bates, as the port collector of Bristol. D’Wolf sought and gained election to the U.S. Senate in 1820 and all it cost him was a fancy dinner for the Rhode Island legislature- a small price for possibly one of the richest men in the country at the time. (Reminder: U.S. senators were appointed by state legislatures until the passage of the 17th amendment in 1913 which began elections by popular vote.) By 1824, D’Wolf had succeeded in having Bates and threats to his illicit commerce removed.7
​
Men like D’Wolf also used their influence to shape politics beyond New England ports. Their trade was international, so they were naturally deeply invested in U.S. foreign policy. And the slave trade at this time did have potent enemies. While Great Britain would not abolish slavery until the 1830s, its growing abolitionist movement had succeeded in abolishing the slave trade in 1807, and the royal navy was becoming evermore proactive in enforcing the ban. They had even pressured the Spanish themselves to abolish the slave trade, which supposedly went into effect in 1820 but was virtually never enforced. And of course, there was the black republic of Haiti which sought to spread abolitionism in the Caribbean and beyond. Meanwhile, Spanish rule in the Americas was becoming increasingly tenuous as South and Central American colonies began declaring independence. By the 1820s, piracy off the coast of Cuba had proliferated and threatened the property of U.S. merchants which often included the enslaved. Spanish difficulties with pirates and rebellions caused many of those invested in slavery in Cuba to worry that England would seek to acquire the island and suppress piracy and the slave trade.8

What were Cuban planters and U.S. merchants to do? Some of the Creole elite in Cuba appealed to the U.S. government to annex the island. A couple men in James Monroe’s cabinet like South Carolina slaveholder and Secretary of War John C. Calhoun wanted to acquiesce, but they also knew this would likely guarantee war with Spain or Britain or both. However, others like John Quincy Adams, who had risen to become James Monroe’s Secretary of State, understood the game and knew that it depended on the maintenance of the status quo. Another war so soon after the War of 1812 was impractical and a growing abolitionist movement in the U.S. could disrupt the slave trade if the U.S. took direct control of Cuba. A Spanish government government willing to ignore the slave trade and allow growing U.S. influence and investment was ideal.9 Anyway, Adams was sure that over time Spanish control over the island would erode and it would naturally join its northern neighbor. In a letter to the U.S. minister of Spain in 1823, Adams wrote, “There are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple, severed by the tempest from its native tree, cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connexion with Spain, and incapable of self-support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which, by the same law of nature, cannot cast her off from its bosom.”10

Adams’s line of thinking won the day and was integral to the decisions of U.S. policymakers to expand the navy and issue one of the nation’s most consequential declarations- the Monroe Doctrine. Merchant statesmen like James D’Wolf naturally wanted to expand the navy so it could protect their property. By the end of 1822, the U.S. navy had nine vessels deployed off the coast of Cuba to suppress piracy. By comparison, the U.S. navy only had one vessel patrolling the coast of Africa to capture slave traders. In December 1822, Congress authorized another $160,000 to the navy at the behest of president Monroe.11 U.S. priorities were clear. Enforcing its own ban on the slave trade was of little concern, while protecting the profits of wealthy merchants required prompt military action.

This naval expansion not only served to protect U.S. profits from piracy, but also backed up Monroe’s assertion of U.S. dominion over the Americas. And the fate of Cuba was at least partly on Monroe’s mind when he stated the American continents were “henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.”12 While on its face this line might seem like a condemnation of European colonization in the Americas, Monroe was not advocating for independence for all colonies just to forestall any further European expansion or interference in the western hemisphere. Specifically, Monroe wanted to limit the penetration of British influence into what the U.S. saw as its back yard. In the case of the Spanish colonies, Monroe took pains to proclaim his government’s neutrality between the newly independent governments of the Americas and their Spanish overlords. Importantly, he did this “in hope that other powers will pursue the same course.”13 Everyone understood he was talking to the British.

These policies and practices established the contours of U.S. involvement in the slave trade for at least the next couple decades. While U.S. merchants continued to ship the enslaved from Africa to Cuba, the U.S. navy protected their cargoes from pirates and the British. Through this public-private partnership, U.S. merchants dominated the slave trade in Cuba. By the time it ended in the 1860s, U.S. ships were responsible for an estimated 63% of all enslaved persons brought to Cuba.14 Significantly, this slavemongering was not a monopoly of the South. Northern merchants played an active role in the slave trade in Cuba and even went on to invest in their own plantations there. James D’Wolf, a New Englander himself, owned three plantations in Cuba.15 The “Cuba trade” turned out to be very lucrative, and the money accumulated by U.S. merchants was then used to fuel U.S. financial and industrial development. For example, Moses Taylor, a New York sugar broker, made his fortune from Cuba, and used it to invest in banking and industry. By 1855 he was the president of the National City Bank of New York, which later became Citibank.16
​
Through this commerce Cuba played a significant role in the development of the United States, something that would make it a place of interest for U.S. policymakers to the present day. U.S. investment and influence in Cuba would only grow as the years went on and so would the wealth extracted from the island. It was the change in this relationship that was the greatest impact of the 1959 Cuban Revolution. But that’s a story for another day. 

Works Cited
Chambers, Stephen. No God But Gain: The Untold Story of Cuban Slavery, the Monroe
Doctrine, & the Making of the United States. Verso, 2015.

Ferrer, Ada. Cuba: An American History. Scribner, 2021.

Monroe, James. “Seventh Annual Message to Congress, December 2, 1823.” In the Annals of
Congress, (Senate), 18th Congress, 1st Session, pages 14, 22–23. Accessed:
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/monroe-doctrine

​Pérez Jr., Louis A. Cuba in the American Imagination: Metaphor and the Imperial Ethos.
University of North Carolina Press, 2008.

1 Chambers, No God But Gain, 10.
2 Chambers, No God But Gain, 21.
3 Ferrer, Cuba, 67-69.
4 Chambers, No God But Gain, 33-35.
5 Chambers, No God But Gain, 49.
6 Chambers, No God But Gain, 54.
7 Chambers, No God But Gain, 106.
8 Chambers, No God But Gain, 108.
9 Chambers, No God But Gain, 113-114.
10 Quoted in Louis A. Pérez Jr., Cuba, 30.
11 Chambers, No God But Gain, 111.
12 James Monroe, “Seventh Annual Message.”
13 James Monroe, “Seventh Annual Message.”
14 Ferrer, Cuba, 92.
15 Ferrer, Cuba, 93.
16 Ferrer, Cuba, 93.

With the recent unsealing of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein, the world is now learning just how corrupt and rotten our world leaders, actors, wealthy people and politicians really are. The files also confirmed what we suspected all along: that Jeffrey Epstein was operating with ties to Israeli intelligence, gathering compromising dossiers on the rich and famous. This revelation underscores a disturbing truth about the depth of foreign influence in American politics.

For decades, the United States has been Israel’s most devoted ally, providing billions in aid that makes us complicit in its ongoing conflicts with its neighbors and the systematic destruction of Gaza. The most recent joint US-Israel attacks on Iran — carried out without a declaration of war by the US Congress — only reiterates that fact. Our collective karma is becoming much heavier, with Americans now being hated in many parts of the world. This interventionist pattern, however, is not limited to the Middle East. In addition to Israel wars with its neighbors throughout its history, our own country has been meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations worldwide.

This is especially evident in Ukraine, where American dollars have helped fuel an ongoing war – displacing tens of millions of people and killing millions of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers and civilians alike. While we have been critical of our own disastrous foreign policy, what we failed to fully grasp is the extent to which our own internal and external policies are now being actively influenced by the very nations we support.
​
We have all witnessed the relentless negativity and ridicule directed at President Donald Trump during his first term. Much of it, undoubtedly, originated from our own domestic media and the Democratic Party. However, foreign leaders have also joined the chorus of ridicule, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky being a notable example. Now, in President Trump’s second term, we are seeing a disturbing escalation: nationals from Ukraine are actively meddling in American politics, attempting to shape our domestic discourse and foreign policy decisions.

First, Ukrainian Ambassador Olha Stefanishyna held a rally near the Capitol on February 5 urging Americans to do anything they could to influence Congress to “put the bill on the floor” allowing “Ukraine to defend itself”. She talks about wanting peace, while asking for more arms to continue a war that Ukraine cannot win! On February 21, the Ukrainian diaspora, the Embassy of Ukraine in the United States, and supporters from across America gathered at the Lincoln Memorial – mocking Trump and Putin and protesting the peace deal. Ukrainians imported protesters from New York, Philadelphia, Jersey City, and Raleigh by officially providing buses. Below are a few pictures from the rally in Washington, DC taken from social media.

These individuals were welcomed into our country with open arms. In return, they are disrespecting our leaders and actively conspiring to undermine their peace efforts for their own nation – all because our administration has finally said “no” to endless requests for funding their futile war efforts and lining their leaders’ big pockets.
​
This is not an isolated incident in Washington. Chicago, another city with a Ukrainian consulate, also had a rally on February 21, featuring prominent Jewish-Ukrainians and Democrats. It is a bitter irony to see them protest, seemingly forgetting that Stepan Bandera – the adored hero of the modern neo-Nazi Ukrainian regime – was responsible for the deaths of countless Jews and Poles during World War II.

San Francisco also held a rally on February 22 to commemorate four years of Russia’s advancement into Ukrainian territory, conveniently forgetting that Donbass region was at war with Ukrainian Army for nearly 12 years.
​
What we are witnessing is not spontaneous grassroots activism. It is an enactment of a coordinated directive from December 9, 2025 distributed the Ukrainian World Congress (UWC), Zelensky’s administration, and the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine). The goal is to launch an information war against American leaders who are directly involved in brokering a peace deal for Ukraine (Trump,  JD Vance, Marco Rubio, Stephen Whitkoff and Jared Kushner). According to recently surfaced documents, the plan involves hiring or bribing analysts, politicians, religious leaders and journalists in the US and EU to “prepare analytical materials, articles, and expert opinions that expose Washington’s peace initiatives as contrary to the interests of Ukraine and Europe.” It even calls to “organize peaceful protests or marches,” which we now see unfolding across our country. These plans reveal the sinister agenda of the Ukrainian government and its intelligence services to wage information warfare against the very nation that has been their primary sponsor. Is that the kind of gratitude we expected?

Here’s the translation of the document from the World Ukrainian Congress:

“December 9, 2025
To the Members of the UWC
Dear Compatriots,
The Ukrainian World Congress is observing with deep concern the recent trends in the foreign policy of the United States of America, which pose a direct threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Statements and initiatives by the administration of President Donald Trump, particularly from key figures such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President J.D. Vance, are creating a dangerous precedent for normalizing Kremlin aggression and ignoring the fundamental principles of international law.
In this regard, the Congress considers it necessary to intensify our joint efforts to convey information about the situation in Ukraine to the American and international community from a perspective favorable to us.
To this end, we deem it necessary to:
- Develop a comprehensive information strategy aimed at systematically criticizing the current course of the U.S. administration, which is dangerous for global security and for American values themselves.
- Establish and activate working contacts with reputable analysts, experts in international law, politicians, and journalists in the United States and the European Union who are open to objective dialogue.
- Prepare analytical materials, articles, and expert opinions that expose Washington’s peace initiatives as contrary to the interests of Ukraine and Europe.
- Organize public events—roundtables, conferences, and open discussions—involving prominent scholars, cultural figures, and religious leaders to discuss the futility of the shuttle diplomacy conducted by U.S. Special Envoy Stephen Whitkoff and Jared Kushner, who holds no official position in the U.S. administration.
Organize peaceful pickets or marches near official American embassies and representations to express our concern.
The Ukrainian World Congress will provide the necessary financial and organizational resources to implement this strategy, including support for independent media and expert groups.
Thank you for your attention.
Respectfully,
UKRAINIAN WORLD CONGRESS
Pavlo Grod
President”

The plan’s audacity is breathtaking, but it gets even more bizarre. Their scheme goes as far as to call for public ostracizing and for “correctio fraterna” – fraternal correction practiced in the Catholic Church – to publicly scold Marco Rubio, J.D. Vance, and other Catholics of the Trump’s team. Ukrainian leaders have decided that these officials “have violated a whole series of truths from Catholic social doctrine” and that “under the leadership of Donald Trump they have taken positions that are not in line with Catholic moral teachings.” It is rather ironic that this judgment is coming from a country that banned the Russian Orthodox Church, detained or killed its clergy, and continues to persecute religious believers. These mentioned plans were published by Ukrainian opposition blogger Anatoliy Shariy with the actual screenshots and this note:

“Attention!
According to my information, the Foreign Intelligence Service of Ukraine, under the direct command of the Service’s first head, General Oleh Sinyansky (he left his post long ago but continues to “work”), is preparing a special operation against Rubio and Vance.
The Foreign Intelligence Service plans to provoke a so-called “public admonition.”
An analysis has been conducted for this purpose, and the Service plans to recruit a number of American and European Catholics and politicians. Some of them will be recruited “blindly.”
This is the Foreign Intelligence Service’s analytical report on this topic.
“Correctio fraternal” is a Christian practice in which one Christian publicly rebukes another Christian for acting in an unchristian manner.
I want you to understand that this is a fully planned special operation by the Foreign Intelligence Service of Ukraine.
The document lists the names of those planned to be recruited.
The operation is planned for the near future.”

Note: A full translation of these screenshots is posted in an appendix below.
​
This is how the Ukrainian leadership under Zelensky – who was already publicly humiliated for his rude behavior at the White House last year – is making efforts to disregard our laws on freedom of religion and separation of church and state. They attempt to influence our top politicians and our next elections by criticizing and ostracizing them, all while using our American money received from the Biden Administration to sponsor protests, riots and media frenzies against the Trump Administration!

We urge the American public to take note of these facts. We must make a clear statement against foreign interference in our internal affairs. It is time to demand that the Trump administration investigate these blatant attempts by foreign governments — whether it is Ukraine, Israel, or the United Kingdom — to wreak havoc among the American public. Their goal is to use American media and institutions to undermine our current leadership and discredit them in the eyes of the people. As if the Epstein files weren’t enough to disillusion us with global corruption and satanic practices, we now must contend with our supposed allies trying to orchestrate a soft coup against our government. Our nation’s working class already has far too many pressing social and economic issues to deal with without this kind of foreign meddling. And with the latest attacks that Trump authorized against Iran to appease Israel, he has just made himself — and us, regular Americans — primary targets for all those who suffer from or disagree with the blatant behavior of the US and Israel.


Appendix: Translation of screens from the post from Anatoliy Shariy
“Public Admonition for Rubio and Vance
In addition to Rubio and Vance, you can also take into account other Catholics in the Trump administration, of whom there are more than a third, such as Sean Duffy, Secretary of Transportation, and others.
1. The Catholic Church has such a practice as correctio fraterna - fraternal admonition. The practice is based on several Bible texts, the main one being the Gospel of Matthew: If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his faults face to face. If he listens to you, you have gained a brother. 16 If he doesn’t listen, take one or two people with you, so that every matter is observed by two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even from the church, let him be as a Gentile to you and a tax collector (Mt 18: 15-17). The principle of applying this admonition is as follows: if the transgression/sin was private in a relationship, then the admonition is private; if the offense was public, then the admonition is public (St. Thomas Aquinas).
2. Such public admonition was applied to Nancy Pelosi (https://sfarchdiocese.org/letter-to-priests-of-the-archdiocese-on-the-notification-sent-to-speaker-nancy-pelosi/) by Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, so that Pelosi would withdraw her promotion of abortion policy, and until that time she was not allowed to receive Communion in the Catholic Church. Such admonition was also applied to Pope Francis by approximately 200 Catholic theologians after the release of the document Amoris Laetitia, which contained a number of statements in disagreement with Catholic doctrine (https://www.correctiofilialis.org). In the case of admonishing the Pope, the practice is called correctio filialis – filial admonition.
3. Based on the described practice, it would be worth organizing similar admonition for Marco Rubio and J. D. Vance (and possibly other Catholics on the Trump team) who declare that they are practicing Catholics and are active pro-lifers (opposing the right to abortion). Under the leadership of their leader Donald Trump, they have violated a number of truths in the Catholic doctrine, such as: 1) distortion of the truth (e.g., claiming Ukraine started the war), and 2) the unity of virtue (a Christian must be consistent in his virtues in all areas, and while Rubio and Vance zealously fight against abortion in the United States (for the lives of millions of unborn children), they are at the same time passively allowing genocide to be committed against millions of Ukrainians by stopping military aid, etc.). There is a precedent of Donald Trump being admonished by the Father Jason Charron, a priest of the American Greek Catholic Church, in Crisis Magazine (https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/a-priests-warning-to-trump-regarding-ukraine). This is the same priest who opened a Trump rally with a prayer.
4. Such admonition should be organized in several directions by various people independently from one another and not simultaneously, because this could raise suspicion of a planned and coordinated action.
- The Synod of Bishops of the UGCC (Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church) may appeal to the Apostolic See with a request to intervene and issue such an admonition. It is possible that Blessed Sviatoslav will agree to write such a request, but I do not know how well this may work. The Pope could have written such an admonition, because he does not like Trump, but the Pope is now in serious health condition and is almost incapacitated. Instead, international affairs are being run by Cardinal Pietro Parolin, who is known for his pacifist sentiments and ties with China. Concerns remain about what is being sold to Ukraine. In short, I think that first the synod, or individual bishops, should write admonitions directly to the mentioned persons (Rubio and Vance) and publish them in all available English-language media (in particular, LifeSite, The Pillar, https://crisismagazine.com, and popular secular media). Then we can contact the Vatican with a similar request. If the Vatican refuses, at least the position of the Ukrainian dioceses will be on record.
- The Conference of Bishops of the RCC (Roman Catholic Church) may be able to join the Synod if they lead the initiative. The Roman Catholic hierarchs, however, will not risk writing something like this to the leaders of foreign nations. From the list of individual bishops, you can approach Vitaliy Kryvytskyi (Kyiv) and Bishop Pavlo Honcharuk, who heads the Kharkiv-Zaporizhia diocese, where the combat operations are taking place.
- You can try to engage the frontline bishops’ dioceses separately: Bishop Pavlo Honcharuk (RCC, Kharkiv-Zaporozhye Diocese), Bishop Jan Sobilo (RCC, Kharkiv-Zaporozhye Diocese), Bishop Vasyl Tuchapets (Exarch of Kharkiv, UGCC), Bishop Maksym Ryabukha (Exarch of Donetsk UGCC).
If the above directions work, then thank God, although I have little hope.
The following direction may be the most profitable and influential:
- A letter of admonition from hierarchs and Catholic theologians, philosophers, and publicists from all over the world. At the present moment, it is very likely that the letter will be signed by the following individuals:
1) Father Jason Charron, Pennsylvania, famous preacher, the speaker who blessed Trump before the election and prayed for Donald Tramp at the rally when an attempt on his life had been made (https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/a-priests-warning-to-trump-regarding-ukraine).
2) George Weigel, famous publicist, thinker, biographer of St. John Paul II (it can be noted in the letter that Rubio and Vance’s positions differ from those of John Paul II and Ronald Reagan). Here is his position on the war of the Russian Federation against Ukraine: https://credo.pro/2023/08/354092.
3) Professor Dariusz Kowalczyk, Dean of the Faculty of Theology at the Gregorian University in Rome.
4) Fr. Prof. Dariusz Oko, famous Polish theologian, philosopher, professor at John Paul II University (Krakow).
5) Prof. Roberto De Mattei, church historian, professor at the University of Rome, known in conservative Catholic circles, takes a pro-Ukrainian position 1) (YouTube link; https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2024/04/towards-global-war-ducunt-fata-volentem.html?m=1).
6) Professor Jakub Grygiel, professor at rhe Catholic University of America, co-author of the U.S. defense strategy (2017).
7) Prof. Jerzy Szymik, University of Silesia.
You can try to involve the following:
8) Raymond de Souza, a well-known pro-lifer from Canada, publicist in English-language publications, Catholic authority figure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_J._de_Souza).
9) Brant Pitre, an American theologian, belongs to the top 10 authors of 2024 in the USA. His books have been translated into Ukrainian.
10) Christopher West, American theologian, conservative, head of the Institute of the Body of Theology (he has students from Ukraine).
11) Father Mike Schmitz, a well-known speaker and preacher at Catholic conferences and on TV.
12) Scott Hahn, one of the top theologians, has influence on J.D. Vence, founder of the of the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology (his participation would be invaluable).
13) You can try to include in this admonition Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone (San Francisco; here is his video where he prays the Rosary for peace in Ukraine - YouTube link).
14) Bishop Joseph Strickland who was dismissed by the Pope Francis but still has great influence in conservative circles in the United States and has rather supported Ukraine. In short, it is worth trying to reach him ( https://www.ncronline.org/news/justice/twitter-mass-and-prayer-us-bishops-unite-behind-ukraine).
15) It would be ideal if Robert Barron joined the initiative, an influential American conservative bishop (he has 1.5 million followers on his YouTube channel).
16) I think that Greek-Catholic hierarchs serving in the United States can join the initiative, Metropolitan Archbishop of Philadelphia Borys Gudziak (may have close ties with the Clinton family and Democrats, but in general, as an American UGCC Catholic, he is associated with conservative Catholicism),
17) Bishop Venedikt Alekseychuk, Chicago.
18) Cardinal Mykola Bychok, UGCC Australia.
5. I think that in order to write such an admonition and attract the right people, a working group should be created. This will help with contacts in particular.
6. After starting the admonition itself, you can think about open letters from intellectuals (preferably conservatives), like Douglas Murray, Timothy Snyder, etc.”

Originally published on substack.com/andyreedspolitics.
​Photo (public domain) from Trong Khiem Nguyen.