From Gladio to Ukraine: The Continuity of a Shadow Strategy
- SU
- 2 days ago
- 4 min read
The Legacy of Gladio
During the Cold War, NATO and the CIA established a network of clandestine “stay-behind” armies across Europe. Known collectively as Operation Gladio, these units were designed to resist potential Soviet occupation. Officially defensive in purpose, Gladio’s history became controversial when evidence emerged that elements of the network were implicated in acts of political manipulation, terrorism, and disinformation—actions intended to sway public opinion and maintain Western hegemony.
The Italian Senate’s investigation in the 1990s concluded that Gladio had contributed to what became known as a “strategy of tension”—using fear, chaos, and covert violence to justify authoritarian measures and ensure Europe’s continued reliance on NATO’s protective umbrella.
Ukraine as a Modern Parallel
Today, NATO’s massive support for Ukraine carries echoes of that earlier playbook. While the contexts differ, the underlying mechanisms reveal notable continuities:
Infrastructure Beyond the Battlefield: Billions in U.S. and European aid have not only funded immediate defense needs, but also built long-term logistics hubs, training centers, and intelligence fusion platforms in Ukraine. Like Gladio’s “stay-behind” networks, these assets outlast the immediate conflict and entrench NATO’s presence.
A Strategy of Attrition: Just as Gladio thrived on tension rather than resolution, the war in Ukraine is evolving into an open-ended contest of endurance. The longer the conflict continues, the more justification governments have to expand military budgets, extend surveillance powers, and normalize a perpetual state of emergency.
Weapons Development in Real Time: Ukraine has become a proving ground for emerging technologies—drones, electronic warfare, AI-driven targeting systems—providing Western defense industries with invaluable live-combat data . This mirrors the way Cold War covert networks created dual-use laboratories for intelligence and military strategy.
Dependency as Strategy: Europe, once reliant on Russian energy, has pivoted toward U.S. liquefied natural gas and weapons systems. The dependency NATO once engineered through secret networks is now reinforced through transparent, but equally binding, economic and security ties.
The Accounting Gaps
Financial oversight of this unprecedented aid has already revealed vulnerabilities.
Pentagon audits identified a $6.2 billion valuation discrepancy in U.S. military aid to Ukraine.
Another $1.1 billion in funds lacked proper documentation, according to a Department of Defense Inspector General report.
A separate review found that more than $1 billion in sensitive weapons systems had not been properly tracked.
On Ukraine’s side, a Financial Times investigation documented hundreds of millions lost in procurement failures and advance payments for undelivered arms.
While not all of these irregularities imply deliberate malfeasance, they underscore the systemic opacity surrounding wartime spending. The grey zones created by such discrepancies recall the funding ambiguities that once sustained Gladio’s covert infrastructure.
The Intelligence Dividend
For NATO and the U.S., aid to Ukraine provides more than battlefield leverage. It produces streams of intelligence, operational experience, and logistical blueprints for future conflicts. Ukraine is both a partner in defense and a laboratory for the next generation of global security frameworks.
This reflects the same dynamic that made Gladio valuable: the ability to operate in the spaces between transparency and secrecy, where networks, budgets, and influence could be extended beyond the reach of conventional oversight.
The Endgame
The question is not simply whether NATO’s support for Ukraine will bring victory or stalemate. The deeper issue is what structures are being built in the process, and for whose long-term benefit.
If Gladio’s ultimate legacy was not the prevention of invasion but the consolidation of a security architecture across Europe, Ukraine may represent the globalization of that model. A conflict framed as defense could in practice be laying the foundations for a permanent, supranational military-intelligence system, one in which war is not an aberration but a condition, sustaining budgets, consolidating alliances, and redefining sovereignty.
Conclusion
Operation Gladio demonstrated how covert infrastructure could outlive the crises that justified it. Ukraine may be serving a similar role in the twenty-first century: not just resisting Russian aggression, but institutionalizing a new form of global security dependency.
In this reading, the endgame is less about territorial borders and more about constructing a durable system of leverage, where war, aid, and intelligence converge into a framework that reorders international power for decades to come.
Sources
Daniele Ganser, NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe (2005).
Italian Senate Report on Operation Gladio (1990).
Reuters, “US aid cuts to Ukraine raise risk of waste and fraud, say watchdogs” (2025).
Al Mayadeen, “Operation Gladio’s Strategy of Tension” (2022).
AP News, “The US failed to track more than $1 billion in military gear given to Ukraine, Pentagon watchdog says” (2024).
FT, “How Ukraine lost hundreds of millions on arms deals gone wrong” (2023).
FactCheck.org, “Posts misrepresent Pentagon accounting errors in Ukraine aid” (2023).
DoD Inspector General, “Audit of the DoD’s Execution of Funds to Assist Ukraine” (2024).
Washington Post, “US aid to Ukraine plagued by tracking failures” (2024).
Financial Times, “How Ukraine lost hundreds of millions on arms deals gone wrong” (2023).
CSIS, “Where is the Missing $100 Billion in US Aid to Ukraine?” (2024).
NATO Review, “Learning Lessons from Ukraine” (2023).
