Connect with us

Opinion

The Christian liar

Avatar photo

Published

on

On the occasion of Konrad Adenauer’s 150th birthday, the prevailing foundational narrative of the Federal Republic is seldom called into question. Werner Rügemer‘s sketch, however, does precisely that. It portrays Adenauer not as the architect of a democratic new beginning, but as a consistent power politician in the service of capital—from the Empire to Weimar, from the Nazi state to the yoke of the United States. A necessary act of demystification.

German Chancellor and CDU Chairman Friedrich Merz has bowed to the world’s most powerful far-right figure, US President Donald Trump. This submission entails further militarization, accompanied by the impoverishment of the majority of the population and the peril of nuclear annihilation. This has a history, and that history began with the first Chancellor and CDU Chairman, Konrad Adenauer. His current successor, Friedrich Merz, has confirmed that Adenauer “set the decisive course for the Federal Republic.”

I. Catholic Ascent in a Protestant Empire

The rise of the Catholic Adenauer began within the Protestant German Empire.

Following the end of Napoleon’s brief dominion, the Kingdom of Prussia succeeded in annexing the Ruhr and the Rhineland, including its largest city, Cologne. Prussia and rising capitalism had discarded old feudal Catholicism as an ideology: Protestantism became the state religion. After the feudal lords with their Catholic blessings, it was now the turn of the new holders of private power—the capitalists—and their profits, blessed by Protestantism.

Protestant Prussians Complete the Catholic Cologne Cathedral

Consequently, the Prussians were extremely flexible in their use of religion: Since the Rhineland and Cologne were Catholic, replete with an Archbishopric and Romanesque churches, the Prussian Protestants promoted the Catholicism of their new subjects there as well.

Thus, the Prussian kings showed benevolence and, from 1842 onwards, financed the completion of the 157-meter-high cathedral towers. What the wealthy Catholic Archbishopric of Cologne had failed to achieve in 600 years, the Protestant Prussians accomplished in a few. And the Catholics were now obliged to be grateful to the Prussians.

Incidentally, the Prussians did not achieve this alone. The Jewish owners of the Sal. Oppenheim bank, rising in tandem with Prussia, also performed political groundwork; some converted to Catholicism, but mostly to Protestantism. They became the second-largest donors for the completion of the “Catholic” cathedral. This bank, ideologically highly flexible, would play a significant role in Adenauer’s ascent as Lord Mayor (Oberbürgermeister) of Cologne and subsequently as Chancellor of the Federal Republic.

Rise in a Catholic Milieu under Prussian Patronage

Konrad, the third son of a father who had risen from a craftsman via military service to a Prussian judicial officer, was permitted to attend the Gymnasium—specifically, the Royal Catholic Apostel Gymnasium. The school was financed by the Kingdom of Prussia and built directly adjacent to the Catholic Church of the Apostles. The aim here was to support aspiring individuals from the Catholic milieu to serve in the Prussian administration, corporations, and banks. Indeed, in 1894, former Chancellor Bismarck personally congratulated the high school graduate: The 18-year-old Konrad was now “one of us.”

After high school, Konrad remained within the Catholic milieu; during his law studies in Bonn, Munich, and Freiburg, he joined the relevant Catholic student fraternities. He later began working at Hermann Kausen’s law firm in Cologne; his boss was simultaneously a Royal Prussian Notary and the chairman of the Catholic Centre Party (Zentrum) in the City Council. Konrad joined the Centre Party to become a Council Member in 1906 and, as early as 1909, First Deputy Mayor. This rising star was elected with the approval of the Liberal Party—that is, the entrepreneurs, bankers, and, for instance, the bosses of the dominant media clan DuMont Schauberg, whose Kölnische Zeitung was distributed throughout Prussia. Thus, at the unusually young age of 33, this ascending man took charge of the city administration; the Catholic Lord Mayor Max Wallraf, also of the Centre Party, held the office only in an honorary capacity.

Under Prussia’s three-class franchise system, only wealthy men could vote in Cologne. Rich capitalists were in the Liberal Party; artisans and civil servants were in the Centre Party. The SPD [Social Democratic Party] could not be elected at the local level; it held only a seat in the Reichstag in Berlin.

Adenauer also ensured the proliferation of his own wealth. He joined the Pudelnaß Tennis Club—not because he could, or wanted to, play tennis. Rather: The youth of Catholic high society met there. It was there he met his first wife, Emma Weyer, the daughter of the director of the Cologne Reinsurance Company. Thus, the rising Adenauer, with a suitable loan, was soon able to purchase a large plot of land in the developing Catholic villa district of Cologne-Lindenthal and have a 14-room villa with a wine cellar constructed.

Administrative Chief of the Frontline City of Cologne in WWI

As administrative chief, Adenauer had fostered the rise of Cologne’s industry, financed by the Oppenheim, Levy, Seligmann, and J.H. Stein banks. These were also the financiers of industry and railways in the Ruhr area and neighboring cities like Wuppertal.

The Lord Mayor of Cologne was subordinate to the Prussian military governor and the Prussian-appointed district president of Cologne. With the outbreak of war in 1914, martial law was declared. Thus, in World War I, Cologne became the German Empire’s frontline city against the nearby enemy states of Belgium, France, and England.

Prior to the war, Adenauer had constructed the Butzweiler Hof airfield as well as another airfield for Zeppelins, and had brought Zeppelin production to Cologne. As soon as the war began, Zeppelins rained bombs on cities in Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland, Lithuania, and London—the first instance in human history of the aerial bombardment of enemy cities and civilians.

Stinnes and Krupp shifted munitions production to Cologne, while Bayer in Wuppertal produced poison gas: deadly weapons had to reach the front as quickly as possible. Cologne was also a transit station for soldiers, supplies, and prisoners of war moving to and from the front. Occupied Belgium was also administered from Cologne. Adenauer cultivated close friendships with leading industrialists and took over the war economy management of the frontline city; the municipal department tasked with this had 4,500 employees.

Cologne: Execution of Christian Sailors

It was no coincidence that Cologne was chosen for the execution of sailors Albin Köbis and Max Reichpietsch, who were sentenced to death for “mutiny” in 1917 for protesting the war. Both were Christians, but members of the New Apostolic Church: This church had been founded because Pope Leo XIII had openly embraced capitalism. The “mutineers” followed early Christianity; Adenauer, the capitalist Christian, had no objection to the execution of such Christians.

When the incumbent Lord Mayor of Cologne, Wallraf, was called to the stumbling imperial government in Berlin as a (penultimate) last resort, Adenauer became his successor; no one else was even considered. Precisely because a “politician of endurance” was needed for the frontline city of Cologne in a war that could no longer be won, Adenauer, upon his demand, immediately received the highest salary of any mayor in the Empire. He concluded his inaugural speech in October 1917 with an “oath of loyalty to the Kaiser and the Empire, with the call glowing with warm gratitude: His Majesty, our all-highest Kaiser and King, hurrah, hurrah, hurrah!”

“They Died for Germany”

Together with his corporate friends, Adenauer rejected peace negotiations in 1917. Millions of dead soldiers and civilians were, for the well-ensconced Christian civil servant-politician, merely collateral damage, ruthlessly factored in.

In the final year of the war, he declared in the city council that just as “the people of Cologne have endured these hardships to this day,” Germans must “endure all the hardships of war with patience and patriotism.” He justified the 41 deaths in a British air raid on Cologne in May 1918 by stating: “They too died for Germany.”

“Germany”; this would remain a core value for Adenauer: Dependent laborers are exploited and, for the sake of capitalists masquerading as “Germany” and their privileged accomplices, are expendable even in war.

End of War: Flattering and Destroying Revolutionaries

Fighting rising democratic resistance, saving capitalism: This was Adenauer’s mission at the end of the war.

Therefore, although the SPD was banned from standing for election under Prussian electoral law, from 1916 onwards he gave compliant SPD politicians positions in the administration and the city council. The SPD politician Wilhelm Sollmann became his special adjutant.

When a Workers’ and Soldiers’ Council was formed in Cologne as well, Adenauer allocated them rooms, telephones, and typewriters in the city hall. At the same time, he ensured that Sollmann became the chairman of this council and could denounce capitalism as a warmonger at large rallies.

The Christian liar Adenauer walked around with a revolutionary armband on his sleeve, but simultaneously established the “Welfare Committee”: Here, he gathered his banker friends and entrepreneurs; Sollmann was also present. In the final year of the war, the Kaiser awarded Adenauer the Order of the Red Eagle and membership in the Prussian House of Lords, the upper house of the Reichstag.

Saving the State and City from “Bolshevism”!

When Kaiser Wilhelm II fled abroad shortly before the war ended in November 1918, Adenauer remained true to his oath and sharply condemned the Kaiser’s “shameful, ominous flight.” Now, “the country could be dragged into the embrace of Bolshevism.”

But Adenauer’s Welfare Committee outmaneuvered the penniless activists of the Workers’ and Soldiers’ Council, who lacked political experience. Thus, Adenauer had averted the “Bolshevik danger” on behalf of the fled Kaiser. Later, he boasted of having tricked the Workers’ and Soldiers’ Council together with Sollmann, thereby “saving the city from revolution.”

It was here that he learned ruthless ideological opportunism and the merciless defense of capitalism. With this, he would continue to rise as a politician—and very soon, as a multimillionaire.

II. Continued Rise in the Hated Republic

Demagoguery regarding the “Bolshevik danger” remained Adenauer’s leitmotif. He carried as much of the monarchy as possible into the Weimar Republic: Relations with the peaks of private capital, and the continuation of the Free State of Prussia within the German Reich. In this way, he would contribute to the NSDAP [Nazi Party] coming to government by 1933.

Against the “Dictate of Versailles”

Adenauer railed against the “Dictate of Versailles”: He argued that this “intolerable slavery and bondage” destroyed “national and state existence,” ruined the German economy, caused “our children to wither,” and abandoned millions of Germans to “a slow death.” Adenauer said this as President of the German Catholics’ Day in Munich in 1922; yet he never mentioned the architect of the dictate, US President Wilson, who, by designating Germany as the sole guilty party, secured Wall Street’s war loans and the profits of US arms companies.

However, Adenauer tore into the spreading socialism that sought to “alienate the German people from Christianity.” He condemned the “lack of morality and authority” appearing in the “tortured people,” equating it with “materialism and Mammonism.”

What distinguished Adenauer from the far-right and the NSDAP was initially his concept of a solution: Catholic Christianity and the Catholic Centre Party. But since he shared the fundamental critique of the Versailles Dictate, his solution, polished with a Christian veneer, would step by step converge with the far-right solution. And as in the monarchy, he would bind himself not even to his own party, but to leading capitalists.

Thus, Adenauer expanded his personal and institutional relationships with leading capitalists to the entire German Reich and the USA.

In the Cologne Rotary Club

In 1928, Adenauer was a founding partner in the small men’s circle of the Cologne Rotary Club, established on the US model, alongside bankers Hagen (Bank Levy), the Oppenheims, Pferdmenges (Schaafhausen, later Oppenheim), and Baron von Schröder (J.H. Stein), industrialists Silverberg (Rheinbraun), Stollwerck (Chocolate), Clouth (Rubber), Tietz (Department Stores), and publisher Neven DuMont (Kölnische Zeitung). The president was Pferdmenges.

Pferdmenges’ influence had long since transcended the Rhine and Ruhr: In 1929, the Schaafhausen Bank Association merged with Deutsche Bank. During the nationalization of the bankrupt Dresdner Bank and Commerzbank in 1931, he advised the government of Chancellor Brüning (Centre Party) and in the process joined the Supervisory Board of Dresdner Bank and the Board of the Reichsbank [Central Bank].

A Favorite in the Circle of Ruhr Industrialists

The bosses of the four Cologne investment banks sat on dozens of supervisory boards of Ruhr conglomerates such as Flick, Klöckner, Thyssen, Stinnes, and IG Farben.

Consequently, Adenauer became a sought-after member of their lobbying associations:

  • League for the Renewal of the Empire: With slogans like “People without Space,” “Strengthening the Führer idea,” the necessity of a “Third Reich,” and “overcoming conflicts” through a uniform “healthily structured nation,” this league formed a programmatic cross-front with Hitler’s NSDAP.
  • Reich Economic Council: Coordinated industrialists and large landowners throughout the Reich with the Reich Association of German Industry (RDI).
  • Ruhrlade: This secret organization financed the “conservative” parties DVP, DNVP, and Adenauer’s Centre Party, and ultimately the NSDAP.

Adenauer became the politically desired candidate here. In 1925, steel baron August Thyssen wrote to him: “I hope the hour will soon come when you, with capable people, will stand at the head of the government and understand our needs.”

“Germany’s Right to Colonies”

The German Colonial Society (DKG) had been founded in 1885. However, at Versailles, Germany had been stripped of its colonies, which were given to US allies. The DKG subsequently fought for the return of the colonies. This was also in the NSDAP’s program. Only the KPD [Communist Party] and USPD explicitly rejected it.

In 1931, Adenauer became Vice President of the DKG. The President was Heinrich Schnee, the former Governor of German East Africa. In Cologne’s great banqueting hall, the Gürzenich, Adenauer criticized the “inconsistency of the colonial guilt lie” propagated by the victorious powers.

Separatism: Prussian State, Rhenish State

Within the Weimar Republic, the Free State of Prussia was preserved as a semi-monarchical extension with its own parliament (Landtag) and government. It covered two-thirds of the German Reich and was a counterweight to the newfangled democracy of the Weimar Constitution.

President of the Prussian State Council

The Prussian State Council existed as the upper house of the Prussian Landtag from 1920 onwards. Adenauer served as its President from 1921 to 1933, attending 222 sessions. In return, he received a free residence in Berlin. The expense allowance was 12,000 Reichsmark annually, plus daily allowances.

In Berlin, he met with ambassadors of other states, the Vatican representative and later Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli, Reichsbank President Hjalmar Schacht, and members of the Deutsche Bank board, on whose supervisory board he sat. He also met with Wall Street banker Thomas McKittrick of the Lee Higginson investment bank, the leading lender to the German Reich.

From this perspective, too, the attitude cultivated by Adenauer and his spin doctors—that he was anti-Prussian and disliked the Prussian capital—is revealed as a lie.

Western Separatist State: Direct Capital

Adenauer and his friends felt their existing freedoms were violated not only by Versailles but also by the fashionable democracy of the Weimar Republic: Now all adults, regardless of wealth—even women!—could vote. The influence of trade unions, the SPD, and even more dangerous leftists was too great! A capital-friendly separatist state, in addition to the Prussian state, seemed like a solution to them.

The spokesman was the billionaire Ruhr baron Hugo Stinnes. Adenauer experimented with concepts named “Rhenish Republic,” “Rhenish State,” or “Rhenish-Westphalian Republic,” or sometimes “West German Republic”: In one variant, it would remain part of the German Reich; in another, it would not.

Such a separatist state was to include the predominantly German-speaking French region of Alsace, conquered by the German Empire in 1870 and forced back to France by the Treaty of Versailles. In 1923, bypassing the German Foreign Office, Stinnes took Adenauer to Paris to ask if the government there was interested in a Western European economic union. The French government and the Bank of England refused: That was the end of the project.

Secret Tax Advantages for Prestige Projects

Furthermore, after the war, the USA had established itself in Western Europe. They organized the Dawes Plan for the German Reich, named after Charles Dawes of the National City Bank in New York. US companies opened branches in Germany and opened the country to their products.

US Bonds and Ford to Cologne!

Adenauer utilized this more than any other mayor. Through Wall Street banks, he had Cologne municipal bonds sold to US investors with a 7.5 percent yield to finance his major projects: the Niehl industrial estate, the airport, the Nürburgring, the stadium, the Rhine bridge, the university, and the first section of autobahn in Germany.

Automotive giant Ford had opened its first branch in Berlin in 1926. In 1930, Adenauer brought the second Ford branch and the US company’s German headquarters to Cologne. To achieve this, he granted secret tax advantages, bypassing the city council.

Adenauer saw no harm in flattering Adolf Hitler’s most influential financier and the world’s leading antisemite. The German edition of his book “The International Jew” had reached its 26th printing by 1926.

The New Albertus Magnus University!

The University of Cologne had been founded in the 14th century but was closed by Napoleon in 1798 due to “bigotry”: The Malleus Maleficarum (“Hammer of Witches”), the theological justification for the torture and public burning of thousands of women (“witches”) until the 18th century, had originated here.

Adenauer had the university rebuilt, referring to its great past at the opening in 1919, but mentioning nothing of its diabolical aberrations. He named the university once again after its founder, the medieval theologian Albertus Magnus. Funding was provided by Adenauer’s capital friends with their Christian veneer: Bayer boss Carl Duisberg, for example, donated 200,000 RM. Banker Pferdmenges collected two million. He would remain the most important collector of legal and illegal donations for Adenauer after 1945 as well.

Courting Hitler’s Future Crown Jurist

In 1932, Adenauer secured the appointment of constitutional lawyer Carl Schmitt to the old-new university. Adenauer had been gravitating toward this intellectual father of the authoritarian “Führer State” since 1925.

Both admired Mussolini. To be close to Hitler, Schmitt was appointed to the University of Berlin as early as the summer semester of 1933, becoming the “Crown Jurist of Hitler.”

Multifaceted Self-Enrichment

Adenauer’s income and wealth were the highest of any politician in the German Reich.

Salary, Perks, Supervisory Board Memberships, Interest-Free Loans

The highest mayoral salary—twice that of the Reich President—was accompanied by the highest overt and covert perks. As of 1930: Annual salary 41,250 RM, plus pensionable housing allowance of 37,000, and 6,000 for electricity and heating. (For comparison: A worker’s annual wage: 1,680 RM; a civil servant: 2,520 RM).

Added to this were profits from stock transactions, interest-free loans from the city treasury and banker friends, and above all: income from 11 supervisory board memberships (Deutsche Bank, Lufthansa, RWE, Rheinische Braunkohle, etc.).

Millions in Loans for Stock Speculation: Never Repaid

In the spring of 1928, Glanzstoff AG, which had a branch in the Cologne industrial estate of Niehl, listed new shares of its newly founded US artificial silk subsidiary, American Glanzstoff Corporation, on the New York Stock Exchange.

Adenauer bought a package of shares with a loan of millions from Deutsche Bank. In 1928, the market value was 1.33 million Marks; by October 1929, due to the financial crisis in the US, it had fallen to just 110,000 Marks. Deutsche Bank demanded repayment of the loan.

Adenauer never repaid the loan; he did not want to, nor was he compelled to under any regime. Thus, in 1949, Adenauer would begin his duties as CDU Chairman and founding Chancellor of the Federal Republic as a speculator indebted to Deutsche Bank.

On the Road to Fascism

In 1929, Dictator Mussolini signed the Lateran Treaty with the Vatican: Catholicism became the state religion. Mussolini-admirer Adenauer sent congratulations: “The name Mussolini will be written in golden letters in the history of the Catholic Church!” Mussolini thanked “dottor h.c. adenauer primo borgomastro Koeln” on behalf of all Catholics and all Italians.

Cultural Institute with Mussolini

Thus, in 1931, the Lord Mayor of Cologne signed an agreement between Cologne and Italy with the leading ideologue of Italian fascism, Minister of Culture Giovanni Gentile (“The Foundations of Fascism”): The establishment of an Italian Cultural Institute, against the will of the Reich government and with a fascism-friendly administration.

Permission to Hoist Swastika Flags

Adenauer later successfully spread the lie that he had resisted the hoisting of swastika flags in the city in February 1933. The reality was this: The NSDAP had secretly hung flags on the Mülheim Bridge to advertise a Hitler event in the Cologne exhibition halls. Adenauer had the flags removed because the bridge was municipal property! However, the Mayor permitted the NSDAP to hang flags on the exhibition halls, which also belonged to the municipality: This is how Adenauer lied using partial truths.

NSDAP into the Prussian and Reich Government!

As early as August 1932, the Centre Party demanded that the National Socialists take “open and full responsibility” in both the Prussian government and the Reich government.

On the same day in Cologne, Adenauer visited his Rotary brother Baron von Schröder, who was mediating between the Centre Party and the NSDAP. In the banker’s neighboring villa in Cologne-Lindenthal, Adenauer gave a written guarantee on his host’s letterhead: The Centre Party would “judge Hitler without prejudice solely by his actions and tolerate him as Reich Chancellor.”

On behalf of the Prussian State Council, Adenauer declared in February 1933 that in Prussia, “the formation of a government between the NSDAP and the Centre Party under the Premiership of Hermann Göring is immediately possible.” Two months later, Göring became Prussian Prime Minister. Hitler was already Reich Chancellor.

III. During the Nazi Era: Luxury Living with a State Pension

During the Nazi regime, Adenauer was able to lead a luxurious, privileged, and free life, including trips abroad, thanks to a high state pension and his status as a multimillionaire. He observed the injustice with immense knowledge and mercilessness. Yet nothing in life is as far from innocence as allowing visible injustice to persist. He had helped the Nazis into government and offered no resistance despite—or rather, because of—his highly privileged position. He made himself permanently complicit.

Defeat of a Politically Bankrupt Man

Adenauer’s Centre Party fell from power in the local elections of March 1933 because its reputation had already been ruined by high municipal debts. However, the majority for the NSDAP candidate could only be achieved because the 10 seats of the Communists were declared invalid; Adenauer and the Centre Party did not protest this.

Refuge with Enthusiastic Nazi Christians: Maria Laach Abbey

Adenauer was expelled from Cologne by the Nazi regional administration. He quickly found accommodation with his friend Ildefons Herwegen, Abbot of the Benedictine Abbey of Maria Laach in the Eifel.

In the weeks that Herwegen hosted Adenauer, the Abbot was enthusiastically greeting the Hitler government: “People and state have become one again through the action of Führer Adolf Hitler.” At a memorial service for the NSDAP martyr Albert Leo Schlageter in the Cologne Gürzenich hall on May 26, 1933, the Abbot invoked God’s blessing upon the Führer.

The Centre Party supported the Concordat Hitler concluded with the Vatican. Pope Pius XI had praised Hitler as a “reliable pioneer against Bolshevism.” Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen, who had been in the Centre Party until shortly before, came to Maria Laach on July 21, 1933: The Concordat was celebrated. The rule now was: With the blessing of God and Hitler, one could be a member of the Catholic Church and the NSDAP simultaneously!

June 1933: “It Makes No Difference to Me, Hitler Will Do”

In June 1933, Adenauer wrote from the monastery to his friend, the banker’s wife Dora Pferdmenges: My party, the Centre Party, has failed because “in recent years it did not fill itself with a new spirit in time,” and: “In my conviction, our only salvation is a monarch, a Hohenzollern, or for all I care, Hitler will do; first Reich President for life, then comes the next stage. Thus the movement enters a calmer channel.”

Adenauer determined that the other bourgeois parties were also incapable of saving the existing “order” against the power of the labor movement and mass democracy. Thus, he approved of war and fascism as necessary collateral damage; incidentally, a significant side benefit emerged for Adenauer’s clientele, just as it did for Adenauer himself.

Pferdmenges: “We Follow the Will of the People’s Chancellor”

In 1933, right at the beginning of the Hitler government, Pferdmenges—Adenauer’s most important advisor and financier, who at that time sat on the supervisory boards of both Dresdner Bank and Bank Oppenheim—declared: “We follow the will of the People’s Chancellor to create work and bread for the unemployed.”

From 1932 onwards, Pferdmenges was a presbyter and treasurer on the board of the Protestant congregation in Cologne’s millionaire district of Marienburg: This congregation had adopted the newly founded Nazi church, the “German Christians.” Therefore, a new, much larger community center had to be built, with rooms for the Hitler Youth and the Nazi Women’s League.

Carved in stone at the entrance, immortalized in colossal size, was not only Martin Luther with a Christian cross, but also an SA soldier with a swastika and imperial eagle. In 1934, Pferdmenges inaugurated the community center. Thus, in Cologne, not only the Catholic but also the Protestant church entered into a demonstrative, public alliance with Hitler within the milieu of bankers and industrialists.

Free, Luxurious Mobility Under the Nazi Regime

Adenauer was not removed from office as Lord Mayor of Cologne in 1933, as he later lied; on the contrary, he was retired with a high pension.

High Pension, Compensation, Preservation of Wealth

Initially, he received an annual pension of 12,165 Reichsmark, then 15,000 RM permanently from 1937 onwards, plus compensation at market value for the villa in Cologne. His wealth remained completely intact. As part of the arrangement, Adenauer joined the NS-People’s Welfare, a Nazi organization, in 1936.

Villa Residence in Berlin

Thus, in 1934, after his stay in Maria Laach, Adenauer was able to rent the villa of an emigrated Jewish owner in the celebrity district of Griebnitzsee/Neubabelsberg in Berlin. He was able to bring his family to live with him and wanted to become a bank director.

On June 20, 1934, during Hitler’s murderous purge of the SA leadership (the Röhm Putsch), Adenauer was placed under house arrest, but this ended two days later. He was able to vacation comfortably with his wife in the Black Forest.

Land Purchase and New Villa Construction in Rhöndorf

With the compensation for his villa in Cologne, he was able to buy a large plot of 6,000 square meters in the spa and villa resort of Rhöndorf, south of Cologne. He had a residence built like his previous 14-room villa: four living levels, private and representative rooms, a wine cellar, a pantry built into the mountain, an air-raid shelter, several terraces and entrances, a farmyard for animals, and a large garden. Domestic staff were employed during the Nazi era as well. Later, as Chancellor of the Federal Republic, he would reside here.

In Intense Contact with the Organizers of the Nazi Regime

He continued to move within the wealthy milieu.

Visits to Ruhr Industrialists

In 1939, Adenauer and his wife were invited by steel industrialist and Hitler financier Peter Klöckner. A large gathering met at the Villa Hartenfels near Duisburg. The Pferdmenges couple was also present.

Long discussions were held with General Hans Günther Kluge on the comparison of German and US armament capacities; the General was knowledgeable: In 1941, he became Commander of Army Group South in the Wehrmacht’s war of annihilation against the Soviet Union.

The group stayed overnight in the spacious villa and spent the weekend together. For the return journey, Klöckner provided the Adenauers with a car and, as the host noted in a thank-you letter, sent a batch of “those exquisite wines you tasted with us” after them. In the same year, Adenauer also attended a family reception of another friend, Hitler financier Fritz Thyssen.

Baron Kurt von Schröder

The Cologne banker and Rotary brother had engineered Hitler’s chancellorship on January 4, 1933. He joined the SS and the NSDAP, and in May 1933 became President of the Cologne Chamber of Industry and Commerce. Adenauer sent him a “letter of heartfelt congratulations.” Far beyond Cologne, the banker became an ultimate actor in the Nazi system: organizer of the Circle of Friends of the Reichsführer SS (comprising 30 industrialists), spokesman for the Reich Group of Private Banks, member of the Administrative Council of the Reichsbank, and member of the Administrative Council of the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, led by Thomas McKittrick—whom Adenauer had met in Berlin before 1933.

Robert Pferdmenges

Adenauer’s fundraiser Pferdmenges was also a key banker in the Nazi financial system. Adenauer asked him, for instance, whether their mutual friend Friedrich Flick (“decent and honest as a man and businessman”) had sold his RWE shares and bought a new company. Bank Oppenheim, managed by Pferdmenges and renamed Bank Pferdmenges in 1938, was a “war-essential” bank until 1945.

Goebbels and Abs Protect Adenauer’s Speculation Losses

Hermann Josef Abs had started at the Bankhaus Delbrück in Cologne in 1923. During the Nazi era, he rose to the board of Deutsche Bank: Until 1945, he organized war loans, sat on the supervisory boards of three dozen systemically important banks and companies, and organized Aryanizations (the confiscation of Jewish property). As a devout Catholic, he welcomed the attack on the Soviet Union enthusiastically, for to him, it was “the greatest enemy of freedom and humanity.”

At shareholder meetings, a small shareholder repeatedly demanded: Adenauer must repay his million-mark loan, otherwise it is a loss for Deutsche Bank and its shareholders! But Abs imposed his will: The motion will not be processed! Nazi Propaganda Minister Goebbels instructed the media not to report on the matter.

Adenauer: Best Informed on War and Jewish Extermination

Franz-Rudolph von Weiss, who had worked at the Swiss Consulate General in Cologne since 1920 and became Consul in 1936, became Switzerland’s Consul General for the Rhineland in 1943. Weiss had been a close friend of Adenauer since his time as mayor and would become a key advisor for Adenauer’s Swiss relations after 1945.

During the Nazi era, the two met regularly and socially. Adenauer’s wife called Weiss “dear good uncle.” The good uncle sent his reports regularly to his boss, the Swiss Ambassador in Berlin, Hans Frölicher—an enthusiastic Nazi sympathizer who secured arms deliveries from Swiss companies and financial transactions of German companies via Switzerland. At the same time, Weiss held an internationally crucial position from the start of the war: He took over the consular representation of the USA and England, which had severed diplomatic relations with Germany upon their military entry into the war.

Von Weiss maintained a “fine network with politicians, bankers, economic leaders, and high representatives of the Catholic Church.” From 1941 onwards, he reported to his government on, for example, the Warsaw Ghetto, the deportation of Cologne’s Jews, the extermination of Jews in Eastern Europe, and forced laborers in Rhineland factories.

Hitler’s secret police, the Gestapo, documented that Weiss was “one of the best sources of news for foreign countries” due to his “excellent connections to various circles of society and the economy”: Adenauer sat at the source of one of the best intelligence networks in the Nazi state.

Good Relations with the USA

US companies equipped Hitler’s army; Ford Cologne was now producing war vehicles. Adenauer’s second wife came from a Wall Street banking family. He hosted US visitors in Rhöndorf. His son Max won a scholarship to the elite US university Georgetown in Washington in 1937/38.

Adenauer’s longest-standing friend since 1920 was the US entrepreneur Daniel Heineman. Since 1905, he had managed the electrical holding company SOFINA, with its European headquarters in Brussels. In Europe, and in Cologne while Adenauer was mayor, he had built tramways. Due to his Jewish origins, he managed SOFINA from New York following the German occupation of Belgium in 1940; collaboration with the Nazi occupation continued smoothly thereafter.

From 1933 to 1937 alone, Heineman gifted Adenauer a total of 20,000 RM in 1,000-mark notes; in today’s purchasing power, over 100,000 euros. This also provided Adenauer with foreign currency for Swiss vacations without running afoul of the Nazi state’s otherwise strict foreign exchange controls. Heineman would remain an important permanent advisor on US matters for the subsequent Federal Chancellor.

On Principle: No Resistance with Anyone!

Adenauer was able to receive countless visitors undisturbed. However, he rejected all attempts to win him over for any form of resistance. In 1934, Karl Mewis of the Cologne KPD tried via a Catholic industrialist. The industrialist returned with Adenauer’s answer: “Resistance, absolute nonsense!”

In 1936, the Christian trade unionist Jakob Kaiser returned from a three-hour conversation: “He cannot be counted on.” Adenauer likewise rejected contact with the conservative Mayor of Leipzig, Carl Goerdeler, who was building a resistance circle against Hitler with military officers.

In 1944, the Christian trade unionist Heinrich Körner tried. Adenauer refused again: “I want nothing to do with it.” He mocked any resistance with his visitor Franz Thedieck, a Senior War Administration Councillor in the military command in occupied Belgium.

Luxury Detention 1944

In 1944, on the occasion of the assassination attempt on Hitler by conservative officers, he was temporarily arrested. It was a luxury detention: In the exhibition camp of the city of Cologne, Russian prisoners of war had to clean a bathtub so he could bathe. A fellow prisoner had to iron his trousers.

His daughter and wife brought him socks, shirts, and better food, and were able to chat with him for hours. Unlike his fellow prisoners from the SPD, KPD, and Centre Party, he was not drafted into labor duties or sent to a concentration camp. With a doctor’s note, he was finally transferred to the hospital in Cologne-Lindenthal, as he wished: After the war, he told the lie, “I was in a concentration camp.” (The Adenauer Foundation, Wikipedia, etc., and artificial intelligence continue to propagate such lies today.)

Without Remorse and Repentance: Forever Guilty

After the Nazi regime, as an indebted millionaire, in the capacity of CDU Chairman and Federal Chancellor, he would continue his guilt in a new form.

He would help persecute people who had offered resistance to the unjust system, even having them imprisoned, while protecting his accomplices. He would present himself as the “antithesis of the Nazi system.” He would preach Christianity and the Christian West but never fulfill Christianity’s demand for remorse and repentance.

On the contrary: He would lie. He would lie to himself and to the people he governed and administered, exposing them to new injustices and even the danger of a new war.

IV. After Hitler and the World War: “Politics of Humility”

After the war, the Western military administrations led by the USA reorganized the separated West Germany. They helped Adenauer, who had been selected long beforehand, to the chairmanship of the CDU, sidelining competitors and anti-fascists. Many decisions were made in Switzerland, where the chosen one often went disguised as a tourist and also underwent expensive cell revitalization therapy at a private clinic on the shores of Lake Geneva.

In the separatist state of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), founded with Adenauer in 1949, occupation law remained in force. This authority initially lay with the leading US banker John McCloy as US High Commissioner: His apartment in Frankfurt/Main had more staff than the Adenauer government—which was initially not allowed to have its own foreign ministry—and the secret service remained a department of the CIA. Through the Marshall Plan and the NATO clamp, the Adenauer state became a forward US bastion and a “showcase” toward the “East.”

Kissinger: Adenauer’s “Politics of Humility”

Henry Kissinger, the most important advisor to US presidents in the 20th century, published his life’s balance sheet shortly before his death: “Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy” (New York and Munich 2022). Kissinger had also advised Federal Chancellor Adenauer: The first chapter in the book was dedicated to him, under the title “The Politics of Humility.”

The meaning was this: German capitalists were allowed to keep their war profits and also the profits from the Aryanization of thousands of Jewish banks, companies, and shares; not only those in Germany but also those in occupied Austria, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Italy, Greece, Poland, Denmark, Norway, as well as the Soviet Union, Slovakia, Yugoslavia, and North Africa. 98 percent of their legal, media, and scientific accomplices also went unpunished; however, they now had to place their proven anti-communist, anti-Russian, economic, and technical potentials humbly at the service of a higher power—the USA.

Practices of Federal German Humility Before the Master

To mask this humility, this submission, with lies of “new self-confidence” and “we are somebody again”: This kind of humility was embodied and practiced at the highest level by the trained Christian liar and political actor Konrad Adenauer, and it remains decisive for his successors and the Federal Republic to this day; just as today Adenauer’s successor, Chancellor and CDU Chairman Merz, continues to stage the role—fulfilling all fundamental demands of the US government while feigning that he is increasing Europe’s sovereignty with lies.

  • The Basic Law, approved by the Western military administrations led by the USA, precisely does not contain the rights decided by the UN as a result of the World War: No reference to international law, e.g., the UN Charter; no reference to the labor and social rights of the UN or its sub-organization the ILO; instead, vague, non-binding verbiage about “human dignity,” which is concretely violated millions of times.
  • Parties selected, deemed suitable for government, and continuously financed by corporations and banks—primarily the CDU and CSU—were and are open to the far right, including internationally via party foundations.
  • No other European state “hosts” as many US military bases as the Federal Republic: Nuclear bombs are stored here, global drone murders are committed from here, supplies for wars in other states are routed from here without the participation of the German government, and military personnel are not subject to German law.
  • Adenauer approved: If the USA decides, nuclear war with Russia will be fought in Europe; this applies again now, should the exhausted US proxy warrior Ukraine be replaced by the arming European NATO states as a much larger US proxy warrior, by order of the current US President Trump.
  • From Adenauer to the present day, the following applies: The Federal Republic is not a sovereign state—neither militarily, economically, nor digitally—but a provisional entity subordinate to the USA, especially in foreign and geopolitical affairs; this also applies to the construct of the European Union.
  • The Western military administrations and then, from 1949, the US High Commissioner licensed the leading mainstream media (Spiegel, ZEIT, Süddeutsche, Springer, FAZ, as well as regional ones like Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger) with Nazi executive staff to this day; this includes decisive public opinion “research” (= opinion forming: The Allensbach Institute for Demoscopy, founded by Goebbels’ student Noelle-Neumann, which receives permanent commissions from federal governments to this day).
  • Labor Injustice: The Federal Republic is the only Western state where political strikes are effectively banned (already banned for civil servants and in church enterprises); while millions of mostly illegal migrant low-wage women work in prostitution (Germany: “The Brothel of Europe”), construction, home care, security, gastronomy, etc., civil servants since Adenauer have become increasingly numerous and highly privileged in the public service, ministries, outsourced agencies, the military, secret services, and diplomacy.
  • Since the old Nazi bankers and Nazi entrepreneurs were allowed to continue with their old privileges under Adenauer/McCloy, the “Economic Miracle” also turned out to be a lie: As early as 1967 there were 670,000 unemployed, over a million from 1975, over two million from 1983, three million in 1989; under Adenauer’s successor Helmut Kohl, East Germany was impoverished in favor of Western banks and entrepreneurs from 1990 onwards with US advisors in the Treuhand agency; then all of Germany became the “sick man of Europe” again, further deindustrialized from 2000 onwards with the help of US “locust” investors, especially in medium-sized businesses; and then came Adenauer’s successors Merkel and Merz and the very large US investors like BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, who are now leading shareholder groups in Germany’s most important companies, such as the DAX, and are reducing employment here with high profits while investing in the USA and China. And now the accomplice Merz, Adenauer’s successor, plays the role of the great economic savior for the “new sick man of Europe” with lies.

Fulfillment of the Adenauer Legacy: Humility Before Donald Trump!

To this day, the Federal Republic has no valid constitution, only a provisional and constantly amended “Basic Law”; and under US leadership, with the technocratically named “2+4 Treaty” of 1991, there is still no peace treaty in Europe, no reparation regulations: Thus, the further advance of NATO led by the USA against Russia remains valid: Germany remains a provisional entity.

This is how Adenauer’s legacy is fulfilled today: His current successor as CDU Chairman and Federal Chancellor fulfills all key demands of the most powerful and dangerous far-right figure of the “free world”—in humility before Donald Trump.

Therefore: The demolition of the Adenauer legends is also part of the construction of a democratic, peaceful, secure, prosperous Germany and Europe within the context of a multipolar world order, in which labor and social rights are also included in human rights.

Note by author Werner Rügemer:

In autumn 2026, the comprehensive Adenauer biography with numerous new sources, many from the USA, will be published by Papyrossa Verlag, Cologne.

First appearing on the NachDenkSeiten portal on January 5, 2026, this article was translated from German to English by the Harici team, following a request from Rügemer.

Opinion

Macroeconomic consequences of asymmetric UAV attacks in Russia

Avatar photo

Published

on

Today, the nature of asymmetric threats is undergoing a profound transformation, with their focus shifting increasingly toward economic centers. By mid-2026, the nature of asymmetric warfare within the borders of the Russian Federation entered a qualitatively new and critical phase.

An analysis of the Ukrainian unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) strikes carried out in July 2026 reveals a deliberate shift in targeting. Moving beyond military installations and fuel-energy infrastructure, these attacks directly targeted civilian logistics networks and critical nodes of the macroeconomic infrastructure.

The primary objective of this strategic shift is to deplete the country’s internal resources, induce insurmountable disruptions in supply chains, and exert intense psychological pressure on the civilian population.

Large-scale, coordinated strikes on the distribution centers of Wildberries—Russia’s largest e-commerce platform and part of the RVB joint venture (formed by the 2024 merger of Wildberries and Russ)—became the symbol of this new phase of home-front vulnerability. The geographic scope of these attacks, spanning an unprecedented area from the Northwestern Federal District to Southern Russia and Crimea, exposed critical gaps in national industrial risk insurance mechanisms. Furthermore, this situation sparked severe legal disputes between platform economy giants and small businesses, compelling immediate intervention from both corporate executives and senior state officials.

Tracing the multi-layered consequences of the kinetic impacts resulting from these July attacks on the state’s digital and physical economy will shape the new architecture of civilian sector security.

The zenith of the logistical terror waged by Ukraine was recorded on the night of July 24, 2026, marking the most technically complex UAV attack inflicted on Russian Federation territory since the beginning of the year. According to data from the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, domestic air defense systems detected and destroyed 571 fixed-wing Ukrainian UAVs that night.

Two points have become exceptionally critical here: saturating radar fields and the military “swarm” effect. In short, this event is the clearest indication that the enemy has transitioned to a tactic of overwhelming radar systems. At the same time, the “swarm” effect generated across a vast geographic expanse aims to rapidly deplete the ammunition of anti-aircraft missile systems and expose air defense positions deep behind the front lines.

The breadth of the targeted geography attests to the unprecedented scale of the operation. UAVs were neutralized over the Belgorod, Bryansk, Kaluga, Kursk, Leningrad, Novgorod, Oryol, Pskov, Ryazan, Smolensk, Tver, Tula, and Vladimir regions, as well as over Moscow, Krasnodar, the Republic of Crimea, and the waters of the Azov and Black Seas.

Such a dense dispersion of targets across a vast territory points to an attempt to paralyze transportation and logistics arteries within Russia’s European landmass.

In parallel with the mass deployment of UAVs, missile strikes were also conducted against civilian industrial enterprises. During the same period, a missile attack on a local enterprise in the Fileyka district of Kirov resulted in outright catastrophe, leaving 6 people dead and 32 employees injured with varying degrees of severity.

Following the incident, Regional Governor Aleksandr Sokolov stated that the situation required not only the evacuation of the wounded, but also large-scale interventions such as restoring water and power supplies and auditing the security of neighboring settlements. This combined approach—employing inexpensive kamikaze drones to degrade air defenses followed immediately by missile strikes on unprotected industrial zones—presents an entirely new threat paradigm for the civilian economy.

Systematic and sequential attacks directed at the facilities of a single commercial entity completely eliminate the possibility of coincidence. The strategic, macroeconomic, and psychological factors turning civilian commercial warehouses into critical vulnerabilities for an entire state rest upon four pillars:

  1. Role as the central circulatory system of domestic trade: Wildberries plays a critical role in the architecture of the modern Russian economy, connecting millions of consumers with tens of thousands of SMEs. Damage to distribution centers severe supply chains, triggering localized shortages of essential consumer goods and regional inflationary spikes. The primary goal is to destabilize the domestic market and create an artificial supply vacuum.
  2. Immense facility footprints and defense complexity: Spanning hundreds of thousands of square meters across the nation, these hangars constitute massive targets with high radar contrast. Unlike military bases, these commercial warehouses cannot possess their own air defense systems; placing every such facility under an air defense umbrella is physically impossible without compromising frontline systems.
  3. Social and psychological impact: In the eyes of the public, logistics centers symbolize daily economic stability. Black plumes of smoke visible from miles away, massive fires, and civilian casualties represent a hybrid terror tactic designed to transport an atmosphere of fear deep into peaceful cities and shake the internal socio-political climate.
  4. Magnified radius of economic impact: Inventory consumed by flames in these warehouses generally consists of stock purchased by merchants on credit. The destruction of commodity inventories holds the potential to cause mass vendor bankruptcies, bank loan defaults, and cascading layoffs across small businesses.

The events of July 2026 mark an irreversible shift in the threat landscape facing Russian commerce and macroeconomics. Attacks directed at Wildberries hubs in regions such as St. Petersburg, Moscow, and Tambov exposed the utter vulnerability of civilian logistics infrastructure.

Deploying relatively inexpensive unmanned aerial vehicles, the enemy is capable of inflicting tens of billions of rubles in direct damage, paralyzing the supply of essential goods, and triggering an acute social crisis in which hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs face the threat of bankruptcy. According to Russian experts, the total cost of a single fire—similar to the Kotovsk incident on July 18—can range between 50 and 100 billion Rubles ($630 million – $1.2 billion USD).

Despite its massive capital reserves, corporate business was caught unprepared for military threats. The medium-term survival of the e-commerce economy depends on the state and the private sector uniting to engineer unprecedented systemic solutions. Establishing compensation funds and introducing mandatory risk-distribution mechanisms are critical steps that must be taken.

Logistics hubs will remain open targets unless a “state program for subsidized reinsurance of military risks” is established for the critical nodes of the civilian economy. In the future, it will not suffice for large enterprises merely to pour capital into the physical protection of infrastructure; they must also deeply decentralize their logistics networks to prevent the concentration of goods and capital at single points of failure.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Egypt Under Fire: What Does the Damietta Strike Mean for Global Energy Markets?

Avatar photo

Published

on

Dr. Ahmed Moustafa, Director & Founder, Asia Center for Studies & Translation, Egypt

For the first time since successive waves of escalation between Washington and Tehran began in recent months, an Egyptian liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility has become a direct target.

In the early hours of Wednesday, 29 July 2026, at least one drone struck the floating storage unit Energos Winter, owned and operated by a U.S. company and sailing under the Marshall Islands flag, while it was moored at the Mediterranean port of Damietta. The impact ignited a fire that spread to a neighboring LNG carrier, GasLog Salem. Egyptian authorities confirmed that the blaze was brought under control without any reported casualties, while no group had claimed responsibility for the attack at the time of writing.

A Broader Context That Cannot Be Ignored

The incident did not occur in a vacuum. It came only hours after the United States Central Command (CENTCOM) announced that it had conducted joint strikes with Saudi forces targeting armed factions in Iraq accused of launching drone attacks against Saudi oil facilities. Tehran responded by warning against a “miscalculation,” at a time when the Middle East is still grappling with the repercussions of an earlier round of escalation that erupted on 8 July, when U.S. forces carried out strikes inside Iranian territory following an attack on a commercial vessel in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran retaliated with attacks targeting U.S. military bases in Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and the Sultanate of Oman.

Against this tense backdrop, Damietta appears to represent yet another link in the chain of regional escalation—but an exceptional one. For decades, Egypt has sought to keep itself removed from direct military polarization in the region, unlike several Gulf states that have increasingly become arenas of open confrontation.

At the same time, this interpretation does not entirely rule out the possibility of an indirect Israeli role, driven by hostility toward Egypt’s growing diplomatic influence in the Palestinian and Gaza files. Cairo has remained committed to advancing the two-state solution and to implementing the second and third phases of the peace roadmap agreed upon following the Sharm El-Sheikh Peace Summit last October. The Israeli government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, has sought to obstruct these efforts. Netanyahu, who is the subject of arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court, is widely accused of bearing responsibility for committing genocide that, according to Palestinian authorities, have resulted in the deaths of approximately 73,000 Palestinian civilians since 7 October 2023.

Why Egypt?

Over the past two years, Egypt has steadily strengthened its position as a regional hub for liquefying and re-exporting natural gas. This growing role has been supported by its two LNG plants at Idku and Damietta, in addition to a network of pipelines linking the country with Israel and Cyprus.

This infrastructure—unmatched elsewhere in the Eastern Mediterranean in terms of combined liquefaction capacity and direct access to European and global markets—has transformed Damietta and Idku into critical gateways for Eastern Mediterranean gas, including increasing volumes of Israeli/Stolen Palestinian natural gas liquefied and re-exported through Egyptian facilities.

According to local reports, the Energos Winter alone was supplying approximately 450 million cubic feet of gas per day to Egypt’s national grid and was preparing to receive four additional cargoes during August.

This expanding role gives any attack on Egypt’s gas infrastructure significance far beyond the immediate incident itself. It threatens not only Egypt’s domestic energy supplies but also a supply chain upon which Europe has increasingly relied as part of its strategy to diversify away from Russian natural gas.

Who Was Behind the Attack? Open Scenarios

At the time of writing, no organization had officially claimed responsibility, leaving several possible interpretations.

The first scenario cautions against prematurely attributing responsibility to Iran or its regional allies. It argues that the ambiguity surrounding the incident—and the absence of any claim of responsibility—may itself be deliberate, allowing whichever actor carried out the attack to undermine Egyptian stability without incurring immediate political costs.

This possibility includes actors competing over Eastern Mediterranean energy routes, as well as local or transnational groups pursuing agendas unrelated to the U.S.-Iran confrontation. Egyptian officials themselves have adopted a notably cautious approach. Egypt’s Minister of Information warned against “rushing to accuse any party,” while a former official suggested that “certain actors are seeking to drag Egypt into the conflict,” implying that the attack may have been designed precisely to draw Cairo into a confrontation it has consistently sought to avoid.

A second scenario, Israeli Involvement or the Involvement of Israel’s Allies

This, in itself, remains a serious hypothesis that is reportedly being discussed in undisclosed investigative circles. The prevailing analyses, supported by pro-Israeli and pro-American narratives, have largely centered on suspicions directed at Iran or Iran-aligned actors within the context of the ongoing conflict, rather than at Tel Aviv. This is partly because Israel maintains an energy partnership with Egypt, making any attack on an Egyptian export terminal potentially detrimental to its own natural gas interests.

Nevertheless, this hypothesis—like all others—must ultimately be assessed in light of the findings of the official investigations, which are still underway. It is worth recalling, however, that repeated warnings have been voiced regarding the visits of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Washington, as such visits have often been followed by heightened regional instability, as was argued after developments last December. According to this line of analysis, Netanyahu seeks to prolong the conflict with Iran in order to strengthen his domestic political position, secure his continuation in office, and advance Israel’s long-term strategic objective of neutralizing Iran and carrying out “Greater Israel.”

Within this framework, some analysts argue that there are broader efforts to weaken both Egypt and Türkey. They cite remarks attributed to a former Mossad operative during appearances on Israeli television, alleging that such a strategy would also serve to divert international attention away from the Gaza file and the question of Palestinian statehood—an issue on which Egypt has intensified its diplomatic efforts in recent days. According to this interpretation, creating indirect pressure on Egypt—the region’s most stable and secure state—could be viewed as a means of drawing Cairo into a wider regional confrontation.

A third scenario links the incident directly to the broader U.S.-Iran escalation. According to the article, The New York Times, citing two Iranian sources, reported that the attack may have been intended as a signal that global shipping and energy supplies could face deeper disruptions should Tehran or its allies choose to escalate further. The sources, however, did not identify the perpetrators or specify the launch point of the drone.

The Messages Behind the Attack

Regardless of who carried out the operation, the choice of target sends several important signals. An attack on what the article describes as the first American-owned energy asset on Egyptian soil would convey a message to Washington that not only its military installations in the Gulf, but also its economic footprint across the region, has become increasingly vulnerable.

For Egypt, which has consistently pursued a policy of strategic restraint and regional neutrality, the incident serves as a reminder that its geographic position—adjacent to some of the world’s most important energy and maritime corridors—no longer guarantees insulation from the conflicts unfolding around it.

For global markets, the attack suggests that the geographic scope of potential disruption is expanding beyond the Strait of Hormuz and the Arabian Gulf into the Eastern Mediterranean, increasing insurance premiums for shipping and critical energy infrastructure in a region long regarded as comparatively secure.

Egypt’s Official Response

The Egyptian government handled the incident with considerable caution and procedural professionalism, treating it primarily as a crisis-management operation rather than a political event.

The Cabinet confirmed that the fire had been caused by a drone attack without attributing responsibility to any specific party, emphasizing that investigations were continuing “to take all necessary measures to safeguard Egypt’s interests and national security.”

Prime Minister Mostafa Madbouly described the response as a test of the state’s crisis-management capabilities, praising emergency teams for successfully moving the burning vessels away from the port, thereby preventing what could have become a far larger disaster.

President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi addressed the incident publicly for the first time during a telephone conversation with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. During the call, he confirmed that the competent authorities were conducting a comprehensive investigation, warned of the dangers posed by the escalating regional situation, and stressed the importance of cooperation between Egypt and the international community to contain the crisis while adhering to peaceful solutions.

This measured diplomatic approach—avoiding direct accusations while emphasizing de-escalation—reflects Cairo’s determination not to be drawn into a broader regional confrontation despite having come under direct attack on its own territory.

Several Gulf states also expressed their full solidarity with Egypt and voiced support for its efforts to safeguard its national security and sovereignty.

The Impact on Global Energy Markets

The Damietta incident occurred at a time when global energy markets were already under considerable strain. Brent crude had been hovering around US$90 per barrel following the escalation of 8 July, while the European Title Transfer Facility (TTF) benchmark for natural gas had climbed above US$700 per 1,000 cubic meters for the first time since March.

Any additional disruption affecting an Egyptian LNG export terminal risks reinforcing this upward trend. Europe has increasingly relied on Egyptian liquefied natural gas as part of its broader strategy to diversify supplies away from Russian pipeline gas. Consequently, even a temporary interruption to Egypt’s export infrastructure could heighten market concerns over supply security.

The incident also adds to the geopolitical risk premium already factored into insurance costs for vessels operating in the Eastern Mediterranean. Higher perceived risks could translate into increased shipping and insurance costs for LNG carriers throughout the region, even if subsequent investigations conclude that the attack was an isolated event unlikely to be repeated.

What Should Be Done to Prevent Similar Incidents?

First, Egypt should further strengthen its short-range air defense capabilities and counter-drone systems around strategic energy installations along its Mediterranean coastline. This includes deploying advanced early-warning radar networks and cost-effective interception systems capable of neutralizing small unmanned aerial vehicles before they reach critical infrastructure.

Second, broader regional intelligence-sharing mechanisms should be expanded among Egypt and neighboring states—including Cyprus, Greece, and Türkiye—in recognition of the increasingly interconnected nature of Eastern Mediterranean gas infrastructure and the shared strategic importance of safeguarding regional energy corridors.

Third, given that the targeted floating storage unit is owned by a U.S. company, Washington should contribute to financing and modernizing the protection of such critical infrastructure rather than limiting its response to statements indicating that it is merely “monitoring the situation,” as the article characterizes the U.S. reaction.

Finally—and perhaps most importantly—reducing the broader cycle of regional escalation between Washington and Tehran remains the only sustainable guarantee against similar incidents in the future. Any purely technical or localized security measures can mitigate immediate risks but cannot eliminate them so long as the underlying geopolitical drivers of confrontation remain unresolved.

Conclusion

The Damietta incident serves as a stark reminder that geographic neutrality alone is no longer sufficient to shield a country that has become a pivotal node in the global energy network.

References:

1- https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c39ez3klwmro

2- https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/egypt-confirms-drone-caused-fire-two-gas-vessels-damietta-2026-07-30/

3- https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/drone-hits-gas-storage-tanker-egypts-mediterranean-port-2026-07-29/

4- https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/29/world/middleeast/ships-drone-strike-egypt.html

Continue Reading

Opinion

Rising populist parties in Europe and liberalism

Avatar photo

Published

on

Leon Trotsky, one of the foremost leaders of the October Revolution, defined fascism as the totalitarian organization of society by monopoly capital. Magnates of large-scale monopoly capital are acutely aware that their profits cannot be safeguarded in the absence of authoritarian political power. Thus, fascism finds its bedrock of support among capitalist forces, the grand bourgeoisie, monopoly capital circles, and major landowners. We are all too familiar with the calamities fascism wrought upon the world in the era preceding the Second World War.

The post–World War II era is often commemorated as the golden age of capitalism—a period characterized by robust growth rates and low unemployment. Real wages climbed, social rights expanded, demands for a welfare state remained vibrant, and the pursuit of a social state yielded tangible results. This era ultimately met its demise in the 1970s, undone by shifts in the regime of accumulation and structural economic crises.

Today, across Europe, political parties that could virtually be characterized as the direct successors to pre-WWII fascist movements are consolidating their electoral gains. Germany, France, and Italy serve as quintessential examples. These parties weaponize poverty, unemployment, and anti-foreigner, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, and anti-Middle Eastern sentiments, while capitalizing on the incompetence of traditional center-right and center-left parties and taking a deeply Eurosceptic, critical stance toward the European Union. They employ caustic rhetoric against the political elites who have dominated governance for decades. Receiving endorsement from both US President Trump and Russian leader Putin, they draw substantial support simultaneously from working-class constituencies—traditionally the bedrock of the left—and from grand capital circles. While monopoly capital quietly pats these populist movements on the back, it simultaneously winks at liberal-democratic and increasingly indistinguishable social-democratic parties that champion unbridled capitalism and aggressive liberalism. Beyond France and Germany, examples abound from Italy to the United Kingdom…

The interests of grand capital, which back populist regimes and advocate authoritarian governance, also champion localization. For the erosion of the national, the public, and the collective—alongside the attenuation of the central state and the elevation of the local—works decisively to the advantage of big capital.

Why?

Because of this:

Under liberalism, the state does not regulate the market; rather, the market regulates, directs, and subdues both the state and society. In a liberal order, the state is expected to act on behalf of capital and in favor of the market—intervening in politics, society, and the law, and enacting statutory frameworks strictly to this end. The state is tasked with engineering legal and institutional arrangements for the market’s account and benefit. Society is reduced to a market-society, wherein the citizen is reimagined as a consumer, a client, and an entrepreneur. Since competition is elevated as the supreme imperative, citizens themselves must become entrepreneurial and competitive—a posture the state actively promotes and incentivizes.

According to liberals, the state bears no obligation to shield its citizens from the pitiless mechanics of the market or the ferocity of unchecked capitalism. On the contrary, the state demands and encourages that citizens establish themselves as entrepreneurial actors within the market arena. Consequently, the state aligns itself with capital, operating at its beck and call. Hence, liberalism harbors an innate preference for unorganized, non-unionized, cheap labor. Wages are suppressed; agricultural subsidies are gutted to a minimum; and strikes are banned on the flimsiest of pretexts.

Because liberalism insists that the state be sculpted, organized, and driven according to market demands—allowing the market to command and direct the state—the liberal vision of the nexus between politics and economics, as well as politics and law, is deeply fractured. In their worldview, law must operate exclusively to the advantage of capital, acting as the vigilant sentinel for the inviolability of property rights. It must dismantle every obstacle standing in the way of free trade, unbridled competition, and the free market, while swiftly and severely penalizing any force that dares to impede them. To conform to the expectations and demands of capital: this is the primary imperative required of the law.

In sum, through its championing of identity politics, its reduction of the citizen to a mere client, and its liquidation of the state’s social character in order to place public power at the disposal of capital, liberalism stands fundamentally opposed to the social, the public, and the national. This is a truth that must be firmly impressed upon left-liberals, nationalist-liberals, and conservative-liberals alike.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey