French LTC Assigned To NATO, Arrested For Committing Espionage On Behalf of Russia. by J


French DSGI Counter-Intelligence (their MI5 equivalent) arrested a French LTC assigned to NATO, as he was wrapping up his vacation in France and heading back to his NATO base in Italy.  The LTC was arrested for committing espionage on behalf of Russia. 

The LTC speaks fluent Russian and his position appears to be that of a specialist on  Russian military affairs for his NATO base in Italy.  French authorities began investigating the LTC when he was spotted with an individual who was later identified as an Intelligence Officer for the Russian GRU, Russia's Military Intelligence.

The LTC is being held in ‘La Santé’ prison in Paris.  55 years old, father of five, has relatives in Russia.  The LTC was assigned to Allied Joint Force Command.

Earlier in the month French DSGI arrested two Retired DGSE agents, one is in his 60s, and the other in his 70s for committing Espionage on behalf of China.  French law prohibits disclosure of the full names of their agents, current and retired.

Europe 1


This entry was posted in France, Intelligence, J. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to French LTC Assigned To NATO, Arrested For Committing Espionage On Behalf of Russia. by J

  1. Jimmy_W says:

    Long ago, I watched a French comedy, whose name escapes me, where China conquered France in the midst of the Cultural Revolution. The French proceeded to welcome their new Chinese overlords, producing Maoist musicals with French music and dance. They decided that the Chinese needed to learn how to party like the French. The Chinese garrison did, then surrendered and left, because they could not keep up with the drinking and the kissing.
    All of that is to say, the French people probably think they can mold Communism to the French Will, so it has no threat to the French existence.

  2. turcopolier says:

    Jimmy W
    You seem to have missed the point that the French have arrested this traitor.


    @Jimmy : “Les Chinois à Paris” from and with Jean Yanne (The chinese in Paris)
    From english Wikipedia :
    In French :
    Several abstracts on YT. I like this one :

  4. Sys ATI says:

    Jimmy W
    If you get a chance, you should read about the theories of Emmanuel Todd, french demographer, sociologue, historian, etc
    In _very_ short, “it is a person’s family structure that determines his political vote”. i.e. you were “born” to vote communist/liberal etc…
    Even if you think you have free will and can choose to vote left-right or whatever, in fact, that decision has been made for you during your childhood simply because you come from a certain type of family.
    Which also means that a country is “structurally” communist or “structurally not”. So communist countries are not and cannot be “a threat” to liberal countries… You guys in the US will never “copy” Russia or China. You simply cannot do it. And trying to “liberalize” them won’t also never work out because it is (almost) in their genes…
    (Unless of course we are talking about war, occupation etc etc)
    The Origin Of Family Systems, Volume One: Eurasia (L’origine des systèmes familiaux, Tome 1: L’Eurasie), Paris, Éditions Gallimard, 2011, of which the translated introduction is already available here :

  5. Mike46 says:

    Speaking of accused traitors: A letter to the editor printed in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.
    Over 100 years ago, France was racked by a scandal referred to as the “Dreyfus Affair.” A French army officer was wrongfully accused and convicted of treason for allegedly passing information to Germany. He eventually was exonerated after it was discovered that the French military had withheld information that proved him innocent of the charges. He was returned to military service and later fought in World War I.
    We now have the “Vindman Affair.” Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a highly decorated career Army officer, has been accused of treason and espionage by President Donald Trump’s supporters because he testified about the now-infamous Ukraine telephone call in response to a congressional subpoena. The truth of his testimony is supported by the written record of the conversations Lt. Col. Vindman testified he overheard.
    Shortly after the end of Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial, both Lt. Col. Vindman and his twin brother, also an Army lieutenant colonel, were summarily removed from their positions at the National Security Council. The Trump spoke persons say this was not an act of vindication, but part of a previously planned reduction in the size of the NSC staff. At the same time, Mr. Trump tweets a signal to the U.S. Army that Lt. Col. Vindman’s action should be reviewed for possible disciplinary action.
    Today, the question is not whether you support the United States, but whether you support Mr. Trump. It is sad that Mr. Trump is unwilling to follow the lead of President George Washington, who argued that national interests — not individual interests — are supreme.
    Stephan K. Todd

  6. turcopolier says:

    Just discovered the Dreyfus affair? Yes, a most shameful thing. Vindman is not “a highly decorated” anything. Just another LTC staff specialist with delusions of grandeur.

  7. Mike46 says:

    ‘Commissioned in 1999 as an infantry officer, Vindman received a Purple Heart medal for wounds he received from an IED attack in the Iraq War in 2004.[3][4] Vindman became a foreign area officer specializing in Eurasia in 2008, and assumed the
    According to Wikipedia-feel free to challenge it’s reporting – Wikipedia is not the most reliable source:
    “In July 2020, Vindman retired after 21 years in the military. He cited vengeful behavior and bullying by President Trump and administration officials after he complied with a subpoena to testify in front of Congress during Trump’s impeachment hearings. At the time of his retirement, Vindman’s promotion to the rank of colonel had been abnormally stalled by the administration.[5][6] On August 1, 2020 Vindman authored an opinion in a Washington newspaper addressing his retirement.[7]'”
    Do you dispute any of this?
    Honestly, I don’t see any evidence of delusions of grandeur. Perhaps you can clarify. Is he speaking on political matters while an an Army officer?
    From the Military Times:
    <"The president fired him from the NSC in February, following the conclusion of impeachment proceedings. Vindman had testified before the House late last fall. He offered an explanation as to why, earlier in 2019, he had reported his concerns about Trump’s conduct on a July 2019 phone call with the Ukrainian president, seeming to present a quid pro quo: an investigation into Joe Biden and his son Hunter, who had been on the board of a Ukrainian energy company, in exchange for promised military aid. “I want to emphasize to the committee that when I reported my concerns on July 10th relating to Ambassador Sondland and on July 25th relating to the president, I did so out of a sense of duty,” he told the House Intelligence Committee in November. “I privately reported my concerns in official channels to the proper authority in the chain of command. My intent was to raise these concerns because they had significant national security implications for our country. I never thought that I’d be sitting here testifying in front of this committee and the American public about my actions. When I reported my concerns, my only thought was to act properly and to carry out my duty.” His testimony was met with public vitriol, both from the president and his supporters, as well as members of conservative media. His patriotism ― as a naturalized citizen of Ukrainian birth ― his service record and even his choice to wear his Army Service Uniform to Capitol Hill, in accordance with uniform regulations, were scrutinized. Though his complying with a congressional subpoena, despite the White House ordering staff members not to comply with the impeachment inquiry, was legally protected by whistleblower laws, concerns rose immediately that Vindman could be punished professionally. though he could not be charged for disobeying an order, and it was the president’s prerogative to fire him from the NSC, the question of whether his career would continue on its exceptional trajectory lingered. In the Army, a promotion often hangs on a stellar evaluation from a superior, and with his senior rater a civilian on Trump’s NSC, it seemed likely that Vindman would not be reviewed favorably. Suspiciously, the Army’s colonel selection list has been delayed this year, prompting allegations that the Army was holding off on releasing it, knowing that the president would seek to have Vindman removed.>
    Hell, Colonel I’m just a dumb old hillbilly so I’m relying on you to point out why the guy got fucked. By the way Vindman never claimed to be highly decorated – those are someone else’s words.


    @Jimmy W. : Emmanuel TODD, a very good reading advise… “Incidently”, E. Todd became famous when he predicted the fall of USSR in 76 when he was 25, from the analysis of child mortality in USSR…
    His theory is simple and complex in the same time.
    In the regions where only the elder brother inheritates, people have the following idea deeply rooted in mind : if brothers are not equal between themselves, some human beings are superior to others (South West, West, East of France, e.g). In the families where all the brothers equally inheritate, the idea is : if all the brothers are equal, then all the human beings are equals (Bassin Parisien, North and South Est of France). Plus the fact that catholicism’s meddling in politics was eradicated in these “equal-minded” regions in the 18the century (during the Revolution), while this meddling persisted in “un-equal regions” until the 60’s of the 20th century, but was still persisting/surviving in the social subconscience : this is what Todd names the “catholicisme zombie”… (“Who is Charlie”).
    Then Todd is introducing another distinction in this double entry frame of analysis : families where several sons are still living under the same roof, under the authority of the patriarch (authoritarian families), vs “nuclear” families where the sons quit the father’s authority when marrying.
    So, you have regions/countries qualified as “egalitarian authoritarian”, the Russia for exemple, attracted by communism and similar ideologies (Russia but also Bassin parisien, Marseille, etc.). You have also “unequality/authority”, “unequality/liberalism”, etc…
    These values are not rooted in the mind of the individuals, who are no more peasant and rurals, but in the territories. This is the most difficult part of his theory to accept.
    Todd being an “admirateur” of the Anglo-American culture, you will find several videos of conferences in USA on YT. But I prefer to give the link to an interview in French with quite good subtitles, specifically on the family values theory :
    About the election of D. Trump in 2016, Todd, in the following link (in French) explains that, a priori, the US familial values being “un-egalitarian, individualist and liberal”, the neo-liberal political system was likely to gain victory, and the election of Hilary Clinton quite certain. But, while analysing the increasing mortality of US white Poors, he started to think that the liberal system was likely to crack, and the election of Trump was becoming “thinkable”… A nice forecast, considering the intense pro-Clinton propaganda in the mainstream press (as today with Biden..) :
    “Saying that the Trump electorate is the one of poor and racist Whites is not only absurd, but it is just the contrary”
    And of course the wikipedia article in english, not very developed in comparaison with the french one :

  9. Fred says:

    Perhaps he should have accepted that offer to be Ukraine’s Minister of Defense.

  10. turcopolier says:

    He was hit by a roadside bomb while a passenger in a vehicle. He was at that time serving on a staff in a FOB. This is not heroism. It is misadventure. He was a FAO. So was I. So what? He stabbed the CinC in the back while serving on his staff. A bum. Just about as low as Milley who also stabbed the CinC in the back..

  11. Mike46 says:

    “He stabbed the CINC in the back”
    So he lied, then?

  12. turcopolier says:

    A US military officer assigned to a staff and serving a designated individual has an absolute responsibility to ask to be relieved of that duty if the officer finds it impossible to serve there for reasons of conscience. The officer would then be returned to the particular service for reassignment. What he does not do is testify before a congressional committee against the person who trusted him with a position on his staff. To do what Vindman did is to violate the code of ethics of an Army officer. That is one of the things that differentiates us from civilians who generally have no interests except their own.

Comments are closed.