
A modern celebration of Stepan Bandera, Ukraine.
Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond
From Venezuela and made by Venezuelan Chavistas
A modern celebration of Stepan Bandera, Ukraine.
March 23, 2025 – By Kit Klarenberg
March 17 marked the 80th anniversary of the creation of the Ukrainian National Committee. With the Red Army rapidly advancing on Berlin, Nazi officials released Ukrainian ultranationalist military units from their command, and recognised the Committee – and a newly-formed National Army under its control – as the legitimate government of Ukraine. It was hoped the UNC would continue Hitlerâs crusade against the Soviet Union following Berlinâs rapidly impending defeat in World War II, which occurred two months later.
The UNCâs establishment was eagerly supported by notorious Ukrainian ultranationalist Stepan Bandera, founder of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-B) and Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), two ultranationalist factions heavily complicit in the Holocaust. As the mainstream media has acknowledged, his legacy endures in modern Ukraine, in the form of Neo-Nazi military units such as Azov Regiment, and he remains a much-celebrated figure in certain quarters of the countryâmuch to the chagrin of Kievâs Eastern European neighbours.
Bandera believed Nazi Germanyâs UNC recognition would encourage American and British backing for OUN-Bâs anti-Communist crusade, and Ukrainian independence. The Ukrainian Supreme Liberation Council (UHVR), which the OUN-B was instrumental in founding in 1944, was already in covert contact with London and Washington. As it was, no such formal support ever came to pass. Yet, little-known declassified CIA records expose the malign contours of a long-running conspiracy between Bandera and MI6 to destabilize the Soviet Union during the Cold Warâs initial years.
This dark handshake only expired because MI6âs fascist asset was resistant to joining forces with other Ukrainian anti-Communist forces, therefore jeopardising plans by Washington and London for all-out war with Moscow in Donbass. That plot, intended to ultimately collapse the entire USSR, has eerie, direct echoes of the current Ukraine proxy war. So too Britainâs willingness, then and now, to go far further than the US in building alliances with the most reactionary, dangerous Ukrainian ultranationalist elements, in service of balkanising Russia.
Bandit type
MI6âs post-war relationship with Bandera began while he was exiled in post-war Munich, West Germany in 1948, via Gerhard von Mende. An ethnic German hailing from Riga, Latvia, von Mende has been described as an âenthusiastic Naziâ who headed Berlinâs Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territory, or Ostministerium. Among other connivances, von Mende was charged with recruiting fifth columnists from the USSRâs Central Asian republics, to undermine and attack Communist authorities. He has been credited with influencing subsequent British and American support for Islamic extremism.
Per a declassified CIA biography, after Nazi Germanyâs defeat, von Mende was âinterned as a âguestââ at the Agencyâs Camp King, where Nazi officials and soldiers were interrogated and tortured. In some cases, inmates were unwittingly dosed with LSD under PROJECT BLUEBIRD, a forerunner of the CIAâs notorious MKULTRA mind control program. Subsequently, von Mende became an asset for West Germanyâs Nazi-riddled BND, the CIA, and MI6, continuing to recruit anti-Communist assets in the USSR via a front company.
Through this position, von Mende was kept abreast of UPA activities and capabilities, and maintained an intimate personal relationship with Bandera. The Ukrainian fascist ideologueâs thuggish West German network was by then hard at work killing hundreds of local citizens suspected by the CIA and MI6 of harboring Communist sympathies. While the OUN-B chiefâs âaskâ of British intelligence was initially judged too high, that perspective rapidly changed. By 1949, MI6 was helping Bandera airdrop his chaos agents into Ukraine.
A year later, Britainâs foreign spy agency began formally training these operatives to gather intelligence and carry out sabotage and assassinations on Soviet soil. This sinister compact was established despite stern CIA and State Department opposition. The Agency considered UHVR, which by this point had cut ties with Banderaâs murderous ultranationalist mob, a far more palatable alternative. The group was now led by Ukrainian-Greek Catholic priest Ivan Hrinioch, a âlongtime CIA assetâ, and former high ranking OUN-B operative Mykola Lebed.
During World War II, Lebed oversaw the UPAâs massacre of tens of thousands of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. However, he subsequently disavowed this genocidal carnage, and led UHVRâs push to unite Ukrainian emigres, who had fractured due to bloody, internecine squabbles towards the conflictâs end. Under the auspices of Operation AERODYNAMIC, for decades the CIA exploited UHVR to foment ânationalist flare-upsâ throughout the Soviet Union, âparticularlyâ in Ukraine, and âencourage divisive manifestations amongâ the population, to âexert pressure on the Soviet regime.â
By this time, Bandera had fallen out of favour with many Ukrainian nationalists more generally, even renounced by what remained of OUN-Bâs Kiev-based leadership. This, his genocidal past, and overt anti-US actions and statements due to Washingtonâs refusal to publicly advocate for Ukrainian independence, all deterred the CIA from employing him. MI6 was unperturbed however, and pushed ahead with its Bandera operations. This created a ludicrous situation, with London and Washington supporting bitterly antagonistic Ukrainian nationalist factions, which frequently undermined and attacked each other.
As a British intelligence memo on âthe crisis over Banderaâ noted, by 1950 Ukrainian nationalist leaders had âbecome aware of the fact that the British and Americans were backing rival groups,â putting the agenciesâ joint anti-Soviet projects at risk. It was decided to dispatch a cosigned message to UPA headquarters via Ukrainian CIA and MI6 agents parachuted into Lviv, calling for an end to âpresent disagreementsâ between opposing nationalist factions, which London and Washington professed to âdeploreâ and hoped âmay be resolved.â
It signed off with the now-infamous, Bandera-coined nationalist slogan, âGlory to the Ukraineâ (âSlava Ukrainiâ). The memoâs MI6 author moreover recalled an in-person meeting he had with Bandera in London. The spy described him thus:
âConvincing and sincereâŚa professional underground worker with a terrorist background and ruthless notions about the rules of the game, acquired by hard experience, along with a thorough knowledge of the Ukrainian peopleâŚa bandit type if you like, with a burning patriotism which provides an ethical background and a justification for his banditry.â
The MI6 operative cheerfully added that genocidal mass murderer Bandera was âno better and no worse than others of his kind I have had dealings with in the past,â and âgenuinely grateful for the help given to himâ by British intelligence, âbut at the same time is certainly trying to get all he can out of it.â The CIA begged to differ however, commissioning a study of London and Washingtonâs conflicting positions on the âUkrainian undergroundâ and Bandera, and how to resolve this divergence.
Political overtones
An ensuing appraisal repeatedly declared Bandera and OUN-B to be âcompletely unacceptableâ to the CIA, âboth from the political and the operational standpoints.â It proposed the Agency and MI6 take joint ownership of the UHVR and its anti-Soviet wrecking project in Ukraine, and âexchange political, operational and intelligence data resulting from these operations.â Meanwhile, the CIA would âtake independent action to neutralizeâ OUN-Bâs âpresent leadershipâ, including Bandera himself. Itâs unknown if this was pitched to MI6, although Londonâs steadfast opposition was inevitable.
The âBritish positionâ, as described in the study, was Banderaâs âimportanceâ had been serially âunderestimated by the Americans, as a rallying symbol in the Ukraine, as leader of a large emigre group [and] as a leader favored by the homeland headquarters.â This didnât tally with the reality on-the-ground as detected by the CIA, but MI6 had a vested interest in maintaining the fascist demagogue as an agent. An April 1951 Agency memo summarizing recent âtalksâ with British intelligence âon operations against the USSRâ noted:
â[MI6 is] seeking progressively to assume control of Banderaâs linesâŚ[MI6 argues] Banderaâs name still carried considerable weight in the UkraineâŚ[and OUN-B is] the strongest Ukrainian organization abroad, is deemed competent to train party cadres, [and] build a morally and politically healthy organization.â
By contrast, the CIA observed Soviet authorities âhad been successful to a remarkable degree in transforming the mentality of the younger generationâ of Ukrainians, resulting in them vehemently rejecting Bandera and his brand of rabid nationalism. While the Agency therefore favoured âpolitical neutralization of Bandera as an individualâ, MI6 balked, as this âwould lead to a drying up of recruitsâ and âdisrupt British operations.â However, the declassified papertrail shows London eventually tired of their fascist asset.
In February 1954, a senior MI6 official who led liaison with OUN-B for two decades made a âfinal attempt to bring Bandera to reasonâ in London, due to the genocidaireâs refusal to reconcile and unite with opposing Ukrainian nationalist elements. The high-ranking British spook offered him âone last chanceâ to make amends with ĂŠmigrĂŠ leaders. Bandera ârefused this suggestion with arrogant finality,â thus making âthe breakâ between Bandera and MI6 âcomplete.â
All British intelligence-run Ukrainian agents who remained loyal to Bandera were duly jettisoned. MI6 informed other nationalist leaders the agency âwould not resumeâ its relationship with him âunder any circumstances.â Bandera remained exiled in Munich, and continued to run belligerent cloak-and-dagger operations against the Soviet Union, while ratcheting up his anti-Western rhetoric. The CIA and MI6 viewed these activities as a significant problem, with no obvious solution.
As CIA records of a January 1955 âjoint US-UK conferenceâ put it, despite the âunanimous desireâ of British and American intelligence to ââquietâ Bandera,â it was equally vital the KGB was ânot allowed to kidnap or kill him.â This could make Bandera âa martyrâ among Ukrainian ultranationalists, a prospect to be avoided if at all possible. Hence, London and Washington kept him alive and well, while permitting West Germanyâs BND to run him as an agent. Their old friend Gerhard von Mende was his handler.
West German authorities wished to punish Bandera and his in-country network for crimes including kidnapping, but von Mende consistently intervened to insulate his compatriot from prosecution. A July 1959 CIA report noted the BNDâs use of Bandera was such a âclosely heldâ secret within the agency, it wasnât even formally cleared with the West German government, âdue to political overtones.â Despite this omertĂ , the BND moved to secure Bandera a US visa.
It was hoped he would connect with Ukrainian emigres stateside, while ingratiating himself with the CIA and State Department. Per an October 5th 1959 Agency memo, the BND believed âit should be a simple matterâ for the CIA âto influence the issuing of a visaâ for Bandera, as âmany less desirable and less âexploitableâ individualsâ had already visited the country via Agency assistance. A formal request was resultantly submitted to Washington. Just 10 days later though, the KGB assassinated Bandera in Munich.
Despite their mutual wish Bandera not be âmartyredâ by Soviet intelligence, it is likely the CIA and MI6 breathed a collective sigh of relief upon news of his death. The OUN-B and UPA founderâs destabilising, disruptive influence within the Ukrainian anti-Communist underground was a significant impediment to Anglo-American spying agencies implementing a far grander plan than any they had hitherto tried. Namely, fomenting all-out war against the Soviet Union, using Ukrainians as footsoldiers.
This is the first instalment of a two-part investigation. Stay tuned.
Kit Klarenberg is an investigative journalist exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions.