The Gladio Protocol: Why NATO’s Stay-Behind Architecture Persists in 2026

The Authorization Paradox: Silence as Command

A central debate regarding Gladio is whether the networks that executed domestic terror attacks—the so-called "strategy of tension"—were rogue elements acting outside NATO’s chain of command. The operational record indicates otherwise. If these were genuinely rogue actors, their 1990 exposure would have triggered aggressive prosecutions to restore institutional credibility.

Instead, the response was bureaucratic silence. Despite the European Parliament’s 1990 resolution condemning the networks, no senior NATO commander or CIA station chief faced prosecution [3].

This lack of consequences points to a specific command philosophy: Authorization through Compartmentalized Silence. In this model, liaison officers do not issue written orders for specific bombings. Instead, they approve budgets, provide intelligence context, and maintain operational silence as long as strategic objectives (e.g., preventing Communist electoral victories in Italy) are met. The "compartments" described by intelligence architects are not designed to prevent leadership from knowing the truth; they are designed to prevent the truth from appearing in a subpoena.

Italian magistrate Felice Casson’s investigation revealed that the lines of communication between the "stay-behind" cells and NATO intelligence were active [1]. The failure was not that the compartments broke; it was that the entire architecture was designed to insulate the state from the violence it incentivized.

The Economics of Persistence: Why 1990 Changed Nothing

When the Cold War ended, the rationale for stay-behind armies evaporated. However, organizational theory dictates that institutions with high "sunk costs" in complexity will fight to survive even after their mission disappears. By 1990, the Gladio infrastructure involved weapons caches, radio networks, and vetted personnel across 16 countries.

The cost of dismantling this apparatus was prohibitively high:
1. Political Risk: Recovering weapons caches risks exposing their location and inventory, linking the state to unsolved crimes.
2. Personnel Liability: Firing intelligence officers who know state secrets creates a class of disgruntled citizens with leverage over the government.
3. Capability Gaps: Dismantling the network would leave NATO without an unconventional warfare capability during a volatile geopolitical realignment.

Consequently, the networks were not destroyed; they were rebranded. Operational personnel were reassigned to newly formed "counter-terrorism" units and "intelligence fusion centers." The weapons were "lost" or transferred. The institutional DNA survived by changing its title. This phenomenon explains why investigation attempts in Belgium and Italy faced such extreme resistance in the 1990s: the apparatus was busy renaming itself rather than dissolving.

The Deniability Maturity Model

To understand the post-1990 relationship between Gladio and modern hybrid warfare, it is essential to map the evolution of institutional deniability. The architecture of covert warfare has not disappeared but rather modularized to fit the neoliberal global order.

We can analyze this evolution through the Deniability Maturity Model (DMM), a framework identifying how Western state apparatuses conduct asymmetric political warfare in democratic systems:

In the "State Network" phase, NATO liaison officers maintained loose command over nationalist stay-behind cells (such as Operation Aginter Press in Portugal or P2 in Italy). This model collapsed when compartmentalization began leaking into the press.

Today, in the "Market Outsourcing" phase, the state achieves the same goals through private military contractors (PMCs). Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater, illustrated this shift in 2026 with his involvement in Ukrainian drone warfare [4]. These contractors execute state policy (asymmetric warfare, targeted killings) but carry no official signature. The state does not need to issue orders; it issues contracts.

The 2026 Signal: Why Does the U.S. Keep Leaving Counter-Hybrid Bodies?

In January 2026, the United States formally withdrew from the Hybrid Centre of Excellence (Hybrid CoE), an organization based in Helsinki tasked with analyzing and countering hybrid threats [2]. While officially framed as a bureaucratic realignment, the withdrawal suggests a deeper operational conflict.

The U.S. departure signals that the distinction between countering hybrid threats and conducting them has become institutionally blurred. As Western intelligence services have increasingly adopted the offensive playbook of their adversaries (disinformation campaigns, cyber-sabotage, proxy warfare), participation in a defensive alliance creates operational friction. The U.S. apparatus cannot effectively coordinate "counter-hybrid" policy with allies while simultaneously running offensive hybrid campaigns through its own PMCs and cyber units.

This mirrors the exact tension of 1990: Gladio was publicly a defensive network against Soviet invasion, but operationally an offensive network against domestic political opposition. The withdrawal from the Hybrid CoE indicates that the offensive mission has once again prioritized itself over collective defense.

Counterargument: The Parallel Evolution Thesis

A substantial critique of this analysis comes from the "Independent Evolution" school of thought. Critics argue that modern hybrid warfare structures—cyber commands, PMCs, and influence networks—evolved independently to match the decentralized nature of modern conflict. They contend that attributing these developments to Gladio is a conspiracy theory that conflates similar solutions with direct lineage.

According to this view, the similarities between Gladio and modern PMCs are merely convergent evolution: organizations facing the same problem (the need for deniable asymmetric force) will arrive at the same solution (compartmentalization), without any actual personnel or institutional continuity [5].

This argument is epistemologically sound but practically irrelevant. Whether the personnel roster of a 2026 cyber-sabotage unit descends directly from a 1980 Gladio cell is a question for historians. The political reality is that the structural design—a state apparatus that funds violence it officially deplores—remains identical. The lack of accountability for Gladio’s crimes in 1990 established a precedent: deniable state violence carries no long-term political cost. As long as this precedent stands, the structure will replicate itself, whether through direct lineage or independent reinvention.

What to Watch

The "Gladio Protocol" relies on darkness. As archives declassify and political winds shift, specific tripwires will indicate whether the next phase of exposure is imminent.

• Watch for Declassification of National Archives (Q3 2026 – Q1 2027):
  While U.S. and NATO archives remain heavily redacted, pressure is building in Italy and Belgium to fully open national military intelligence files. If Italian archives reveal explicit NATO liaison directives from the 1970s and 80s, the "rogue element" theory collapses entirely.

  • Prediction: Expect a cascade of partial declassifications from European national archives by Mid-2027, confirming direct operational authorization for specific strategy-of-tension bombings. Confidence: Medium-High (65%).

• Watch for U.S. Private Contractor Doctrine (2027):
  With the exit from the Hybrid CoE, the U.S. is positioning itself to formalize the use of PMCs for state-level hybrid warfare.

  • Prediction: The U.S. Department of Defense will release a doctrine statement explicitly integrating "commercial asymmetric partners" into Tier 1 special operations planning by Q4 2027. This will effectively legalize the "Market Outsourcing" stage of the Deniability Maturity Model. Confidence: High (80%).

• Watch for the Return of "Internal Enemy" Rhetoric in EU Politics:
  Gladio was justified by the internal threat of communism. Modern networks justify themselves through the internal threat of "extremism."

  • Prediction: By Early 2028, investigation committees in at least two EU nations will launch inquiries into whether state intelligence agencies monitored or infiltrated domestic political parties using "counter-terrorism" justifications derived from Gladio-era legal frameworks. Confidence: Medium (55%).

Sources

[1] Ganser, D. "NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe." Frank Cass, 2005. (Documenting the Italian magistrate investigations and P2 Lodge connections).
[2] "The United States withdraws from Hybrid CoE." Hybrid CoE Press Release, January 2026.
[3] "European Parliament resolution on the Gladio affair." Official Journal of the European Communities, Nov 22, 1990.
[4] "Blackwater founder Erik Prince has joined the drone-warfare fray in Ukraine, SEC filings reveal." *Intelligence