Support Russia Insider - Go Ad-Free!

How Neocon Policies Win Support of Millions of Non-Neocons

Poorly informed Americans who proclaim their opposition to neo-cons nonetheless end up supporting their policies


This article originally appeared at The Blog Mire


I was recently involved in a discussion thread on a blogsite where the theme was Ukraine. The author of that blogsite, a man I greatly respect had, I felt, not really grasped the nature of the U.S.-backed putsch in February last year, arguing that the somewhat incoherent policy of the U.S. Government in the aftermath of the events of February 2014 made it highly doubtful that they had orchestrated events.

My response to that claim is threefold:

1. The taped phone call between Ms Victoria Nuland and Mr Geoffrey Pyatt, two weeks before the ousting of the government in Ukraine, shows incontrovertibly that the U.S. Government was involved, and at the highest level

2. U.S. Government policy before, during and after both the Iraq war and the bombing of Libya, demonstrates clearly that those in charge of its foreign policy are quite capable of helping to topple governments, only to have no clear idea of how to stabilise the country in the aftermath of their actions (why, one might even begin to think that destabilisation was their policy – wink, wink)

3. The theory underestimates just how much the U.S. Government has been involved in the aftermath of Nuland’s coup, for example with a good many visits from high ranking U.S. officials to post-coup Ukraine (notably one under cover of darkness and anonymity from John Brennan, the director of the CIA) which have been followed almost every time by a resumption in hostilities in the country

In one of the follow up pieces to that thread, the author of the blog made a couple of claims that I believe encapsulate how the neocons are able to do what they do and get away with it. The first was to assure his readers that he is not an interventionist and absolutely not a supporter of neocon nation-building, and I sincerely believe that this is indeed his position. But in the same paragraph he said he believed that U.S. policy, rather than sending lethal weapons to the government in Kiev (which is a neocon thing), should have been to “support the (new) Kiev government far more vigorously than we have done.”

Now there are a couple of what I believe to be major inconsistencies with this position. Firstly, is it really possible for the U.S. government to publicly and vigorously declare their support for the Ukrainian government without at some point finding themselves in a position where they end up arming that government? Just imagine if the Russians were ever to invade Ukraine (I mean imagine if it actually happened, as opposed to believing the spurious claims of General Philip Breedlove, Petro Poroshenko and the entirety of the Western mainstream media) what would a U.S. government, which had pledged vigorous support for the Kiev government actually do? They would of course find themselves with no choice but to back up their very public support with weapons and troops (of course they are already doing this to some extent, but the more vigorous their support for the Kiev government, the more vigorous would their supply of arms or troops need to be).

But that is somewhat of an aside as regards this article. My real concern here is to draw attention to the other inconsistency, which I think sheds some light upon how the neocons are able to carry out their schemes.

I mentioned Victoria Nuland above. Who is she? Well, she and her husband, Robert Kagan, co-founder of Project for the New American Century, are what might be described as the neo-con first couple; the neo-cons of neo-cons, totally and unashamedly committed to the Wolfowitz and Brzezinski doctrines of using American financial and military power to unilaterally police the globe and maintain US hegemony (“full spectrum dominance” in the words of Donald Rumsfeld).

But as mentioned above, she also happens to have been heavily involved in the change of government in Kiev last February (and is now apparently wanted by Macedonian Intelligence for conspiring to foment a revolution there as well). Not only did she visit Maidan Nezalezhnosti on a number of occasions to pledge US support, but together with the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, was taped plotting the overthrow of the elected government. In that call, two weeks prior to the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych, Nuland spoke of how they could “glue this thing” (clearly a reference to putting a new government together) whilst Pyatt talked about how they could “midwife this thing” (clearly a reference to how they could hurry things along).

So here we have an arch-neocon, plotting the overthrow of an elected government, and over here we have a well-intentioned guy who says he opposes neocon nation-building, but believes that the U.S. government ought to have offered more vigorous support for the Ukrainian government. The one put in place by the neocon Victoria Nuland that is.

You see the great irony? In criticizing the U.S. government for not vigorously and publicly supporting the post-Maidan government, all the author had done is to fall into the great neocon trap of calling for more support to be given to the very people that the neocons themselves installed. Thus it is entirely possible to be against neocon nation-building, whilst ending up supporting the very people the neocons, in their great scheme to establish U.S. hegemony, installed.

This is not uncommon and it seems that millions of people fall into the trap. So much so that I’m inclined to believe that the average wannabe neocon nation-builder probably has the following 7-point plan pinned to their walls to remind them how to achieve their aims:

  1. Pick a country which doesn’t have a government that is subservient to the U.S. Government
  2. Covertly fund and support opposition groups in that country over a number of months or even years
  3. Demonise the current leader to absurd levels, even if he has been democratically elected
  4. Organise his overthrow, portraying it as a “democratic uprising”
  5. Install a hand-picked puppet government in its place
  6. Demonise those who reject the new government as being rebels or terrorists
  7. Sit back and laugh your head off as those who say they are against necon nation-building call for their own government to do something (i.e. arms, special forces or troops on the ground)

The 7-point plan worked to a “T” in Ukraine, with millions of “non-neocons” across America and the West now believing that their governments ought to do more to support the government in Kiev — the one put there by the neocons, that is. No doubt the same model will be repeated in some other poor, unfortunate country — Kazakhstan? — before long. When it does, millions of others, who say they are against neocon nation-building, will once again be duped into supporting the coup government supported and installed by the neocons.

That’s how the neocons dupe the people and get away with their diabolical schemes. We are all neocons now, and if you listen very carefully, you can probably hear the sound of Victoria Nuland, Robert Kagan and their fellow neocon travellers cackling like crazy.


Support Russia Insider - Go Ad-Free!

Our commenting rules: You can say pretty much anything except the F word. If you are abusive, obscene, or a paid troll, we will ban you. Full statement from the Editor, Charles Bausman.