Victoria Nuland: Architect of Chaos

How One Diplomat's Interventionist Policies Destabilized Nations and Undermined Global Trust

The Cost of American Interventionism

Victoria Nuland’s career in U.S. foreign policy is not merely a story of diplomatic maneuvering—it is a case study in the convergence of neoconservative ideology, neoliberal economic coercion, and the selective enforcement of a "rules-based international order." Over three decades, her actions, from Ukraine to Iraq, Libya to South Asia, have exposed the contradictions of a foreign policy framework that prioritizes American hegemony under the veneer of democracy promotion. The consequences—geopolitical instability, eroded sovereignty, and humanitarian crises—reveal the staggering costs of interventionism.

The Ideological Framework: Neoconservatism, Neoliberalism, and the Rules-Based Order

Nuland’s career is rooted in the neoconservative movement, a worldview that emerged from Cold War-era intellectuals who advocated for unilateral U.S. military dominance and the use of regime change to reshape global politics. Central to this ideology is a Manichean belief in American moral exceptionalism, where military force is justified to combat perceived threats to "freedom" and "democracy" . Her husband, Robert Kagan, co-founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which explicitly called for regime change in Iraq and the expansion of NATO to cement U.S. primacy .

Neoconservatism dovetailed with neoliberal economic policies, which weaponized aid and international financial institutions to bind nations to Western economic systems. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID, organizations Nuland collaborated with, became tools to destabilize governments resisting U.S.-aligned reforms. These institutions framed structural adjustment programs, privatization, and austerity as prerequisites for "democracy," even as they deepened inequality and dependency .

The "rules-based international order," a term often invoked by U.S. diplomats, was selectively applied to legitimize interventions. While ostensibly promoting multilateralism, it served as a euphemism for sidelining institutions like the UN when they conflicted with U.S. interests—a dynamic epitomized by Nuland’s dismissal of EU mediation in Ukraine with a blunt “Fuck the EU” .

Ukraine: The Neocon Laboratory

Nuland’s role in the 2014 Maidan uprising exemplifies this ideological triad. As Assistant Secretary of State, she channeled $5 billion through USAID and the NED to fund opposition groups, train activists, and amplify anti-Yanukovych narratives—all under the guise of fostering “democratic institutions” . The leaked phone call with Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, where she handpicked Arseniy Yatsenyuk as Ukraine’s post-coup leader, laid bare the artifice of “local agency” .

The aftermath was catastrophic. The ouster of Yanukovych, a democratically elected leader, triggered Russia’s annexation of Crimea and a proxy war in Donbas that escalated into a full-scale invasion by 2022 . Far from promoting stability, Nuland’s policies entrenched Ukraine as a battleground for U.S.-Russian rivalry, displacing millions and fragmenting the nation. The $1 billion loan guarantee she negotiated in 2014, tied to IMF-mandated austerity, slashed pensions and social services, exacerbating public suffering .

Critically, the coup empowered ultranationalist factions like the Right Sector and Azov Battalion, whose neo-Nazi ties were whitewashed by Western media to sustain the narrative of a “pro-democracy” revolution . When these groups later turned on the U.S.-backed government in Kiev, the folly of aligning with extremist elements became undeniable .

Exporting Instability: The Global Playbook

Nuland’s tactics extended far beyond Ukraine. In Libya, she supported NATO’s 2011 bombing campaign under Hillary Clinton, which dismantled Muammar Gaddafi’s government under the pretense of “protecting civilians.” The result was a failed state rife with warlords, human trafficking, and a migrant crisis that destabilized Europe . In Syria, Nuland advocated arming rebels through CIA-run programs, funneling weapons from Libya to escalate a civil war that killed hundreds of thousands and fueled the rise of ISIS .

In South Asia, the U.S. pressured Pakistan’s Imran Khan for his neutrality on the Ukraine war, contributing to his 2022 ouster, while in Bangladesh, delayed military aid undercut Sheikh Hasina’s government amid rising unrest . Though direct evidence of Nuland’s involvement is sparse, these actions reflect a pattern of conditioning aid on political compliance, a hallmark of neoliberal interventionism.

The Neoliberal Mask: Aid as Coercion

Nuland’s tenure illustrates how humanitarian aid and development programs are weaponized to advance strategic goals. The $5 billion funneled into Ukraine via USAID was not neutral; it targeted groups aligned with U.S. interests, undermining organic civil society movements . Similarly, her 2023 push for “democratic global supply chains” in Ukraine’s reconstruction prioritized integrating the country into Western economic networks over addressing immediate humanitarian needs .

The World Bank estimates Ukraine’s reconstruction costs at $411 billion, yet U.S. investments focus on privatizing industries and securing energy corridors rather than rebuilding schools or hospitals . This mirrors Cold War-era Marshall Plan tactics, where aid served to counter Soviet influence while entrenching American corporate interests . When the Trump administration defunded USAID in 2025, Ukrainian media outlets reliant on U.S. subsidies collapsed overnight, exposing the fragility of dependency .

Consequences: Eroding Sovereignty, Fueling Chaos

The fallout from Nuland’s policies is global. In Ukraine, the war has triggered a food crisis by disrupting grain exports, impacting millions in the Global South . Sanctions on Russia have backfired, straining European economies and fracturing transatlantic unity . Meanwhile, the U.S. has squandered moral authority: German Chancellor Angela Merkel condemned Nuland’s “absolutely unacceptable” dismissal of EU diplomacy, while Russian officials likened her “Russophobia” to a self-defeating crusade .

Globally, the U.S. is increasingly seen as a “duplicitous, neo-imperialist threat”. Nations are forming alternative economic alliances to bypass U.S. hegemony, accelerating the decline of the dollar-dominated order . At home, the costs are staggering, over $2 trillion spent on post-9/11 wars, while infrastructure crumbles and healthcare languishes.

Conclusion

Victoria Nuland’s retirement in 2024 offers a moment to reckon with the failures of interventionism . Her legacy—war, displacement, and institutionalized hypocrisy, underscores the urgency of re-imagining U.S. foreign policy.

A humble approach would prioritize diplomacy over regime change, respect multilateral institutions without weaponizing them, and disentangle aid from neoliberal conditionalities. It would acknowledge that democracy cannot be imposed at gunpoint or through economic blackmail. As the world pivots toward multipolarity, the U.S. must choose: cling to the hubris of hegemony or embrace cooperation grounded in mutual respect.

The $5 billion spent on destabilizing Ukraine could have funded pandemic preparedness or green energy transitions. Instead, it bought chaos, a testament to the bankruptcy of neoconservative dogma. The path forward demands not smarter interventions, but an end to the interventionist era itself.