USAID (United States Agency for International Development), principally in charge of implementing regime changes globally under the guise of financial assistance and foreign aid is currently under fire from President Donald Trump and Billionaire Elon Musk who also heads Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in the present US administration. Musk referred to USAID as a “criminal organization” and declared “time for it to die” has arrived, in a series of critical tweets on X, a platform he owns.
Elon Musk also added that the organisation was involved in “rogue CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) work” and “internet censorship.” Interestingly, USAID’s official website went offline yesterday, contributing to rumors about its uncertain future.
“It’s been run by a bunch of radical lunatics and we’re getting them out,” Trump expressed earlier, publicly slamming the agency. According to media reports, its head of security, John Voorhees and his deputy, Brian McGill were placed on leave after refusing DOGE employees access to secure areas due to alleged lack of security clearances.
Meanwhile, the major developments have brought Victoria “Toria” Nuland, former member of the US Foreign Service, who had the highest rank of career ambassador and served as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs from 2021 to 2024, into the limelight. She was also CEO of the Washington DC (District of Columbia)-based Center for a New American Security (CNAS), a prominent think-tank founded in 2007 by the Democrartic Party, from January 2018 until early 2019.
Nuland frequently held key positions and managed diplomatic relations with fifty countries in Europe and Eurasia along with NATO, the European Union and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs. The standout feature of her illustrious career, though, has been her involvement in multiple US-backed operations, including in Bangladesh and Ukraine.
Architect of colour revolution in Ukraine
According to the official account of events in Kiev, Ukraine, in late 2013 and early 2014, the ‘peaceful and spontaneous’ Euromaidan “revolution” by Ukrainians threw out corrupt President Viktor Yanukovych who was elected in 2010 and forced him to flee. However, the truth was always stranger than fiction and pointed to fascinating facts regarding geopolitics, secret regime-change operations and 70 years of US interference in the country.
Oddly, both US Senator John McCain and US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland regularly appeared in political demonstrations. Yanukovych, despite his shortcomings as a leader and as a person, had been legitimately elected in a vote that was deemed to be reasonably free and fair by foreign observers. Washington and its friends in the European Union, however, did not accept that and nor did the domestic opposition.
Western officials, instead, made it apparent that they endorsed the attempts to pressure Yanukovych to change his mind and accept the EU deal or, if he refused, to oust him before the end of his term. The Senate Armed Services Committee’s leading Republican Senator John McCain, traveled to Kiev to express support for the Euromaidan activists. After dining with opposition leaders, including members of the ultra-right Svoboda Party, he appeared on stage at a large-scale demonstration in Maidan Square and stood with Oleg Tyagnibok (leader of Svoboda Party) there.
However, in contrast to the conduct of Victoria Nuland, McCain’s actions were a model of diplomatic moderation. Even those who tried to ignore the facts witnessed the glaring craftiness of the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy, what one could call “the mess that Victoria Nuland made.”
Nuland and her colleagues grew increasingly blatant in their support of the anti-Yanukovych rallies as Ukraine’s political situation deteriorated. On 13th December 2013, she told the US-Ukraine Foundation that she had been to the nation three times in the weeks after the protests commenced. On 5th December, she visited Maidan and gave cookies to protesters while showing solidarity with their cause.
Victoria Nuland was the “mastermind” behind the 22nd February 2014, “regime change” in Ukraine. She planned to topple Yanukovych’s democratically elected government while claiming that the coup was rather a victory for “freedom.” She was a driving force behind the uprising and assisted in selecting the post-revolution authorities. The hideous nature of the events, especially the crucial role played by neo-Nazis and other ultra-nationalists from the Right Sector was methodically sanitized to sell the neocon(servatism)-driven operation to domestic and world audiences. They had to don white hats, not brown shirts, for the US-sponsored propaganda campaign to succeed.
On the other hand, the pliant mainstream media in the West, particularly “The New York Times” and “The Washington Post,” distorted their reporting in an array of ways to keep from informing their readers that the new government in Kiev was influenced by and reliant on neo-Nazi fighters and Ukrainian ultra-nationalists who desired a pure-blood Ukraine free of ethnic Russians. Anyone who voiced this unpleasant truth was considered a “stooge of Moscow,” and any reference to that vile fact was considered “Russian propaganda.”
However, the media later acknowledged the intrinsic part played by neo-Nazis and other ultra-nationalists in fighting ethnic Russian insurgents in the east. They also admitted that Islamic extremists joined these far-right factions. Notably, Nuland was unable to resist the need to implement a “regime change” that she could assert as her own.
US conspiracy in Ukraine and a shocking phone conversation
The Obama administration’s level of political meddling in Ukraine was astounding. A phone conversation between Nuland and US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffey Pyatt, in which they detailed their choices for particular persons in a post-Yanukovych government, was intercepted by Russian intelligence and presented to the world media. Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who was elected prime minister after Yanukovych was overthrown, was one of the US-favored alternatives. Nuland passionately declared over the phone that “Yats is the guy” who will perform the best work.
Yanukovych was still the legitimate president of Ukraine when Nuland and Pyatt were involved in such preparation. The diplomatic representatives of a foreign nation, one that frequently highlights the need of respecting democratic procedures and sovereignty of other states, was plotting to remove an elected government and install leaders who would be acceptable to the United States. Washington’s actions amounted to micromanagement.
Pyatt also referred to the complicated relationship between Vitali Klitschko, Oleh Tyahnybok and Yatsenyuk, the three main opposition leaders. He and Nuland shared the desire to exclude Klitschko and Tyahnybok from an interim administration. They wanted him to wait and run for office on a longer-term basis in the latter case, while in the former they were concerned about his radical affiliations. “I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary,” she conveyed and stated that he needed “Klitsch and Tyanhybok on the outside.”
The two diplomats were also prepared to intensify the already substantial engagement of the super power in the political unrest in Ukraine. “We want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing (the political transition),” Pyatt stated. Vice President Joe Biden was Nuland’s preferred choice for the position. According to Nuland, who was in close communication with his national security adviser, she informed him that “probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the details to stick. So, Biden’s willing.”
The mission for the New American Century was co-founded in 1998 by her husband, Robert Kagan, an arch-neocon, to advocate for “regime change” in Iraq. President George W. Bush’s invasion of the country in 2003 accomplished the mission. Similar to Nuland in Ukraine, Kagan and his fellow neocons believed they could easily invade Iraq, overthrow Saddam Hussein, and install a client of their liking. Ahmed Chalabi was supposed to be “the guy” there. However, they overlooked the hard realities, including the divisions between Sunnis and Shiites brought to light by the invasion and occupation by the United States.
Nuland and her liberal-interventionist and neocon colleagues saw an opportunity to challenge Russian President Vladmir Putin in Ukraine by promoting violent protests to topple President Yanukovych, who was favorable to Russia, and install a new government that was antagonistic to Moscow. The conspiracy was described in a 26th September 2013, Post op-ed by Carl Gershman, the neocon head of the National Endowment for Democracy, which is supported by US taxpayers. Putin “may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself,” according to Gershman, who termed Ukraine as “the biggest prize” and a crucial first step in overthrowing him.
Nuland, for her part, handed out cookies (or sandwiches) to anti-Yanukovych protesters in Maidan Square, reminded Ukrainian business leaders that the United States had spent $5 billion on their “European aspirations,” yelled “f**k the EU” for its less assertive stance and her wish to involve United Nations instead, and spoke with US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt about the names of Ukraine’s future leaders. On 20th February 2014, Nuland received her big break when a mysterious sniper, who appeared to be operating from a building under the control of the Right Sector, shot and killed demonstrators and police, aggravating the situation.
Yanukovych agreed to a European-guaranteed plan on 21st February in a last-ditch effort to prevent more turmoil. The proposal called for early elections to remove him from office and accepted diminished powers. That was insufficient, however, as on 22nd February, neo-Nazi militias and the Right Sector led anti-Yanukovych forces to take control of government buildings, forcing him and several of his staff to escape for their lives. The last route to “regime change” was obvious, with armed thugs roving the halls of authority.
Nuland and European officials orchestrated an unlawful process to remove Yanukovych from office and proclaimed the new regime “legitimate,” rather than attempting to preserve the deal from 21st February as Yatsenyuk, Nuland’s “guy” was appointed prime minister. The upheaval that her “regime change” triggered turned Ukraine into a financial black hole, even if she succeeded in imposing her hand-picked client and he did supervise a US-demanded “neo-liberal” economic plan that cut pensions, heating assistance and other social programs.
US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, who served from 2012 to 2014, posed the question, “Did Americans meddle in the internal affairs of Ukraine?” in a 2004 WaPo opinion piece and then replied “Yes” is response. In its 2015 annual report, the infamous billionaire Geroger Soros and his International Renaissance Foundation (IRF) acknowledged that since 1990, they have invested over $180 million in Ukraine. The US taxpayer-funded National Endowment of Democracy (NED) is an organization that specializes in “regime change.”
Soros and other non-governmental organizations sparked the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine in 2004. The election was essentially won by a pro-Russian individual. As a result, protesters called for a new election. A month later, the pro-US candidate received 52% of the vote and won the fresh election in a typical America-style democracy. Yanukovych, the 2004 election loser won handily when he ran again in 2010 which ended in “Euromaiden.”
Soros, his NED and other NGOs enraged several common citizens in Kyiv in 2013. Subsequently, Neo-Nazi thugs used metal, chains, firebombs, firearms, and grenades to attack the police in an act of provocation. History revealed that the CIA collaborated with ultra-nationalists and Neo-Nazis in Ukraine for decades, beginning immediately following World War II.
Victoria Nuland laid the ground for Russia-Ukraine War
Nuland has been one of the principal architects of the Biden administration’s Russia policy. She made no secret of her support for Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and had been one of the strongest edorses for NATO’s (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) expansion and US support for Ukraine. She was the US NATO ambassador in Brussels during George W Bush’s second term after she was selected as Vice President Dick Cheney’s Principal Deputy National Security Advisor during the first two years of the Iraq War.
According to reports, Nuland supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq during her two years as Vice President Dick Cheney’s adviser from 2003 to 2005. She favored Ukraine’s inclusion in the alliance. At the time, she suggested that the Ukrainian government start an information campaign to “dispel the image of NATO as a four-letter word.” She is reportedly a lobbyist for the nation’s top gun manufacturers as well. During her tenure at NATO from 2005 to 2008, she organized international backing for the American role in Afghanistan.
She pushed partners to give Ukraine and Georgia Membership Action Plans (MAPs) during the 2008 Bucharest summit while acting as the US representative at NATO. When the French and German governments objected to that notion, she was part of the blunder wherein the alliance pledged that Georgia and Ukraine would eventually join NATO.
The commitment made at Bucharest set the stage for the subsequent hostilities between Russia and Ukraine and played a role in the war that broke out between Russia and Georgia in August of that year. According to observers, Nuland’s participation in the Washington-Moscow talks has further hampered efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict because of her anti-Russian views and her outspoken condemnation of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Robert M Gates, the former secretary of defense under both Bush and Obama, indicated in his 2014 memoir, “Duty,” that “trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching.” He came to the conclusion that the proposal was an instance of “carelessly disregarding what the Russians regarded as their own vital national interests.” Russia considered the Ukraine situation to be an unacceptable provocation.
The United States and its NATO allies then placed economic sanctions on Russia when President Putin retaliated by annexing the strategically important Crimea peninsula. Washington, however, was unwilling to back down. The Biden and Trump administrations, on the other hand, encouraged the allies to include Ukraine in NATO war games, authorized joint military drills between Ukrainian and American soldiers, and poured weaponry into the country.
Moscow’s restrain came to an end in 2021 as it demanded security assurances, including a reduction in the number of military personnel now stationed in NATO’s eastern countries. The demands were unambiguous and unyielding in regards to Ukraine: NATO troops and weaponry would never be stationed on Ukrainian territory and Kyiv would never be invited to join the group. President Putin began his catastrophic, full-scale war when the West failed to deliver those assurances. Seeds sowed by Nuland eventually sprouted into the destruction brought about by the war.
In 2023, Russia warned that the United States was encouraging Ukraine to renew the dispute by supporting attacks on Crimea. It added that Washington was now directly involved in the battle because “crazy people (some US officials)” had aspirations of defeating the former. Moscow was reacting to remarks made by Nuland, who stated that Washington supports Ukrainian attacks on military targets on the peninsula and that the United States believes that Crimea, which Russia took from Ukraine in 2014, should be demilitarized at the very least.
Maria Zakharova, spokeswoman for the Russian foreign ministry, stated, “Now the American warmongers have gone even further: They incite the Kyiv regime to further escalate the war. They supply weapons in huge quantities, provide intelligence and participate directly in the planning of combat operations.”
Victoria Nuland and recent chaos in Bangladesh
Imran Khan, the former prime minister of Pakistan, made derogatory comments about Victoria Nuland, back in 2021. She charged her of playing a crucial part in a plot by the Biden administration to overthrow his government. He lost a no-confidence motion in the parliament within weeks afterward, ending his tenure as prime minister. He has since been making desperate attempts to regain power by working directly with Pakistan’s powerful military establishment and by leveraging his close ties to terrorist groups like the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).
More importantly, Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in 2022 accused the United States of bringing her down. She highlighted that the US ousted her from office specifically because she refused to provide the country with military facilities in an area that is strategically important to its “Indo-Pacific Strategy” to contain China. She has been making the same statements in past years.
Months before to her departure, she reported a “white man’s” conspiracy to create a new “Christian country” out of Bangladesh and Myanmar and indicated that “conspiracies” were being hatched to overthrow her administration. “If I allowed a certain country to build an airbase in Bangladesh, then I would have had no problem,” she voiced.
Her allegations were further supported by the fact that Bangladesh had postponed signing two military pacts that the Western nation had pushed hard since 2022, through none other than Victoria Nuland. The General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA), one of the draft agreements, would obligate Bangladesh to work more closely with Washington on military-to-military matters. It was obvious that Hasina’s administration was not eager to sign it. She did not allow the US to establish military installations on Saint Martin Island. She even desired to be a member of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).
Following a one-year break due to the Corona pandemic, Dhaka hosted the 8th US-Bangladesh Partnership Dialogue on 20th March 2022. On 19th March, Victoria Nuland, landed in Dhaka and took part in the discussion. Masud Bin Momen, the Foreign Secretary, led the Bangladeshi team. The main reason the delegates convened was to build a “robust relationship.” The inclusion of Bangladesh in the current strategic calculations of US was unexpected. Previously, it did not, instead designating Bangladesh as an undeveloped nation like Niger.
There were two phases to the conversation. Bangladesh criticized the United States for its “unjustified” sanctions against the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) as Bangladesh was asked to help the US in the war between Russia and Ukraine. The second stage of the dialogue began with the main discussion aimed at bridging the gaps in the two-way relationship. Earlier, US President Joe Biden remarked he believed the relationship between Dhaka and Washington would last for the next 50 years and beyond.
“Our defense cooperation is stronger than ever,” the US president wrote in a letter to Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, adding that the Bangladesh Coast Guard and Navy are important partners in maintaining an open and free Indo-Pacific region and helping to combat human and illegal drug trafficking in the region. “Bangladesh and the US will work together to protect democracy and human rights at a time when Russia is invading Ukraine in the changed world situation and international law and human rights are under threat,” Victoria Nuland conveyed.
The question of why the US was acting now and for what reasons had been brought up by the recent increase in US attention to democracy and human rights in Bangladesh. However, the true purpose of their actions was soon exposed by the startling instability that began as quota protests promptly morphed into a regime change operation and subsequent anti-Hindu violence in Bangladesh.
Interestingly, the Chief Advisor of the Interim Government of Bangladesh, Muhammad Yunus, since August 2024 after the collapse of Hasina’s government received the Congressional Gold Medal in 2010 in addition to the United States Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009. He also has profound connections to the Biden administration. An explosive article in “The Sunday Guardian” later confirmed that the United States was involved in Sheikh Hasina’s removal.
Victoria Nuland’s policy of sanctions against India
It was almost impossible for an Indian national to get a visa to enter the United States during the Biden administration. An Indian citizen had to wait two or three years to obtain a visa to enter the country, whereas a Communist Chinese citizen can do so in two or three days. According to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, this was the result of staff cutbacks brought on by the Covid-19 pandemic. According to those familiar with the actions in Foggy Bottom, however, Victoria Nuland accelerated the policy of denying visas to Indian individuals following her early-year visit to Delhi in 2022.
Unaccustomed to having nations outside the Atlanticist group reject her orders, she resented privately when South Block declined to abandon the S-400 contract and join the anti-Russian campaign she had long supported. The insiders disclosed that the commerce and investment between the two nations would have increased significantly more than it did if she had not proposed the chokehold on granting US visas to Indian nationals. Her retaliation turned into a kind of collective punishment for India’s failure to follow the Nuland way on the S-400 or Ukraine, a route that caused trade disruptions, starvation, unrest and the imminence of the 1930s Great Depression-like recurrence.
It became a hard challenge for friends and family to attend weddings and visitors who wished to visit the United States were prevented. People-to-people interaction between the two world’s major democracies was being dismantled in a number of ways, despite the fact that US visas were as easy to obtain in Beijing or Shanghai as purchasing an ice cream cone. Attempting to deceive the Indian populace with extravagant displays of “utterly butterly” adulation had long been a diplomatic mainstay on the international scene.
Antony Blinken employed the same tactic a few days prior to conceal the truth about his department’s harsh visa policy against India, which was intended to penalize the Indian populace for their government’s refusal to follow Nuland’s directive in the manner that non-Atlanticist nations were expected to. As a result, loved ones had become ill and passed away in the United States without having the opportunity to bid goodbye to their Indian friends and relatives.
President Biden in 2022 also charged that, in contrast to other Quad members Japan and Australia, India was “somewhat shaky” in its support for sanctions against Russia. Ironically, he sought backing from New Delhi, yet it was he who made it feasible for the Pakistani military, which has long been planning to join the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in a joint operation against India, to receive replacement parts worth about $500 million.
In simple terms, despite being revered as a recognized foreign policy voice, Victoria Nuland has increasingly been perceived as a deep state asset of the United States and its agencies to plant favorable administrations in the nation under the pretense of revolution and democracy. Her dubious role and previous controversies have once again come to the public’s attention as USAID has been thrust into the spotlight for its abominable past, which include attempts to start a color revolution in India to dispose off Prime Minister Narendra Modi, together with allies including George Soros.
