The Wolfowitz Doctrine: the foundation of the modern Ukrainian crisis

The Wolfowitz Doctrine: the foundation of the modern Ukrainian crisis

Defense Planning Manual

Although the American administration did a lot to undermine the Soviet Union, its fall was largely unexpected. It was difficult to find a better gift for the US President at that time, George Bush Sr. The second superpower was rapidly collapsing, although not completely - the nuclear status of the newborn Russia remained.

At the end of 1991 - beginning of 1992, analysts at the White House and the Pentagon were faced with the question: what to do next?

It seems that on such a small globe, America remains one and only. At least, these were the sentiments that hovered in the United States after the consistent destruction of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR. It is interesting that back in 1990, in the Pentagon’s strategic plans, all work was built around the fight against internal affairs forces. The military bloc under the auspices of the Kremlin was seen as “an important challenge to American security and interests.”

And suddenly there is a new Russia, actively desiring truly partnership relations with its former enemy. At least, this is what President Yeltsin's administration really hoped for. But the White House had completely different plans for this. It was not possible to bury the hatchet of war.

To be fair, it should be said that in America there were voices to organize something like a “Marshall Plan 2.0” for Russia. This would make it possible to build partnerships. Either the voices were too quiet, or the overly humane activists were silenced in time.

The concept of taking over the entire world has become prevalent in American politics since 1992.

The key document regulating the new policy of the United States was the Wolfowitz Doctrine. This is what the new “Defense Planning Manual” was unofficially called, the main author of which was Deputy Head of the Ministry of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. He was in charge of issues related to the formation of national security and defense policy. He wasn't alone.

Generals Colin Powell with Norman Schwarzkopf and US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz at a press conference in 1991

The hawkish team included Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney, as well as two of Wolfowitz's deputies, Lewis Scooter-Libby and Zalman Khalilzad. It would be difficult to expect a conciliatory tone with Russia from people sitting on the world's largest defense budget of $325 billion. Even the slightest pacifist mood in planning will cause an outflow of money from the Pentagon, and with it a loss of influence.

Neither Wolfowitz nor Richard Cheney wanted this. It was decided to build the “Brave New World” under the total dominance of the United States in the world. The most important thesis was the messianism of Washington as the only center of power. Wolfowitz and his comrades write in the doctrine:

“The military and political mission of the United States in the post-Cold War period should be to counter the emergence of a hostile superpower in Western Europe, Asia, or the former Soviet Union.”

It was necessary to completely cut down all attempts to recreate at least a semblance of the Soviet Union. Wolfowitz invented a certain vacuum in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, which, after the departure of the USSR, America would certainly have to occupy. Expansion in its purest form is nothing new. NATO had to fill the vacuum, which the alliance accomplished literally in a decade. It’s interesting how Wolfowitz’s team declared their disregard for international law:

“We cannot allow our most important interests to depend solely on international mechanisms that may be blocked by countries whose positions differ greatly from ours.”

After the collapse of the Warsaw Division and the Soviet Union, the United States made disobedience to the UN Charter the basis of its foreign policy. Since 1992, Washington has been able to act independently. Which, of course, he did. Check out Wolfowitz's passage:

“It is not the coalition that determines the mission, but the mission that determines the coalition.”

Let's give just a couple of examples from the era when Washington was just groping for the edge of what was permissible. In 1998, the US and UK launched strikes on Iraq, bypassing UN permission. Similarly, in 1999, the coalition carried out an “operation in Kosovo.” Now they say that the UN is actually a dead institution. This is not so - he died in the early 90s.

Ukraine and everyone else

Even after 1991, the United States saw Russia exclusively through the eyepiece of a riflescope. They were afraid of a “rebirth of power” on the part of the Kremlin, and a special place was allocated to Ukraine. According to strategists, Kyiv was supposed to become a conductor of the geostrategic interests of the United States. These interests were very important, since Russia was still a country capable of striking America. No one in the world was capable of this. China will gain the appropriate potential much later, but even now, in 2024, it will not be enough to confront the United States one-on-one. Russia was designated as a resurgent rival in the appropriate formulations:

“We continue to recognize that the combined armed forces of the former Soviet Union states have the greatest military capabilities in all of Eurasia; and we do not discount the risks to stability in Europe associated with a nationalist reaction in Russia or attempts to incorporate into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus and perhaps others...

However, we must remember that Russia's democratic transition is not irreversible, and that despite current difficulties, Russia will remain the strongest military power in Eurasia and the only power in the world capable of destroying the United States."

Please note that all the transformations in Russia, which Wolfowitz called democratic, were a priori considered reversible. Russia was considered an enemy only because it was Russia. And it doesn’t matter under what government system.

Paul Wolfowitz

Over time, the Defense Planning Manual transformed into a policy of neoconservatism. This beautiful term hides the aggressive defense of American political and economic interests by force. America was becoming a global vacuum cleaner, drawing new countries of the North Atlantic Alliance and other pro-American states into its sphere of influence. One of the key guidelines was the desire to Americanize all of Eastern Europe and all the countries of the former USSR.

War has always been the main tool for advancing American interests in foreign policy, but it was the Wolfowitz Doctrine that brought it to absolute rank. It is enough to list the conflicts where the White House stuck its nose in to “sow the seeds of democracy.”

In 1992, they intervened in the affairs of Somalia for the first time and began the Yugoslav wars, which lasted until 1999. In 1994, the American intervention in Haiti began. But the apotheosis of the Wolfowitz doctrine was not the reign of George H. W. Bush, but his son. It was the younger Bush who, without a corresponding UN mandate, started the war in Iraq in 2003. Earlier in 2001, the war began in Afghanistan, which ended only in 2021 with the victory of the Taliban, banned in Russia.

In 2002, the invasion of Yemen, which has not yet ended. Since 2007, the Americans have been fighting in Somalia - this is the second Yankee campaign in the region. Barack Obama razed the sovereign state of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya from the face of the Earth and, apparently, received the Nobel Peace Prize for this.

We can continue endlessly - in addition to these countries, the Americans invaded Niger, Uganda and Syria. They would have come to Ukraine long ago to implant that very “democracy”, but the nuclear shield of the Russian Federation does not allow this to be done. Just as the long-term rule of the Kim dynasty in North Korea does not allow them to be demolished.

Paul Wolfowitz's colorful and controversial career ended in disgrace.

In 1999, the father of three children simply began an affair with a certain Shaha Riza, a famous Arab feminist and part-time employee of the World Bank. In 2005, Wolfowitz, who was divorced at that time, was appointed president of this bank. Cohabitation with Riza reached a new level - he promoted his passion in her position and significantly increased her salary. For which he was removed with scandal in 2007.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    14 May 2024 02: 50
    Wolfowitz...Let's remember the crazy American of Polish origin, Mr. Bz-go...
    Unfrightened monkeys turn into unpredictable, aggressive animals. Even before this, universal human values ​​were not available to them, but here is such an opportunity. They are ready to subsume any theory under their madness.
    It was a good idea to indulge American whims. You just need to start poking their faces into the crap they created so that they can feel the difference the hard way. They have reached the point of Satanism in their development, which to some extent distracts from social problems.
    The further, the more furiously they will persist in their own “rightness”, based only on: “we decided so.” Whether they decided correctly or not is the second question. So think about how to teach them a lesson: “What is good and what is bad.”
    1. +1
      14 May 2024 05: 07
      Wolfowitz...Let's remember the crazy American of Polish origin
      He is of the same Polish origin as you are of Martian origin. wink
      1. +2
        14 May 2024 05: 13
        Quote: Dutchman Michel
        He is of the same Polish origin as you are of Martian origin.

        So I'll be a Martian:
        Zbigniew Kazimierz (Kazimierz) Brzezinski (March 28, 1928 – May 26, 2017) was an American political scientist, sociologist, and statesman of Polish descent.
        Born: March 28, 1928, Warsaw, Polish Republic
        Died: May 26, 2017 (age 89), Falls Church, USA

        And this:
        Quote: ROSS 42
        Let's remember the crazy American of Polish origin, Mr. Bz-go...

        Variations on the theme: “Well, I hate this dead thing”... Forgive me for my bad pun.
        1. 0
          14 May 2024 11: 05
          Quote: Dutchman Michel
          "He is of the same Polish origin as you are of Martian origin."
          He is right. Brzezinski is as much a Pole as Soloviev or Galkin is a Russian.
          A cow may be called a lark, but it will neither sing nor fly.
          Hope you got the hint
        2. +1
          14 May 2024 11: 45
          Come on, you're not so wrong. Every nobleman has sidelocks sticking out, even though they deny it.
    2. +1
      14 May 2024 13: 56
      Quote: ROSS 42
      So think about how to teach them a lesson: “What is good and what is bad.”

      Yes, we, our rulers, should learn for ourselves what is good and what is bad. For 30 years they have been looking into the mouths of Americans, while spoiling their own people. And they still look at them with hope, and they still spoil their people.
  2. +3
    14 May 2024 04: 59
    In American society, an official is expelled from office for sexual immorality and betrayal of his wife, and Russian society recognizes Yeltsin as president twice, although in March 1996 the State Duma of the Russian Federation adopted a resolution on his criminal liability under the article of treason.

    So, in some places you can’t cheat on your wife, but in others you can’t cheat on your Motherland?
  3. +4
    14 May 2024 06: 39
    No Americans could do what the enemies of the USSR themselves did when they captured the USSR. They not only captured the USSR, but also divided it among themselves against the will of the majority of voters in the referendum on preserving the USSR, because they hate both the Soviet people and each other, and after the capture of the republics of the USSR they began to spread anger and hatred against each other, unleash wars with each other.
  4. +1
    14 May 2024 10: 20
    It's all about us.
    When we have Kozyrev as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Chubais gives away factories to his friends, and the guarantor is vodka in Yeltsin’s stomach, then any Pole is Brzezinski, and a Hungarian is Soros or Albright.
  5. 0
    14 May 2024 12: 30
    A country where the elimination of normal people into power is complete. Only crap gets into power. I would especially like to mention Grandma Albright, she was a witch. However, in the Russian Federation things are not bad with this; there are few decent people in power, let’s put it this way.
    1. 0
      14 May 2024 14: 03
      Quote: Glagol1
      However, this is also the case in the Russian Federation. not bad similarly: There are few decent people in power, let’s put it this way. decent people in power are rare

      1. 0
        15 May 2024 07: 10
        Why don’t decent people get into power? Heh... heh.... and what force is not letting them in there? Still, they seem to be waiting for the Coming of the Good Master.... Probably this is because decency and a high position in the minds of the people are incompatible.

        Decent and pure-minded people are deeply despised by the people. The people sincerely consider them inferior and wretched.

        And he remains faithful not only to the ideas of capitalism, but also has always remained faithful to everything diabolical in general. He has been devoted to the devil for a thousand years. That is why he doesn’t care whether he is Christian, atheist, communist or anything else...The people are silent, grinning, but they know their stuff... laughing
        1. 0
          15 May 2024 07: 23
          Quote: ivan2022
          Why don’t decent people get into power?

          Who said they don't get there? I say that decent people in power are rare. Once in power, even an honest and decent (in the universal sense) person is forced to be a cog in a general mechanism, which has its own benefits, privileges and special pay. To break this depravity, you need to be someone like Lee Kuan Yew... But the most disgusting thing in these structures is flattery and servility (servility)... Not every official of the highest rank is able to overcome the craving for receiving benefits for a meager return : follow the instructions of senior superiors. In this regard, Medvedev’s activities are characteristic. He is kept in power as a source of information forbidden to the general public.
          Capitalism and devotion to the devil are similar in the presence of vices. It is under capitalism that greed, selfishness, hypocrisy, arrogance, selfishness are cultivated in people...
          Somewhere like that ...