Washington’s “First Objective”
The world should take note that today, right now, Truth is the most
unwelcome presence in the Western world.
By Paul Craig Roberts
Address to the
Conference on the European/Russian Crisis, Delphi,
Greece, June 20-21, 2015
Roberts, formerly Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury
for Economic Policy, Associate Editor, Wall Street
Journal, Senior Research Fellow, Stanford University,
William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for
Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown
University, Washington, D.C.
June 20, 2015 "Information
Clearing House" -
The United States has pursued empire since
early in its history, but it was the Soviet collapse in 1991 that
enabled Washington to see the entire world as its oyster.
The collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in the rise of the
neoconservatives to power and influence in the US government. The
neoconservatives have interpreted the Soviet collapse as History’s
choice of “American democratic capitalism” as the New World Order.
Chosen by History as the exceptional and indispensable country,
Washington claims the right and the responsibility to impose its
hegemony on the world. Neoconservatives regard their agenda to be
too important to be constrained by domestic and international law or
by the interests of other countries. Indeed, as the Unipower,
Washington is required by the neoconservative doctrine to prevent
the rise of other countries that could constrain American power.
Paul Wolfowitz, a leading neoconservative, penned the Wolfowitz
Doctrine shortly after the Soviet collapse. This doctrine is the
basis of US foreign and military policy.
The doctrine states:
“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival,
either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere,
that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the
Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new
regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent
any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would,
under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”
Notice that Washington’s “first objective” is not peace, not
prosperity, not human rights, not democracy, not justice.
Washington’s “first objective” is world hegemony. Only the very
confident so blatantly reveal their agenda.
As a former member of the Cold War Committee on the Present Danger,
I can explain what Wolfowitz’s words mean. The “threat posed
formerly by the Soviet Union” was the ability of the Soviet Union to
block unilateral US action in some parts of the world. The Soviet
Union was a constraint on US unilateral action, not everywhere but
in some places. Any constraint on Washington is regarded as a
A “hostile power” is a country with an independent foreign policy,
such as the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa)
have proclaimed. Iran, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Argentina, Cuba,
and North Korea also proclaim an independent foreign policy.
This is too much independence for Washington to stomach. As Russian
President Vladimir Putin recently stated, “Washington doesn’t want
partners. Washington wants vassals.”
The Wolfowitz doctrine requires Washington to dispense with or
overthrow governments that do not acquiesce to Washington’s will. It
is the “first objective.”
The collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in Boris Yeltsin becoming
president of a dismembered Russia. Washington became accustomed to
Yeltsin’s compliance and absorbed itself in its Middle Eastern wars,
expecting Vladimir Putin to continue Russia’s vassalage.
However at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy, Putin
said: “I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable
but also impossible in today’s world.”
Putin went on to say:
“We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic
principles of international law, and independent legal norms are, as
a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal
system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United
States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is
visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational
policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is
happy about this?”
When Putin issued this fundamental challenge to US unipower,
Washington was preoccupied with its lack of success with its
invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Mission was not accomplished.
By 2014 it had come to Washington’s attention that while Washington
was blowing up weddings, funerals, village elders, and children’s
soccer games in the Middle East, Russia had achieved independence
from Washington’s control and presented itself as a formidable
challenge to Washington’s uni-power. Putin blocked Obama’s planned
invasion of Syria and bombing of Iran.
The unmistakable rise of Russia refocused Washington from the Middle
East to Russia’s vulnerabilities.
Ukraine, long a constituent part of Russia and subsequently the
Soviet Union, was split off from Russia in the wake of the Soviet
collapse by Washington’s maneuvering. In 2004 Washington had tried
to capture Ukraine in the Orange Revolution, which failed to deliver
Ukraine into Washington’s hands. Consequently, according to neocon
Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, Washington spent $5
billion over the following decade developing Ukrainian
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that could be called into the
streets of Kiev and in developing Ukrainian political leaders
willing to represent Washington’s interests.
Washington launched its coup in February 2014 with orchestrated
demonstrations that, with the addition of violence, resulted in the
overthrow and flight of the elected democratic government of Victor
Yanukovych. In other words, Washington destroyed democracy in a new
country with a coup before democracy could take root.
Ukrainian democracy meant nothing to Washington. Washington was
intent on seizing Ukraine in order to present Russia with a security
problem and also to justify sanctions against “Russian aggression”
in order to break up Russia’s growing economic and political
relationships with Europe. Washington feared that these
relationships could undermine Washington’s hold on Europe.
Sanctions are contrary to Europe’s interests. Nevertheless European
governments accommodated Washington’s agenda. The reason was
explained to me several decades ago by my Ph.D. dissertation
committee chairman who became Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security Affairs. I had the opportunity to ask him how
Washington managed to have foreign governments act in Washington’s
interest rather than in the interest of their own countries. He
said, “money.” I said, “you mean foreign aide?” He said, “no, we
give the politicians bags full of money. They belong to us. They
answer to us.”
Recently, the German journalist Udo Ulfkotte wrote a book, Bought
Journalists, in which he reported that every significant European
journalist functions as a CIA asset.
This does not surprise me. The same is the situation in the US.
As Europe is an appendage of Washington, a collection of vassal
states, Europe enables Washington’s pursuit of hegemony even to the
extent of being driven into conflict with Russia over a “crisis”
that is entirely a propaganda creation of Washington’s.
The media disguises the reality. During the Clinton regime, six
mega-media companies were permitted to acquire 90% of the US print,
TV, radio, and entertainment media, a concentration that destroyed
diversity and independence. Today the media throughout the Western
world serves as a Propaganda Ministry for Washington. The Western
media is Washington’s Ministry of Truth. Gerald Celente, the trends
forecaster, calls the Western media “presstitutes,” a combination of
In the US Putin and Russia are demonized around the clock. Every
broadcast alerts us to “the Russian threat.” Even Putin’s facial
expressions are psychologically analyzed. Putin is the New Hitler.
Putin has ambitions to recreate the Soviet empire. Putin invaded
Ukraine. Putin is going to invade the Baltic states and Poland.
Putin is a threat on the level of ebola and the Islamist State. US
Russian experts, such as Stephen Cohen, who state the facts are
dismissed as “Putin apologists.” Any and every one who takes
exception to the anti-Putin, anti-Russian propaganda is branded a
“Putin apologist,” just as 9/11 skeptics are dismissed as
“conspiracy theorists.” In the Western world, the few truth-tellers
are demonized along with Putin and Russia.
The world should take note that today, right now, Truth is the most
unwelcome presence in the Western world. No one wants to hear it in
Washington, London, Tokyo, or in any of the political capitals of
The majority of the American population has fallen for the
anti-Russian propaganda, just as they fell for “Saddam Hussein’s
weapons of mass destruction,” “Assad’s use of chemical weapons
against his own people,” Iranian nukes,” the endless lies about
Gaddafi, 9/11, shoe bombers, underwear bombers, shampoo and bottled
water bombers. There is always a new lie to keep the fear factor
working for Washington’s endless wars and police state measures that
enrich the rich and impoverish the poor.
The gullibility of the public has enabled Washington to establish
the foundation for a new Cold War or for a preemptive nuclear strike
on Russia. Some neoconservatives prefer the latter. They believe
nuclear war can be won, and they ask, “What is the purpose of
nuclear weapons if they cannot be used?”
China is the other rising power that the Wolfowitz Doctrine requires
to be constrained. Washington’s “pivot to Asia” creates new naval
and air bases to control China and perpetuate Washington’s hegemony
in the South China Sea.
We come to the bottom line. Washington’s position is not negotiable.
Washington has no interest in compromising with Russia or China.
Washington has no interest in any facts. Washington’s deal is this:
“You can be part of our world order as our vassals, but not
European governments and, of course, the lapdog UK government, are
complicit in this implicit declaration of war against Russia and
China. If it comes to war, Europeans will pay the ultimate price for
the treason of their leaders, such as Merkel, Cameron, and Hollande,
as Europe will cease to exist.
War with Russia and China is beyond Washington’s capability.
However, if the demonized “enemy” does not succumb to the pressure
and accept Washington’s leadership, war can be inevitable.
Washington has launched an attack. How does Washington back off?
Don’t expect any American regime to say, “we made a mistake. Let’s
work this out.” Every one of the announced candidates for the
American presidency is committed to American hegemony and war.
Washington believes Russia can be isolated from the West and that
this isolation will motivate those secularized and westernized
elements in Russia, who desire to be part of the West, into more
active opposition against Putin. The Saker calls these Russians
After two decades of Russia being infiltrated by Washington’s NGO
Fifth Columns, the Russian government has finally taken action to
regulate the hundreds of Western-financed NGOs inside Russia that
comprise Washington’ subversion of the Russian government. However,
Washington still hopes to use sanctions to cause enough disruption
of economic life within Russia to be able to send protesters into
the streets. Regime change, as in Ukraine, is one of Washington’s
tools. In China the US organized the Hong Kong “student” riots,
which Washington hopes will spread into China, and Washington
supports the independence of the Muslim population in the Chinese
province that borders Kazakhstan.
The problem with a government in the control of an ideology is that
ideology and not reason drives the action of the government. As the
majority of Western populations lack the interest to search for
independent explanations, the populations impose no constraint on
To understand Washington, go online and read the neoconservative
documents and position papers. You will see an agenda unconstrained
by law, by morality, by compassion, by common sense. You will see an
agenda of evil.
Who is Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State for the Ukrainian part
of the world? It is the neoconservative Victoria Nuland who
organized the Ukrainian coup, who put in office the new puppet
government, who is married to the even more extreme neoconservative,
Who is Obama’s National Security advisor? It is Susan Rice, a
Who is Obama’s Ambassador to the UN? It is Samantha Power, a
Now we turn to material interests. The neoconservative agenda of
world hegemony serves the powerful military/security complex whose
one trillion dollar annual budget depends on war, hot or cold.
The agenda of American hegemony serves the interests of Wall Street
and the mega-banks. As Washington’s power and influence spreads, so
does American financial imperialism. So does the reach of American
oil companies and American agribusiness corporations such as
Washington’s hegemony means that US corporations get to loot the
rest of the world.
The danger of the neoconservative ideology is that it is in perfect
harmony with powerful economic interests. In the US the left-wing
has made itself impotent. It believes all the foundational
government lies that have given America a police/warfare state
incapable of producing alternative leadership. The American left,
what little remains, for emotional reasons believes the government’s
9/11 story. The anti-religious left-wing believes the threat posed
to free thought by a Christian Russia. The left-wing, convinced that
Americans are racists, believes the government’s account of the
assassinations of Martin Luther King.
The left-wing accepts the government’s transparent 9/11 fable,
because it is emotionally important to the American left that
oppressed peoples strike back. For the American left, it is
emotionally satisfying that the Middle East, long oppressed and
exploited by the French, British and Americans, struck back and
humiliated the Unipower in the 9/11 attack.
This emotional need is so powerful for the left that it blinds the
left-wing to the improbability of a few Saudi Arabians, who could
not fly airplanes, outwitting not merely the FBI, CIA, and NSA,
which spies on the entire world, but as well all 16 US intelligence
agencies and the intelligence agencies of Washington’s NATO vassal
states and Israel’s Mossad, which has infiltrated every terrorist
organization, including those created by Washington itself.
Somehow these Saudis were able to also outwit NORAD, airport
security, causing security to fail four times in one hour on the
same day. They were able to prevent for the first time ever the US
Air Force from intercepting the hijacked airliners. Air traffic
control somehow lost the hijacked airliners on radar. Two airliners
crashed, one into the Pennsylvania country side and one into the
Pentagon without leaving any debris. The passport of the leader of
the attack, Mohammed Atta was reported to be found as the only
undamaged element in the debris of the World Trade Center towers.
The story of the passport was so preposterous that it had to be
This implausible account did not raise any eyebrows in the tame
Western print and TV media.
The right-wing is obsessed with immigration of darker-skinned
peoples, and 9/11 has become an argument against immigration. The
left-wing awaits the oppressed to strike back against their
oppressors. The 9/11 fable survives as it serves the interests of
both left and right.
I can tell you for a fact that if American national security had so
totally failed as it is represented to have failed by the official
explanation of 9/11, the White House, the Congress, the media would
have been screaming for an investigation. Heads would have rolled in
agencies that permitted such massive failure of the national
security state. The embarrassment of a Superpower being so easily
attacked and humiliated by a handful of Arabs acting independently
of any intelligence agency would have created an uproar demanding
Instead, the White House resisted any investigation for one year.
Under pressure from the 9/11 families who lost family members in the
World Trade Center Towers, the White House created a political
commission consisting of politicians managed by the White House. The
commission sat and listened to the government’s account and wrote it
down. This is not an investigation.
In the United States the left-wing is focused on demonizing Ronald
Reagan, who had nothing whatsoever to do with any of this. The
left-wing hates Reagan because he had to use anti-communist rhetoric
in order to keep his electoral basis while he strove to end the Cold
War in the face of the powerful opposition of the military/security
Is the left-wing more effective in Europe? Not that I can see. Look
at Greece for example. The Greek people are driven into the ground
by the EU, the IMF, the German and Dutch banks and the New York
hedge funds. Yet, when presented with candidates who promise to
resist the looting of Greece, the Greek voters give the candidates a
mere 36% of the vote, enough to form a government, but not enough to
have any clout with creditors.
Having hamstrung their government with such low electoral support,
the Greek people further impose impotence on their government by
demanding to remain in the EU. If leaving the EU is not a realistic
threat, the Greek government has no negotiating power.
Obviously, the Greek population is so throughly brainwashed about
the necessity of being part of the EU that the population is willing
to be economically dispossessed rather than to leave the EU. Thus
Greeks have forfeited their sovereignty and independence. A country
without its own money is not, and cannot be, an independent country.
Once European intellectuals signed off on the EU, they committed
nations to vassalage, both to the EU bureaucrats and to Washington.
Consequently, European nations are not independent and cannot
exercise an independent foreign policy.
Their impotence means that Washington can drive them to war. To
fully understand the impotence of Europe look at France. The only
leader in Europe worthy of the name is Marine Le Pen. Having said
this, I am immediately denounced by the European left as a fascist,
a racist, and so forth. This only shows the knee-jerk response of
the European left.
It is not I who shares Le Pen’s views on immigration. It is the
French people. Le Pen’s party won the recent EU elections. What Le
Pen stands for is French independence from the EU. The majority of
French see themselves as French and want to remain French with their
own laws and customs. Only Le Pen among European politicians has
stated the obvious: “The Americans are taking us to war!”
Despite the French desire for independence, the French will elect Le
Pen’s party to the EU but will not give it the vote to be the
government of France. The French deny themselves their independence,
because they are heavily conditioned by brainwashing, much coming
from the left, and are ashamed to be racists, fascists, and whatever
epithets have been assigned to Le Pen’s political party, a party
that stands for the independence of France.
The European left-wing, once a progressive force, even a
revolutionary one, has become a reactionary force. It is the same in
the US. I say this as one of CounterPunch’s popular contributors.
The inability even of intellectuals to recognize and accept reality
means that restraints on neoconservatives are nowhere present except
within Russia and China. The West is impotent to prevent Armageddon.
It is up to Russia and China, and as Washington has framed the
dilemma, Armageddon can only be prevented by Russia and China
accepting vassal status.
I don’t believe this is going to happen. Why would any
self-respecting people submit to the corrupt West?
The hope is that Washington will cause its European vassals to rebel
by pushing them too hard into conflict with Russia. The hope that
European countries will be forced into an independent foreign policy
also seems to be the basis of the Russian government’s strategy.
Perhaps intellectuals can help to bring this hope to fruition. If
European politicians were to break from Washington’s hegemony and
instead represent European interests, Washington would be deprived
of cover for its war crimes. Washington’s aggressions would be
constrained by an independent European foreign policy. The breakdown
of the neoconservative unipower model would be apparent even to
Washington, and the world would become a safer and better place.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary
of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall
Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard
News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university
appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide
following. Roberts' latest books are
The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and
Economic Dissolution of the West
How America Was Lost.