Even members of the administration have slipped and admitted to some such dubious efforts, the most recent and famous example being former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s boasting regarding the failed Venezuela coup in 2019, presenting it as one of ‘many’ he has planned as a continuation of the Monroe doctrine. The US successfully changed governments in Latin America at least 41 times between 1898 and 1994. In Africa, seven coup attempts were organized by the US in 2021 alone (notably, the year when Biden started his term). There is an old joke about why there are never coups d’état in the United States of America: because there is no US embassy there.

From Venezuela to Myanmar, from Cambodia to Syria, from Haiti to Albania, from Afghanistan to Libya, and from Burkina Faso to Ukraine, there is no country safe from coup-plotting nor a limit on how many billions of dollars the US is willing to spend to fulfill its self-imposed role as the world’s policeman and hegemon, as declared by numerous national security advisors and government approved think tanks.

A classic example of one such intervention is the failed coup in Bolivia last week, described by the Wall Street Journal as a “poorly planned, comedic plot”, in which former commander in chief General Juan Jose Zuniga aimed to remove President Luis Arce from power. However, Bolivia Defense Minister Edmundo Novillo openly accused the US of staging it! Minister Novillo assessed that Bolivia was served a “punishment” for its stance against Western US-led hegemony, and the facts check out.

The coup happened only a couple of weeks after President Arce attended the St Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) and met with Russian President Vladimir Putin, declaring in a speech there that Bolivia would like to join BRICS, as the organization had “smashed the hegemony of the United States”. And Bolivia would be a very important ally indeed: the world’s largest known reserves of lithium, an element crucial in the manufacturing of rechargeable batteries for mobile phones, laptops, digital cameras and electric vehicles are located in Bolivia. As always, the US does not waste much of its energy unless valuable resources are involved, and lithium has been dubbed the “most promising metal of the 21st century”.

And while the US-led Bolivian coup is a classic example of American intervention, other ‘coups’ happen in the absence of violence or big headlines, through the leveraging of the US’ extensive network of politicians loyal to Washington from all over the world. One such example is the removal of Imran Khan, the former Pakistani PM, from power, which the international media seems to have forgotten. Although the Pakistani economy, educational system and anti-corruption efforts were thriving under Khan, Khan made the biggest mistake of all: he refused to abide by the US’ rules of geopolitical etiquette.

When Khan declared that he would like to pursue diplomatic relations with any countries which would benefit Pakistan and did not immediately fall into US opinions on China and Russia, a US Senior State Department official called in the Pakistani Ambassador to the US. No surprise, a mere few weeks after the meeting, Khan was voted out of office in a vote of no confidence despite the fact that his approval rating was at the highest point of his tenure. When Khan publicly accused the US of having interfered in his removal, US and Pakistani officials vehemently denied it. After Khan published a copy of the American memo which confirmed his accusation and proved the American interference in his removal, he was charged with espionage and the leaking of state secrets.

But of course, the US wouldn’t stop there. Khan was also charged and convicted for selling state gifts during his tenure as prime minister, corrupt practices and unlawful marriage (the last of which having earned both him and his wife a 7 year sentence five days before the country’s last general elections). Although Khan was and still is in prison, even his party was outlawed and thus not allowed to participate in the elections. Pakistan is an important partner for the US also due to its natural gas and coal, but particularly due to its strategic location which provides access to the Arabian Sea at the crossroads of China, India, Afghanistan and the Middle East. Furthermore, control of Pakistan is useful when trying to keep neighbor and enemy India in check, especially in its current escapades with its BRICS partners. Khan is still battling the case out in court, but it seems unlikely that the US will make the mistake of allowing another independent leader at the helm of such an important state again.

But now let’s move on to the most famous coup of all: Ukraine. Russian President Putin and numerous other diplomats have pointed to the US-led coup of 2014 as the real start of the Ukraine War. Although the paramilitaries which overthrew Yanukovych in February 2014 were widely considered to be of neo-Nazi ideology, the Obama regime immediately recognized the new government without questioning their actions or shortcomings. Should anyone still need proof of American involvement, you can easily find the leaked recording of a call between Victoria Nuland and the American Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, in which they discuss in no uncertain terms who should be in the new Ukrainian government several weeks before the rebellion. Even though the West defines the start of the war as the start of the Russian invasion, the fact that the American coup was the main motivator for the Russians to invade says a lot.

On the other side of the world, US Senator Lindsey Graham recently (and cinically) revealed that the US needs to keep the war in Ukraine going because there are 10 to $12 trillion of critical minerals for the US to exploit. However, Ukraine’s greatest value to the US is its strategic location and the belief that Ukraine is the most accessible tool in the American arsenal to weaken Russia. As Tim Robbins said in his global bestseller Prisoners of Geography, “If God had built mountains in Ukraine then the great expanse of flatland that is the North European Plain would not be such encouraging territory from which to attack Russia repeatedly. As it is, Putin has no choice: he must at least attempt to control the flatlands to the west. So it is with all nations, big or small.

The landscape imprisons their leaders, giving them fewer choices and less room to maneuver than you might think.” The Americans knew that in order to control Russia, one must just control Ukraine. So, after taking charge of Ukraine’s government, where corruption was already rampant, and pushing NATO expansion rhetoric, the US armed Ukraine with the sole purpose of weakening their second biggest threat in Eurasia, as per Brzezinski’s foreign policy plan. Ukraine has thus experienced both covert US leadership change and an outright war, embraced by the Americans as a sacrificial lamb and a perfect example of Henry Kissinger’s famous maxim: “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.”

As such, the coups presented above show different modalities of American intervention: the first, a failed military takeover, the second, a coup which did not rely on violence but on American influence in the Pakistani government, and the third, a coup which turned into a prolonged war. There have been over one thousand coups in the past century and, as resources begin to dry up and panic grips the declining American hegemon, coups and wars are becoming more and more frequent. It seems that resource-rich countries shall continue to serve as mere battlefields for their greater patrons, yet the real battleground of the 21st century shall be Africa, where conflicts are many and coverage limited in order to hide international involvement and retain a semblance of anarchy in the international system.

The most famous current example is the conflict in Sudan, which is always third in the headlines after the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, despite being dubbed by international organizations “the worst humanitarian crisis in history”. A country with vast resources such as gold, uranium, chromite, and iron ore. A country stuck in the great power struggle between US and Russia. And all because Sudan’s leadership also made the grave mistake of not abiding by the US’ dictates on Russian isolation.

The timing of the Sudan conflict can also easily prove US involvement: after Sudan confirmed the deal on the construction of a Russian naval base in the Red Sea in February 2023, the US quickly sent $288 million to Sudan within the same week, and of course sent White House sweetheart Victoria Nuland within the same month to convince the Sudanese to abandon their Russian partners. We can easily conclude that the meeting did not result in American victory, as less than a month after Nuland’s trip, the conflict broke out between the government and paramilitary group RSF which aims to topple the current leadership. The conflict still rages on today, 14 months later, and while 10 million people have been displaced,

Sudan’s leadership continues to strengthen ties with and receive military aid from Russia, persona non grata in the American sphere of influence, the Sudanese delegation having declared at SPIEF last month that Sudan would like to return to the deal on the construction of the Russian naval base in the Red Sea.

Great power competition for resources has been dubbed by many analysts as a new “scramble for Africa”, but in fact it does not discriminate by continent and regularly appears anywhere in the world where there are resources to be gained. While American enemies have split spheres of influence between them, the US knows “the winner takes it all”, and that’s exactly what they aim to do: win the big resource jackpot by any means necessary. Any means necessary means different things to different presidents: while Trump preferred negotiations and drew the line at war, Obama and Biden have no problem with staging coups which result in war all over the globe, as demonstrated by the surge in conflicts all over the world during their presidencies. Not only do the cases of Bolivia, Sudan, and Ukraine highlight America’s interventionist tactics, but similar patterns can be seen in Niger, Burkina Faso, and Mali, countries out of which billions of dollars worth of gold, oil, and uranium are smuggled each year.

The ‘resource curse’ is traditionally understood as the paradox where resource-rich nations suffer from less economic growth and democracy. Yet the real ‘resource curse’ is that as long as a state has resources, it will never be free from the US’ forced (and ideally exclusive) friendship, for which the Americans would stage any coup, and under some administrations even start any war. Sovereignty is dead! Long live sovereignty!

By Daria Gusa