Politics
The Invisible Hand Of The Deep State. From CIA To NED—The Evolution Of Covert Influence In Global Politics
The Deep State.
Here are some hard hitting facts—the United States spends more on defense than the next nine countries combined.
In 2023, the world spent a staggering $2.4 trillion on the military, and the United States alone accounted for 40% of it—$916 billion. Yet, despite this massive investment, the U.S. has not won a single war since World War II. In some cases, like Vietnam and Afghanistan, the outcomes were not just defeats but humiliating retreats.
How do we reconcile these contradictions? How does the world’s most powerful military consistently lose wars while simultaneously initiating new ones at an alarming frequency?
The answer lies in the nature of these conflicts—they may not be about “winning” at all. Instead, they seem to serve as a lucrative business model.
How?
The Warning from Eisenhower
On January 17, 1961, during his farewell speech, President Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered a chilling warning about the “Military-Industrial Complex.” He cautioned against the growing influence of a powerful network of defense contractors and government agencies that could drive America’s policies toward perpetual war. His words, as it turns out, were prophetic.
A study by Brown University found that the U.S. spent a jaw-dropping $5.8 trillion on the wars in Afghanistan and other post-9/11 conflicts. Much of this expenditure was funneled through “emergency” and “contingency” funding mechanisms, bypassing the usual budgetary scrutiny.
This allowed unchecked spending to continue under the guise of “short-term” operations. By 2021, the ratio of defense contractors to U.S. troops in Afghanistan had risen to three-to-one. In essence, American taxpayers financed wars that enriched defense contractors, creating a self-perpetuating cycle of profit-driven conflict.
The Mechanics of the Deep State
This brings us to the concept of the “Deep State.” It is defined as an alleged clandestine network of non-elected government officials and private entities—particularly from sectors like defense and finance—that operate outside legal frameworks to influence government policy.
These actors often use their expertise, relationships, and resources to wield significant power, forming what some call a “supergovernment” accountable to no one.
The term “Deep State” originated from the Turkish phrase Derin Devlet, which referred to a secret network within Turkey’s military and bureaucracy. This network allegedly operated extralegally to protect certain national interests, often opposing official political structures.
Today, the concept has expanded to describe similar alleged networks in various countries, including the United States.
Global Operations of the Deep State
The global Deep State thrives on espionage, covert operations, and strategic alliances with state and non-state actors. Powerful nations use these methods to infiltrate the governance structures of target countries, turning them into pawns in larger geopolitical games.
This compromises not only governance but also societal cohesion. Through selective sponsorships, investments, and propaganda, societies are often divided against themselves, making them easier to manipulate.
One striking example is the symbiotic relationship between defense contractors and policymakers.
Politicians justify wars and sell them to the public, while the Military-Industrial Complex profits immensely from defense contracts. In return, the profits are recycled into lobbying efforts and campaign donations, ensuring the cycle continues.
The Cost of a Neat Game
The consequences of this system are devastating.
The Deep State operates in shadows, blending bureaucratic expertise with corporate greed. It is not bound by electoral cycles or public accountability, making it a force that is difficult to challenge.
How Champions of Democracy Destroy Democracy?
To understand how a nation’s sovereignty can be penetrated and its political framework compromised, let us look into a real-world case study—Ukraine.
The events surrounding Ukraine’s 2004 presidential election offer a textbook example of how external forces, operating under the guise of democracy promotion, can reshape a country’s political environment.
The Orange Revolution
In 2004, Ukraine was on the cusp of a pivotal election. Leonid Kuchma, the outgoing two-term president, backed then-Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych as his successor. Yanukovych’s opponent was Viktor Yushchenko, a former Prime Minister and leader of the Our Ukraine party.
When the official results were announced on November 21, Yanukovych was declared the winner by a slim margin of three percentage points.
However, accusations of voter fraud, intimidation, and ballot tampering quickly surfaced.
Ukrainian and foreign election monitors, backed by Western interests, condemned the election process as illegitimate. Protests erupted, with Yushchenko’s supporters gathering in Kyiv’s Independence Square, clad in orange—the symbolic color of the Our Ukraine party.
Thus began the so-called “Orange Revolution.”
But were these protests organic expressions of democratic outrage? Or were they engineered? Evidence suggests the latter.
The Players Behind the Protests
According to a study from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, significant financial and logistical support for the protests came from external sources, primarily the United States.
The U.S. government funneled $143.47 million into Ukraine in the name of “democracy assistance,” with $34.11 million earmarked for the election alone. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was a key player, channeling funds to organizations such as Freedom House and Development Associates.
Freedom House, notably funded by billionaire philanthropist George Soros, received additional support through Soros’ Renaissance Foundation, which spent $1.65 million in the lead-up to the election. The funding wasn’t limited to direct monetary aid. The U.S. also mobilized its National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which operates as a semi-covert arm of U.S. foreign policy.
Democracy Promotion or Political Subversion?
The NED and its affiliated organizations—such as the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), the International Republican Institute (IRI), the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), and the Solidarity Center—have a history of interventionist activities.
Under the guise of promoting democracy, these organizations often engage in covert operations that destabilize governments deemed unfavorable to U.S. interests.
For example, the NED has been implicated in similar subversive activities in Nicaragua, Mongolia, Albania, Bulgaria, and Slovakia. By funding local opposition groups, sponsoring media campaigns, and even orchestrating protests, these entities create the conditions for regime change.
–The broader “democracy promotion” strategy includes a variety of methods, including –
–Traditional Diplomacy: Using diplomatic channels to apply pressure on governments.
–Foreign Aid: Targeted assistance programs that fund opposition groups and civil society organizations.
–Military Intervention: Both covert and overt operations aimed at reshaping political systems.
While democracy promotion is often framed as a noble endeavor, its implementation reveals a darker reality. It is frequently a tool for advancing geopolitical interests rather than growing genuine democratic governance.
Ukraine
In Ukraine, democracy promotion became a pretext for external intervention.
The U.S. State Department and its affiliated NGOs operated under the framework of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPs) Bill, which had an outlay of $56.1 billion in 2022. A significant portion of this funding was directed toward entities like USAID and NED to support “democracy programs.”
The Orange Revolution, far from being a spontaneous uprising, was the culmination of years of groundwork laid by these organizations.
Protests were fueled by foreign money, media narratives were shaped to delegitimize Yanukovych, and public sentiment was manipulated through targeted propaganda.
The Irony of Democracy Promotion
The paradox of democracy promotion is that it often undermines the very principles it claims to uphold.
While the U.S. positions itself as a champion of democratic values, its track record reveals a pattern of supporting authoritarian regimes when convenient and destabilizing democratically elected governments when they clash with its interests.
Ukraine’s Orange Revolution thus is an excellent example of how external forces can exploit democratic ideals to further their own agendas. The resulting political instability not only erodes trust in democratic institutions but also leaves nations vulnerable to long-term geopolitical manipulation.
The Genesis of Modern “Democracy Promotion”
The seeds of modern democracy promotion were sown during the Reagan administration. Faced with scandals that had tarnished the reputation of the CIA, President Ronald Reagan sought a new mechanism to carry out activities in line with U.S. strategic interests.
In 1983, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was born. Its mandate was ostensibly noble: to promote democracy and human rights. In reality, it inherited many of the tasks that the CIA had historically performed covertly.
For instance, during the 1948 Italian elections, the CIA worked to influence the outcome to counter communist forces.
Decades later, the NED became the instrument of choice, as seen in Nicaragua, where it played a critical role in promoting Washington’s preferred candidate. By using the NED and affiliated organizations, the U.S. shifted to a subtler, less conspicuous form of intervention, all under the banner of democracy.
Promoting Imperialism Under the Guise of Democracy
Behind the facade of democracy promotion lay a more insidious agenda – imperialism.
The U.S. government was not just promoting democratic values but was advancing a program designed to exert control over other nations. Unlike the overt hand of the CIA, the NED and similar organizations leveraged the softer power of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to infiltrate societies, collect sensitive data, and influence political systems.
This method proved highly effective. By funding and supporting NGOs, the U.S. could avoid direct involvement while achieving its objectives. These NGOs, presented as champions of democracy and human rights, often served as tools for subversion.
Can NGOs Be An Instruments Of Subversion
The role of NGOs in undermining national sovereignty cannot be understated.
Take India, for example. In 2010-11 alone, NGOs in the country received over $2 billion in foreign funding, with $650 million coming from the United States. This financial influx supported approximately 22,000 NGOs, creating a staggering ratio of one NGO for every 400 people in India—to put it in perspaective these numbaers even far exceed the ratio of policemen to citizens, which stood at one for every 943 people.
Such an extensive NGO network is not benign. Many of these organizations collect granular data on communities, ostensibly for development purposes. However, this data can easily be weaponized.
For instance, the Joshua Project, run by evangelical groups, has meticulously mapped the socio-cultural fabric of India’s districts. This data, in the wrong hands, could be used to incite unrest or engineer societal divisions.
George Soros and the Non-State Actor Phenomenon
In addition to state-sponsored initiatives, individuals like George Soros have emerged as powerful non-state actors shaping global geopolitics. Through his Open Society Foundations, Soros has aligned with U.S. strategic interests, working as an unofficial arm of its foreign policy apparatus.
Soros’s influence began during Bill Clinton’s presidency, when he embedded himself within the U.S. political elite. Over time, he built a network of organizations capable of acting as a parallel State Department, advancing his own ideological and geostrategic goals.
His foundations, ostensibly promoting human rights and democracy, have often been accused of meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign nations.
The Last Bit
The concept of the Deep State forces us to confront uncomfortable truths about power, governance, and profit. It challenges the notion that wars are fought for freedom or security, suggesting instead that they are driven by a profit-hungry system.
Whether or not one fully subscribes to the idea of a Deep State, the patterns of behavior it describes are hard to ignore.
Eisenhower’s warning was not just about unchecked military spending but about the erosion of democracy itself.
The question we must ask ourselves is this – who really holds the reins of power, and at what cost to society?