Recent comments of a leaked conversation between US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt in which Nuland said “F-the EU” are causing quite a resonance worldwide. During the conversation Nuland reveals US/UN/EU collusion in the overthrow of the Ukrainian Government. They openly and matter-of-factly discuss the overthrow of the elected government of Ukraine, who they are assigning to posts in the new US installed government and the use of the UN and Ban Ki-Moon as an extension of their plan and help the US “glue” their plan for Ukraine together.

Victoria Nuland is not just a simple diplomat according to Andrew Kreig a Washington based author and analyst and in an interview with the Voice of Russia he points out Ms. Nuland’s background and connections to the Bilderberg Group and chickenhawks in Washington. Her husband Robert Kagen is a long-time Bilderberg antagonist, of first the USSR and Russia, and he along with Nuland are “puppet strings” propagating war and the agenda of a secret government according to Mr. Kreig.

“For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. No President should fear public scrutiny of his programs, for from that scrutiny comes understanding and from that understanding comes support or opposition and both are necessary.” – John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Hello, this is John Robles. I’m speaking with Mr Andrew Kreig, he is the author of Presidential Puppetry: Obama, Romney and Their Masters. He is also the editor and director of the Justice Integrity Project.

Robles: Hello, sir.

Kreig: Hello, John. Good to talk to you.

Robles: It is good to talk to you. Tell us what is going on with the topic of the hour: Victoria Nuland and her comments about the EU and basically an admission that they are attempting to affect regime change in Ukraine. Who is Victoria Nuland exactly?

Kreig: Well, her formal title is US Ambassador to the European Union and that makes her one of the country’s (the US) most important diplomat but it is also important to realize that she is bipartisan. So she has very strong connections with both Republicans under whom she served in the Bush/Cheney Administration as well as Democrats.

And part of this is because she is a member of the Kagan family and there is three people in that: the father, Donald Kagan and two brothers, including her husband Robert Kagan, and they are all long time antagonists of the Soviet Union and Russia.

They are very military oriented, they are extremely interested in destabilizing the former Soviet Republics and the three men were prominent, at least two of them were, in advocating for war against Iraq in the 1990s. So I guess I would just say that this is no ordinary diplomat, it is one who is capable of quite a bit of arrogance as indicated by her phone call.

Robles: Her family has connections with the Bilderberg Group (or the Bilderberg meetings) the group that meets. Can you tell us about that? Do you know anything about that?

Kreig: Well, actually I devoted part of my book Presidential Puppetry to her and her husband, so this scandal is not quite of surprise. And in terms of Bilderberg her husband Robert is an attendee of this group and briefly the Bilderberg Group is named after hotel in the Netherlands where the Rockefeller and Rothschild banking families took the lead in inviting approximately 130 prominent individuals in 1954 to the Bilderberg hotel in the Netherlands.

These were extremely prominent people handpicked by the Rockefeller and the Rothschilds to shape in secret an agenda, or at least have discussions and annual discussions.

Most recently this was in a fancy suburb of London last June and the interesting thing is that this involves through the years people at the level of royalty, the Queen of England has attended, also media executives including from the Washington Post, both the old family and the new owner Jeffrey Bezos of

So you have media executives as part of the secret meeting and so by extension her husband is one of them. He is certainly not known as a billionaire but he is, what I would call, a puppet string, to use my analogy, who connects puppet masters to the puppets in government.

And of course his wife, I don’t know if she is a puppet string or a puppet, but it is all something that is fundamentally is not part of the elections process, it is part of the, almost “secret government”.

Robles: Victoria Nuland, now again you said you don’t know if she is a puppet string or she is a puppet herself. What do you think in your opinion? Judging from her record?

Kreig: Well it doesn’t make any difference at some point, where the puppet string attaches the government, it is all the same. But you know, as Ambassador to NATO under Bush/Cheney she is clearly part of, let me be blunt, warmongering.

In fact the chapter of my book, actually it is a subchapter about her husband I labeled it: “Robert Kagan: Fearless Chicken Hawk”.

Chicken in the US is kind of a contemptuous term for a coward and hawk is a term for someone who likes wars. So a chicken hawk is someone who likes wars but doesn’t want to serve in them.

And I write that there is no evidence that any of the Kagans or Nulands has ever been in military service.

Their role is to urge wars for other people’s children and families hence they are very deserving of the name “chicken hawk” and just to leap, when could go into specifics but let me get to a conclusion here.

Particularly after a gaff like this where she is using profanity, she is caught trying to interfere in the running of other countries, but more than that there is an arrogance that is being displayed here.

And even if it never happened, John, in fact I wrote this in the book months ago that she and her entire family instead of being honored columnists and experts on foreign policy, what they should do is go to Veteran’s Hospitals in the US and volunteer to help the amputated, wounded veterans. That is what they should be doing and they should be looking every single day at the result of what they concocted in Iraq, in Afghanistan and they should be a long way away from any kind of phone call like this to do more damage to anyone anywhere.

Robles: I see. A lot of Russian officials like to say: “What would happen in Washington if…?” (for example what is happening in Ukraine) “… what would happen in Washington if there were massive antigovernment rallies and say, Foreign Minister Lavrov showed up, let’s say, in the National Mall and started handing people cookies and biscuits, and supporting people that wanted to overthrow the US government.”

Kreig: Well, I think we know, people in the US would be outraged and they would be furious and they would be saying: “What is this?!” And we don’t even have to imagine too much because that is exactly what happened during the war of 1812 when the British invaded Washington and someone wrote the Star Spangled Banner because of that Francis Scott Key which is the national anthem to express the feelings of Americans about that kind of meddling.

So I actually agree that it would be quite outrages and in fact in a column I wrote on the Justice Integrity Project site today I used that same analogy to try to say a lot of these foreign affairs are very complicated and everybody is doing things in secret that do not stand the light of day. So I wanted to be clear about that. But I said we are never going to have peace or progress or move forward if we don’t have some empathy. And if somebody was handing out doughnuts at the White House we would be furious.

Just a reminder, you are listening to an interview with Andrew Kreig.

Robles: Would you agree…? I know you are based in Washington in the US, I don’t know if you can comment on this, but would you agree that it is beneficial for, let’s say the Neo-Cons, the chicken hawks, the military industrial complex, to destroy countries such as Ukraine, to cause instability like in Libya, in Iraq in the Middle East, in Kosovo, in Serbia, in Yugoslavia etc. I mean there is about over 70 countries the US government has destroyed in the last 30 or 40 years. Would you agree that that is profitable for the US and actually development and peace are not?

Kreig: Well, I think the way you formulated it, John, is too extreme for me. For example what is good for the average American, is different from somebody who is a war contractor or making leveraged investments that are contingent on a war.

So there is many different players. I do think that the warmongers have undo influence and hurt the world and certainly some of the results in many of the places that you’ve described, it is obvious that the results, are what you’ve described, but I am somehow hesitant to get to the blanket area but I certainly think it is something that Americans, particularly in Washington need to study.

I can say that I’m on many lists of study groups in Washington that focus on these countries but they seldom take a look at the important issues as you’ve described it.

Usually it is well-funded groups that look at the same countries and it is all about; democracy, humanitarianism and stuff like that, and I think that is just, frankly, outrageous because it is totally one-sided and if you look at what some of these democracy movements end up with, clearly there needs to be much more of a debate along those lines that you’ve…

Robles: Would you agree that for a lot of these groups the word democracy just means subservience to US policy; pliable, usable…?

Kreig: Yes. Again that is somewhat of a more extreme formulation. I addressed a lot of this is somewhat more subtle terms in my book and one of the ways I mentioned it is I said: “the idea of having people like Samantha Powers, Susan Rice and a lot of these diplomats, many of whom are female and minority race, and all of them talk about democracy, is that it becomes much easier to have wars if you have female people spouting humanitarian rhetoric and I think it is very important to say “war is just so awful that we can’t just cloak it as a nice thing for democracy”. So basically I’m agreeing with you but not quite in the language.

Robles: Well, I don’t like to mince words, maybe sometimes I’m too hard, too strong and too direct on some of this stuff, but that is… maybe my style, I don’t know but, what I see in Ukraine is there are neo-nazis who are going around saying: “We don’t want an expletive for Jews, an expletive for blacks and an expletive for Russians running our country”. These are the Bandera people, I mean they are neo-nazi thugs.

Klitschko is a guy with an IQ of maybe 85 or something, he is not a president, he is not even a politician. He would be a puppet, he would be just the marionette for the US. I think that is why Nuland and the State Department are so upset. Their plan didn’t work, I don’t know.

Kreig: The conversation is very manipulative and one aspect of this, I think is worth at least a brief mention, is the whole concept of surveillance. Because one of the Public Relations ways to get out of an embarrassing situation is to attack and the State Department is already doing that saying that this was a private conversation, it is horrible that it should be leaked.

But of course I guess I would say just to be contrary to that is: here you have exposure that the US government is monitoring all kinds of conversations, in fact is the world leader in doing it because of the Internet and satellite capabilities.

So the act of collecting these conversations which virtually all governments do, that should be the matter for concern for the public, not whether it is made public. Because the act of collecting it gives people the power over the situation whether or not they release it.

Robles: I’m sorry, are you implying that that it was the NSA that did this or CIA or the US, or that it was that apparatus?

Kreig: Well No, no I think…

Robles: Well, what do you think about them demonizing Russia all of a sudden? It is like the eternal-perpetual distracting move: “Oh, look, over here Russia! Every time they do something illegal or egregious or scandalous it is like “Oh, look at Russia! Oh! It’s Russia’s fault”.

Kreig: That is natural, that is the game. They look at it as game.

Robles: I think it is disgusting and egregious and despicable and slimy, I’m sorry! Ok, but that is my language. I get tired of it, I mean all the stuff with the Olympics and everything else.

Kreig: Look, many Americans are trained and groomed to find that a popular appeal and whether it is true and accurate or not, the reality is that they become more popular when they say it.

You were listening to part 1 of an interview with Andrew Kreig, the author of Presidential Puppetry: Obama, Romney and their Masters. You can find part 2 of this interview on our website in the near future. Thank you very much for listening and I wish you the best.