University of Arizona historian Dr David Gibbs believes many of the major conflicts of the modern era cannot be understood through official narratives alone.
Appearing on the World Affairs In Context podcast with host Lena Petrova, Gibbs outlined a sweeping critique of American foreign policy, arguing that covert intervention, NATO expansion, economic sanctions and proxy wars have become central tools for maintaining US global dominance
Report by INR
Drawing on decades of research into US foreign policy, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and the post-Cold War world, Gibbs argued that many of today's geopolitical crises have deep historical roots that are often overlooked in mainstream discussion.
The Hidden History of Intervention
According to Gibbs, covert intervention has been the preferred method of American influence since the end of World War II.
Rather than direct military invasions, he argued that successive administrations have relied on intelligence operations, regime change efforts and political influence campaigns that allow Washington to operate without the scrutiny that accompanies overt warfare.
"The main method through which the United States has influenced world affairs has been covert intervention, mostly by the CIA," Gibbs said.
He argued that such actions stand in direct conflict with international agreements that prohibit interference in the domestic affairs of sovereign nations.
"Foreign intervention is completely illegal," he stated.
Gibbs pointed to decades of covert operations throughout Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe as evidence that interventionism has become embedded within US foreign policy doctrine.
Ukraine and the Road to War
One of the interview's most controversial discussions centred on Ukraine.
Gibbs argued that the 2014 overthrow of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych represented a decisive turning point in relations between Russia and the West.
He described the Maidan uprising as a domestic protest movement that nevertheless received substantial support from the United States.
He pointed to the widely publicised role of then Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the leaked conversation between Nuland and US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt as evidence of direct American involvement in shaping Ukraine's post-Maidan government.
According to Gibbs, the consequences were immediate.
Russia annexed Crimea, conflict erupted in the Donbas, and the foundations were laid for the full-scale war that began in 2022.
"None of this would have happened if the United States had not assisted in the overthrow of the government of Ukraine," he argued.
NATO Expansion and Broken Promises
Gibbs devoted considerable attention to NATO expansion, which he described as the central strategic issue behind the Ukraine conflict.
He argued that Western leaders had assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO would not expand eastward following German reunification.
According to Gibbs, archival documents demonstrate that those assurances were repeatedly made by American, British, French and German officials.
He contends that subsequent NATO enlargement represented a breach of those understandings.
"I think that's really the main reason we have a war now," Gibbs said.
"The US insistence that eventually Ukraine would join NATO. I think Russia saw that as intolerable."
Afghanistan: The Original Model
A major portion of the discussion focused on Afghanistan and what Gibbs believes it reveals about American strategic thinking.
He argued that Washington deliberately encouraged circumstances that increased the likelihood of Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979.
Drawing on declassified Soviet and American documents, Gibbs said Soviet leaders were initially reluctant to send troops and repeatedly rejected requests from Afghanistan's communist government for direct military intervention.
According to Gibbs, National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski played a pivotal role in encouraging policies that heightened Soviet fears and instability in the region.
He cited Brzezinski's later comments about luring the Soviet Union into what became known as the "Afghan trap."
"He wanted the invasion to occur because he saw it not as a bad thing, but as a good thing," Gibbs said.
The objective, he argued, was to draw Moscow into a costly conflict that would weaken Soviet power and justify increased military spending in the United States.
Afghanistan and Ukraine: A Historical Parallel
For Gibbs, Afghanistan provides the closest historical parallel to the current war in Ukraine.
He argues that Washington believed economic sanctions and military pressure would severely weaken Russia, potentially destabilising the Russian state itself.
"The American idea was that we would destroy the Russian economy with sanctions," he said.
"We thought we could crush the economy of Russia with sanctions and drive Putin out of power."
Instead, Gibbs believes the strategy failed.
He noted that Russia continues to record economic growth despite extensive sanctions and remains capable of sustaining military expenditure.
"The sanctions did not work," he said.
The Human Cost of Sanctions
One of the strongest sections of the interview concerned economic sanctions.
Gibbs cited research published in medical journals that attempted to quantify the human impact of sanctions over several decades.
According to the figures he referenced, sanctions have contributed to substantial civilian suffering worldwide.
"The vast majority of whom, by the way, are civilians," Gibbs said.
"Very large numbers of these are children."
He argued that sanctions are often presented as a humane alternative to warfare but can produce devastating humanitarian consequences.
Yugoslavia and Humanitarian War
Gibbs also revisited NATO's 1999 intervention in Yugoslavia.
He argued that the bombing campaign was presented publicly as a humanitarian mission but ultimately intensified the conflict and increased civilian suffering.
According to Gibbs, diplomatic solutions were available but were abandoned in favour of military action.
He pointed to commentary at the time advocating the destruction of Serbian infrastructure as evidence of how far Western leaders were prepared to escalate.
"One doesn't have to emphasise the United States is a very ruthless country," he said.
"We're willing to go to very, very extreme measures to get our way."
The Economics of Foreign Policy
Throughout the interview, Gibbs repeatedly returned to economic incentives.
He argued that foreign policy cannot be separated from the interests of defence contractors, investors and institutions that benefit from military spending and geopolitical confrontation.
Referencing economic research into historical regime change operations, he highlighted evidence suggesting unusual stock market activity before several major US-backed interventions.
For Gibbs, this points to a long-standing relationship between economic interests and foreign policy decision-making.
"There's a very close connection between economic interest and US foreign policy that should not be dismissed," he said.
Is Public Opinion Turning?
Despite his criticism of US foreign policy, Gibbs believes public attitudes may be changing.
He pointed to growing scepticism among military veterans, rising opposition to foreign interventions and increasing concern about the financial cost of overseas wars.
According to Gibbs, the traditional "rally around the flag" effect that once followed military crises appears to be weakening.
"The reality of the rally around the flag effect is gone," he said.
He argued that many voters increasingly see a direct connection between military spending abroad and declining living standards at home.
"America First means a lot of things," Gibbs observed, "but for many people I think what it meant is more spending on elevating living standards and less spending on overseas military adventures."
The Bigger Question
The interview ultimately raised a broader question about the future of American power.
For Gibbs, many of the conflicts of the past half century share a common thread: intervention justified through humanitarian, security or democratic rhetoric while serving deeper geopolitical and economic objectives.
Whether discussing Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Ukraine or sanctions policy, he argued that the underlying logic has remained remarkably consistent.
As public support for intervention declines and geopolitical competition intensifies, Gibbs believes the coming years may reveal whether that model can continue to sustain itself—or whether the political foundations that enabled it are beginning to erode.
World Affairs In Context
Interview with Dr David Gibbs, Professor of History, University of Arizona
Podcast: THE SHOCKING TRUTH - How Endless Wars Keep U.S. Hegemony Alive