Hegemony moment. A fascinating historical case study would be the 60’s DRC. The Soviets provided some logistical support to an anti-colonial government there, Cuba^1^ sent some forces to help a rebel group but left disappointed in a lack of political and military discipline, and Nkrumah and Nehru had all efforts funneled into the UN. The typical narrative of a cold war proxy conflict looses coherence. Its reliance on canards about the anti-colonial Congolese government as communist agitators bubbles to the surface, propaganda spread by white internationalist^2^ interests like William F. Buckley’s American Committee for Aid to Katanga Freedom-Fighters.

Instead, we notice the CIA helping Katanga’s secessionists smuggle in French made fighter jets, used to strafe UN peacekeepers. At the same time official policy is opposing the secession. What gives? In the CIA station chief’s memoirs, a good limited hangout explanation of overall goals is explained. The US wants:

• Anti-colonial leader Lumumba dead
• A regime that can supervise the flow of cobalt, copper, uranium, etc north and westwards
• A bulwark against independence on Africa’s dividing line
• The subordination of Belgium, France, and Britain’s capital to the US-led world order

Such demands were won. But it required supporting many sides. Using the UN in controlled bursts of force to prevent the European-South African proxy of Katanga from creating an untenable situation for long term stability. Using the secessionists to kill Lumumba. Using Mobutu to clean up the mess.

In the end this raises questions about US military interventions in Korea, Vietnam, or for that matter the GWOT, where playing both sides became an essential tactic. Was the point simply to get a pro-US regime in charge, probably impossible? A more interesting explanation would be fracturing countries to boost the western economy and prevent sovereign development.

1. Interestingly enough the CIA was sending Cuban exile pilots to crush the same rebellion Che was temporarily embedded in.
2. In the sense of the fascist international. Networks before and after the Second World War demonstrate links from Ukraine to Canada, Germany to America, and Europe to South Africa and regimes like Welensky’s Rhodesia.

There is a lot of truth to what you say about the CIA, but I don't see how the point can be both chaos as well as drawing Europe away from Russia. You can't have it both ways.