by: Rostislav Ishchenko
Translated by Seva
On April 27-28, the Russian Defense Ministry held an international conference on security. I participate in a panel discussing “color revolutions”.
The time allotted to speakers (5 min) and discussion participants (1 min) was too short to present the entire concept of color revolutions in modern politics and their impact on general and military security of the affected state. Therefore, I will present my views in bullet points. I will be succinct, because one can write a multi-volume study of “color revolutions” and hybrid war in general, and even then the topic might not be thoroughly covered.
Thesis one. The very fact that the military were interested in this topic (in fact, representatives of several dozen defense ministries of various countries participated in this discussion) shows that “color revolutions” are considered by modern states not as an internal threat (where the police and special services would be interested), but as an external threat. It has the characteristics of a military aggression, so that counteracting it is the job for the military.
Thesis two. Color coups, being an element of modern hybrid warfare, came into being not only because a direct conflict of two nuclear powers became impossible due to mutually assured destruction. Different scenarios of a limited nuclear war or a military conflict between superpowers using only non-nuclear weapons were and are being considered. However, if countries have nukes, a military conflict where they are used is possible, and general staffs must have plans for this eventuality.
Color coups were an answer to this political dead end, which emerged as a result of the formation, both within civilized nations and at the level of international law, of a view that war is not an allowable tool to solve political problems. Thus, political and moral costs for a state that initiates hostilities, even when a huge advantage in force allows for a quick win with minimal losses, became higher than material and political advantages of controlling the enemy’s territory. Blitzkrieg, let alone a protracted military campaign, became cost-ineffective.
Thesis three. A color coup is not conducted when the situation is ripe for regime change (classical revolutionary situation), but when there is an external force interested in achieving control over the victim-state.
Color coup is impossible without external interference. When the color coup mechanism is initiated in a country, this means that this country is under attack by an aggressor.
Identification of this aggressor is usually easy. However, to prove its aggressive intentions, however obvious they are, within the rule of international law is usually impossible. The aggressor will always explain its interference into internal affairs of the victim-state using humanitarian excuses and the protection of human rights.
I would like to remind you that by Helsinki accords (which are now rules of OSCE and UN) the defense of human rights cannot be an exclusive internal business of any state.
Thesis four. Still, an aggressor needs to legitimize its actions in the eyes of the international community. Therefore, as a rule, it tries to obtain a mandate to interfere from the UN or OSCE, or, at least, to form a formal international coalition of several dozen states to mask its aggression picturing it as forcing a “dictatorial regime” to observe international norms.
Thesis five. This limits what kind of state can use the mechanism of color coups. The aggressor-state has to have not only a huge military superiority over the victim-state (this is desirable, but not absolutely necessary). It needs to have sufficient political and diplomatic clout to ensure legal cover-up of its interference.
Thesis six. Like any war or military operation, the color coup is carefully planned and prepared. Usually, several plans are developed, depending on the level of resistance of the victim-state.
The ideal scenario involves capitulation or treason of the national elites. It is the cheapest option. In this case, all resources of the victim-state, including the political system and administrative structure, can be immediately used by the aggressor for its geopolitical ends.
When the national elites do not capitulate, the method of “peaceful street protests” is used. The resisting elite is forced to transfer power to its more pliant colleagues under the pressure of street protests. It is, in essence, given a choice between voluntary capitulation and an attempt to suppress the protests, with a risk of “accidental” casualties, which give the pretext to call the regime “repressive and dictatorial”, accuse it of “police brutality” and declare that it has lost legitimacy.
If this kind of peaceful pressure does not work, within weeks or months (depending on the situation and the resilience of the regime of the victim-state) it switches to armed uprising. In this case, the regime is forced to choose between capitulation and inevitable casualties of a military confrontation, which would be in dozens or even hundreds.
Along with inciting “peaceful protest” or military uprising, the aggressor-state organizes political and diplomatic isolation of the victim-state.
If the military uprising in the capital does not happen or does not result in regime change, the next scenario is civil war. In this case, the aggressor-state declares the powers illegitimate, recognizes the “opposition” and provides them with political, diplomatic, financial, and then military support.
Finally, if the civil war results in a stalemate, or the “opposition” is losing, a direct aggression (under humanitarian pretext) is possible. The softer version of this is enforcement of no-fly zones and massive supply of weapons, including heavy weapons, to the rebels. The harsher version involves direct invasion of foreign troops, as a rule, masked as “volunteers” or implemented by special forces.
Thesis seven. As we see, despite ostensibly peaceful and informational character of the color coup, its success is guaranteed by the presence, behind diplomats and journalists, of a military force, which can suppress, if necessary, the resistance of the national elite, even if this elite decides to fight to the end.
This variant was used in Iraq, Serbia, and Libya. So far, it failed only in Syria. But in Syria there was an important new component. The resources, including military, of another super-power were engaged in support of the legitimate government. The situation changed from color coup to direct confrontation of two super-powers, like in Korean and Vietnam wars.
Thus, a necessary condition for any scenario of the color coup was eliminated: absolute political, diplomatic, economic, financial, and military advantage of the aggressor-state over the victim-state.
This leads us to thesis eight. Color coup can be stopped neither by consolidation of the national elite (it would simply progress to the next scenario), nor by preparedness of its military to fight (it will eventually be exhausted), nor by effective work of the national media (they will be overwhelmed by the technological capabilities of the aggressor).
The preparedness of the victim-state to resist is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to block the mechanisms of the color coup.
Only the support of the legitimate authorities of the victim-country by another superpower able to confront the aggressor-country with equal force in any way with any means can stop color aggression.
Finally, thesis nine and the conclusion. Today’s color coups are local operations within the global confrontation of the superpowers. The same way as Korean, Vietnam, and other wars of the 1950s-90s were often only proxy wars between the USSR and the USA on somebody else’s territory. Modern color coups, being one of the forms of hybrid war, are also the elements of the confrontation between Russia and the US.
This is war. A new kind of war. Not the war as an extension of policy by other means (using the expression of von Clausewitz), but color technology as an extension of war by other means.
We engaged in this war before even realizing we were at war. As often happens with Russia, we started with defeats of the 1990s, then came to our senses, learned to fight, and have been fighting successfully in the last two years.
Nails it. Amerikas liberal neo-cons will keeping coming as long as they have power in Amerika their base. I vote against their chosen star well they don’t like it. They control the media so changing the minds of Amerikas dumb down voters is easy, That’s not easy for us that would like to help those voting against their own interest.
The scream goes up for voter fraud and sadly both so-called parties of the people support it. I’m not sure how to over come this insane problem in Amerika but only I’ll be voting Green in Calli.
Saker hope the time off has been good and don’t come back until you will enjoy the site again:-)
From so-called “Center for Research on Computation and Society” at Harvard. Through years the place has hosted a number of such talks. Obviously, technologies of color revolutions receive huge imperial attention and funding. BTW, attendees always include a number of Israeli scholars, usually younger.
Date: Monday, May 2, 2016
Time: 11:30am – 1:00pm
Place: Maxwell Dworkin 119
Speaker: Helen Margetts, University of Oxford
Title: Political Turbulence: How Social Media Shape Collective Action
Abstract: How does the changing use of social media affect politics? In a recent book – Political Turbulence, Princeton University Press, 2016 – Helen Margetts and colleagues Peter John, Scott Hale and Taha Yasseri show how social media are now inextricably intertwined with the political behaviour of ordinary citizens, and exert an unruly influence on the political world. As people go about their daily lives, they are invited to undertake ‘tiny acts’ of political participation (liking, sharing, tweeting, retweeting, following, uploading, viewing, signing and so on) which extend the ladder of participation at the lower end. These micro-donations of time and effort can scale up to large mobilizations – most fail, but some succeed rapidly and dramatically through a series of chain reactions. When deciding whether to participate, people are exposed to web-based social influence, such as social information about the participation of others, and visibility. Different types of people (personality types for example) have different responses to these forms of social influence. The book uses large-scale data and data science approaches including experimentation to explore how such dynamics inject turbulence into the political world, with mobilization characterized by instability, unpredictability and often unsustainability. The talk will discuss the implications of these findings both for political science research and the future of the modern state.
Bio: Helen Margetts is the Director of the OII, and Professor of Society and the Internet at Oxford. She is a political scientist specialising in digital era governance and politics, investigating political behaviour, digital government and government-citizen interactions in the age of the internet, social media and big data. She has published over a hundred books, articles and major research reports in this area, including Political Turbulence: How Social Media Shape Collective Action (with Peter John, scott Hale and Taha Yasseri, 2015); Paradoxes of Modernization (with Perri 6 and Christopher Hood, 2010); Digital Era Governance (with Patrick Dunleavy, 2006); and The Tools of Government in the Digital Age (with Christopher Hood, 2007). In 2003 she and Patrick Dunleavy won the ‘Political Scientists Making a Difference’ award from the UK Political Studies Association, in part for a series of policy reports on Government on the Internet for the UK National Audit Office (1999, 2002 and 2007), and she continues working to maximise the policy impact of her research. She sits on the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on the Future of Government and is editor-in-chief of the journal Policy and Internet. She is a fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences. From 2011- 2014 she held the ESRC professorial fellowship ‘The Internet, Political Science and Public policy: Re-examining Collective Action, Governance and Citizen-Governance Interactions in the Digital Era’.
Professor Margetts joined the OII in 2004 from University College London where she was a Professor in Political Science and Director of the School of Public Policy. She began her career as a computer programmer and systems analyst with Rank Xerox after receiving her BSc in mathematics from the University of Bristol. She returned to studies at the London School of Economics and Political Science in 1989, completing an MSc in Politics and Public Policy in 1990 and a PhD in Government in 1996. She worked as a researcher at LSE from 1991 to 1994 and a lecturer at Birkbeck College, University of London from 1994 to 1999.
PIece by piece the Z-Fascists are preparing the war: NATO Deploys 4000 Troops To Russian Border As EUCOM Chief Urges “Return To War-Planning” http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-01/nato-deploys-4000-troops-russian-border-eucom-chief-urges-return-war-planning
EUCOM Chief Urges “Return To War-Planning”
Interesting,they want to shoot two birds with one shot.With the first one,they want to re-boot the EU economies (and also engage the migrants as forced labor),and the second one,to prepare the large public mentally for the war.
4000 from a rag-tag of units and nations is hardly awe-inspiring. There is a further 4200 US troops in addition to the assortment NATO is cobbling together. Pathetic really.
Truth is that European NATO armies can only kit out 4000 soldiers with the small proportion each nATO Army has of combat soldiers – the UK has <25,000 fighting soldiers and Germany about the same, though with less experience. Poland and Romania and Ukraine have simply leased soldiers for hard-currency UN Peacekeeping Missions which are paid for by the Security Council Members.
“Russian Academic and Historian, Jelena Guskova warns that the project “Green Transversal” is nearing completion, and awaits its final phase toward the end of August when its expected terrorist attacks are to be carried out in Macedonia, Southern Serbia (Preshevska Dolina) and BiH.
Strategy will be as follows, initially a terrorist attack will be carried out in Serbia where there is dominant Serbian population at expense of Albanian civilians, in order to focus attention, after which will follow even larger attacks. Albanian population will arise in “defense” and seek ” freedom from the tyranny against Albanians in Makedonija and Srbija”. Guskova warns that similar actions in Republika Srpska could lead to NATO intervention. Guskova’s pet project is uncovering activities of Islamic State in the Balkans, and says the massive amounts of refugees/migrants contain infiltration of huge number of undocumented militants which is also affirmed by Aleksandar Mitovski, from “Centar za Istrazhuvanje i Analiza”, Macedonia.
Acc. to Guskova USA wants to “relieve” the Balkans of its Slav/Orthodox “rule”, which have somehow managed to survive the massive pressure and activities of US marionettes in the region. US is extremely unhappy that position of Republika Srpska continues to gain strength, that Macedonia is still clinging onto its independence and Serbia does not recognise Kosovo, despite US support of radical Islamic movements in the region…”
reporter.mk ( in Macedonian )
I know that all free and patriotic Macedonians will never accept US plan to divide Macedonia between Albania and Bulgaria, remains to be seen what they will employ to achieve their goal. This Easter weekend, many “revolutioneries” were holidaying in expensive hotels in Halkidi, Two young citizens of Chezh Republic are to be deported for their role in vandalising Macedonian historic monuments. Reporting in Greece reveals large doses of shadenfraude at Macedonian expense, Borisov in BG, has openly sided with Macedonian opposition “leader” Zaev, ( Thierry Maisson has a good article on Bojko’s mafia/criminal activities at voltaire.net archive, revealing Bojko to be a US lapdog par excellance, helps with arms and other deliveries to Islamic State, ie; everything is allowed a la Milo in Crna Gora…)
It seems that the latest “elections” in Serbia are a big success for the ruling U.S. Empire. (Yes, Seselj did get into the Parliament, but that is about all the news that is good.) From Guskova’s analysis it appears that things may soon get much worse. While in the longer run, all will depend on how fast will Russia rebuild its military strength.
The opposition in Serbia is crying foul, I believe. This is what happened in Macedonia two yrs ago, when Gruevski/VMRO won the once again early elections – in Gruevski’s 10 year tenure as Premier Macedonia has had 10 elections, icnl. local government and presidential. Must be some kind of record! Though after denial of last elections ’14, opposition claims of “electoral fraud” failed to deliver any hard proof. They then entered into wire-tapping project which today is in full swing under the behest of US CIA specialist in regime change Jess Bailey, (previous project, Taksim (?) inTurkey where he was also US Ambassador…
I’m wondering why Vujcic is being denied? Is it because he’s witholding on recognition of Kosovo? I am not up with all the subtleties of empires war in Serbia. If you are Serb, can you enlighten us?
Someone in this thread asked, can the will of US be stopped other than direct military confrontation such as on Russia’s behalf in Syria. The US advantage is of course, the control of all media perception concerning all global hybrid war ops. where any Russian action is portrayed as provocative, subversive, etc. To be fair, Russia has been consolidating for some time and can not be some white knight in armor saving countries left, right and centre, yet I wonder how many more countries must go down before someone says enough! All multilateral countries are continually on the defense it seems. On the other hand, the ever expanding list of countries coming down is setting up a domino effect – its only a matter of time till Russia is even more vulnerable.
Forgot to sign the above post.
Petar, if you are Serbian and can fill us in…what is the general awareness of average Serbs re: the attack on Macedonia atm?
I saw recent articles in Serbian media presenting sympathy toward the hybrid war effort in MKD. Is this accepted as just ( correct ) among the general Serbian populace or are they aware of US propaganda ops? In Macedonia we still have much independent media which is a thorn in the side of US/Soros, generally all Macedonians are aware of US duplicity. Currently US is trying to change existing media laws to essentially outlaw any pro-Macedonian/independent reporting and prohibit any personal views of journalists forseeing exorbitant fines and wide-ranging censoring of patriotic independent sites as they have recently openly attempted when information detrimental to them surfaced.
Although I am averse to Serbian nationalists who negate Macedonian identity, I see a natural ally in Serbian and Macedonian people. Greeks, Albs and Bulgars are gone as far as we’re concerned – blinded by their appetite for Macedonian identity, land, culture psychic-thievery. They have sold their soul to the devil in effect, being thrown the bauble that is Makedonija!
>Yet I wonder how many more countries must go down before someone says enough!
At the last UNGA meeting Putin announced to the world “enough”.
He seems to carry through on what he says.
Hello Dimitar, I`m Serb and will try to give you some explainations.
First things first, Vucic and elections. His party( SNS, Serb Progressive Party) won around 48.2% of the vote and he will certainly be PM of the next government. He now has 130+ of 250 seats in the parliament, but before this elections he had 158 . Even though he won elections with more votes than before, he lost around 30 seats. In the last elections(2014) three or four parties were below 5% census and there votes (and seats) went to parties that entered the parliament. Now, one of those parties DSS – Dveri ( Democratic party of Serbia in a coalition with Citizens movement Dveri) is a staunchly anti NATO-EU party and somehow it has managed to be below census of 5% by just one, single vote(188.534 out of 188.535 census ). The other, staunchly pro NATO-EU( SDS-LDP-LSV- Social Democratic Party, Liberal Democratic Party and League of Social Democrats of Vojvodina) has managed to enter parliament, with just 800 votes up. Vucic has claimed that strange things has happened during the counting and many parties entered the parliament after the intervention of US ambassador( which seems quite plausible for SDS-LDP-LSV, but not so for DSS Dveri parties). Since now both US favourites have entered parliament and Vucic`s party gets the spoils of 8-9 seats, both he, SDS-LDP-LSV and US are happy. Other oppositon parties, such as DS( Democratic Party, pro EU, anti Nato) and Radulovic`s Enough! movement( Referendum about EU, military neutrality) have supported claim about electoral fraud and supported DSS-Dveri. EU and US will not do a thing about it, since Vucic is an OK choice in their eyes, not perfect but quite acceptable. Other parties that managed to get to parliament will either be coopted into goverment( Socialists for sure, possibly but not likely SDS-LDP-LSV), used as scarecrows ( SRS- Serb Radical party) or just ignored( the rest).
There are claims about dead voting, shady dealings in Kosovo elections( local Serbs still vote), vote buying for 15-20 euros, election day pressure( can actually confirm this one), tampering with election material, above mentioned embassy meddling, pressuring employed in public sector to vote for ruling party, counting remaining 2 percent of the vote material for 4 days etc.
But still around 20000 people has to vote so it`s still not over yet, and said party might still enter parliament.
I am not member nor a voter of any party.
Concerning Macedonia, in Serbia there are a few large camps. A lot of people don`t care about this at all or are still hurt about recognition of Kosovo. Media and people that still believe in “our own glorious 5. October revolution” (TM) fairy tale think it`s bloodthirsty and power hungry regime on one and freedom loving individuals on other side. But our media was always made for idiots and is making us into ones.
Real danger here are quasi-educated idiots who know a bit of English, read our media, than read a bit of NYT, Guardian style propaganda and think “Wow, it so like us in the 90-is” and by default support every last regime change everywhere. People who know about regime change, are mostly( of course, except paid foreign assets) against it and are on your, Macedonian side. The only way of regime change I accept is on free elections, not by storming government or parliament, or by sowing seeds of discord that lead to civil war. Most people in Serbia are only now realizing what has happened to us, that they lost 15-20 years of their lives so someone could line their pockets while helping someone else`s line theirs even more. So it will take some time for us( as a nation) here to realize that it is the same play but with different actors. Also a word of warning: When October changes happened here , some idiot in new government ( now president of a parliamentary party) proposed banning Milosevic`s and Seselj`s parties( SPS, SRS). Of course, that would certainly led to bloodshed, and might even lead to a civil war( I really think maniacs, both our own or sponsors abroad would welcome it, hell they even risked one when storming Parliament with police on the streets and army ready to be deployed).
Also a link about said event and US involvement, use google translate
Lester, thank you for your detailed post re: the situation in Serbia. Its highly informative and I can see many parallels with Macedonia. The shocking thing is the support that the fifth column is able to achieve, even when that support works directly against the interests of the country. I’m sure the explanation lies in the fact that people are weak, and when money is waved in front of their noses suddenly they’re able to find justifications for anything, even murder. Man does not live on bread alone, but it sure helps.
As for Kosovo, no Macedonian agreed or agrees to its recognition. If you recall, it was done along with Montenegro, and of course, with American pressure. It was passed of as a “good-will gesture”, but every Macedonian knows that 99 % of all Albanians support Greater Albania and that such a move definitely goes against Macedonia’s interests. Indeed, we have had nothing but complications, provocations, terrorist attacks, all from Kosovo side ad infinitum.
If the US succeeds in “closing the Macedonian Question”, by wiping the Macedonian people off the map via the name change, this will lead to a kind of protracted Ukraine in the heart of the Balkans. As Bismarck said, he who controls the lower Vardar Valley ( Republic of Macedonia ) will control the Balkans. If the US succeed, you can bet that the Balkans will become a powder keg! There will have to be brutal, totalitarian rule just to keep a lid on everything. Does EU want another Ukraine on its doorstep? As US weakens, as it eventually must, war will be inevitable.
I am now light years away from home, in diaspora – unfortunately – and though am following closely all the events there, cannot provide you with a first-hand account of the nuances of the present local sentiment that interests you.
[As quite an aside. If you speak Macedonian, you can probably understand enough Serbian (i.e., Serbo-Croatian; as in turn, I can make out most of Macedonian language, either written or spoken not too fast) to get a fair idea about what transpires there, from such sources as
(etc., etc.; *not* all equal…)
And, of course, there is our Serbian Saker http://stepskisoko.com/ …]
Petar, thank you for your reply. Lester’s excellent post above gave a broad but detailed sketch of whats going on in Serbia, pretty much what I was after. Best, D.
[url=http://aciclovir.link/]aciclovir[/url] [url=http://nolvadexforsale.cricket/]nolvadex[/url] [url=http://buyclonidine.online/]clonidine[/url] [url=http://buytadalafil.space/]buy tadalafil[/url]
This – the mechanism behind ‘color revolutions’ – should perhaps be taught (in case it isn’t already) as standard fare in civics classes in the higher grades of elementary and all grades of secondary schools in vulnerable countries. A population educated in those matters will be able to recognize attempts at color revolutions early, and avoid getting engulfed in the euphoria of street demonstrations.
During the coup against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in 2002 his supporters were lucky to realize they were numerous enough to influence things and roll back the coup, but often the populations are too apathetic or too in awe of foreign big shots dispensing cookies and moral support to think straight and for themselves.
Also, worth underlining is the use of deadly force – anonymous snipers – as a standard and sure-fire tactic, as was seen as early as 2002 in Venezuela (and probably much earlier) and famously recently in the Maidan Square in Kiev.
“A population educated in those matters will be able to recognize attempts at color revolutions early, and avoid getting engulfed in the euphoria of street demonstrations.”
Sadly,the majority of the populations is not enough educated – by herself – and the powers behind such actions are very sofisticated in planning.They always count on the mob – that kind of mob which is first acting and then thinking (if thinking at all).Any government which not stands openly with the Empire but is corrupt,has a “chance” of being “colored”
Cuba in many ways was a pioneer of these tecniques in Centralamerica during 1970’s and 1980’s
Huh? And the contras? I suppose they were the hard-working Central American underclass being oppressed by their Commie masters. Is that it?
(1) “… representatives of several dozen defense ministries of various countries participated in this discussion …”
It would be quite interesting to know, which countries?
(2) Apparently, Syria is the only place so far, where the AZ Empire failed to usurp the regime by these methods. It seems that Ishchenko suggests that ultimately, the only way a country targeted by the Empire for regime change can be saved, is by direct involvement of “another superpower” – which can mean only Russia. So, the natural question arises, does Russia have material resources to get involved in all such places?
Diplomatic backing and intelligence is perhaps the biggest thing. With good intelligence it would be easier to nip the colour revolutions in the bud.
Reading Ischenko, one almost gets the feeling of being transported into an altered state. You swear you can hear the soft “shclick”, “click”, “click” as the components of his argument slide perfectly into place.
A textbook demonstration of clear, unornamented exposition.
Yes this is a big topic. Tried and tested devilish ‘Colour Revolution’ technologies appear to be widely seeded in most countries in the world where apparently innocent NGOs have been active in funding, either establishing (or infiltrating) and mobilising – public movements around some issue of another. Doesn’t matter whether it’s legitimate protest about rubbish collections, corruption, or EU membership, a mass movement springs up and takes to public demonstrations which on the face of it should be quite legitimate expressions of participatory democracy. Meanwhile, seemingly by magic leaders and activists spring up as cadres planted and trained by the said NGOs. And surprise, surprise, the said movement is no longer willing to accept a fixing of the initial wrong, or compromise but ups the ante of demands and tactics, and along the way (in the main) innocent citizens are fired up as dupes of the process… a new form of cannon fodder…
So clearly given the critical role of the NGO’s, either local or foreign, invariably with foreign backing and money from such as George Soros Open Society Foundation, National Endowment for Democracy, USAID etc. – then these are key organisations that any country wanting to protect its sovereignty needs to closely watch and control.
Russia, (apparently) India, and now China are doing exactly that.
Ah, then Latin America is doomed if Ischenko’s thesis that only another super power can defeat a concerted multi phased color revolution attack.\\
It is too soon to make such a sweeping statement. Let’s see Venezuela and Let’s see Brazil. Ecuador and Bolivia are holding strong.
One can hope for conscious revolutionary leadership that does not get assassinated by CIA death squads.
I like Ishchenko, and read his bones for glimpses of the future ;)
But I disagree with the concept that only a superpower’s weight can defeat a color revolution. Cuba stopped the Twitter revolution dead in its tracks. I’m sure scholars of the art can find multiple instances where the inherent sovereign strength of the target forestalled the initial movements of the ploy.
But the US doesn’t give up, of course. This used to be a fact that raised terror in one’s mind, but now it raises bemusement, as the US attempts the same old ploys that no longer work, or that it no longer has the strength to manifest. The night of the US terror is ending. The dawn of the multi polar world is rising.
FACTBOX: Two Years After May 2 Odessa Massacre
MOSCOW (Sputnik) — May 2 marks the second anniversary of the politically inspired massacre in the port city of Odessa that resulted in the deaths of 48 people.
The tragedy happened at the height of the political crisis in Ukraine which erupted in 2013.
On November 21, 2013, Ukraine suspended its consideration of the EU Association Agreement to enhance national security and study the required package of measures in more detail. The Ukrainian cabinet of ministers explained this decision by the need to develop economic relations with Russia and other CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) countries.
The first appeals for protest appeared in the social media immediately after this decision was announced. On the evening of the same day about 2,000 people gathered on Independence Square (in Ukrainian “Maidan Nezalezhnosti”) in downtown Kiev.
After the initial demonstrations had been dispersed on November 30, large-scale street protests resumed in Kiev on February 18, the day of the Verkhovna Rada session, during which the opposition demanded a return to the parliamentary presidential form of government by restoring the 2004 Constitution. The aggressive crowd tried to approach the Rada’s building. Radicals broke into buildings in central Kiev, burned tires and threw stones and Molotov cocktails at the police. According to police reports, the radicals used firearms for the first time that day.
On February 21, 2014, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych announced his decision to initiate early presidential elections and return to the 2004 Constitution with the redistribution of powers in favor of the parliamentary republic. He also urged the nation to start forming a government of national trust.
According to official Ukrainian Healthcare Ministry data, made public in April 2014, 105 people died as a result of the unrest on February 20, 2014, including 94 people during clashes on Institutskaya Street in downtown Kiev.
On February 27, the Rada endorsed the so-called “government of popular trust” with Arseniy Yatsenyuk as Prime Minister.
A number of regions in the southwest of Ukraine did not recognize the legitimacy of the new Kiev authorities. Pro-federalization protests were then repeatedly raging in Ukraine’s east.
On May 2, 2014 clashes broke out in Odessa on Kulikovo Field square between the pro-federalization activists on one side, and the fans of the Odessa and Kharkiv football teams on the other. The latter were joined by Maidan activists. The pro-Kiev radicals, supported by the armed forces of the Right Sector (far-right Ukrainian nationalist political party), had locked anti-government protesters inside Odessa’s House of Trade Unions and set it on fire by hurling Molotov cocktails at the building.
Those who were trapped inside had little to no chance of extinguishing the blaze since the fire hoses in the building were out of order. Many of trapped people died while attempting to escape the inferno by jumping out of the windows. Others were simply shot by the radicals.
According to official data, the tragic incident saw 48 people killed, including seven women and a minor and another 200 injured, including 49 policemen and 14 servicemen. The events were the bloodiest civil conflict in Odesa since the 1918 soldiers’ riots during the 1918-20 civil war on the territories of the former Russian Empire.
Following the tragedy, the Ukrainian Security Service accused former Prime Minister Serhiy Arbuzov and former Deputy Prime Minister Oleksandr Klymenko of fomenting violence in Odesa.
On May 3, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev offered condolences to the families of those who died in the city of Odesa. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov urged OSCE to use its potential in a bid to persuade Kiev to cancel the military operation against the people in Ukraine’s southeast.
On May 4, the coup-appointed Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk accused the country’s Interior Ministry of failing to prevent the Odessa tragedy. He declared that all the senior police officials in Odesa were fired in connection with the tragedy.
The same day, Ukrainian police released 67 anti-government protesters who were detained in Odesa after almost a thousand of locals had picketed the police department building.
The investigators offered several versions of the reasons behind the massacre, the main one being the “provocations by radical groups.”
The Ukrainian Security Service initially assumed that the Russian intelligence services could have links to the Odesa massacre, but eventually the version was not confirmed by the investigators.
The hearings on the Odesa massacre case have began in November 2014, and were repeatedly postponed for various reasons.
The criminal case includes several episodes, particularly, on the crimes committed on the Greek square in Odessa, where first clashes happened, on the deaths of people in Trade Unions House, as well negligence by police, law enforcement and firemen.
Only the first episode is being considered by the court. Among the suspects are 23 people with 13 people on the wanted list. The list of the suspects includes Russian, Ukrainian and Belorussian nationals.
Suspects’ lawyers were voicing the incompetence of the investigators, as well as the “fabricated” nature of the charges.
The investigation into the Trade Unions House’s massacre is still underway.
The case over the local police negligence is being hampered by the fact that the main suspect, former deputy head of the Odesa Police Dmitry Fuchedzhi, is hiding from the investigation. According to the Interior Ministry data, he is currently residing in Transnistria, the fact that is denied by the local authorities.
The case against firemen, who had allegedly arrived to the scene too late, has not been closed, either.
Several non-governmental organizations in Odesa are also conducting their own investigation into the tragedy.
According to the November 2015 report by EU Council advisory group on the May 2 massacre in Odesa, the domestic investigation by Kiev did not meet the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), in particular, the investigation lacked independence and had shortcomings, which undermined the ability of the Ukrainian authorities to bring the perpetrators to justice.
The United Nations Monitoring Mission for Human Rights also expressed concern by the lack of progress in the investigation.
It follows from this excellent and lucid article that, if the progressive overthrow of independent nations and their absorption by the empire of chaos is to be prevented, one or more superpowers must at all times be ready and willing to step in as Russia did in Syria. Under what conditions might this happen?
First and foremost, the world’s only two superpowers (other than the aggressor, the USA) are China and Russia. As it happens, they have already forged numerous close links under the increasing pressure of American aggression. So it stands to reason that each of them will help to defend the other, as and when necessary. Because, as that grand old American Benjamin Franklin stated in very different times, “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately”.
Next, we may note that Russia and China have a strong shared interest in keeping the USA out of the entire continent of Asia. Once it gets a foothold in any smaller nation, such as any of the -stans, it will be able to bring its whole range of destructive tools to bear at close range. If they can exclude the USA as completely as possible from the whole of Asia, they will have a safe base on which to build. To accomplish this, it will be necessary to persuade the peoples and governments of all the Asian countries that their interests will best be served by standing back to back: “all for one and one for all”. Today, the areas of incipient rot or infection stand out clearly: Syria, Iraq, and potentially Central Asia (the -stans). The Americans are also doing their best to stir up trouble in Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. Of course Japan, barring a fundamental popular revolution, is not part of Asia but rather an outlying state of the USA; as is Taiwan. Thus the dangers to Asia are Japan, Taiwan, Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
Once the continent of Asia has been secured, and protected from any future American penetration by the antibiotic of prosperity, Russia and China – perhaps joined by major powers such as India, Pakistan, Brazil and others – can look to offering support to potential victims of the USA in Africa and South America. As for Europe, its fate is in its own hands.
Brazil may have seen its best days. I don’t see how it can continue as we once saw it. Too much corruption. And like Argentina, the US lackeys are poised to take it over.
“It follows from this excellent and lucid article that, if the progressive overthrow of independent nations and their absorption by the empire of chaos is to be prevented”
I sometimes wonder if it would not be better to die in Aleppo than live in Shanghai
“Right now, in Shanghai, China, a factory owned by the Taiwanese Pegatron Group is pushing out millions of units of the iPhone 6s for Apple. There, its young production workers toil six days a week in 12-hour shifts. Each day they are paid for 10 and half hours of work, not counting 15 minutes of unpaid meetings. The mandatory overtime shift runs from 5:30 pm until 8:00 pm. Most workers will not eat dinner before doing overtime because the 30-break given for a meal is not enough time.
Before overtime pay, workers making the iPhone earn only the local minimum wage of $318 per month, or about $1.85 per hour. This is not a living wage. Even if the factory did not mandate overtime as it does, workers would still depend on their 60-hour workweeks to get by.
After their long shifts, workers take a 30-minute shuttle bus back to their dorms where up to 14 people are crammed into a room. Mold grows pervasively along the walls. Bed bugs have spread throughout the dorm, and many workers are covered in red bug bites.”
Who, or what, is the empire of chaos?
This is the hidden side of China’s accession in the global economy
“The aggressor-state has to have not only a huge military superiority over the victim-state (this is desirable, but not absolutely necessary).”
That is illogical: if it has to have something, then that something is absolutely necessary.
The translation of “Государство-агрессор должно обладать не просто абсолютным военным превосходством над страной-жертвой (данный момент как раз не обязателен, хотя и желателен)” would better read:
“The aggressor state should not just have an absolute military advantage over the victim-country (though desirable, at any given moment this is not obligatory)”.
Not a difference worth noting. The meaning and gravity of the words remain identical.
I really appreciate Ishchenko’s concise presentation of what the nature of war and conquest is under the 21st Century Hegemon. Thank you for the translation, Seva.
The rollbacks of the color revolutions also lead to frozen conflicts, and a satisfactory containment by the Hegemon. So, when they fail at the big goal, they have vassals or captives anyway.
Hong Kong’s economy is being destroyed by the failure/success of the Umbrella Revolution. That is a satisfactory ending of the effort that “failed”.
So, Taiwan is now back to 50 years ago with the lose of the elections by the KMT which was negotiating Cross Straits accommodation with the Mainland. US wins big.
These are economic victories by the US that weaken China. So, too, the turn by the Philippines back to the US full force with basing of planes and naval vessels not there since the early ’90s.
Now, they are working on South Korean President Park.
They worked to get out the civilian government in Thailand, but the greedy military junta has turned to China anyway. A fail for now by the US.
However, we have seen them work over Malaysian PM big time with disappearing and shot down airliners and much material about corruption. This will be a big “get” if they can separate Malaysia from China. (lots of bloodlines there).
Singapore has changed with Lee’s weak son running the show. His inclination was to go toward the US. In return his economy is turning to sludge. His father was too smart for the US to mess with. Now they have an easy tool to stir. This is crucial because Russia is using the port for its naval ships. The US would like to keep Russia out of the South China Sea area. That is why the US is very heavily bribing the Hanoi greedy Communists. Vietnam is the next Taiwan for the US planners.
Easy to turn against China, but very hard to turn against Russia who bases in Haiphong and Cam Ranh Bay.
The US is weaker than ever but as active and aggressive as ever. Just because it fails (as in Iraq and Syria) does not mean it loses everything. Fall back results are often almost as good as the original goal.
Containment of Russia and China is the true 21st Century strategy. It’s working just fine in small but effective ways.
A good article, however, it’s important to keep in mind the purpose for subversive activities in the first place. The primary goal is to seize and exploit the intrinsic resources and wealth of the target country. The actual benefactors are not governments. This appropriated wealth accrues to the international oligarchy in the City of London and Wall Street. Governments such as the US act merely as agents.
The color revolution is only one part of the toolkit. Other important strategies include cultural subversion by propaganda and destruction of a country’s economic infrastructure through capital manipulation. The extension of international loans leading to crises of sovereign debt is also very powerful.
One wonders why Russia does not itself engage in these activities in countries such as the Baltic states, or the Stan countries.
“This appropriated wealth accrues to the international oligarchy”
Since the Russian oligarchy is part of this exact same international oligarchy i’m bemused at your wonderment.
The Russian oligarchy represent only a secondary level of control. They are the mere local managers who exist in every subjugated country. They ensure access to local resources and keep the country in the Third World role. For that they receive a relatively modest compensation. These observations have been written about many times by many authors. However, for whatever reasons, there is a tendency to ascribe these policies to the active agent such as the US government.
The important point to make is that defense of a country’s economy and financial system is no less important than defending soldiers and governments.
“These observations have been written about many times by many authors.”
That does not mean that those observations are true.
A more likely explanation is that they are much more than “local managers”:
It seems a flight of fancy to imagine that “Russia” would miraculously rise from it’s knees after the total subjugation of the early 90’s.
Russia is under control of the World bank & IMF as practically every other country is. Nationalism may be an infantile disease but that is of no import since the illusion of Russian independence is exactly that – a mirage.
The only difference between “Russian” soldiers today compared to years gone by are that instead of jumping to the command of a Russian elite they now jump to the design of the international (rather global) one – the conflict we see is contrived to provide the common man an illusion of hope.
Why no mention of the Donbass/Ukraine?
Also, it is quite obvious, in the phrase ‘color revolution’, that they are formed in the minds of the satanic – or at least under satanic control – USG employees (not all of them) and the outsiders, typically the satanic ‘elite’.
At the crux of the matter, is the original, jewish neocon, wolfowitz doctrine* and neocon PNAC*, still in effect, as in force through jew nuland married to jew kagan, the co-founder of PNAC, in Ukraine.
*Look it up.
Although strong before, that entire tribal cabal got wings just after the collapse of the USSR, and finally solidified its criminal choke of America under “Bill” Clinton’s administration (1993-2001).
For instance. In 1996, their member, the notorious war criminal Madeleine Albright got appointed as “Secretary of State” (better known as Secretary of Hate) by B. Clinton (and approved by the U.S. Senate unanimously – 99 to 0 – as no senator dared not to vote “for”!…). Much could be said about that trash. One only need recall how Serbs of Belgrade sheltered her and her entire family escaping the Nazis at the threshold of WWII, and then again provided them hospitality following the WWII. And how she “repaid” all that kindness by enthusiastically leading the barbaric two-and-a-half months bombing of those same Serbs and that same Belgrade in 1999. Just listen and watch her screaming in public “Disgusting Serbs!” (at point ~1:03 into the video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FaPuBUY558
Could you only imagine, what destiny would await someone using that same adjective in public in reference to her own tribe?…
“PNAC”, “Project for the New American Century” which you mentioned, was founded in 1997, also at the time of the aforementioned solidification.
“Ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars but be not afraid.”
The color revelation is war itself and its color revolution is bloody green green money and power.
We need to learn the color of the beast, the green eyed mobster of jealously hoarded power.
To make green clean again we have reject usury. Until the church was corrupted it knew that, going way back to the first ones who held things in common.
I do my bit as the green leprechauns say. I do not take interest.
There is a thesis ten. The tenth commandment thunders “do not covet goods.” In other words do not take interest.
Russia will be forever mired in war until she returns to her roots and learns this lesson about soiled green money.
Our vineyard flag waves in our face: stop the empire’s war on Russia. It’s not a false flag but we are false if are usurers.
Don’t forget the technological front. All arab spring coulored revolutions where preceeded by DARPA’s calls on Social media and narrative control. http://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication http://www.darpa.mil/program/narrative-networks http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/media
Those efforts where clear to anyone paying attention, and coloured revolutions where quite visible as external ingerence. Mass media was used globaly to promote the narrative, and 5th column assets where mobilized with great concertation of objectives.
War is war, whatever weapons are used, and for many years that guns and missiles have stopped being the weapons of reference.
This deserves a very wide distribution. I read and very much appreciated Korybko’s Hybrid War, but I think these 9 theses put a sharper point on the issues in a few paragraphs than Korybko did in scores of pages.
Perhaps, this concise presentation appears sharper because of Hybrid Wars full explanation. I doubt you possessed the thorough knowledge of Hybrid Wars or even this would seem superfluous to your understanding.
In fact, this is droll. Without background understanding, it would not educate well most readers.
Hybrid War is now being used around the world as a text by military and government agencies.
I doubt this lean presentation would do the same.
These nine are well-done. Thanks!
International Law and the Customs of War evolve in a mirroring contract – what’s “fair” when one party does a thing is also “fair” for other Sovereigns…
This is plain.
Thus it’s clear that the Chinese or the Russians can do, may do, whatever the US does, at least according to the Customs. But practicality also factors in…reciprocal actions may or may not serve any particular Party. Over time and as conditions evolve, therefore, the US may expect to suffer the same sort of color attacks that are today served out to the world…
Chickens do tend to come home to roost…
Better we all be nice and polite and trade with one-another in peace. So, who’s benefiting from the war? Are they just lucky, or are they criminals?
Questions for historians, if any survive…
This is a solid, succinct summary of the typical thinking about colour “revolutions” I’ve seen among Russian and Russian-oriented commentators. It makes excellent points but seems to me to have a huge blind spot: The people. Much like the Americans, it constructs the people as something like a blank slate to be written on by elites, with the only question being whether these elites will be locally oriented and broadly nationalist or controlled from outside by imperialist, neo-colonialist elites based in some other country. It seems unrelated, but is not, that both this article and others I have seen from the Russian-oriented perspective tend to notice colour coups in Russia’s near abroad and the Middle East, but be largely unaware of or uninterested in the experience of places like Latin America.
In doing so, it misses a very key ingredient of colour coups: To succeed, they require precisely that the elites in charge at the time of the coup have limited connection to the people at large, and that the people be relatively disorganized and powerless in terms of grassroots organization. This is instead treated as a background assumption–it is tacitly seen as inevitable that a government will have no real project for the advancement and benefit of the people, that the people will have no real voice, organization or power, that elite groups will be governing from their own perspective according to their own judgement and, frankly, mainly for their own benefit. But this is not inevitable. Strong and sustained public movements not primarily led or controlled by elites are fairly common in Latin America, although not (at least lately) in Eastern Europe or the Middle East.
There were repeated, indeed endemic attempts at colour coups in Venezuela during Chavez’s lifetime, and they failed although Venezuela had no real help from any outside quarter. The key was that, whenever the US-sponsored opposition took to the streets, the organized public from the lower and lower-middle classes took to the streets against them, usually in much larger numbers. Direct involvement of the public on their own account in alliance with the government shreds the supposed justifications colour coups depend on, and makes clear that attempts at armed rebellion would get nowhere. Bolivia has seen similar, successful mobilizations against attempts at colour coups, and there are other examples.
But this degree of public involvement is not easy to maintain, especially given typical existing government structures and the ways political parties are structured. Since Chavez’s death, and even to some extent before, the Chavista political party has gradually become more bureaucratic and “reformist”, starting to collapse into a more typical social-democratic posture. The people remain very organized and are continuing their own project, but with less and less connection to the political elites supposedly representing that project. This has allowed the colour coup process to begin, after a fair amount of typical US “make the economy scream” tactics, in common use since at least as far back as Chile in 1973. Similarly in Argentina and Brazil, it is lack of connection between the elites in government and the people these left-of-centre governments originally championed, and a failure or refusal to foster popular power, that has allowed foreign-sponsored backlashes to succeed. Also in Greece, it seems clear that Tsipras and Syriza snatched humiliating defeat from the jaws of victory largely because once in government Syriza under Tsipras distanced itself from, lost touch with, the popular movements that had brought it to power. In Venezuela it is hard to be sure just what will happen, because of the strong popular movements, the communal councils, the communes, and the moderate success of land reform. They may be able to reclaim the Chavista political party or forge a new political instrument to regain power. The US-backed compradors have not so far been able to capitalize very much on their recent electoral gains. But it does seem to take both to get anywhere and hold onto nationalist power in the face of attempted colour coups: A political party taking electoral power and governing, joined to a powerful grassroots popular movement with power and agency of its own. As soon as the party begins to insulate its thinking and motivations from the grassroots, often due to the ambitions or greed of party elites, sometimes due to well-intentioned technocratic thinking, it becomes vulnerable to the colour coup.
So. If a group in government want to adopt nationalist policies, resisting the domination and parasitism of imperialists, transnational corporations and international finance, they will fail unless they bring in the people. Colour coups will sweep them away unless they have a project that both benefits and gives power to the people–political power, economic power, informational power–reducing the dominance of elites. Without the people as the counterbalance from below to the fake grassroots of the colour “revolutionaries”, what is left is precisely the sterile logic of defeat found in articles like this one. And even if they have such a project, as soon as they turn away from it, as soon as they allow entrenched bureaucracies or paternalist instincts or compromise with wealthy elites to start draining power from the people again, they will be vulnerable once more. It is no doubt for most elite groups a bitter pill, but they must give away power in order to keep it; the only other option is letting themselves be bought by the imperialists and becoming pliant compradors, handing their country’s wealth over in return for some crumbs from the table.
In the short term, depending on Russia or somebody to save them might work, but probably not until they’ve gotten to the stage of armed conflict, at which point they’ve already lost heavily.
@ Purple Library Guy
Good analisys, however
“Since Chavez’s death, and even to some extent before, the Chavista political party has gradually become more bureaucratic and “reformist”, starting to collapse into a more typical social-democratic posture. The people remain very organized and are continuing their own project, but with less and less connection to the political elites supposedly representing that project.”
I differ widely of this view. What we have seen is a massive reinforcement of paramilitarism and the schock doctrine, as you correctly mentioned, has been used in CHile and Argentina in the 70’s but much more sophisticated. Differently to Chile, this Revolution has lasted already more that 17 years, not only 3. The achievements have been immense and the lower social strata know this and, two things must be taken into account here:
1) Chavez’s people are armed, and organazed and 2) Chavez’s people will fight to death, literally.
This is not Chile, where in spite of being to secret anymore, the coup was a surprise and a schock, veneyuelan are prepared and ready to fight for what Chavez left to them. USA and his dogs will not be able to cope with an army of 7.5 mio fierce soldiers. Most of the opposition leaders as well as middle class ‘opositores’ simply do not have what it takes to fight back here. They are so arrogant and believe this masses of people are ignorant and payed by the government to support it. They believe Venezuela is falling apart because ‘they’ (the decent and meritocratic Venezuela) has emigrated. If worst comes to wort, this will be a blood-bad that will make Syria look as a vacation camp. I pray to The Lord we do not have to go through it.
Maduros Government has been under attack since day 0. Nevertheless many, if not all, social measures have been held on place. The Chavismo has lost many of its key political figures to the paramilitarism, or Contras, how they used to be called in the 80’s. Maduro’s Government has tried hard to negotiate with the Oligarchy, knowing that any too harsh measure can unleash foreign intervention and civil war. This attempts of negotiation may have been perceived as a turn to more social-democratic politics. In reality, there is little room to maneuver as almost all government instances have been infiltrated and sabotage is daily on the menu. Nevertheless, it has been possible until now, even nobody believed Maduro would last a week, or a month, or a year, or….
I certainly hope you’re right about the Venezuelan people. You give me some optimism.
But about Maduro and the PSUV, I dunno. You compromise with the bastards, you just look weak–and usually weaken your hand for the next round, too. If it was Chavez, he would have nationalized Polar at least a year ago, and the rest would have pulled in their horns for a while for fear of being next. And frankly, even Chavez allowed on a number of occasions the ministries to derail efforts to hand companies and factories over to worker control, keeping them under managers who generally were against “el proceso” no matter what lip service they might give. All moves towards worker control in government enterprises have been pretty much completely blocked. But it’s the managers who are going to weaken and sabotage the process, not the workers; you leave them in place, you’re weaker from then on.
Also, people often have a mistaken view of how political power works. There’s this idea that you only have so much “political capital”, and if you “spend” it, you have less remaining for other initiatives. The truth is almost the opposite; you strengthen political power by using it successfully. When you have power, and you use it to get something done, you do two things: First, you instil in people, both those with you and those against you, the belief that you can in fact get things done despite opposition. Those with you gain confidence, those against you lose confidence, those on the fence begin to think you’re the side to back. Second, you generally accomplish something that helps people on your side in some way. Thus, those people on your side who were helped gain strength, making your side stronger by that much the next time. So the more you do, the more you can do.
Contrariwise, if you let yourself be hemmed in by countermoves, if you back down and compromise, if you let the “Yes, Prime Minister” bureaucrats persuade you of what is possible, that is when those on your side begin to fear that nothing can be done and the factors against you cannot be defeated, and demobilize, while those against you smell blood.
This confirm the age old wisdom that it takes a force to oppose a force. Absent some supernatural help this can only be another country with the political, financial and military means to support you – in exchange for your support for its own agenda.
A country may wish to remain neutral, but it can only remain so in practice as long as all of the great powers allow it to be neutral, a painful lesson learned by Belgium in 1914 and by the Netherlands in 1940.
Now the situation is especially relevant for the Eastern European countries that are members of the EU, but oppose their own moral and demographic destruction by the hands of that same EU. They were relieved to be free from the enemy they knew but embraced the enemy they knew not.
Getting out of this situation requires a civilizational choice plus the ability to act fast and decisively on the political level. Maybe the SCO can speed up its accession procedures.
“This is war. A new kind of war.”
Is this really a “new” kind of war that America is perpetuating?
Or, more likely, this is merely what America is guilty of for decades dating back to the Cold War–and before?
The USA has specialized in planting its agents of influence, backing insurgents, and manipulating the internal politics of countries to destabilize targetted nations for a very long time–long before self-styed independent journalists/analysts were spouting trendy phrases about “Hybrid War.”
Thus, what is happening in Syria is a replay of what the United States did against El Salvador in the 1980s (aka the Salvador Option).
“The Salvador Option For Syria”: US-NATO Sponsored Death Squads Integrate “Opposition Forces”
As for regime change, America is a serial regime change nation and has perpetuated this kind of political subversion dating back to the 19th Century with the USA’s illegal overthrow of the sovereign Hawaiian nation and its subsequent absoprtion into the American Empire.
From then, the die was cast, and the United States would plunge into a frenzied orgy of regime change operations for over a century and counting….
Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq
The introduction of Lenin and the Sealed Train into St Petersburg in 1917 was a “Colour Revolution” instigated by Germany and Ludendorff for which he gained Brest-Litovsk Treaty and the assassination of the German Ambassador.
Konrad Henlein in Sudetenland was a proponent of “Colour Revolution” in 1938
Nasser was a proponent of “Colour Revolution” backed by the CIA in Egypt
Excellent article outlining the escalating steps of colour-hybrid war. This piece by Ishchenko nicely fits in with an interview on the Corbett Report on American-Western oligarch backed NGOs as one aspect of aggressive western imperialism hybrid war. We can see this warfare being waged in several of the different phases Ishchenko describes in many areas around the world today, Brazil-Soth America, Syria, Lybia again and so forth. As many western citizens are beginning to realize Putin’s Russia is now the leader of the “Free World” such as it is.
The Corbett Report piece is called: Patrick Henningsen Exposes the Human Rights- Industrial Complex
Hmmm… Very interesting. Something is cooking in South Africa. All the signs are there. We had the violent demonstrations six months ago over student fees. Nothing much happened. Then you have one of the opposition parties (pro-Western), taking the president to court over corruption charges. The president is found guilty but refuses to step down. And now you have another opposition party (Pan African), threatening to take him down through the barrel of a gun. Do you think it is maybe because we are the “S” in BRICS? They are busy with the “C”, the “B” and the “R” and soon the “I” as well…