The main content of all “net-centric wars” consists of “effects-based operations” (EBO). This is the most important concept in the entire net-centric warfare theory developed in the US. EBO are defined by US specialists as a “combination of actions aimed at forming a specific model of behavior among friends, neutral forces, and enemies during peace, crisis, and war.” (Edward A. Smith, Jr. "Effects based Operations. Applying Network centric Warfare in Peace, Crisis and War", Washington, DC: DoD CCRP, 2002.) EBO’s main result is the establishment of full and absolute control over all parties to the conflict (including armed conflict), and their complete manipulation under all circumstances. Including when the conflict is ongoing, when it is threatening, and when there is peace.
The essence of “net-centric warfare” is that it does not have a beginning or an end, it is being conducted on a permanent basis,
It’s a design for global manipulation and total control on a world scale. That is apparent from the EBO definition.
Today one of the characteristic manifestations of NCW [Net-Centric Warfare] in a globalizing world are “color revolutions”. A Color Revolution (CR) is a net-centric operation whose objective is the removal of existing political regimes in another country. It is based on “non-violent struggle” methods developed by George Sharp in the 1980s (a US product, one of net-centric technologies). The CR concept implies establishing full control over a country and its territory without the use of armed force, if possible. It can be achieved by applying “soft power” which US political scientist Joseph Nye Jr. defines as a state’s (or alliance’s or coalition’s) ability achieve desired international results through persuasion and not suppression, imposition, or compellence, which is characteristic of “hard power.” Soft power achieves its effect by inducing others to adhere to certain international norms of behavior, which leads to the desired outcome without applying compellence.
Color Revolution consequences.
For states and political systems, CRs contain aspects of colonialism. The interests of the target society are not taken into consideration, it is expendable ... The society itself is destabilized, social foundations are undermined, the respect for government disappears, dissatisfaction increases, and economy is in anything but a normal state. These are the ideal conditions to impose Western social models. US enters the country.
In the last 20 years, US and NATO transformed Ukraine into a country hostile to Russia also through the application of net-centric technologies. ... The outcome is the country’s territory passing under US control. ... Being a nuclear weapons state, Russia is considered by the US and NATO one of its main geopolitical adversaries.
In the last 20 years, US and NATO transformed Ukraine into a country hostile to Russia also through the application of net-centric technologies. ... The outcome is the country’s territory passing under US control. ... Being a nuclear weapons state, Russia is considered by the US and NATO one of its main geopolitical adversaries.
Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, spoke with Bob Schieffer [Face the Nation] on the recent governmental overthrow in Egypt predicting it would spur similar movements throughout the world.
"Madeline Albright, the head of NDI and [I, the] head of IRI" ... "I think that we need to get a transition that really understands that elections are not the answer. We've had election after election in places that have been meaningless. It is the apparatus, it is the modalities, it is the education of voters, it's all of the things that go to a free and fair election. And I think that IRI, NDI, National Endowment for Democracy [NED] who helped the countries behind the Iron Curtain after it fell to move forward with a free and fair election -- we don't want this revolution hijacked by an extremist organization and we've seen examples of both over the last 20 years."
4 additional refs.; 3 Wikipedia sources and 1 a critique-article at COHA.org (Council on Hemispheric Affairs):
Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, spoke with Bob Schieffer [Face the Nation] on the recent governmental overthrow in Egypt predicting it would spur similar movements throughout the world.
That video also sourced at a yeoldejournalist.com article, "[...] McCain, Obama’s Grand Chessboard, and Russia’s Color Revolution", cited as re-posted there on December 10, 2011 from activistpost.com.
As Americans choose their 44th President, discussions on just who should take the seat of power in the White House have spread far beyond the country itself. Polls conducted in the former Soviet states of the CIS [Wikipedia: Commonwealth of Independent States formed during the dissolution of the Soviet Union] show the people are divided over who they want to take over.
The main content of all “net-centric wars” consists of “effects-based operations” (EBO). This is the most important concept in the entire net-centric warfare theory developed in the US. EBO are defined by US specialists as a “combination of actions aimed at forming a specific model of behavior among friends, neutral forces, and enemies during peace, crisis, and war.” (Edward A. Smith, Jr. "Effects based Operations. Applying Network centric Warfare in Peace, Crisis and War", Washington, DC: DoD CCRP, 2002.) EBO’s main result is the establishment of full and absolute control over all parties to the conflict (including armed conflict), and their complete manipulation under all circumstances. Including when the conflict is ongoing, when it is threatening, and when there is peace. The essence of “net-centric warfare” is that it does not have a beginning or an end, it is being conducted on a permanent basis,
It’s a design for global manipulation and total control on a world scale. That is apparent from the EBO definition.
Today one of the characteristic manifestations of NCW [Net-Centric Warfare] in a globalizing world are “color revolutions”. A Color Revolution (CR) is a net-centric operation whose objective is the removal of existing political regimes in another country. It is based on “non-violent struggle” methods developed by [George Gene] Sharp in the 1980s [Refs. 1970s to 1990s: The Politics of Nonviolent Action, originally published in the United States in 1973; From Dictatorship to Democracy, written in 1993] (a US product, one of net-centric technologies). The CR concept implies establishing full control over a country and its territory without the use of armed force, if possible. It can be achieved by applying “soft power” which US political scientist Joseph Nye Jr. defines as a state’s (or alliance’s or coalition’s) ability achieve desired international results through persuasion and not suppression, imposition, or compellence, which is characteristic of “hard power.” Soft power achieves its effect by inducing others to adhere to certain international norms of behavior, which leads to the desired outcome without applying compellence.
Color Revolution consequences.
For states and political systems, CRs contain aspects of colonialism. The interests of the target society are not taken into consideration, it is expendable ... The society itself is destabilized, social foundations are undermined, the respect for government disappears, dissatisfaction increases, and economy is in anything but a normal state. These are the ideal conditions to impose Western social models. US enters the country.
In the last 20 years, US and NATO transformed Ukraine into a country hostile to Russia also through the application of net-centric technologies. ... The outcome is the country’s territory passing under US control. ... Being a nuclear weapons state, Russia is considered by the US and NATO one of its main geopolitical adversaries.
Wikipedia Refs. - History:
Colour revolution or color revolution: a revolutionary wave, the origins of which can be traced back to the 1986 People Power Revolution (also known as the "Yellow Revolution") in the Philippines.
Scroll down to Student movements: The first of these was Otpor! ("Resistance!") in Serbia, which was founded at Belgrade University in October 1998 and began protesting against Miloševic' during the Kosovo War.
Kerry, in defining U.S. action in Ukraine, said that «We [the United States] are not involved in multiple color revolutions». Someone in Kerry’s position should know better. After all, he is not only the chief foreign policy officer of the United States but he served as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 2009 to 2013 and was a member of the committee from the very outset of America’s «themed» or «color» revolutions, beginning with the October 5th Revolution, which overthrew Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic in 2000.
The alarming record of U.S. support for color revolutions around the world speaks for itself.
What is even more galling about Kerry’s denial of U.S. operations aimed at overthrowing various governments is that it was he who chaired a series of hearings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1987 to 1989 on the covert [...] war to overthrow the Sandinista government of Nicaragua.
After the overthrow of Milosevic in 2000 in a street protest-turned-revolution that followed the Gene Sharp/CIA manual to the tee and which was backed by the granddaddy of all NGO protest groups, OTPOR!, there were some 20 themed revolutions in rapid succession. These were followed by the «Arab Spring» themed revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. Soros and his NGOs’ fingerprints were found on smaller attempted revolutions from Honduras to Maldives. OTPOR personnel were even dispatched to some of these countries, courtesy of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), to assist in the fomenting of rebellion.
Mr. Kerry says Washington was not involved in «multiple color revolutions». Why did he use the term «multiple color revolutions?» Because there has been repeated U.S. support for multiple color revolutions [Ref. listings and details at the article site]
The history of U.S. support for themed revolutions continued well after the Arab Spring. After the second Ukrainian themed revolution against the Yanukovych presidency, the so-called «Euromaidan Revolution,» there were also attempted themed uprisings in Russia (the «Blue Bucket Revolution») and Macedonia.
There is no way on earth that Kerry can deny the themed color nature of U.S.-funded uprisings.
Kerry’s entire State Department top echelon has supported color revolutions under the [United Nations (2005 World Summit) and the] Obama administration’s R2P (Responsibility to Protect) rubric since 2009. Many of the interventionists, including [Victoria] Nuland, her human rights point man Thomas Melia, and Jeffrey Feltman (now the Political Undersecretary General under UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon after having served as the chief point man for the Arab Spring at the State Department) are either holdovers from the discredited George W. Bush administration or well-known neo-conservative political hacks. They are joined by the «neo-liberal» R2P architects, most notably national security adviser Susan Rice and UN ambassador Samantha Power.
John Kerry claims there has been no U.S. support for multiple color revolutions. Mr. Kerry should be sent Crayola’s 64 crayon pack as a reminder that there has been at least that number of color revolutions either hatched or planned by the United States since the October 5th Revolution in Belgrade.
This video references Gene Sharp and his writings from about 11:08 onward:
The Revolution Business, 2011 - Consultants are helping people [in] countries like Ukraine and Egypt build a foundation of knowledge in order to start revolutions.
was what seems like a spontaneous revolution actually a strategically planned event, fabricated by 'revolution consultants' long in advance?
Srdja Popovic was a founder of the organisation 'Otpor', a revolution training school. It was instrumental in the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic in the 1990s and has now inspired a new generation of activists. Political commentators like William Engdahl are convinced Otpor is being financed by the USA. "The people from Otpor gave us a book in which they described all their strategies", says Ezzedine Zaatour of the Tunisian uprising. That book was written by an American, Gene Sharp, and is now considered the "revolution guide book", being used by opposition movements worldwide. As Optor release their latest gadget, a resistance training computer game sponsored by American organisations, world leaders are voicing their concerns. "This is called a gentle coup!", insists Hugo Chavez.
The gentle coup an instrument for globalization. George Bush at the G8 in 2004 announced his "Free Market Enterprise." Following the strategy of Gene Sharp in his book "From Dictatorship to Democracy." Translated in 34 languages. Followed by activists on Tahrir Square during Egypt's nineteen day revolution. Similar to the Tunesian revolt. Activists where trained in Marocco in 2010 by Serbian instructors: Srdja Popovics. In the end, the provisional military leadership of Egypt shut down all NGOs and wanted the activists to stand trial. ... The current globalization of free trade promotes a neo-colonialism, which, in contrast to the colonialism of yesterday, affects not only indigenous people and nations but vast sectors of the world's population.
the [IRI] organization has chosen ironic means to “advance freedom”: training corrupt opposition leaders and providing funds to groups that effectively undermine often democratically-elected officials that the US government views unfavorably.
the overwhelming majority of funds for the organization comes from two public sources, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the US Agency for International Development (USAID).
Founded in 1983, the NED is an organization that has come under significant scrutiny, much like the IRI. Critics claim that it illegally privatizes US foreign affairs that are supposed to be overseen exclusively by the legislative and executive branches of the government. Additionally, the NED is publicly funded but lacks the transparency of a public organization.
Not only does the NED represent a misuse of taxpayers’ dollars, but its interference in the affairs of supposedly sovereign nations is illegal and its lack of transparency should disqualify it from receiving public funds. However, the opposite has happened and NED funding has risen
USAID is the other major donor to the IRI. Established in 1961, the organization has the “two-fold purpose of furthering America’s foreign policy interests in expanding democracy and free markets while improving the lives of the citizens of the developing world.” It is important to note that the ultimate goal of USAID is to advance US interests, with the secondary goal being to benefit the citizens of the world. This technicality explains why USAID sponsors the IRI, an organization that sometimes foregoes the latter goal in its pursuit of the former.
the [IRI] organization has undermined democracy, setting an example that favors government subversion and illegal interference in the affairs of sovereign nations rather than true promotion of democracy. McCain’s IRI does not set a model for democracy, it is a model for bureaucracy and an abuse of power
RPI Executive Director Daniel McAdams is on RT Television today discussing the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. What is the democratic legitimacy of the mob in the street versus the elected parliament? His critique was of the Washington and EU reaction to the unrest, particularly of EU politicians who are leading protests in Ukraine in violation of that country's sovereignty.
RPI Director Daniel McAdams is on RT Television discussing the Ukraine visit of Sen. John McCain and the strong US and EU intervention in Ukraine affairs.
McCain walked among the protestors, giving encouragement to those who have occupied and trashed government buildings in attempt to overthrow the Ukrainian government. “I am proud of what the people of Ukraine are doing,” he said.
Of course, when peaceful antiwar protesters showed up at McCain’s own Senate office in 2007, he promptly had them arrested.
For those who may not know, McCain is the long-time chairman of the US government funded International Republican Institute, which spent millions supporting the Orange Revolution 1.0 in 2004. Now McCain (and his IRI) is back for 2.0.
Along with IRI’s parent organization, the government-funded National Endowment for Democracy, and USAID, you can find the material and organizational support for the current uprising in Ukraine. Glance at the websites of opposition-oriented “NGOs” like the Institute of Mass Information, Internews, Uniter, and many others and you will see the ubiquitous logos indicating US government funding of the Ukrainian opposition. You can also see the US government funded – and CIA-affiliated - Freedom House among the most prominent opposition supporters in Ukraine.
As McCain joined an anti-government demonstration, stating that "we are here to support your just cause," he threatened the government of Ukraine with US sanctions if it did not come to heel. Then, with his typical absence of irony, McCain demanded that Russia stop interfering in Ukraine's internal affairs.
Whether or not we non-Ukrainians support the opposition's attempts to force that country into the EU bloc, one thing should be indisputable: the steady stream of US and European politicians and government officials openly encouraging Ukrainian citizens to revolt against their government is an outrageous violation of Ukrainian national sovereignty.
This essay is broken into three separate parts. The first part covers US-NATO geopolitical strategy since the end of the Cold War, at the beginning of the New World Order, outlining the western imperial strategy that led to the war in Yugoslavia and the “War on Terror.” Part 2 analyzes the nature of “soft revolutions” or “colour revolutions” in US imperial strategy, focusing on establishing hegemony over Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Part 3 analyzes the nature of the imperial strategy to construct a New World Order, focusing on the increasing conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Latin America, Eastern Europe and Africa; and the potential these conflicts have for starting a new world war with China and Russia.
These revolutions are portrayed in the western media as popular democratic revolutions, in which the people of these respective nations demand democratic accountability and governance from their despotic leaders and archaic political systems. However, the reality is far from what this utopian imagery suggests. Western NGOs and media heavily finance and organize opposition groups and protest movements, and in the midst of an election, create a public perception of vote fraud in order to mobilize the mass protest movements to demand “their” candidate be put into power. It just so happens that “their” candidate is always the Western US-favoured candidate, whose campaign is often heavily financed by Washington; and who proposes US-friendly policies and neoliberal economic conditions. In the end, it is the people who lose out, as their genuine hope for change and accountability is denied by the influence the US wields over their political leaders.
In Parts 1 and 2 of this series, I have analyzed US and NATO geopolitical strategy since the fall of the Soviet Union, in expanding the American empire and preventing the rise of new powers, containing Russia and China. This Part examines the implications of this strategy in recent years; following the emergence of a New Cold War, as well as analyzing the war in Georgia, the attempts and methods of regime change in Iran, the coup in Honduras, the expansion of the Afghan-Pakistan war theatre, and spread of conflict in Central Africa. These processes of a New Cold War and major regional wars and conflicts take the world closer to a New World War.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Treaty of Brest-Litovsk - a peace treaty signed on 3 March 1918 between the new Bolshevik [coup/usurper] government of Soviet Russia and the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire), that ended Russia's participation in World War I [and] the threat of further advances by German and Austrian forces. ... In the treaty, Bolshevik Russia ceded the Baltic States to Germany; they were meant to become German vassal states under German princelings. Russia also ceded its province of Kars Oblast in the South Caucasus to the Ottoman Empire and recognized the independence of Ukraine. Furthermore, Russia agreed to pay six billion German gold marks in reparations. ... The treaty was effectively terminated in November 1918, when Germany surrendered to the Allies. However, in the meantime, it did provide some relief to the Bolsheviks, already fighting the Russian Civil War, by the renouncement of [Bolshevik] Russia's claims on Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine and Lithuania.
WWII History:
Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact - a neutrality pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union signed in Moscow on 23 August 1939 ... The pact delineated the spheres of interest between the two powers, confirmed by the supplementary protocol of the German-Soviet Frontier Treaty amended after the joint invasion of Poland. ... The territories of Poland [etc.] annexed by the Soviet Union after the 1939 Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland remained in the USSR at the end of World War II.
Ukrainian collaborationism with the Axis powers - In 1933 millions of Ukrainians starved to death in the infamous [Soviet] orchestrated famine, the Holodomor, and in 1937 several thousand members of intelligentsia were exiled, sentenced to Gulag labor camps or simply executed. The negative impact of Soviet policies helped gain support for the German cause ... Hitler's invasion known as Operation Barbarossa began on June 22, 1941, ... During the military occupation of modern-day Ukraine by Nazi Germany, ... the [Soviet] Red Army returned to Ukraine [and] a significant number of the population welcomed its soldiers as liberators
The war between Russia and Georgia in 2008 was long term result of South Ossetia broken off from what became North Ossetia by Stalin (a Georgian) and given to Georgia as a sort of gift. When the USSR broke up, the South Ossetians wanted nothing to do with Georgia, they are historically a part of and strongly identify with Russia. The Ossetians rebelled from the beginning at being a part of post-Soviet Georgia. The Bush selected (& New York lawyer) Mikheil Saakashvili was installed by a CIA supported ‘color revolution’ in Georgia and that is when the real trouble began. It was (then) President Medvedev ordered the Russian military to ‘invasive’ counter-attack while (then) Prime Minister Putin was sitting with Bush at the Olympics in Beijing, after the USA trained Georgian military crossed the border (following skirmish with militia) en mass and unleashed rocket barrage on the South Ossetian city of Tskhinvali. Message to the West & NATO from Russia? Leave the border regions alone.
Similarly, Crimea had been integrated to Russia for 200 years, to 1954, when Khrushchev (married to a Ukrainian) presented Crimea to Ukraine as a birthday gift of sorts (the practical reason underlying this was to put the construction of a canal under a single administration, a logistics issue.) More recently, Putin had been telling the western leaders for at least six years to stay out of Ukraine but wasn’t listened to. Meanwhile Russia had been promised at the breakup of the USSR that NATO would not expand to the east, a promise repeatedly broken. The reaction of Russia (with the neo-nazi Svoboda party having five ministries in the new regime at Kiev) in Ukraine is the result. If Russia takes the east of Ukraine to the Dnieper River (with its majority ethnic Russian population), the West only has itself to blame. Putin, with the backing of a very large majority of Russians, is not going to put up with NATO on Russia’s doorstep. Relevant to this, following internationally monitored elections deemed free and fair, Ukraine had dropped its association with NATO in 2010 and Russia will not be allowing NATO to return to its’ border, end of story.
This is the second time around for the West pushing its way into Russia’s face in Ukraine. The Russians put up with it with the color revolution bringing Viktor Yushchenko to power, but the neo-nazi Svoboda regime installed this second time around, was too much (the new regime is also populated with a liberal handful of corrupt oligarch Yulia Tymoshenko cronies.)
For related information on this aspect of geo-politic of isolating and cornering Russia, one need only do a short online research of the topics ‘The Grand Chessboard‘ by Zbigniew Brzezinski:
“Regarding the landmass of Eurasia as the center of global power, Brzezinski sets out to formulate a Eurasian geostrategy for the United States. In particular, he writes, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger should emerge capable of dominating Eurasia and thus also of challenging America’s global pre-eminence”
And the ‘New Great Game:
“The New Great Game is a conceptualization of modern geopolitics in Middle East as a competition between the United States, the United Kingdom and other NATO countries against Russia for “influence, power, hegemony and profits in Central Asia and the Transcaucasus””
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Budinsky was the Premier of Poland on the eve of the German invasion. Every time the Germans would say something Budinsky would say the opposite. This is where the term, "You are a Budinsky." originates. It denotes a contrary disposition. ;)
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
In March, Putin said it was necessary to analyze all "color revolutions" in order to not let it happen in Russia and protect Russian citizens from terrorists and extremists.
The "color revolutions" were a series of regime changes caused by protests in several post-Soviet republics, including the Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004 and a more violent Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan in 2005.
In April, Moscow accused the United States and the European Union of attempting to stage another "color revolution" in Ukraine earlier this year, referring to February coup which resulted in the ouster of the Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
We've heard statements from Western officials that Russia owning Siberia (isn't) fair.”
"The White House has set a course for confrontation, blaming Russia for all sins in connection with the Ukrainian crisis that they [U.S.] had provoked to a significant extent."
US-led NATO "continues its course toward containing Russia. Steps are taken to strengthen (its) military capacity at Russia's borders."
A previous article explained how color revolutions work. In 1997, RAND Corporation researchers John Arquilla and David Ronfeld developed the concept of "Swarming & the Future of Conflict."
Based on communication patterns and movements of bees and other insects. Applied to military conflicts and street protests.
War by other means. Exploiting the information revolution. Taking full advantage of "network-based organizations linked via email and mobile phones to enhance the potential of swarming."
In 1993, Arquilla and Ronfeldt prepared an earlier document. Titled "Cyberwar Is Coming!"
Saying "warfare is no longer primarily a function of who puts the most capital, labor and technology on the battlefield, but of who has the best information" and uses it advantageously.
State-of-the art IT techniques use "advanced computerized information and communications technologies and related innovations in organization and management theory," they explained.
Information technologies "communicate, consult, coordinate, and operate together across greater distances."
Cyberwar today is what blitzkrieg was to 20th century warfare. In 1993, Arquilla and Ronfeldt focused on military conflicts.
In 1996, studying net and cyberwar. Examining "irregular modes of conflict, including terror, crime, and militant social activism."
In 1997, developing the concept of swarming. Suggesting it might "emerge as a definitive doctrine that will encompass and enliven both cyberwar and net war."
Envisioning "how to prepare for information-age conflict." Calling swarming a way to strike from all directions.
Effectiveness depends on various elements able to interconnect. Using revolutionary communication technology.
Color revolutions reflect America's modern day New World Order strategy. Following Soviet Russia's dissolution. Direct and proxy hot wars rage at the same time.
US strategy is multi-faceted. Including subversion. Destabilization. Mass surveillance. Blitzkrieg propaganda. Successful swarming tactics accomplish coup d'etats by other means.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has criticized NATO for interference in the internal affairs of other countries. Putin said the military alliance provokes regional conflicts and triggers color revolutions. He added that NATO uses terrorists, fundamentalists, far-right nationalists and even neo-fascists as henchmen [Inserting: and Leftists, also,] to achieve its goals. The Russian president accused NATO of seeking to upset the balance of power. Putin pledged that Russia will not succumb to what he called NATO’s militaristic craze. He said Russia can see the consequences of NATO’s policies near its borders. The alliance has stepped up its military buildup near Russia’s western borders since it suspended all ties with Moscow in April 2014. This after Crimea rejoined Russia following a referendum in the Black Sea peninsula.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Budinsky was the Premier of Poland on the eve of the German invasion. Every time the Germans would say something Budinsky would say the opposite. This is where the term, "You are a Budinsky." originates. It denotes a contrary disposition. ;)
Even though I couldn't verify the WWII aspect of that rendering, it is good-humored and intriguing, nevertheless. The slang-term seems apropos for contrarians against Peace like AZ Sen. John McCain, SC Sen. Lindsey Graham, et al.
All the facts indicate that U.S. military intervention has only made matters worse. Yet, almost 15 years later, war hawks like McCain are still calling for more.
The "color revolution" world tour. - Laurent Brayard article April 14, 2016. Excerpts:
There was a time when I wrote that we were in a Second Cold War. There was also a time when I, like many others, looked upon the fall of the Soviet Union as a great victory for peace.
The Cold War, from its origin to the end of World War II to this day has never stopped.
NGOs that help the "democratic" transitions in the world with coups de dollars
A documentary from 11 years ago sheds much light on what has been happening in Ukraine and Europe from an American offensive ... The 2005 film "The US: for the conquest of the East"
The degradation of American democracy continues before our eyes with the incessant hysterical allegations against Russia generally and the manipulation of Donald Trump as a device to put out even more sensational allegations, a campaign which serves two purposes; the first, to build up anti-Russian feeling in the west to war levels by accusing Russia of cyber attacks and attacks on “democracy,” the second to either justify the removal of Trump as a factor in the presidency or to force him to toe the line of the war faction and drop any conciliatory rhetoric towards Russia.
The world is fatigued with the circus that is the struggle for power taking place between the ruling factions in the United States. There is clearly little to separate these factions ideologically regarding foreign policy and very little regarding domestic policy. It’s just a gang war.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
After the overthrow of Milosevic in 2000 in a street protest-turned-revolution that followed the Gene Sharp/CIA manual to the tee ... there were some 20 themed revolutions in rapid succession. These were followed by the «Arab Spring» themed revolutions
Ziad Abdel Nour: Both the Syrian and Lebanese regimes will be changed - whether they like it or not - whether it’s going to be a military coup or something else… and we are working on it. We know already exactly who’s going to be the replacements. We’re working on it with the Bush administration. ... This is Machiavelli’s power game. That’s how it is. This is how geopolitics — the war games, power games — work. ... Whether we lie about it, or invent something, or we don’t… I don’t care. The end justifies the means. What’s right? Might is right, might is right. That’s it. Might is right. ... Those who want to espouse globalization are going to make a lot of money, be happy, their families will be happy. And those who aren’t going to play this game are going to be crushed, whether they like it or not! This is how we rule.
Counterpunch article reposted with images and captions added at COLOR REVOLUTIONS AND GEOPOLITICS, from the 2011 archives there:
Kerry’s entire State Department top echelon has supported color revolutions under the [United Nations (2005 World Summit) and the] Obama administration’s R2P (Responsibility to Protect) rubric since 2009. Many of the interventionists, including [Victoria] Nuland, her human rights point man Thomas Melia, and Jeffrey Feltman (now the Political Undersecretary General under UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon after having served as the chief point man for the Arab Spring at the State Department) are either holdovers from the discredited George W. Bush administration or well-known neo-conservative political hacks. They are joined by the «neo-liberal» R2P architects, most notably national security adviser Susan Rice and UN ambassador Samantha Power.
Editors' introduction: The "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) doctrine is a diabolical bit of psychological wizardry; a conceptual Trojan Horse designed to advance the cause of global governance on a moral platform. The purpose of the doctrine is to internationally legitimize and make legal wars of aggression against non-threatening nation-states. ... One notable aspect of the following article (transcribed from a 2002 issue of the Council on Foreign Relations' bi-monthy magazine, Foreign Affairs) is that it draws immediate attention to the amount of time that has been spent--largely in darkness--bringing this obscure globalist concept to fruition. Only this year, in 2011, did the world witness its first UN-sponsored R2P war (and many have yet to notice it still). In the article below, however, we see outlines of a 'Libyan operation' years in advance. ... This was written nine years ago, and the R2P trail goes back even further still. Who among us was aware? Who among us was asked what we thought? Whatever the case--regardless of our ignorance yesterday or today--regardless of our feelings of powerlessness or apathy--we are here, this is our lot, and we must make an effort to deal with it. The Libyan operation is the first R2P operation sponsored by the United Nations, but unless we take action, unless we educate ourselves and others, it won't be the last. Already Syria is on the horizon; already Sudan looms largely; already Belarus beckons. We see the signs. We discern the true intent. And soon it will be our own sovereignty that sits in the cross hairs. We here write from the United States. We ask rhetorically, has not our Constitution already been stretched to the breaking point by these same people? Indeed it has but we are not alone. For these are not "mere words on paper"--there are real consequences, real harm to real people.
The Responsibility to Protect By Gareth Evans and Mohamed Sahnoun Originally published in Foreign Affairs November/December 2002, Volume 81, Number 6 Images and captions added by Color Revolutions and Geopolitics
Revisiting Humanitarian Intervention
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC