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.
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.
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””