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.
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.
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