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):
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.