19. februar 1954 udstedte USSR’s øverste Sovjets presidium – som en ‘symbolsk gestus’ – et dekret, der overførte Krimhalvøen fra én sovjetrepublik til en anden, fra den russiske til den ukrainske.
Da Sovjetunionen blev opløst arvede Rusland 82 % af den sovjetiske sortehavsflåde, og Rusland delte også flådebasen Sevastopol med Ukraine.
Krimhalvøen var et ukrainsk territorium men det meste af befolkningen var russisk-talende, og de valgte via en folkeafstemning at blive russiske statsborgere i stedet for ukrainske, at lade Krim forlade Ukraine og tilslutte sig Rusland. Det gjorde de i marts 2014, en måneds tid efter den anden ukrainske farverevolution.
Farverevolution, hvad er nu det for noget?
Engelsk wikipedia har en længere artikel (ca. 7.000 ord) om emnet – uden at definere det.
Diverse søgemaskiner er også blevet bedre til ikke at finde en definition af farverevolution, men Canadian Military Journal bragte i efteråret 2019 en artikel med den interessante overskrift:
I artiklens indledningen lovede dens forfatter Mitchell Binding:
”This article begins with an explanation of what exactly constitutes the ‘technology of colour revolutions”
Og hvad var forklaringen så?
”Colour revolutions are widely understood as a phenomenon whereby popular protests dislodge an incumbent party from power. Beyond this basic agreement, however, Russia and the West disagree strongly (…)
The narrative in the West maintains that colour revolutions are essentially organic uprisings”
Der skal nok komme en forklaring, men læseren må forstå på Mitchell Binding at en definition kun kan – nødvendigvis må – være russisk.
”Valery Gerasimov, the Chief of General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, defined colour revolutions as “...a form of non-violent change of power in a country by outside manipulation of the protest potential of the population in conjunction with political, economic, humanitarian and other non-military measures.” Again, the focus is upon the fact that popular protests are instigated and supported by outside manipulation, ostensibly for foreign strategic objectives. Russia views the West fomenting these colour revolutions with particular ‘technologies.’ These include “…long-term foreign cultivation and financing of an internal opposition and general divisions within society; creation or co-optation of an opposition elite; foreign [non-governmental organizations] NGOs and outside agents advocating ‘globalisation’ and ‘westernisation;’ campaigns in support of democracy; and exploitation of elections.” These technologies also include ‘professional coordination centers,’ emotional engineering of protesters, control of mass media and alternative media, and Public Relations specialists. These methods supplement large-scale information wars, and the use of generous legal discourse to conceal true objectives. General Gerasimov adds to this list the military training of rebels by foreign instructors, supply of weapons and resources to anti-government forces, application of Special Operations Forces and private military companies, and the reinforcement of opposition units with foreign fighters.”
At definere en farverevolution anser vestlige ‘eksperter’ for synonymt med at udbrede ”russisk misinformation”.
Herhjemme kan det således være svært at tale meningsfuldt om emnet, uden at blive mistænkt for at være på Putins lønningsliste.
Men det vænner man sig til.
Farverevolutioner er en slags blitzkrieg version af den ideologiske undergravelse, som Yuri Bezmenov forklarede tilbage i 1984.
Den lange march gennem uddannelsesinstitutionerne er måske reduceret til et sprint, til gengæld er informationskrig blevet voldsomt opgraderet efter at vi fået mobilt internet og shitstorm.
Farverevolutioner bliver iscenesat fra USA og EU, finansieret via diverse NGO’er, infilteret af professionelle bøller, der ‘sætter fut’ under protesterne, mens massemedierne maler konfliktens parter i strategiske farver.
Maidan-revolutionen i 2014, der nu er blevet omdøbt til Værdighedens revolution begyndte med en fredelig lille demonstration 21. november 2013 efter et Facebook opslag, men 13. december 2013 sagde Victoria Nuland:
”The world is watching the drama that is unfolding in the centre of Kiev. The Euromaidan-movement has come to embody the principles and values, that are the cornerstones for all free democracies.”
Det gjorde hun under en tale for National Press Club, Washington DC. Ved den lejlighed afslørede Nuland også hvad amerikanerne havde betalt for Ukraines ‘demokratisering’ – and other goals:
”since Ukrainian independence in 1991 United States has supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions, as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations. We have invested over 5.000.000.000 dollars to assist Ukraine in these and other goals, that will ensure a prosperous and democratic Ukraine. Today there are senior officials in the Ukrainian government, in the business community as well as in the opposition civil society and the religious community, who believe in this democratic and European future for their country, and they’ve been working hard to move their country and their president in the right direction.”
4. februar 2014 (ca. tre uger inden Viktor Yanukovych flygtede til Rusland og Arseniy Yatsenyuk blev indsat som Ukraines premiereminister) blev følgende telefonsamtale mellem Victoria Nuland og Geoffrey Pyatt (USA’s ambassador i Ukraine) lækket på youtube:
The Mess that Nuland Made satte Robert Parry ord på i 2015:
”Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs “Toria” Nuland was the “mastermind” behind the Feb. 22, 2014 “regime change” in Ukraine, plotting the overthrow of the democratically elected government of President Viktor Yanukovych while convincing the ever-gullible U.S. mainstream media that the coup wasn’t really a coup but a victory for “democracy.”
To sell this latest neocon-driven “regime change” to the American people, the ugliness of the coup-makers had to be systematically airbrushed, particularly the key role of neo-Nazis and other ultra-nationalists from the Right Sektor. For the U.S.-organized propaganda campaign to work, the coup-makers had to wear white hats, not brown shirts.
So, for nearly a year and a half, the West’s mainstream media, especially The New York Times and The Washington Post, twisted their reporting into all kinds of contortions to avoid telling their readers that the new regime in Kiev was permeated by and dependent on neo-Nazi fighters and Ukrainian ultra-nationalists who wanted a pure-blood Ukraine, without ethnic Russians.
Any mention of that sordid reality was deemed “Russian propaganda” and anyone who spoke this inconvenient truth was a “stooge of Moscow.”
Kapitel 5
Gåde. Hvordan kan en enkelt jøde føre hundreder af tusinder nynazister i døden?
1) nynazisterne ved ikke at føreren er jøde
2) nynazisterne ved at jøden ikke er føreren
Man kan komme langt med fake news.