Colour-Coded Revolutions and the Origins of World War III

Recently by Andrew Gavin Marshall: An Imperial Strategy for a New World Order: The Origins of World War III

This is Part 2 of the Series, "The Origins of World War III" Part 1: An Imperial Strategy for a New World Order: The Origins of World War III

Introduction

Following US geo-strategy in what Brzezinski termed the u201Cglobal Balkans,u201D the US government has worked closely with major NGOs to u201Cpromote democracyu201D and u201Cfreedomu201D in former Soviet republics, playing a role behind the scenes in fomenting what are termed u201Ccolour revolutions,u201D which install US and Western-friendly puppet leaders to advance the interests of the West, both economically and strategically.

 

Part 2 of this essay on u201CThe Origins of World War IIIu201D analyzes the colour revolutions as being a key stratagem in imposing the US-led New World Order. The u201Ccolour revolutionu201D or u201Csoftu201D revolution strategy is a covert political tactic of expanding NATO and US influence to the borders of Russia and even China; following in line with one of the primary aims of US strategy in the New World Order: to contain China and Russia and prevent the rise of any challenge to US power in the region.

 

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 u201Ctheiru201D candidate be put into power. It just so happens that u201Ctheiru201D 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.

 

The soft revolutions also have the effect of antagonizing China and Russia, specifically, as it places US protectorates on their borders, and drives many of the former Warsaw Pact nations to seek closer political, economic and military cooperation. This then exacerbates tensions between the west and China and Russia; which ultimately leads the world closer to a potential conflict between the two blocs.

 

Serbia

 

Serbia experienced its u201Ccolour revolutionu201D in October of 2000, which led to the overthrow of Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic. As the Washington Post reported in December of 2000, from 1999 on, the US undertook a major u201Celectoral strategyu201D to oust Milosevic, as u201CU.S.-funded consultants played a crucial role behind the scenes in virtually every facet of the anti-Milosevic drive, running tracking polls, training thousands of opposition activists and helping to organize a vitally important parallel vote count. U.S. taxpayers paid for 5,000 cans of spray paint used by student activists to scrawl anti-Milosevic graffiti on walls across Serbia, and 2.5 million stickers with the slogan “He’s Finished,” which became the revolution’s catchphrase.u201D Further, according to Michael Dobbs, writing in the Washington Post, some u201C20 opposition leaders accepted an invitation from the Washington-based National Democratic Institute (NDI) in October 1999 to a seminar at the Marriott Hotel in Budapest.u201D

 

Interestingly, u201CSome Americans involved in the anti-Milosevic effort said they were aware of CIA activity at the fringes of the campaign, but had trouble finding out what the agency was up to. Whatever it was, they concluded it was not particularly effective. The lead role was taken by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, the government’s foreign assistance agency, which channeled the funds through commercial contractors and nonprofit groups such as NDI and its Republican counterpart, the International Republican Institute (IRI).u201D The NDI (National Democratic Institute), u201Cworked closely with Serbian opposition parties, IRI focused its attention on Otpor, which served as the revolution’s ideological and organizational backbone. In March, IRI paid for two dozen Otpor leaders to attend a seminar on nonviolent resistance at the Hilton Hotel in Budapest.u201D At the seminar, u201Cthe Serbian students received training in such matters as how to organize a strike, how to communicate with symbols, how to overcome fear and how to undermine the authority of a dictatorial regime.u201D[1]

 

As the New York Times revealed, Otpor, the major student opposition group, had a steady flow of money coming from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a Congress-funded u201Cdemocracy promotingu201D organization. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) gave money to Otpor, as did the International Republican Institute, u201Canother nongovernmental Washington group financed partly by A.I.D.u201D[2]

 

Georgia

 

In 2003, Georgia went through its u201CRose Revolution,u201D which led to the overthrow of president Eduard Shevardnadze, replacing him with Mikhail Saakashvili after the 2004 elections. In a November 2003 article in The Globe and Mail, it was reported that a US-based foundation u201Cbegan laying the brickwork for the toppling of Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze,u201D as funds from his non-profit organization u201Csent a 31-year-old Tbilisi activist named Giga Bokeria to Serbia to meet with members of the Otpor (Resistance) movement and learn how they used street demonstrations to topple dictator Slobodan Milosevic. Then, in the summer,u201D the u201Cfoundation paid for a return trip to Georgia by Otpor activists, who ran three-day courses teaching more than 1,000 students how to stage a peaceful revolution.u201D

 

This US-based foundation u201Calso funded a popular opposition television station that was crucial in mobilizing support for [the] u2018velvet revolution,' and [it] reportedly gave financial support to a youth group that led the street protests.u201D The owner of the foundation u201Chas a warm relationship with Mr. Shevardnadze’s chief opponent, Mikhail Saakashvili, a New York-educated lawyer who is expected to win the presidency in an election scheduled for Jan. 4.u201D

 

During a press conference a week before his resignation, Mr. Shevardnadze said that the US foundation u201Cis set against the President of Georgia.u201D Moreover, u201CMr. Bokeria, whose Liberty Institute received money from both [the financier's foundation] and the U.S. government-backed Eurasia Institute, says three other organizations played key roles in Mr. Shevardnadze’s downfall: Mr. Saakashvili’s National Movement party, the Rustavi-2 television station and Kmara! (Georgian for Enough!), a youth group that declared war on Mr. Shevardnadze [in] April and began a poster and graffiti campaign attacking government corruption.u201D [3]

 

The day following the publication of the previously quoted article, the author published another article in the Globe and Mail explaining that the u201Cbloodless revolutionu201D in Georgia u201Csmells more like another victory for the United States over Russia in the post-Cold War international chess game.u201D The author, Mark MacKinnon, explained that Eduard Shevardnadze's downfall lied u201Cin the oil under the Caspian Sea, one of the world’s few great remaining, relatively unexploited, sources of oil,u201D as u201CGeorgia and neighbouring Azerbaijan, which borders the Caspian, quickly came to be seen not just as newly independent countries, but as part of an u2018energy corridor'.u201D Plans were drawn up for a massive u201Cpipeline that would run through Georgia to Turkey and the Mediterranean.u201D It is worth quoting MacKinnon at length:

 

When these plans were made, Mr. Shevardnadze was seen as an asset by both Western investors and the U.S. government. His reputation as the man who helped end the Cold War gave investors a sense of confidence in the country, and his stated intention to move Georgia out of Russia’s orbit and into Western institutions such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union played well at the U.S. State Department.

 

The United States quickly moved to embrace Georgia, opening a military base in the country [in 2001] to give Georgian soldiers “anti-terrorist” training. They were the first U.S. troops to set up in a former Soviet republic.

 

But somewhere along the line, Mr. Shevardnadze reversed course and decided to once more embrace Russia. This summer, Georgia signed a secret 25-year deal to make the Russian energy giant Gazprom its sole supplier of gas. Then it effectively sold the electricity grid to another Russian firm, cutting out AES, the company that the U.S. administration had backed to win the deal. Mr. Shevardnadze attacked AES as “liars and cheats.” Both deals dramatically increased Russian influence in Tbilisi.

 

Following the elections in Georgia, the US-backed and educated Mikhail Saakashvili ascended to the Presidency and u201Cwon the day.u201D[4] This is again an example of the intimate relationship between oil geopolitics and US foreign policy. The colour revolution was vital in pressing US and NATO interests forward in the region; gaining control over Central Asia's gas reserves and keeping Russia from expanding its influence. This follows directly in line with the US-NATO imperial strategy for the new world order, following the collapse of the USSR. [This strategy is outlined in detail in Part 1 of this essay: An Imperial Strategy for a New World Order: The Origins of World War III].

 

Ukraine

 

In 2004, Ukraine went through its u201COrange Revolution,u201D in which opposition and pro-Western leader Viktor Yushchenko became President, defeating Viktor Yanukovych. As the Guardian revealed in 2004, that following the disputed elections (as happens in every u201Ccolour revolutionu201D), u201Cthe democracy guerrillas of the Ukrainian Pora youth movement have already notched up a famous victory – whatever the outcome of the dangerous stand-off in Kiev,u201D however, u201Cthe campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes.u201D

 

The author, Ian Traynor, explained that, u201CFunded and organised by the US government, deploying US consultancies, pollsters, diplomats, the two big American parties and US non-government organisations, the campaign was first used in Europe in Belgrade in 2000 to beat Slobodan Milosevic at the ballot box.u201D Further, u201CThe Democratic party’s National Democratic Institute, the Republican party’s International Republican Institute, the US state department and USAid are the main agencies involved in these grassroots campaigns as well as the Freedom House NGOu201D and the same billionaire financier involved in Georgia's Rose Revolution. In implementing the regime-change strategy, u201CThe usually fractious oppositions have to be united behind a single candidate if there is to be any chance of unseating the regime. That leader is selected on pragmatic and objective grounds, even if he or she is anti-American.u201D Traynor continues:

 

Freedom House and the Democratic party’s NDI helped fund and organise the “largest civil regional election monitoring effort” in Ukraine, involving more than 1,000 trained observers. They also organised exit polls. On Sunday night those polls gave Mr Yushchenko an 11-point lead and set the agenda for much of what has followed.

 

The exit polls are seen as critical because they seize the initiative in the propaganda battle with the regime, invariably appearing first, receiving wide media coverage and putting the onus on the authorities to respond.

 

The final stage in the US template concerns how to react when the incumbent tries to steal a lost election.

 

[. . . ] In Belgrade, Tbilisi, and now Kiev, where the authorities initially tried to cling to power, the advice was to stay cool but determined and to organise mass displays of civil disobedience, which must remain peaceful but risk provoking the regime into violent suppression.[5]

 

As an article in the Guardian by Jonathan Steele explained, the opposition leader, Viktor Yushchenko, who disputed the election results, u201Cserved as prime minister under the outgoing president, Leonid Kuchma, and some of his backers are also linked to the brutal industrial clans who manipulated Ukraine’s post-Soviet privatization.u201D He further explained that election rigging is mainly irrelevant, as u201CThe decision to protest appears to depend mainly on realpolitik and whether the challengers or the incumbent are considered more u2018pro-western' or u2018pro-market'.u201D In other words, those who support a neoliberal economic agenda will have the support of the US-NATO, as neoliberalism is their established international economic order and advances their interests in the region. 

 

Moreover, u201CIn Ukraine, Yushchenko got the western nod, and floods of money poured in to groups which support him, ranging from the youth organisation, Pora, to various opposition websites. More provocatively, the US and other western embassies paid for exit polls.u201D This is emblematic of the strategic importance of the Ukraine to the United States, u201Cwhich refuses to abandon its cold war policy of encircling Russia and seeking to pull every former Soviet republic to its side.u201D[6]

 

One Guardian commentator pointed out the hypocrisy of western media coverage:  u201CTwo million anti-war demonstrators can stream though the streets of London and be politically ignored, but a few tens of thousands in central Kiev are proclaimed to be u2018the people', while the Ukrainian police, courts and governmental institutions are discounted as instruments of oppression.u201D It was also explained that, u201CEnormous rallies have been held in Kiev in support of the prime minister, Viktor Yanukovich, but they are not shown on our TV screens: if their existence is admitted, Yanukovich supporters are denigrated as having been u2018bussed in'. The demonstrations in favour of Viktor Yushchenko have laser lights, plasma screens, sophisticated sound systems, rock concerts, tents to camp in and huge quantities of orange clothing; yet we happily dupe ourselves that they are spontaneous.u201D[7]

 

In 2004, the Associated Press reported that, u201CThe Bush administration has spent more than $65 million in the past two years to aid political organizations in Ukraine, paying to bring opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko to meet U.S. leaders and helping to underwrite an exit poll indicating he won last month’s disputed runoff election.u201D The money, they state, u201Cwas funneled through organizations such as the Eurasia Foundation or through groups aligned with Republicans and Democrats that organized election training, with human rights forums or with independent news outlets.u201D However, even government officials u201Cacknowledge that some of the money helped train groups and individuals opposed to the Russian-backed government candidate.u201D

 

The report stated that some major international foundations funded the exit polls, which according to the incumbent leader were u201Cskewed.u201D These foundations included u201CThe National Endowment for Democracy, which receives its money directly from Congress; the Eurasia Foundation, which receives money from the State Department, and the Renaissance Foundation,u201D which receives money from the same billionaire financier as well as the US State Department. Since the State Department is involved, that implies that this funding is quite directly enmeshed in US foreign policy strategy. u201COther countries involved included Great Britain, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, Norway, Sweden and Denmark.u201D Also involved in funding certain groups and activities in the Ukraine was the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute, which was chaired by former Secretary of States Madeline Albright at the time.[8]

 

Mark Almond wrote for the Guardian in 2004 of the advent of u201CPeople Power,u201D describing it in relation to the situation that was then breaking in the Ukraine, and stated that, u201CThe upheaval in Ukraine is presented as a battle between the people and Soviet-era power structures. The role of Western Cold War–era agencies is taboo. Poke your nose into the funding of the lavish carnival in Kiev, and the shrieks of rage show that you have touched a neuralgic point of the New World Order.u201D

 

Almond elaborated:

 

“Throughout the 1980s, in the build-up to 1989’s velvet revolutions, a small army of volunteers – and, let’s be frank, spies – co-operated to promote what became People Power. A network of interlocking foundations and charities mushroomed to organise the logistics of transferring millions of dollars to dissidents. The money came overwhelmingly from Nato states and covert allies such as “neutral” Sweden.

 

[ …] The hangover from People Power is shock therapy. Each successive crowd is sold a multimedia vision of Euro-Atlantic prosperity by western-funded “independent” media to get them on the streets. No one dwells on the mass unemployment, rampant insider dealing, growth of organised crime, prostitution and soaring death rates in successful People Power states.

 

As Almond delicately put it, u201CPeople Power is, it turns out, more about closing things than creating an open society. It shuts factories but, worse still, minds. Its advocates demand a free market in everything – except opinion. The current ideology of New World Order ideologues, many of whom are renegade communists, is Market-Leninism – that combination of a dogmatic economic model with Machiavellian methods to grasp the levers of power.u201D[9]

 

As Mark MacKinnon reported for the Globe and Mail, Canada, too, supported the efforts of the youth activist group, Pora, in the Ukraine, providing funding for the u201Cpeople power democracyu201D movement. As MacKinnon noted, u201CThe Bush administration was particularly keen to see a pro-Western figure as president to ensure control over a key pipeline running from Odessa on the Black Sea to Brody on the Polish border.u201D However, u201CThe outgoing president, Leonid Kuchma, had recently reversed the flow so the pipeline carried Russian crude south instead of helping U.S. producers in the Caspian Sea region ship their product to Europe.u201D As MacKinnon analyzes, the initial funding from western nations came from Canada, although this was eventually far surpassed in amount by the United States.

 

Andrew Robinson, Canada's ambassador to Ukraine at the time, in 2004, u201Cbegan to organize secret monthly meetings of Western ambassadors, presiding over what he called “donor co-ordination” sessions among 28 countries interested in seeing Mr. Yushchenko succeed. Eventually, he acted as the group’s spokesman and became a prominent critic of the Kuchma government’s heavy-handed media control.u201D Canada further u201Cinvested in a controversial exit poll, carried out on election day by Ukraine’s Razumkov Centre and other groups, that contradicted the official results showing Mr. Yanukovich had won.u201D Once the new, pro-Western government was in, it u201Cannounced its intention to reverse the flow of the Odessa-Brody pipeline.u201D[10]

 

Again, this follows the example of Georgia, where several US and NATO interests are met through the success of the u201Ccolour revolutionu201D; simultaneously preventing Russian expansion and influence from spreading in the region as well as advancing US and NATO control and influence over the major resources and transport corridors of the region.

 

Daniel Wolf wrote for the Guardian that, u201CFor most of the people gathered in Kiev’s Independence Square, the demonstration felt spontaneous. They had every reason to want to stop the government candidate, Viktor Yanukovich, from coming to power, and they took the chance that was offered to them. But walking through the encampment last December, it was hard to ignore the evidence of meticulous preparation – the soup kitchens and tents for the demonstrators, the slickness of the concert, the professionalism of the TV coverage, the proliferation of the sickly orange logo wherever you looked.u201D He elaborated, writing, u201Cthe events in the square were the result of careful, secret planning by Yushchenko’s inner circle over a period of years. The true story of the orange revolution is far more interesting than the fable that has been widely accepted.u201D

 

Roman Bessmertny, Yushchenko’s campaign manager, two years prior to the 2004 elections, u201Cput as many as 150,000 people through training courses, seminars, practical tuition conducted by legal and media specialists. Some attending these courses were members of election committees at local, regional and national level; others were election monitors, who were not only taught what to watch out for but given camcorders to record it on video. More than 10,000 cameras were distributed, with the aim of recording events at every third polling station.u201D Ultimately, it was an intricately well-planned public relations media-savvy campaign, orchestrated through heavy financing. Hardly the sporadic u201Cpeople poweru201D notion applied to the u201Cpeaceful coupu201D in the western media.[11]

 

The u201CTulip Revolutionu201D in Kyrgyzstan

 

In 2005, Kyrgyzstan underwent its u201CTulip Revolutionu201D in which the incumbent was replaced by the pro-Western candidate through another u201Cpopular revolution.u201D As the New York Times reported in March of 2005, shortly before the March elections, u201Can opposition newspaper ran photographs of a palatial home under construction for the country’s deeply unpopular president, Askar Akayev, helping set off widespread outrage and a popular revolt.u201D However, this u201Cnewspaper was the recipient of United States government grants and was printed on an American government-financed printing press operated by Freedom House, an American organization that describes itself as u2018a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world'.u201D

 

Moreover, other countries that have u201Chelped underwrite programs to develop democracy and civil societyu201D in Kyrgyzstan were Britain, the Netherlands and Norway. These countries collectively u201Cplayed a crucial role in preparing the ground for the popular uprising that swept opposition politicians to power.u201D Money mostly flowed from the United States, in particular, through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), as well as through u201Cthe Freedom House printing press or Kyrgyz-language service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a pro-democracy broadcaster.u201D The National Democratic Institute also played a major financing role, for which one of the chief beneficiaries of their financial aid said, u201CIt would have been absolutely impossible for this to have happened without that help.u201D

 

The Times further reported that:

 

“American money helps finance civil society centers around the country where activists and citizens can meet, receive training, read independent newspapers and even watch CNN or surf the Internet in some. The N.D.I. [National Democratic Institute] alone operates 20 centers that provide news summaries in Russian, Kyrgyz and Uzbek.

 

The United States sponsors the American University in Kyrgyzstan, whose stated mission is, in part, to promote the development of civil society, and pays for exchange programs that send students and non-governmental organization leaders to the United States. Kyrgyzstan’s new prime minister, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, was one.

 

All of that money and manpower gave the coalescing Kyrgyz opposition financing and moral support in recent years, as well as the infrastructure that allowed it to communicate its ideas to the Kyrgyz people.”

 

As for those u201Cwho did not read Russian or have access to the newspaper listened to summaries of its articles on Kyrgyz-language Radio Azattyk, the local United States-government financed franchise of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.u201D Other u201Cindependentu201D media was paid for courtesy of the US State Department.[12]

 

As the Wall Street Journal revealed prior to the elections, opposition groups, NGOs and u201Cindependentu201D media in Kyrgyzstan were getting financial assistance from Freedom House in the US, as well as the US Agency for International Development (USAID). The Journal reported that, u201CTo avoid provoking Russia and violating diplomatic norms, the U.S. can’t directly back opposition political parties. But it underwrites a web of influential NGOs whose support of press freedom, the rule of law and clean elections almost inevitably pits them against the entrenched interests of the old autocratic regimes.u201D

 

As the Journal further reported, Kyrgyzstan u201Coccupies a strategic location. The U.S. and Russia both have military bases here. The country’s five million citizens, mostly Muslim, are sandwiched in a tumultuous neighborhood among oil-rich Kazakhstan, whose regime tolerates little political dissent; dictatorial Uzbekistan, which has clamped down on foreign aid groups and destitute Tajikistan.u201D

 

In the country, a main opposition NGO, the Coalition for Democracy and Civil Rights, gets its funding u201Cfrom the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, a Washington-based nonprofit funded by the U.S. government, and from USAID.u201D Other agencies reported to be involved, either through funding or ideological-technical promotion (see: propaganda), are the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the Albert Einstein Institute, Freedom House, and the US State Department.[13]

 

President Askar Akayev of Kyrgyzstan had referred to a u201Cthird forceu201D gaining power in his country. The term was borrowed from one of the most prominent US think tanks, as u201Cthird forceu201D is:

 

“… which details how western-backed non-governmental organisations (NGOs) can promote regime and policy change all over the world. The formulaic repetition of a third “people power” revolution in the former Soviet Union in just over one year – after the similar events in Georgia in November 2003 and in Ukraine last Christmas – means that the post-Soviet space now resembles Central America in the 1970s and 1980s, when a series of US-backed coups consolidated that country’s control over the western hemisphere.”

 

As the Guardian reported:

 

“Many of the same US government operatives in Latin America have plied their trade in eastern Europe under George Bush, most notably Michael Kozak, former US ambassador to Belarus, who boasted in these pages in 2001 that he was doing in Belarus exactly what he had been doing in Nicaragua: “supporting democracy”.

 

Further:

 

“The case of Freedom House is particularly arresting. Chaired by the former CIA director James Woolsey, Freedom House was a major sponsor of the orange revolution in Ukraine. It set up a printing press in Bishkek in November 2003, which prints 60 opposition journals. Although it is described as an “independent” press, the body that officially owns it is chaired by the bellicose Republican senator John McCain, while the former national security adviser Anthony Lake sits on the board. The US also supports opposition radio and TV.”[14]

 

So again, the same formula was followed in the Central Asian Republics of the former Soviet Union. This US foreign-policy strategy of promoting u201Csoft revolutionu201D is managed through a network of American and international NGOs and think tanks. It advances NATO and, in particular, US interests in the region.

 

Conclusion

 

The soft revolutions or u201Ccolour revolutionsu201D are a key stratagem in the New World Order; advancing, through deceptions and manipulation, the key strategy of containing Russia and controlling key resources. This strategy is critical to understanding the imperialistic nature of the New World Order, especially when it comes to identifying when this strategy is repeated; specifically in relation to the Iranian elections of 2009.

 

Part 1 of this essay outlined the US-NATO imperial strategy for entering the New World Order, following the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991. The primary aim was focused on encircling Russia and China and preventing the rise of a new superpower. The US was to act as the imperial hegemon, serving international financial interests in imposing the New World Order. Part 2 outlined the US imperial strategy of using u201Ccolour revolutionsu201D to advance its interests in Central Asia and Eastern Europe, following along the overall policy outlined in Part 1, of containing Russia and China from expanding influence and gaining access to key natural resources.

 

The third and final part to this essay 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. In particular, its focus is within the past few years, and emphasizes the increasing nature of conflict and war in the New World Order. Part 3 looks at the potential for u201CA New World War for a New World Order.u201D

 

Endnotes

 

[1]        Michael Dobbs, U.S. Advice Guided Milosevic Opposition. The Washington Post: December 11, 2000: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18395-2000Dec3?language=printer

 

[2]        Roger Cohen, Who Really Brought Down Milosevic? The New York Times: November 26, 2000: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/26/magazine/who-really-brought-down-milosevic.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

 

[3]        Mark MacKinnon, Georgia revolt carried mark of Soros. The Globe and Mail: November 23, 2003: http://www.markmackinnon.ca/dispatches_georgia3.html

 

[4]        Mark MacKinnon, Politics, pipelines converge in Georgia. The Globe and Mail: November 24, 2003: http://www.markmackinnon.ca/dispatches_georgia2.html

 

[5]        Ian Traynor, US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev. The Guardian: November 26, 2004: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa

 

[6]        Jonathan Steele, Ukraine’s postmodern coup d’etat. The Guardian: November 26, 2004: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.comment

 

[7]        John Laughland, The revolution televised. The Guardian: November 27, 2004: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/nov/27/pressandpublishing.comment

 

[8]        Matt Kelley, U.S. money has helped opposition in Ukraine. Associated Press: December 11, 2004: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041211/news_1n11usaid.html

 

[9]        Mark Almond, The price of People Power. The Guardian: December 7, 2004: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/dec/07/ukraine.comment

 

[10]      Mark MacKinnon, Agent orange: Our secret role in Ukraine. The Globe and Mail: April 14, 2007: http://www.markmackinnon.ca/dispatches_ukraine4.html

 

[11]      Daniel Wolf, A 21st century revolt. The Guardian: May 13, 2005: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may/13/ukraine.features11

 

[12]      Craig S. Smith, U.S. Helped to Prepare the Way for Kyrgyzstan’s Uprising. The New York Times: March 30, 2005: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9806E4D9123FF933A05750C0A9639C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

 

[13]      Philip Shishkin, In Putin’s Backyard, Democracy Stirs – With U.S. Help. The Wall Street Journal: February 25, 2005: http://www.iri.org/newsarchive/2005/2005-02-25-News-WSJ.asp

 

[14]      John Laughland, The mythology of people power. The Guardian: April 1, 2005: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/01/usa.russia

This originally appeared on Global Research.

November 10, 2009

Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is currently studying Political Economy and History at Simon Fraser University.

Political Theatre

LRC Blog

LRC Podcasts