Documentary on the Color Revolutions in E.Europe

[SniperRu]

Sorry only in french, if anyone can find a version with subtitles it would be great.

"États-Unis — À la conquête de l'Est"
by
Réalisation -Manon Loizeau -Marc Berdugo Production -CAPA -Canal + France, 2005

great documentary about how these "revolutions" are financed and set up by american NGOs and their masterminds Bruce P. Jackson & others.

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJV1NzgHuPM
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dSfJ6V8OWg
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7QKLMIe2Ns
Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgHKm174f8I
Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObIOFI9pNrE
Part 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GogCXPF-6TI

Interesting parts:

Kyrghyz FM apologizes to McCain after a 40min sermon on how Kyrghyzstan is not "free" enough

T-Shirt on the wall of McCain's IRI foundation, that has written on the back:
[...]
Georgia 03
Ukraine 04
Kyrghyzstan 05
Belarus TBD
Russia TBD
[...]

Websites of some of the NGOs cited in the documentary
http://www.osgf.ge/?i=431&l=2
http://www.newamericancentury.org/brucejacksonbio.htm
http://www.iri.org/board.asp

Found a version with Spanish subtitles:
http://bellaciao.org/fr/spip.php?article80276

[igorvasilevsky]

Such "NGOs" is a direct thread to a national security, so security services must act hard as much as possible with this US-payed scum.
And absolutely openly. Other people must know what so-called "democracy" means and why "democratic regimes" turning country into chaos...Instead of blaming every scandal and every conflict on Russia, like many idiots doing.

[Kutuzov]

Nothing new about project for new American century, their goal is simply to encircle Russia with US puppet regimes and achieve nuclear supremacy I red their white papers 2 years ago.

Same in Russian.

http://www.youtube.com/v/7f1xPseHjNI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/v/bhnX1f7DXyc&feature=related

[Degenek]

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d57/b_gardenia/dems/Soros_us_elect_gallery__423x550_0.jpg

[igorvasilevsky]

Reptilian Soros eyes :fork:

[Kutuzov]

Reptilian Soros eyes :fork:

I think his just old and his eyes are about to pop out or something ,in any case he will get replacementrofl

[davey]

It seems to be mainly Russian members participating in this thread, which is a pity.

In the West it has become standard operating procedure to deny US involvement in the colour revolutions and dismiss it as "conspiracy theory" or "tinfoil hat" territory. This is also the case with suspected covert operations like de-stabilization of sovereign countries and support to rebel or secession movemenents. Unfortunately anything not endorsed by the mainsteam press and especially Neocon mouthpieces like the Washington Post is dismissed all too easily. To really kill all debate you just tag what's uncomfortable as "conspiracy theory".

The end result is similar to voluntary self censorship. We ridicule what we don't want to discuss. Please, let us have some constructive debate on the important issue of colour revolutions. Important it is, because it surely is one of the factors that could let Europe slide back into a Cold War scenario.

Fortunately, with the departure of the Neocons and with Obama at the helm this risk seem to have diminished.

[Breerman]

Well of course no sane person would want to break free from Russian rule. CIAros gets hundreds of thousands of people to march in the streets and millions to denounce Kremlin by giving them all $$$.

Yes, Orange revolutions receive support from other democracies. It's called solidarity support and it's needed because under authoritarian rule dissidents have a tendency to end up shot or die from bad cases of rotten potato poisoning.

And no I don't have any love for Soros. He is a crook and among other things he attacked my country in 1991.

[Kutuzov]

Well if you could watch this documentary and understand it, you will hear all the facts from horses mouth they did overthrow Russian backed governments installed their own dictators and are proud of it take from it what you will but this aint no tinfoil thread.And by the way if you think Ukrainians and Georgians enjoy their so called democracy think again .

[igorvasilevsky]

It's called solidarity support bla bla bla
Are you insane? Are you ****in insane?
Since when storming the parliament (like in Moldova on 9 April) and firing the whole house is a "solidarity support"? You really are an idiot, if you think so.. No surprise though.

[Wojtop]

I've seen first 7 minutes and it's enough to see a "conspiracy theory" paradigm of the movie.

I've been participiating in one of projects aimed at financing opposition in Ukraine and Belarus few years ago, travelled there, spoke a lot to opposition members and saw them working. It's quite probable these revolutions wouldn't happen, or would happen in more violent/desorganized way if not for NGOs financement/trainings from the West. But these NGOs are weak, repressed and underfinanced. They have no power themselves - unless majority of population supports the change and the regime plays dirty tricks. For example in Belarus opposition have no power and no prospects - for the very simple reason of the current dictator being supported by vast majority of people. No amount of financement, knowledge etc can help opposition to overthrow Lukashenko in this situation. So these NGOs only do what they do everywhere - help to express the will of people in an organized way. If the people are against falsifying elections they jump in and tell them how to prevent the falsification. Nothing wrong with that.

On a sidenote - the people working for these NGOs don't give a sh1t about who provides money. They join in voluntarily for ideological reasons. They put a lot of work and risk a lot (jail, fines, careers) to do what they believe is right. Working for NGO in a despotic country is no business - it's a big risk. Some smart@ss french journalist with a camera and a wish to kick an evil american capitalists butt from his comfortable studio is a piece of crap for me comparing to those guys (and girls).

[Sashko]

On a sidenote - the people working for these NGOs don't give a sh1t about who provides money. They join in voluntarily for ideological reasons. They put a lot of work and risk a lot (jail, fines, careers) to do what they believe is right. Working for NGO in a despotic country is no business - it's a big risk. Some smart@ss french journalist with a camera and a wish to kick an evil american capitalists butt from his comfortable studio is a piece of crap for me comparing to those guys (and girls).


"Work" is doing something productive. Human rights workers, social workers, NGO personnel, and other thrill seekers are bunch of lazy bums with ideas on how others should live.

Zero compassion for that scum here.

[MaverickCowboy]

you Russians think we are trying to get Europe to be our puppets?

[Sashko]

you Russians think we are trying to get Europe to be our puppets?


Not all of Europe p-) Just the broke and begging ex-Soviet bloc members.

[ilmakas]

Russian backed governments

so you are saying that western supported governments are dictatorships and only those that Kremlin approves are right for the locals?

[Digimon]

I've seen first 7 minutes and it's enough to see a "conspiracy theory" paradigm of the movie.

I've been participiating in one of projects aimed at financing opposition in Ukraine and Belarus few years ago, travelled there, spoke a lot to opposition members and saw them working. It's quite probable these revolutions wouldn't happen, or would happen in more violent/desorganized way if not for NGOs financement/trainings from the West. But these NGOs are weak, repressed and underfinanced. They have no power themselves - unless majority of population supports the change and the regime plays dirty tricks. For example in Belarus opposition have no power and no prospects - for the very simple reason of the current dictator being supported by vast majority of people. No amount of financement, knowledge etc can help opposition to overthrow Lukashenko in this situation. So these NGOs only do what they do everywhere - help to express the will of people in an organized way. If the people are against falsifying elections they jump in and tell them how to prevent the falsification. Nothing wrong with that.

On a sidenote - the people working for these NGOs don't give a sh1t about who provides money. They join in voluntarily for ideological reasons. They put a lot of work and risk a lot (jail, fines, careers) to do what they believe is right. Working for NGO in a despotic country is no business - it's a big risk. Some smart@ss french journalist with a camera and a wish to kick an evil american capitalists butt from his comfortable studio is a piece of crap for me comparing to those guys (and girls).

Here are a few issues I have with this post...

First, I would not rash to dismiss this film as some socialist, French conspiracy theory. By coincidence, yesterday I was discussing the issue of colour revolutions with the Chair of the political science departments in one of the biggest universities in North America. He viewed the ultimate motivation for the US involvement in the revolutions as tightly bound with national security concerns and political interest of the US.

From my perspective, the real problem is not whether it serves the interests of the US—I certainly would not object to US solving the world poverty simply on the grounds that it might serve US interests--but whether it is both politically and morally right thing to do. And there are a number of things that are wrong with this practice.

First, involving people in such organizations and activities, organizing them not simply for the purposes of democratic protest but actual violation of the law and hijacking of the electoral process, puts them at risk of both violence and prosecution; it also puts at risk the general public. In other words, those who finance such activities are playing with people’s lives without, at the same time, risking anything. The events in Haiti--which no one recognizes for a colour revolution because, in fact, it did turn bloody--are an example of just such morally suspect activity, which precipitated blood of innocent people, violence, and political instability. The institutes and people that have enabled and provoked these events through financing, organization, and training that explicitly rejects political compromise, were completely unaccountable and suffered no ill consequences.

Second, while it is true that no colour revolution can take place without the condition of major public discontent, the organizers manipulate and exploit this discontent to their own purposes, which might or might not reflect the ultimate purposes of the public. Just like in all organized revolutions which nevertheless depend on the support of the masses (see Lenin), the organized core of revolutionaries has all the data and a set plan, in which the angry and dissatisfied public is simply a dumb pawn, which is being used, as always, for its own good. Not only the discontent of the public can be simply aroused by multiplying reports of “voting irregularities” that might or might not have happened (typically no one can reasonably know the veracity of such reports in the few days or hours during which the revolutions take place) but the discontent does not even have to be relevant to the elections or even be representative of the population as a whole. The discontent could be either related to general corruption (Ukraine, Georgia) or some tragic recent event (Gongadze, Rafik Hariri), and it only needs to be concentrated in one particular area, where the key activity is taking place. In other words, the technologies of such revolutions are manipulative and, therefore, disrespectful of the autonomy of the individuals. Furthermore, the techniques which exploit the public discontent can allow a small but highly organized group of people to take over the political control of the state by shorting out the electoral process.

Third, colour revolutions, to the extent to which they occur in institutional democracies, hijack and, therefore, subvert the legitimate political process. Democracies are formal political arrangements, which, once they are set up, are supposed to function irrespective of the corruption of any one particular citizen. As long as these formal arrangements are in place (e.g. independent judiciary, multiparty system, elections, election fraud checks and transparent escalation process, legal avenues of challenging the election results, constitutional rights, etc...) the system is supposed to function properly. To say that all the institutions are in place but the state is not democratic is to say that democracy is a ghost in the machine. The problem, of course, is that once the verifiable conditions for the presence of democracy are gone the application of the predicate becomes entirely arbitrary and the term becomes the handmaiden to political interests. The damage to the concept of democracy is the final ultimate moral failing of the "colour revolutionaries."

[Ritual]

You make it sound like there's something wrong about surrounding Russia with Pro-Us backed governments and achieving nuclear hegemony

[Switek]

It seems to be mainly Russian members participating in this thread, which is a pity.

In the West it has become standard operating procedure to deny US involvement in the colour revolutions and dismiss it as "conspiracy theory" or "tinfoil hat" territory. This is also the case with suspected covert operations like de-stabilization of sovereign countries and support to rebel or secession movemenents. Unfortunately anything not endorsed by the mainsteam press and especially Neocon mouthpieces like the Washington Post is dismissed all too easily. To really kill all debate you just tag what's uncomfortable as "conspiracy theory".

It's hard to participate in discussion here because we should talk not about facts but beliefs...

The problem is that you do not know what nature of NGOs is. First of all they are to watch on government hands and guards citizens laws, law system, freedom of speech and how public funds are spending, generally speaking regime abuses. Most of NGOs has nothing to do with politics at all bud focusing their activity on local levels and realizing particular projects on health care, drug/alcohol addicted help, solving problems of disabled persons, solving ecological problems... etc.

Most of you buys cheap Putinist propaganda. In fact those NGOs would, first of all, interfere the way how power in Russia is performed. In this case are real threat but for the nation, but the regime.

I really do not see any sense to dispute about facts with Russians here who mostly represent biased attitude and cling only conspiracy theories, rejecting facts that social changes are based on many factors and only limited can be steering by media, propaganda, governments and those evil NGOs.

[igorvasilevsky]

I really do not see any sense to dispute about facts with Russians here who mostly represent biased attitude and cling only conspiracy theories, rejecting facts that social changes are based on many factors and only limited can be steering by media, propaganda, governments and those evil NGOs.
I wasn't on MP.net enough time, but seems like you are a main idiot here and it's you who are representing completely biased attitude. It's not about "conspiracy Russians". It's about exact results of color revolutions, which we can see in Ukraine or Georgia, very tragic results and main targets are citizens of these countries. If you don't care about them - you are simply immoral polyak without soul (no surprise). Cheers.

[Switek]

It's a proof that I'm right. You can not argue but insult. Classic fail.

[igorvasilevsky]

It's a proof that I'm right. You can not argue but insult. Classic fail.
Argue about what? Results of color revolutions? So you are trying to say that there are only good results for these countries? 2% rating of Ushenko clearly shows that results are terrible.

If you can't understand it - it's your problem. There is no need to argue against common sense. Moreover, if you are supporting these color revolutions - you are showing your real ugly face. End of "discussion" with main MP troll.

[Snoshi]

Argue about what? Results of color revolutions? So you are trying to say that there are only good results for these countries? 2% rating of Ushenko clearly shows that results are terrible.

If you can't understand it - it's your problem. There is no need to argue against common sense. Moreover, if you are supporting these color revolutions - you are showing your real ugly face. End of "discussion" with main MP troll.

Looks like you are an "ex-banned" member who re-registered.. Il let the admins deal with you..

[igorvasilevsky]

Looks like you are an "ex-banned" member who re-registered.. Il let the admins deal with you..
Nope, you failed. Sorry to dissappointing you rofl . Are working as Switek security (just a joke)?

[Hazzard]

I really do not see any sense to dispute about facts with Russians here who mostly represent biased attitude and cling only conspiracy theories, rejecting facts that social changes are based on many factors and only limited can be steering by media, propaganda, governments and those evil NGOs.


So why you didn't brake their biased conspiracy theories by the facts? They are still stubborn their disbelief even after your ardent speaches.

[Switek]

So why you didn't brake their biased conspiracy theories by the facts? They are still stubborn their disbelief even after your ardent speaches.

As I said, because they are matter of their beliefs.

[Hazzard]

As I said, because they are matter of their beliefs.

But they say the same about you. 1:1

[megjur]

Argue about what? Results of color revolutions? So you are trying to say that there are only good results for these countries? 2% rating of Ushenko clearly shows that results are terrible.

If you can't understand it - it's your problem. There is no need to argue against common sense. Moreover, if you are supporting these color revolutions - you are showing your real ugly face. End of "discussion" with main MP troll.

Low approval ratings actually point towrds success. At least the people have a say in who governs them. If they don't like their leader they'll vote him out. As opposed to Russia where bad Vlad lingers on and on....

[Stormz_STA]

you are simply immoral polyak without soul (no surprise)

Hahaha. That's awesome!!!!
Switek, you dirty, immoral polyak. You should be ashamed of yourself!!! ;)

Seriously though, igorvasilevsky, you're a turd.

[Switek]

Hahaha. That's awesome!!!!
Switek, you dirty, immoral polyak. You should be ashamed of yourself!!! ;)

Seriously though, igorvasilevsky, you're a turd.

In mouths of some it is a big compliment! :lol:

[kosse]

Low approval ratings actually point towrds success. At least the people have a say in who governs them. If they don't like their leader they'll vote him out. As opposed to Russia where bad Vlad lingers on and on....

Yep. I'd rather have a president with 2% approval rating than someone with constant 99% in polls and elections. We've seen so many times how the latter situation plays out :lol:

[Mango Madness]

Low approval ratings actually point towrds success. At least the people have a say in who governs them. If they don't like their leader they'll vote him out. As opposed to Russia where bad Vlad lingers on and on....

So low approval ratings means you are a democracy...while high approval ratings mean you aren't? Newsflash, low approval ratings =/= you are a democracy. What are you suggesting, that Putin's popularity numbers are made up? Are you really that stupid. Poll numbers have consistently put Putin's approval ratings at +70%, which have been independently verified.

[xzx]

Low approval ratings actually point towrds success. At least the people have a say in who governs them. If they don't like their leader they'll vote him out. As opposed to Russia where bad Vlad lingers on and on....

Clown, in Ukraine, someone with 2% rating sit in power, and his rating doesnt bother him anyhow.

In Russia president has 70 approval rating.

So what people have a say in who governs him? Think slowly...

[kosse]

Clown, in Ukraine, someone with 2% rating sit in power, and his rating doesnt bother him anyhow.

In Russia president has 70 approval rating.

So what people have a say in who governs him? Think slowly...

So, was USSR democratic with it's constant overwhelmingly positive approval ratings towards it's leaders? Only thing that has changed in Russia is the name of the gang that holds the power :lol:

At least in Ukraine the leaders will genuinely change in the next elections.

[megjur]

Clown, in Ukraine, someone with 2% rating sit in power, and his rating doesnt bother him anyhow.

In Russia president has 70 approval rating.

So what people have a say in who governs him? Think slowly...

Sure..when your constitutional term limits run out you just get appointed as so called prime minister and stay in power with your little puppet Medvedev to do your bidding...popularity after all trumps constitutional law.

[igorvasilevsky]

Hahaha. That's awesome!!!!
Switek, you dirty, immoral polyak. You should be ashamed of yourself!!! ;)
Why don't you quoted other words since "If", smartarse?

[xzx]

Yep. I'd rather have a president with 2% approval rating than someone with constant 99% in polls and elections. We've seen so many times how the latter situation plays out :lol:

So you are not only terrorist fanboy, you are also in love with 2% approval rating dictators?

[megjur]

It's easy to have a 70% approval rating when all the information put out about you comes from state controlled media..and when those journalists oppose you have a way of ending up dead.

[Mango Madness]

So, was USSR democratic with it's constant overwhelmingly positive approval ratings towards it's leaders? Only thing that has changed in Russia is the name of the gang that holds the power

At least in Ukraine the leaders will genuinely change in the next elections.

Yeah, because a country that doesn't want to "change" course/leaders at its next election is automatically not a democracy:roll:

[igorvasilevsky]

Sure..when your constitutional term limits run out you just get appointed as so called prime minister and stay in power with your little puppet Medvedev to do your bidding...popularity after all trumps constitutional law.
What's wrong with being prime minister after being president? C'mon, megjur, be mercy, write something constructive later. If you don't like Putin, it's your opinion, your problem. If people don't agree with you somehow - it doesn't automatically mean that they have "wrong" opinion? I explained understandable for a kid?

[Mango Madness]

It's easy to have a 70% approval rating when all the information put out about you comes from state controlled media..and when those journalists oppose you have a way of ending up dead.

Oh god, you're making an idiot of yourself. Putin's approval ratings have been confirmed by independent polls, polls, as in they went out and surveyed Russians themselves, not "information from state controlled media". Even the western media admits that Putin's popularity is genuine.

[megjur]

What's wrong with being prime minister after being president? C'mon, megjur, be mercy, write something constructive later. If you don't like Putin, it's your opinion, your problem. If people don't agree with you somehow - it doesn't automatically mean that they have "wrong" opinion? I explained understandable for a kid?

Go watch more PutinTV

http://www.rferl.org/content/Putin_TV/1808697.html

[igorvasilevsky]

Go watch more PutinTV

http://www.rferl.org/content/Putin_TV/1808697.html

Is it a threat :oops: ? I'm using large number of various sources - Russian, American, European, mostly in Internet, like majority of other people, I assure. So your comment failed again. Second, Russian media is much more objective in compare with some of main American or European sources and channels.
Sorry, but you are totally failed person :cantbeli: .

[kosse]

So you are not only terrorist fanboy, you are also in love with 2% approval rating dictators?

Wrong and wrong. Like I said earlier; work on that reading comprehension, sport. Or at least refrain from commenting when you can't figure out what other people mean.

[xzx]

So, was USSR democratic with it's constant overwhelmingly positive approval ratings towards it's leaders? Only thing that has changed in Russia is the name of the gang that holds the power :lol:

Leaders in USSR were not elected.


At least in Ukraine the leaders will genuinely change in the next elections.
Why do you need leaders with 2% rating even if they will change?


Sure..when your constitutional term limits run out you just get appointed as so called prime minister and stay in power with your little puppet Medvedev to do your bidding...popularity after all trumps constitutional law.

You get appointed because people decided so on election, who knew who will be appointed as PM.


It's easy to have a 70% approval rating when all the information put out about you comes from state controlled media..and when those journalists oppose you have a way of ending up dead.

Go tell your fairly tales from lying western propaganda media to brainwashed people like youself. I understand western media is frustrated, they cannt have their puppet installed.

There are information from state controlled media in Russia, as well as information from independent private media and foreign controlled one. In form of tv, radio, newspapers and internet. The number of state media sources are not even comporable close with numbers of private media. The thing is that state tv channels in Russia have more rating and more popular than private tv channels again people choice.

[Snoshi]

Second, Russian media is much more objective in compare with some of main American or European sources and channels.


So.. Which media are you talking about?

Pervij, Rossija or NTV? Meybe Russia Today?

[Mango Madness]

There are information from state controlled media in Russia, as well as information from independent private media and foreign controlled one. In form of tv, radio, newspapers and internet. The number of state media sources are not even comporable close with numbers of private media. The thing is that state tv channels in Russia have more rating and more popular than private tv channels again people choice.

Television leaves a lot to be desired. It is quite ridiculous that the government owns all the major stations. Russia has a lot of problems that need to be complained about.

[SniperRu]

It is funny some people still dismiss this as a "conspiracy theory" when these NGOs are openly planning to do this in Russia.

At the very end of the documentary Bruce P. Jackson meets with two Russian girls from "Russia without Putin" organisation and helps them organize protests. A little earlier, John McCain himself says that their goal is to do this in Russia...

And if you understand French you can clearly see that this documentary is far from being pro-Russian, it actually presents those revolutions as genuine popular uprisings.

[Flamming_Python]

I've seen first 7 minutes and it's enough to see a "conspiracy theory" paradigm of the movie.

I've been participiating in one of projects aimed at financing opposition in Ukraine and Belarus few years ago, travelled there, spoke a lot to opposition members and saw them working. It's quite probable these revolutions wouldn't happen, or would happen in more violent/desorganized way if not for NGOs financement/trainings from the West. But these NGOs are weak, repressed and underfinanced. They have no power themselves - unless majority of population supports the change and the regime plays dirty tricks. For example in Belarus opposition have no power and no prospects - for the very simple reason of the current dictator being supported by vast majority of people. No amount of financement, knowledge etc can help opposition to overthrow Lukashenko in this situation. So these NGOs only do what they do everywhere - help to express the will of people in an organized way. If the people are against falsifying elections they jump in and tell them how to prevent the falsification. Nothing wrong with that.

You're right in that the regimes wouldn't be overthrown, unless there was genuine discontent against them. In the case of Ukraine and Georgia there was, but the problem is that people's genuine disillusionment at the corruption and incompetence of their leaders, not to mention the work of highlighting human-rights abuses, was simply hijacked by certain Western-backed NGO's and used to promote extremely nationalist candidates who advocated suppressing Russian language, culture, political influence, economic links and minorities under the banner of 'building democracy'. These candidates who promised to deliver people from the corruption of the old system, while instead adopting an extremely confrontational foreign policy, making maximum 'suicidal' efforts to harm Russia even if it meant harming their own interests even more, and generally doing everything but developing and stabilising their country.


so you are saying that western supported governments are dictatorships and only those that Kremlin approves are right for the locals?

No, but generally speaking, the ex-Soviet governments that have better relations with Russia, are doing better than the governments that follow policies decided for them in Washington or Brussels.


You make it sound like there's something wrong about surrounding Russia with Pro-Us backed governments and achieving nuclear hegemony

Only if you don't mind restarting the cold war.

[Flamming_Python]

Yep. I'd rather have a president with 2% approval rating than someone with constant 99% in polls and elections. We've seen so many times how the latter situation plays out :lol:

I don't want either. What does it matter what the approval rating is, if both are clearly acting against the wishes of their people and ruling without legitimacy.

Putin and Medvedev have the highest, legitimate approval ratings by far out of any post-Soviet leaders, in both Russia and in many other ex-Soviet states.

[Switek]

.. These candidates who promised to deliver people from the corruption of the old system, while instead adopting an extremely confrontational foreign policy, making maximum 'suicidal' efforts to harm Russia even if it meant harming their own interests even more, and generally doing everything but developing and stabilising their country.

During all revolution, political changes, divisions etc. there always emerge new elites who started t represent their own interests. In this case Ukrainian oligarchs and new elites are interested to prevent their "achievements". It's not about people but core interest of every people.


No, but generally speaking, the ex-Soviet governments that have better relations with Russia, are doing better than the governments that follow policies decided for them in Washington or Brussels.

Considering above paragraph seems you do not see that in Ukrainian oligarchs is to keep a distance from Russia. Of course some of Ukrainian politicians are backed by some European Countries while some are supported by Russian regime but only Ukrainians can decide about their future, whatever how democratic procedures are imperfect there.


Only if you don't mind restarting the cold war.

Cold war is against vital Russian interests...

[User_Name]

I don't want either. What does it matter what the approval rating is, if both are clearly acting against the wishes of their people and ruling without legitimacy.

Putin and Medvedev have the highest, legitimate approval ratings by far out of any post-Soviet leaders, in both Russia and in many other ex-Soviet states.

Funny thing is, if Putin would candidate for presidentship in Ukraine he would win in first turn :D
http://www.zavtra.com.ua/news/reiting/134369/

[megjur]

It is funny some people still dismiss this as a "conspiracy theory" when these NGOs are openly planning to do this in Russia.

At the very end of the documentary Bruce P. Jackson meets with two Russian girls from "Russia without Putin" organisation and helps them organize protests. A little earlier, John McCain himself says that their goal is to do this in Russia...

And if you understand French you can clearly see that this documentary is far from being pro-Russian, it actually presents those revolutions as genuine popular uprisings.

Headline: 2 Girls Topple Russian Government...sources say John McCain behind the revolt

[Digimon]

So you are trying to say that there are only good results for these countries? 2% rating of Ushenko clearly shows that results are terrible.

I am not Switek, but I will ask anyway... What do "good results" have to do with the legitimacy of these revolutions? Are you implying that if the results were "good," then these revolutions would be alright? So, the problem is that the results were not good enough?

[Digimon]

It's hard to participate in discussion here because we should talk not about facts but beliefs...

If you don't mind, Switek--what do you mean by "we should talk not about facts but beliefs"? What does that change?

[Switek]

If you don't mind, Switek--what do you mean by "we should talk not about facts but beliefs"? What does that change?

Beliefs that there is or was any conspiracy plot, because it's is just a hoax. The proofs are so weak and, in fact, overestimate the meaning of those damned NGOs.

[Digimon]

... but the problem is that people's genuine disillusionment ... was simply hijacked by certain Western-backed NGO's and used to promote extremely nationalist candidates who advocated suppressing Russian language, culture, political influence, economic links and minorities under the banner of 'building democracy'.

NGOs were not responsible for creating, or even promoting, this nationalism--every part of a former empire naturally has a political segment which is centrifugal, representing the nationalist ideology, and one that is centripetal, representing the old imperialist ideology. The first promotes older, traditional loyalties and forms of socialization, while the second one promotes resocialization and reforging of the bonds of loyalty along ethnic lines. The reason why nationalist ideology almost inevitably comes to power everywhere on the periphery of Russia is that it is the natural ideological antipode of the imperialist ideology and it allows a convenient platform for political competition, which often masks economic competition. In Ukraine, the success of nationalist opposition came mostly because it naturally combined forces with the populists like Timoshenko—it combined the forces because it had little chance to take on such formidable opponents as Kuchma circle on its own.

This process is absolutely inevitable and represents little more than the natural process of the disintegration of the empire, where loyalties have to be reforged in the light of increasing competition among the parts which formerly cooperated and were bound by common group bonds. Russia is speeding up the process by viewing the nationalist forces with antagonism, showing that its priorities lie with its own people, and, in a manner of speaking, feeding the trolls.

As far as Ushenko is concerned, I can understand where he is coming from (although I do not approve of his actions) ... all it takes is imagining that “the girl is white.” In other words, one might imagine for a second that Russia remained an appendage of Poland after 1612 and that by the end of the 20th century Russian language has become the minority language in Russia, while its cultural form have become almost completely “Polonized.” I think that in such situation, once the imperial linkage was broken, a lot of the Russians who are objecting to Ushenko’s policies now would be promoting the very same policies in Russia and doing it with equal force. Russian imperialism appears to be just a variation of Russian nationalism—its all about reinforcing and empowering the group with which one identifies.

[xzx]

Cold war is against vital Russian interests...


Beliefs that there is or was any conspiracy plot, because it's is just a hoax. The proofs are so weak and, in fact, overestimate the meaning of those damned NGOs.

Did you think about that you have some kind of mental disorder?

You really have a problem understanding how those two statements are mutually exclusive?

[Digimon]

Beliefs that there is or was any conspiracy plot, because it's is just a hoax. The proofs are so weak and, in fact, overestimate the meaning of those damned NGOs.

I see what you mean. Beliefs have to be grounded in evidence, which must include facts. In this case, there is plenty of evidence of foreign interference. The question is what are the intentions behind the interference and whether the interference is legitimate. This is exactly, it seems, where interpretations and beliefs come in.

I have made some arguments why I think it is illegitimate. But I think the claim that it is a part of some larger, state-sponsored plan to surround Russia or install puppet regimes on its periphery is not supported by the evidence. US has plenty of independent actors, such as the neocon sponsored NGOs, which act autonomously (in fact, in the case of Haiti the State Department complained to Bush that the Republican Institute’s activities were contradicting their own attempts to promote a political compromise). It also appears that the conviction, at the foundation of these NGO’s, that the democracies do not go to war with democracies might explain how a genuine desire to promote democracy can coincide with a desire to ensure the security of the United States. This, of course, does not excuse the meddling.

[Hazzard]

Beliefs that there is or was any conspiracy plot, because it's is just a hoax. The proofs are so weak and, in fact, overestimate the meaning of those damned NGOs.

Why then there is so much political kneedancing about those NGOs?

[Kutuzov]

so you are saying that western supported governments are dictatorships and only those that Kremlin approves are right for the locals?

Where did I say that ? Show me.

[Kutuzov]

you Russians think we are trying to get Europe to be our puppets?

Think it? No bud we know it , all the regimes you support in Eastern Europe are openly anti-Russia and basically hostile explain that .

[SniperRu]

Beliefs that there is or was any conspiracy plot, because it's is just a hoax. The proofs are so weak and, in fact, overestimate the meaning of those damned NGOs.

In the documentary it is shown how a group of Serbians from the Group Otpor that overthrew Milosevic were in Ukraine 2 months before the 2004 elections and were preparing the "revolution".

Too bad you don't understand French.

[Kutuzov]

In the documentary it is shown how a group of Serbians from the Group Otpor that overthrew Milosevic were in Ukraine 2 months before the 2004 elections and were preparing the "revolution".

Too bad you don't understand French.

Ya my point exactly this guys are noobs.(Lets see the Counter-Strike jokes)

[Universal_Soldier]

Yep. I'd rather have a president with 2% approval rating than someone with constant 99% in polls and elections. We've seen so many times how the latter situation plays out :lol:

That would be saakashvili. last time, he was elected with 96% of vote :)

[ilmakas]

Think it? No bud we know it , all the regimes you support in Eastern Europe are openly anti-Russia and basically hostile explain that .

ok, which countries ("regimes" :roll: ) are we talking about here?


installed their own dictators

which dictators, didnt know there are dictators in Eastern Europe.

[Mango Madness]

which dictators, didnt know there are dictators in Eastern Europe.

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/9681/alexanderlukashenko1.jpg

p-)

[CaptMorgan68]

On the topics of NGOs.

http://www.stratfor.com/russia_spreading_revolutionary_spirit


Russia: The Spreading 'Revolutionary' Spirit April 9, 2005 | 0206 GMT
Summary


A "revolutionary" spirit inspired by the fall of Kremlin-backed governments during popular demonstrations in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan is building within Russia proper with the West's encouragement. Regional forces are positioning themselves to grab power in constituent republics of the Russian Federation with significant nonethnic Russian populations. If they succeed, it could mark the beginning of the end of the Russian Federation as a state and country.
Analysis
Well-organized demonstrations in Bashkortostan on March 26 and similar protests being prepared elsewhere in Russia show that the Western-encouraged "revolutionary" movements in the former Soviet Union (FSU) are spilling over into Russia. This trend indicates the first "revolutions" inside the multiethnic Russian Federation will be on a regional level in areas with significant nonethnic Russian populations. Disparate groups -- pro-Western liberals, anti-Russian nationalists, Islamists and crime syndicates -- will try to lead these "revolutions" and use them to their advantage while making temporary alliances among themselves.
Geopolitically, these potential "revolutions" are more dangerous to Moscow than the Chechen war. Unless the Kremlin acts quickly to deal with these movements, Russia's territorial integrity will start crumbling.
Russian security sources and opposition forces have intelligence that "revolutions" similar to -- and even larger than -- the current attempt in Bashkortostan (http://www.stratfor.com/Story.neo?storyId=246864) are being prepared in several other Russian regions, including Bashkortostan's neighbor Tatarstan, Yakutia and Tuva in Siberia, Karelia in the northwest, Kalmykia in the lower Volga region and several republics in the North Caucasus. Many of these areas are strategically significant. If any broke away from Moscow after a Western-inspired "revolution," not only would it set precedent for breaking the Russian Federation as a state, it would put the rest of Russia in an untenable position indeed.
Take, for example, Tatarstan and Yakutia. Tatarstan is perhaps the most important of these potentially breakaway regions. One of the major economic engines for all of Russia -- because of its developed oil sector and status as a center of mechanical engineering, among other things -- Tatarstan presides over the middle Volga region and sits between Moscow and the Urals, the main base of Russian heavy industry. Together with Bashkortostan, Tatarstan controls Russia's longest strategic transportation corridor from its eastern borders to Western Europe. If Tatarstan is cut off from Russia, little oil and few trains and trucks would be able to make it from Russia's Far East and Siberia to Europe.
Tatars also are the most politically active and influential ethnic minority in Russia; only 23 percent of them live in Tatarstan, while others are in Moscow and other important centers. Many have commanded top positions in Russian politics, economics and security services. Tatar oligarchs are second -- though a distant second -- only to Jewish oligarchs among Russia's elite. The Tatar lobby in the Kremlin and Tatar mafias in Moscow and the Tatar capital of Kazan' are among the strongest in the country. Tatarstan's current privileges as a republic within the Russian Federation are the highest and closest to independence.
Separatism -- and, to a lesser but still important extent, Islamism -- have developed strongly among Tatars since perestroika. Tatarstan President Mintimer Shaimiev is a moderate nationalist -- Russian President Vladimir Putin does not dare replace him, despite their political struggle over Tatarstan's quiet drifting away from Moscow, because there are forces in Tatarstan more radical than Shaimiev. Those forces, which are preparing to push for full independence, make Tatarstan appear ripe to become the next big stage for anti-Kremlin protests.
Yakutia -- currently called Sakha-Yakutia Republic -- is Russia's biggest region and occupies one-fifth of the total territory of Russia, namely a huge chunk of Eastern Siberia. It is Russia's "gold mine" and also very rich in diamonds. If it breaks away from Russia, Yakutia would shut out Russia's northwest -- Chukotka, Kamchatka and other areas -- from the rest of the country, leaving the isolated areas at the mercy of the United States (Alaska borders this region via the Bering Strait).
Yakutia saw violent anti-Russian separatist demonstrations under former Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev, with ethnic Russians killed on the streets of Yakutsk, the republic's capital, in the late 1980s. The separatist movement is still very much alive there, and Western nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have reached Yakutia and are actively trying to unite the opposition, Yakut government sources say.
The frequency of demonstrations in the Russian Federation's nonethnic Russian areas has steadily increased in recent months. Demonstrators in Ingushetia periodically demand the return of the disputed Prigorodny District from North Ossetia, an issue which has led to protests against Ingush President Murat Zyazikov, a close friend of Putin. Protesters in Karachay-Cherkessia in October 2004 stormed the office of their President Mustafa Batdyev. North Ossetia has seen protests to call for the resignation of President Alexander Dzasokhov, who the public blames for inaction during the Beslan school crisis in September 2004.
These regions already have some regional autonomy and would have fewer steps to take to break from Moscow than ethnic Russian areas where displeasure with the Kremlin's policies and some desire for autonomy also is growing. Moscow's influence among non-Russian republics is weaker than elsewhere in Russia, because many locals in non-Russian regions feel more bound to their local ethnic and religious groups than to Moscow. It makes sense, then, that "revolutions" under a pro-Western banner are starting in Russia's ethnic minority areas where central control already is weak -- the goal is to hit Russia in its weakest spots so the "revolutions" have a better chance of success.
Clearly, momentum is building to shift regional power away from the Kremlin. Protesters are emboldened by the success of the recent popular "revolutions" in nearby FSU republics. Furthermore, protesters no longer fear reprisals by the Russian government, because Moscow's response to recent demonstrations has been docile -- with no arrests or harsh penalties for opposition leaders.
Opposition groups also see support from abroad. U.S. President George W. Bush promotes democratic reform around the world to advance his administration's goals for the United States, and Washington has supported oppositions and immediately recognized the new governments instituted after "revolutions" in the FSU. Western NGOs such as the Freedom House and Soros Foundation affiliates help opposition forces with planning, organize seminars on how to lead protests and quickly train activists, assist with printing opposition publications and give some financial support.
U.S. Protestant missionaries -- intentionally or not, though Russian authorities suspect the former -- also play an important role in helping non-Russian ethnic regions break away from Moscow. It is telling that newly converted local Protestants have become opposition activists in those regions. Some Bashkir evangelical converts said many hundreds of them participate in and even spearhead the "revolution" there. This is a very high number, given that there are roughly 8,000 known converts there. Several hundred activists from the evangelical community is quite significant, given that in Kyrgyzstan, for example, it took only 2,000 to 3,000 demonstrators to break into and occupy the central government offices, de facto displacing the old regime.
By encouraging "revolutions" in Russia's ethnic minority areas, the Bush administration -- and, to an extent, Europe -- is following the footsteps of all other powers that have tried to weaken Russia. The British Empire gave money, arms and military instructors to the Caucasian and Central Asian tribes rebelling within the Russian Czarist Empire in the 19th century. The entente did the same for non-Russian nationalist movements during the October Revolution and in the 1920s, hoping that ethnic minority areas would break away from Soviet Russia. Adolf Hitler's Germany formed legions of many thousands of nonethnic Russians unhappy with Moscow's rule during its invasion of the Soviet Union.
The opposition forces preparing "revolutions" in nonethnic Russian areas are composed of different forces, ranging from pro-Western liberals to anti-Russian nationalists (both moderate and radical), to Islamists (again, both moderate and radical) and crime syndicates. Though their end goals are different, these groups have made concerted and thus far successful attempts at uniting in anti-Kremlin movements. Moderate nationalist opposition sources in Tatarstan say the U.S. NGO experts working in that region have made the call for unification the main point every time they talk to opposition activists.
Because these various groups will try to use the "revolutions" to their own ends while cooperating with others in the process, it seems some successes in these regional movements are possible -- but there also is uncertainty about what forces will eventually benefit.
For the time being, it seems pro-Western liberal forces are taking the lead in Russia's "revolutionary" movements. This is because the other groups believe they can go along with the liberal-led, Western-encouraged movements for now, and when the revolution ends, if their goals are met -- for example, if the nationalists or moderate Islamists end up in charge of an independent state -- such a state would be better off being aligned with the West, where it can enjoy Washington's support, rather than taking what support might be available from Russia and other neighbors. Indeed, the current openly pro-Western regimes in Ukraine and Georgia are governed in part by hardcore nationalists, who often outrank pro-Western liberals.
The demonstrations have yet to result in a substantial shift in authority in the republics, but the potential is quickly growing. So far, Russia's conciliatory responses have further encouraged the opposition. It is clear that the destabilizing force of "revolutions" is entering Russia proper, and unless Moscow moves quickly to deal with these well-organized, Western-supported and increasing protests, Russia could start seeing its territory slip away, piece by piece.

[Switek]

Did you think about that you have some kind of mental disorder?

You really have a problem understanding how those two statements are mutually exclusive?

You must be right in some extent. Hey boy I'm going grey blonde male who have no clue what are you talking about... :lol:


I see what you mean. Beliefs have to be grounded in evidence, which must include facts. In this case, there is plenty of evidence of foreign interference. The question is what are the intentions behind the interference and whether the interference is legitimate. This is exactly, it seems, where interpretations and beliefs come in.


I have made some arguments why I think it is illegitimate. But I think the claim that it is a part of some larger, state-sponsored plan to surround Russia or install puppet regimes on its periphery is not supported by the evidence. US has plenty of independent actors, such as the neocon sponsored NGOs, which act autonomously (in fact, in the case of Haiti the State Department complained to Bush that the Republican Institute’s activities were contradicting their own attempts to promote a political compromise). It also appears that the conviction, at the foundation of these NGO’s, that the democracies do not go to war with democracies might explain how a genuine desire to promote democracy can coincide with a desire to ensure the security of the United States. This, of course, does not excuse the meddling.

Building strong democratic institutions, independent from government are to represent people interest vs power. As I said to watch at politicians hands. In this perspective positive role of NGOs is obvious. Having independent organizations on Russian soil the autocracy of apparatus of power and oligarchs and corruption would be limited.


Why then there is so much political knee dancing about those NGOs?

As I stated most NGOs has nothing to do with current politics and work on mainly social problems.


In the documentary it is shown how a group of Serbians from the Group Otpor that overthrew Milosevic were in Ukraine 2 months before the 2004 elections and were preparing the "revolution".

Too bad you don't understand French.

It really doesn't matter how well organized "revolutionists" are. They must be supported by people to achieve their goals. There's no simple social engineering. In other words: there must be broader interest of the people to support them. Even propaganda tools does not work effectively in EE, where people are in general skeptical and rather do not trust neither government nor opposition.

[igorvasilevsky]

Having independent organizations...
They are not independent. They are US-sponsored organisations which purpose is to destabilise countries. What a dumbass you are..

[Switek]

rofl rofl rofl

You've made my day boy! :lol:, People like you only proves negative stereotypes of "Nashi" members.

[igorvasilevsky]

rofl rofl rofl

You've made my day boy! :lol:, People like you only proves negative stereotypes of "Nashi" members.
LOL I'm not "Nashi member", you just proves how are you dumb and biased, switek rofl. Continue please, I'm funding it funny.


Destabilizing ex-commie crook regimes? Sounds like a good cause to me.
Reading comments from all those brainwashed russians really makes me think that there is no future for that state. Always have been slaves and always will stay slaves to their glorious tsars. That country has no place in Europe among civilized nations.
LOL, another *******. Where did you find the words that they are "destabilising regimes"? Main target are citizens of these countries, because people and ONLY the people feel the terrible results of so-called "revolutions". Just look at Ushenko's rating and think who are slave and who are brainwashed ;) ?

HAHA, his comment dissapeared) oh, poor guy.

[Flamming_Python]

During all revolution, political changes, divisions etc. there always emerge new elites who started t represent their own interests. In this case Ukrainian oligarchs and new elites are interested to prevent their "achievements". It's not about people but core interest of every people.

What the 'core interest' of any given people is, should be IMHO defined by the people themselves. Just as easily as one can say that its in the 'core interests' of Ukrainians to move full after-burner from Moscow in order to craft an independent country, culture and identity, so too can I say that the 'core interests' of Ukrainians would be a new union with Russia that will strengthen both economies and create a very strong political bloc that will better be able to defend the interests of both peoples on the world arena. Considering Yushchenko's current approval ratings, the people clearly do not believe either him or the elite that has prospered under his rule, to be serving their interests.

I'm sure that Yushchenko and his supporters genuinely believe that they are building a strong Ukraine, that fanatical opposition to Russia is neccessery to secure their country's sovereignty, that they are serving their people in the long term, etc... The thing is though, is that this is all irrelevant.


Considering above paragraph seems you do not see that in Ukrainian oligarchs is to keep a distance from Russia. Of course some of Ukrainian politicians are backed by some European Countries while some are supported by Russian regime but only Ukrainians can decide about their future, whatever how democratic procedures are imperfect there.I don't deny, that the pro-US political forces in the country succeeded in crafting a strong alliance with local nationalists and oligarchs for whom ties with Russia are very much a hinderence to their political or economic goals.


Cold war is against vital Russian interests...Yep, and against Europe's too. Hence surrounding Russia with unfriendly regimes and trying to gain nuclear supremecy over it, is simply a bad idea

[xzx]

Destabilizing ex-commie crook regimes? Sounds like a good cause to me.
Reading comments from all those brainwashed russians really makes me think that there is no future for that state. Always have been slaves and always will stay slaves to their glorious tsars. That country has no place in Europe among civilized nations.

yea, russians are so unlucky. They would dream to live in caves and eat catsh!t like those free and civilised ukrainian and georgian peasants rofl

[Switek]

What the 'core interest' of any given people is, should be IMHO defined by the people themselves. Just as easily as one can say that its in the 'core interests' of Ukrainians to move full after-burner from Moscow in order to craft an independent country, culture and identity, so too can I say that the 'core interests' of Ukrainians would be a new union with Russia that will strengthen both economies and create a very strong political bloc that will better be able to defend the interests of both peoples on the world arena. Considering Yushchenko's current approval ratings, the people clearly do not believe either him or the elite that has prospered under his rule, to be serving their interests.

Think about this: Why Ukrainian oligarchs, politicians, officials would share their privileges, positions (and illegal incomes) with Russians if they can have them only for themselves? This is core private interest. Many of them prefer to be much more meaning on Ukraine itself than less in Russo-Ukrainian commonwealth.

[SniperRu]

Building strong democratic institutions, independent from government are to represent people interest vs power. As I said to watch at politicians hands. In this perspective positive role of NGOs is obvious. Having independent organizations on Russian soil the autocracy of apparatus of power and oligarchs and corruption would be limited.

Funny how these NGOs knew the result of the Ukranian elections 2 months before it took place. This is hardly a strong democratic institution as you say. The fact is that the goal of these US-backed NGOs is to install friendly regimes through a well orchestrated Coup d'état. If you see nothing wrong in this, then I guess there is nothing wrong with how Stalin installed a friendly regime in Poland after WWII.

[Switek]

Funny how these NGOs knew the result of the Ukranian elections 2 months before it took place. This is hardly a strong democratic institution as you say. The fact is that the goal of these US-backed NGOs is to install friendly regimes through a well orchestrated Coup d'état. If you see nothing wrong in this, then I guess there is nothing wrong with how Stalin installed a friendly regime in Poland after WWII.

Pure speculation and no evidences in fact... Yo can not send millions on the streets if they don't want it.

[Flamming_Python]

Think about this: Why Ukrainian oligarchs, politicians, officials would share their privileges, positions (and illegal incomes) with Russians if they can have them only for themselves? This is core private interest. Many of them prefer to be much more meaning on Ukraine itself than less in Russo-Ukrainian commonwealth.

Indeed, and in fact I reckon the feeling is mutual; the Russian elite is just as corrupt and just as selfish; by and large they have no interest in sharing any Russian enterprises or industries with the Ukraine; they are interested in partnerships but only on their terms (i.e. majority ownership). For the same reason, any question of a new union with Central Asian states was dropped back in the 90's (Now of course we have EuraSec and the CIS, but neither are serious organisations), and the union state with Belarus has been dead in the water since around about the same time period. All parties are guilty IMHO.

Russia has been rather unconcerned about the slow drifting away of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan from it over the past few years; it has been completely indifferent to efforts to oust its influence from Moldova, and when problems began with Georgia a few years ago Russia reprociated with crude policies such as making life harder for Georgian citizens in Russia; I'm sure it lost considerable good will this way. Of course under these conditions there can be no talk of a commonwealth, union or anything else. Which is a shame because I'd like one personally :)

Nontheless; there is one key difference; Russia's rulers are supported by their population and it's felt that they are genuinely developing the nation and working for the interests of its people; despite ongoing problems. Ukraine's leaders are percieved by their own population as only being interested in lining their own pockets.

[Derbedeu]

Which is a shame because I'd like one personally :)

Don't hold your breath. http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/7117/biggrind.gif (http://img98.imageshack.us/i/biggrind.gif/)

[Digimon]

Building strong democratic institutions, independent from government are to represent people interest vs power. As I said to watch at politicians hands. In this perspective positive role of NGOs is obvious. Having independent organizations on Russian soil the autocracy of apparatus of power and oligarchs and corruption would be limited.

One has to be careful not to commit any fallacies here, such as, for example, ignoring the question. The question was whether the NGOs involved in promoting colour revolutions are doing something illegitimate, not whether NGOs in general are good or bad.

Now, I believe in the genuinely independent and committed human rights organizations. In fact I volunteered for some of them and my work has direct relevance to the defence of human rights. But we are not talking about Médecins Sans Frontières or Amnesty International; we are talking about the National Endowment for Democracy, which is a state funded organization created in the 1983 with the express goal of inciting and promoting democratic changes in the countries around the world.

The National Endowment for Democracy, according to their own website, was an outgrowth of the covert CIA funding of pro-US movements in Europe (including, it appears, both Eastern and Western Europe). After the presence of covert funding came to light, the Johnson Administration insisted on doing it openly. The National Endowment for Democracy, which includes four institutes (International Republican Institute (IRI), National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), and the American Center for International Labour Solidarity (ACILS)) was created by the congress in 1983 with the FY84/85 State Department Authorization Act (H.R. 2915) (House Foreign Affairs Committee). This piece of legislation outlined the purposes and the funding of this non-profit and non-governmental organization; funding is received annually through congressional annual appropriation (in 1983, 31 mil. dollars a year; in 2008, 100 mil.) which is subject to congressional oversight.

The congress increased the funding for special democratic initiatives in countries of special interest: Poland (Solidarity), Chile, Nicaragua, Eastern Europe, South Africa, Burma, China, Tibet, North Korea, Balkans (“NED supported a number of civic groups, including those that played a key role in Serbia's electoral breakthrough in the fall of 2000”). “More recently, following 9/11 and the NED Board’s adoption of its third strategic document, special funding has been provided for countries with substantial Muslim populations in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia.”

The congress defined the purposes of this NGO to be the following: “encouraging democratic institutions through private sector initiatives; facilitating exchanges between private sector groups (particularly the four proposed Institutes) and democratic groups abroad; promoting nongovernmental participation in democratic training programs; strengthening democratic electoral processes abroad in cooperation with indigenous democratic forces; fostering cooperation between American private sector groups and those abroad "dedicated to the cultural values, institutions, and organizations of democratic pluralism;" and encouraging democratic development consistent with the interests of both the U.S. and the groups receiving assistance.”

According to their website, “As a non-governmental organization, it (NED) could provide political assistance to democratic forces in repressive or other sensitive political situations where U.S. Government support, even where channelled through intermediary institutions that were non-governmental, would be diplomatically or politically unfeasible.”

Every claim in this post has been taken from the website of the National Endowment for Democracy. It is an interesting read; I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the topic.

Source: http://www.ned.org/about/nedhistory.html

[Switek]

One has to be careful not to commit any fallacies here, such as, for example, ignoring the question. The question was whether the NGOs involved in promoting colour revolutions are doing something illegitimate, not whether NGOs in general are good or bad.

The key is whether ideas ideas aired by politically oriented NGOs are supported by people or not.


Now, I believe in the genuinely independent and committed human rights organizations. In fact I volunteered for some of them and my work has direct relevance to the defence of human rights. But we are not talking about Médecins Sans Frontières or Amnesty International; we are talking about the National Endowment for Democracy, which is a state funded organization created in the 1983 with the express goal of inciting and promoting democratic changes in the countries around the world.

I do not see anything wrong about purpose of this.


The National Endowment for Democracy, according to their own website, was an outgrowth of the covert CIA funding of pro-US movements in Europe (including, it appears, both Eastern and Western Europe). After the presence of covert funding came to light, the Johnson Administration insisted on doing it openly. The National Endowment for Democracy, which includes four institutes (International Republican Institute (IRI), National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), and the American Center for International Labour Solidarity (ACILS)) was created by the congress in 1983 with the FY84/85 State Department Authorization Act (H.R. 2915) (House Foreign Affairs Committee). This piece of legislation outlined the purposes and the funding of this non-profit and non-governmental organization; funding is received annually through congressional annual appropriation (in 1983, 31 mil. dollars a year; in 2008, 100 mil.) which is subject to congressional oversight. :roll:

From the NED website we can read:


Origins

In the aftermath of World War II, faced with threats to our democratic allies and without any mechanism to channel political assistance, U.S. policy makers resorted to covert means, secretly sending advisers, equipment, and funds to support newspapers and parties under siege in Europe. When it was revealed in the late 1960's that some American PVO's were receiving covert funding from the CIA to wage the battle of ideas at international forums, the Johnson Administration concluded that such funding should cease, recommending establishment of “a public-private mechanism” to fund overseas activities openly.

On Capitol Hill, Congressman Dante Fascell (D, FL) introduced a bill in April, 1967 to create an Institute of International Affairs, an initiative that would authorize overt funding for programs to promote democratic values. Although the bill did not succeed, it helped lead to discussions within the Administration and on Capitol Hill concerning how to develop new approaches to the ideological competition then taking place between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

As you can see it falsify you claim it provides covert CIA activities. What's interesting during cold war Soviet Union did not bother about details financing directly or via satellite countries western communist parties, leftist terrorist groups, and payed some journalist for voicing positive opinions about Soviet Union.


The congress increased the funding for special democratic initiatives in countries of special interest: Poland (Solidarity), Chile, Nicaragua, Eastern Europe, South Africa, Burma, China, Tibet, North Korea, Balkans (“NED supported a number of civic groups, including those that played a key role in Serbia's electoral breakthrough in the fall of 2000”). “More recently, following 9/11 and the NED Board’s adoption of its third strategic document, special funding has been provided for countries with substantial Muslim populations in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia.”

In Poland's case from 1980's those money were important for underground activities of Solidarity but not crucial. Well, before 4th June 1989 elections communist regime used all their power to discredit Solidarity candidates and we got important material aid like posters, stamps, printing equipments, telephones etc. to conduct campaign. But it was sent from many western countries (I remember we got some from France in our region), not only USA. anyway it was nothing comparing the real support of ordinary people.


The congress defined the purposes of this NGO to be the following: “encouraging democratic institutions through private sector initiatives; facilitating exchanges between private sector groups (particularly the four proposed Institutes) and democratic groups abroad; promoting nongovernmental participation in democratic training programs; strengthening democratic electoral processes abroad in cooperation with indigenous democratic forces; fostering cooperation between American private sector groups and those abroad "dedicated to the cultural values, institutions, and organizations of democratic pluralism;" and encouraging democratic development consistent with the interests of both the U.S. and the groups receiving assistance.”

What's wrong with that?


According to their website, “As a non-governmental organization, it (NED) could provide political assistance to democratic forces in repressive or other sensitive political situations where U.S. Government support, even where channelled through intermediary institutions that were non-governmental, would be diplomatically or politically unfeasible.”

It only proves that there's no plots, no covert operations but open declaration. As I stated many times it's not directed against people or nations but against regimes.

[SniperRu]

democratic development consistent with the interests of both the U.S. and the groups receiving assistance.”



What's wrong with that?



It only proves that there's no plots, no covert operations but open declaration. As I stated many times it's not directed against people or nations but against regimes.


what's wrong with supporting communists in Poland after WWII?

god you are such a hypocrite

[Flamming_Python]

NGOs were not responsible for creating, or even promoting, this nationalism--every part of a former empire naturally has a political segment which is centrifugal, representing the nationalist ideology, and one that is centripetal, representing the old imperialist ideology. The first promotes older, traditional loyalties and forms of socialization, while the second one promotes resocialization and reforging of the bonds of loyalty along ethnic lines. The reason why nationalist ideology almost inevitably comes to power everywhere on the periphery of Russia is that it is the natural ideological antipode of the imperialist ideology and it allows a convenient platform for political competition, which often masks economic competition. In Ukraine, the success of nationalist opposition came mostly because it naturally combined forces with the populists like Timoshenko—it combined the forces because it had little chance to take on such formidable opponents as Kuchma circle on its own.

This process is absolutely inevitable and represents little more than the natural process of the disintegration of the empire, where loyalties have to be reforged in the light of increasing competition among the parts which formerly cooperated and were bound by common group bonds. Russia is speeding up the process by viewing the nationalist forces with antagonism, showing that its priorities lie with its own people, and, in a manner of speaking, feeding the trolls.

As far as Ushenko is concerned, I can understand where he is coming from (although I do not approve of his actions) ... all it takes is imagining that “the girl is white.” In other words, one might imagine for a second that Russia remained an appendage of Poland after 1612 and that by the end of the 20th century Russian language has become the minority language in Russia, while its cultural form have become almost completely “Polonized.” I think that in such situation, once the imperial linkage was broken, a lot of the Russians who are objecting to Ushenko’s policies now would be promoting the very same policies in Russia and doing it with equal force. Russian imperialism appears to be just a variation of Russian nationalism—its all about reinforcing and empowering the group with which one identifies.

There is no need to mix 'imperial ideology' into the pot. Let's deal with one thing at a time :)

I agree with a lot of your post, but the nationalist opposition did not appear with the end of the USSR; it was always there under the surface - kept alive by a minority. With the end of the USSR and the economic troubles shortly before and after, came profound disillusionment and the break-down of the old system - this is what led to the nationalist movements gaining power and support among a large portion of the mainstream. They were the only movements that offered something very radically new. Much like the industrialists of 30's Germany saw in Hitler a politician that genuinely appealed to the people that they could potentially control, so too did a sizeable group of Ukrainian and Georgian oligarchs and businessmen see in the nationalist movements, a way to legitimise themselves and their political influence in their countries. Later, the Western revolutionary democracy movements also saw the advantages of aligning themselves with these nationalist forces, for much the same reasons.

I also disagree that this process is inevitable. Kazakhastan and Belarus have succeeded in creating admitedly authoritarian regimes, but nontheless ones that have support amongst a majority of their population. These countries defend their own economic interests, as evidenced by the Belarus-Russia disputes earlier this year; yet at the same time are decisvely aligned militarily, economically and politically with Russia. These countries, have also much like Russia, built their societies not on radical nationalist opposition, but on an acceptance of the Soviet period and legacy... Kazakhstan and its people for example, pride themselves on their ethnic diversity, composed of over a hundred different ethnic groups. Most of which of course, were deported to there during Stalin's time. Imagine what would happen, if the Kazakh elite decides to follow the path taken by Estonia and deny citizenship to the half of the population that didn't have ancestry there before 1917. No that's very unlikely I'd say, and pretty far from 'inevitable'.

Whether a pro-Russian or pro-Western orientation ultimately wins out in the ex-USSR, ultimately depends on how Russia and the West will develop over the next decade, what the balance of power would be, and which one will be able to offer more. This will decide which model of governance would be more successful in the ex-USSR. IMHO, the West gained short-term with their support of nationalist forces, but shot themselves in the foot in the long-term, as these very forces ultimately undermine the principles of democracy, equality of minorities, etc... that the West seeks to promote. For this reason, the regimes in Georgia and Ukraine have turned into embarrassments over the past couple of years.

The NGO's for their part, did not of course create this nationalism, or in fact people's discontent and dissillusionment. As we already discussed these things were all already there. The NGOs instead allied with these forces, and taught them all the techniques of modern and successful political propaganda, people's movements, organisation, how to enlist youth into political movements, etc... Much like the CIA taught the Mujahadeen the modern fighting methods of warfare. These techniques were so new and novel, that when thousands of discontent youngsters rallied on the central squares of Tbilisi and Kiev in 2003 and 2004 respectively, the old regimes simply had no idea what to do. Their old, Soviet-era tools of influencing public opinion were completely inneffective. Yanukovich resorted to transporting in bus-loads of miners from the Donetsk region into Kiev in order to support him - but such actions simply had no-where near the impact as masses of students waving US and EU flags and screaming for democracy.

[Switek]

what's wrong with supporting communists in Poland after WWII?

god you are such a hypocrite

No, I'm not. You can no install legitimately any pro or anti government against people will. It's not about installing pro US governments in covert way and against will of majority.

[TakeIt]

No, I'm not. You can no install legitimately any pro or anti government against people will. Oh yes you can.


It's not about installing pro US governments in covert way and against will of majority. It's about shifting people's opinion in a favourable way in a given moment. For example mr.Uschenko won by undermaining and demonising Kuchma's goverment by calling it corrupt, murderous and criminal.Today every other person is recalling Kuchma's term as period of stability and prosperity.

[Hazzard]

No, I'm not. You can no install legitimately any pro or anti government against people will. It's not about installing pro US governments in covert way and against will of majority.

Majority of people are passive and opportunist, they are following elites. And elites allways struggle each other and if one group will be granted media, financial and political aid from foreign power (very mighty power) to defeat their opponents why not?

[Switek]

Oh yes you can.

Not in legal way.


It's about shifting people's opinion in a favourable way in a given moment. For example mr.Uschenko won by undermaining and demonising Kuchma's goverment by calling it corrupt, murderous and criminal.Today every other person is recalling Kuchma's term as period of stability and prosperity.

This is why Yushchenko doesn't count in upcoming elections but roots if his failrue is much broader.


Majority of people are passive and opportunist, they are following elites. And elites allways struggle each other and if one group will be granted media, financial and political aid from foreign power (very mighty power) to defeat their opponents why not?


People are mainly shelfish and act according their own interests it concerns "elite" members and so called "mob".

[TakeIt]

Not in legal way. Legality of government doesn't take into account population support. Either there is government, that is capable of executing functions as defined, or there isn't. Do not try to mix any moral judgement in here.


This is why Yushchenko doesn't count in upcoming elections but roots if his failrue is much broader. Since i presumed we're talking about NGO's, the main point of my comment was in shifting opinion of majority or active minority of population during critical period. Generally speaking exactly that was done right before and during the elections. Using pre-determined approach "if we didn't win - it's a fraud", exit-poll's data, mass-media reports about Russian invasion, orders to move tanks to Kiyv etc. A big part in this mess played local NGO's as well as foreign agencies.. Unverified information, rumours, twisted facts were fed to population on a massive scale.. So i can only say - f*ck NGO's. And especially those, having even a small fraction of their financing coming from extraterritorial sources.

[Kutuzov]

Stop spamming switek documentary clearly proves our point and its French made.:)

[MZKT]

Interesting parts:

Kyrghyz FM apologizes to McCain after a 40min sermon on how Kyrghyzstan is not "free" enough

T-Shirt on the wall of McCain's IRI foundation, that has written on the back:
[...]
Georgia 03
Ukraine 04
Kyrghyzstan 05
Belarus TBD
Russia TBD
[...]

Websites of some of the NGOs cited in the documentary
http://www.osgf.ge/?i=431&l=2
http://www.newamericancentury.org/brucejacksonbio.htm
http://www.iri.org/board.asp

Found a version with Spanish subtitles:
http://bellaciao.org/fr/spip.php?article80276


They missed the serbian color revolution which was also orchestrated by NED and Soros foundations. Actually nothing new just extension of post Monroe-Doctrine policy from Latin America to CIS states.

Having said that Russia actually does the same, it just spend less money then USA to organize mass agitattion of their respective supportive parties.

The formula is quite simple:
$>Rub>Democracy (which real value is about close to 0 considering how the term was devalued by constant self-interest political usage from all sides)

[SniperRu]

They missed the serbian color revolution which was also orchestrated by NED and Soros foundations.

They didn't, it's the first thing covered in the documentary, I just didn't write it.

What is ultimately wrong in these "revolutions" is foreign interference in a nation's election. As TakeIt puts it :


Using pre-determined approach "if we didn't win - it's a fraud", exit-poll's data, mass-media reports about Russian invasion, orders to move tanks to Kiyv etc.

btw, good to see you back here man, I thought they banned you for good after that thread about Stalin.

[TheEvian100]

There's a rumour that the same sort of scheme was applied to our country last December, but in our case the ND government didn't fall. Actually our PM managed to keep himself on power until October the 4th, when he simply lost the elections.

[Digimon]

There is no need to mix 'imperial ideology' into the pot. Let's deal with one thing at a time :)


For the most part, I think we agree, but...

My use of the “empire” was not evaluative—certainly not pejorative. I see empire as a multinational state which combines under a single authority territories with ethnic populations, different languages, and relatively distinct histories. Such organizations survive only as long as the amount of advantages they provide to the cooperating groups outweigh disadvantages of cooperation; in other words, it is an evolutionary adaptation (and pure game theory). Ideology of an empire is not some unnatural imposition; I see it as a lubricant, which does not create but rather mediates the cohesion and group loyalty necessary for successful cooperation and aims at internal group consensus, which gives the group evolutionary advantages. Typically, such ideology minimizes the differences between the cooperating parts of the group and maximizes the differences between the whole group and the competitors outside of it.

The reason why I said that it was inevitable is that once such empire falls apart and can no longer provide the same number of advantages (cultural, educational, technological, economic, financial, resource, and so on) to its former members, the groups are faced with the necessity of fending for themselves and even competing with each other. Since you can’t be loyal to your competitors without risking becoming a loser, this new political and economic situation calls for loyalty to be redirected or reforged along ethnic lines—rabid nationalism, which rejects the past and emphasizes and promotes the differences between the ethnic group and its former teammates, is a natural and predictable strategy for forming such group cohesion.

Of course, nothing of the sort can happen if the state does not have a degree of political freedom. Both Belorussia and Kazakhstan have many people with nationalist sentiments. If these states also had political freedom and open arena for political competition, some politicians would exploit the powerful (highly motivational) nationalist sentiments in their struggle with those who primarily exploit nostalgic imperialist (also highly motivational) sentiments. No competition for the votes—no competition among ideas. Once authoritarian, a state is authoritarian even on an island—it is homogeneous, dull, and boring. Give it freedom for political competition, and you will have political parties at each other thoughts, divided by nothing more than the question of whether a boiled egg ought to be cracked on the round or the sharp end.

So, I think that given the situation, and under the condition of genuine political competition, nationalism (directed primarily against Russia) is inevitable. The only way, in my opinion, Russia could minimize its impact and success is to ignore it completely (as far as possible without moral trespass) and not provide opportunities for accusations in hostile intentions. I hope it will eventually go away, possibly when the process of disintegration and settling into the new national identities is over.

[Kilgor]

They didn't, it's the first thing covered in the documentary, I just didn't write it.

What is ultimately wrong in these "revolutions" is foreign interference in a nation's election. As TakeIt puts it :
.

Oh please, are you so naive to think the Russian government provides no support or funds to pro-Kremlin parties ?

[Digimon]

The key is whether ideas ideas aired by politically oriented NGOs are supported by people or not.


Here, I simply focused the discussion on the NGOs that promote a colour revolution, or a change of government that takes place by means other than electoral process. I disagree that the key is in whether the “people” support such change—people can support many horrific things (like lynching and burning crosses), and different people will support different thing at different times. The purpose of the electoral process is to determine precisely how many people support what; revolutions conceal these facts.


I do not see anything wrong about purpose of this.

I also do not see a problem with this purpose in the way it is stated. But again, the point I was making is about the subject of our conversation—the NGOs created, funded, and monitored by the US congress (specifically, House Foreign Affairs Committee), not some genuinely independent and privately funded NGOs that has non-political goals (e.g. poverty, literacy, medication, free-press)



As you can see it falsify you claim it provides covert CIA activities.


I also did not say it provided covert CIA activities. I said it was an “outgrowth” of such activities that took place in the 60s. As the Johnson’s quote shows, he insisted that such overseas activities must be funded openly, through a “public-private” mechanism. Personally, I doubt this was done out of concern for transparency; it was done because scandals were too damaging—a lesson, no doubt, drawn from the founder of PR in US, Ivy Lee.


What's wrong with that? .

What is wrong with that is the absence of a comma. Without the comma, the adjectival phrase “consistent with the interests of both the U.S. and the groups receiving assistance” modifies the “democratic development” by limiting the kinds of democratic developments that can be funded. In other words, the assistance does not go to just any group that wants democratic development, it goes only to those groups whose interests are consistent (meaning, are in agreement) with the interests of the United States. This means that US will fund only those groups whose goals conform to US foreign policy objectives.



It only proves that there's no plots, no covert operations but open declaration. As I stated many times it's not directed against people or nations but against regimes.

What this quote shows is that NED, which is not truly an independent and non-governmental organization, is basically a front for the US foreign policy activities. It is an organization that has political objectives (determined by the House Foreign Affairs Committee), state funding, and state oversight—its NGO status was assumed to allow for US deniability (hence, no accountability). Hence, its NGO status is deceptive; indeed, the congress specifically insisted that nothing in the title of the organization should be construed “to make the Endowment an agency or establishment of the United States Government."


As to being directed against regimes rather than people, the quote includes an open-ended disjunction--"in repressive or other sensitive political situations"--which makes the activity applicable in just about any circumstance, including any genuine electoral process (Iran, Venezuela, Ukraine, Serbia, etc...).

[Switek]

@Digimion

I do agree with you that the most important is the way how the changes are implemented and non legal (violent) way is unacceptable. But the same concerns ruling regimes. If i require honesty from you I'm also obliged the same toward you.

AFAIK, those color revolutions broke mostly due election or procedural abuses done by regimes.

[Hazzard]

People are mainly shelfish and act according their own interests it concerns "elite" members and so called "mob".


Er? And how this contradicts my words?

[Switek]

Er? And how this contradicts my words?

I meant this:


Majority of people are passive and opportunist, they are following elites

If elites acts according to people will they would lead, but in fact people and elites have usually contradictory interests and are very rational in decisions which are crucial about their life.

[Hazzard]

If elites acts according to people will they would lead, but in fact people and elites have usually contradictory interests and are very rational in decisions which are crucial about their life.


:roll: History teach us different.

[Switek]

:roll: History teach us different.


The same event, incidents, processes are differently explained by economists, historians, social psychologists ad sociologists... More comprehensive attitude sometimes put another light on mass events.

[Hazzard]

The same event, incidents, processes are differently explained by economists, historians, social psychologists ad sociologists... More comprehensive attitude sometimes put another light on mass events.

It put's the light after the event. It is allways easy to judge knowinng the consequences. Returning to the topic - now Ukrainean economy is crumbling and there is full chaos in political sphere, do not seem to me that people who supported so called "orange revolution" wanted this, but elites who supported new "orange" team gained everything they wanted - controll of administrative power, financiall flows and full safety. So were people rational in their decisions in 2004?

[Switek]

It put's the light after the event. It is allways easy to judge knowinng the consequences. Returning to the topic - now Ukrainean economy is crumbling and there is full chaos in political sphere, do not seem to me that people who supported so called "orange revolution" wanted this, but elites who supported new "orange" team gained everything they wanted - controll of administrative power, financiall flows and full safety. So were people rational in their decisions in 2004?

Except Poland all economies are crumbling in whole continent...

It resembles a kind of chaos which were in Poland between 1989-95 (but in larger scale)... Anyway all depends on Ukrainians whether they overcome troubles and will build western style democracy or stability will come in Ukraininian version of putinism.

[Hazzard]

Anyway all depends on Ukrainians whether they overcome troubles and will build western style democracy or stability will come in Ukraininian version of putinism.


Imo, both variants are hardly probable.