Russia. Crimea. History. Nikolay Starikov
in Twitter, and to hang about on city streets. Those, who are really deprived from bare essentials, cannot afford to be involved in such a baloney. Such people would either tighten belts or start to smash everything around that is hateful, and physically eliminate those who are the objects of his hatred. Clap hands for rock groups at squares, discuss the news and get acquainted with opposite gender on the amusing fancy gatherings of the “regime fighters” – all this is alien to him because of his utter and hopeless depression.
• Real threat of overthrowing a government must always come from abroad. Internal forces – expressing discontent elite and the “Street”, who wallow in ecstasy of a “festival of disobedience” – can only bring dirt and garbage to parks, but to risk their well-being, given to them by a “criminal regime”, and even more – to risk their lives, they are not able at all. Only external forces pose a real threat to a power. Only they are able to economically influence on state institutions. Only they are able to politically influence governments. Politically – means, individually – on certain elite members in order to reduce the resistance of those, who wish to rally around a government. Finally, only external forces have an ability to use military power in extreme cases. Either as a threat (Syria) or in a form of real hostilities (Libya). A provisional conclusion: a part of local elites and the “Street” play their roles as carriers of an external influence and as evidences of the weakness of the current authorities and thus – the legitimization of the right of those external forces to act on it. • And finally, the most important condition – the external forces must guarantee the local elite and the “Street” that the supreme power of the country will not dare to “hurt” anyone. It means that the local elite will not be persecuted in case of any outcome of such “non-violent” coup, even if participation of those elites in an “orange revolution” is obvious. This is the first thing, which ambassadors of influential states start telling to local governments. This is the main condition for those local governments for not being included in a “global black list”. This is the first issue for a political pressure, which foreign ambassadors and their agents begin to apply to local governments at the first signs of unfolding of an “orange” scenario in a country.
By understanding how the “orangism” works, one can work out a scheme of counteraction from the side of the authorities of a country, which Washington, London or Brussel want to “democratize”.
1. “Neutralizing” the part of the local elite, which has taken a side of “orangism”, by means of depriving it of confidence in their own possibilities. Local power should clearly demonstrate that all guarantees of “inviolability” provided to the “orangists” from abroad, costs less than a penny – in case the state is quite adamant in defending of their positions. The local elite should realize that it is not going to be “a game into one gate”. Official positions, memberships in the councils of all level (up to the National Parliament), business, personal freedom and social status – all this can be irrevocably lost in case of non-loyalty to the current power in its opposition to the external pressure[5].
2. The “Street” should not be considered as something “uniform” or “homogeneous”, which is to be either tolerated or rigidly broken up and scattered. The “Street” can be divided into two different and unequal parts. The majority of it comprised of so-called “well-fed non-satisfied”, who became active as a result of massive propaganda of geopolitical “partners”. Another (the smaller) part of the “Street” is a kind of “militant and governing” squad – a rabble of various provocateurs and instigators of whatever riots. They are usually disguised as “ordinary demonstrators”, but in fact, they are paid agents of certain organizations, which are supported from abroad. Therefore, if one can neutralize the second part of the “Street”, which is really active and well-coordinated, then the rest majority of the “well-fed non-satisfied” would lose a “catalyst of discontent”. And this majority would remain without their “shepherds” and will lose an ability to become a dangerous mob, which can be manipulated by professionals in psychology of the management of mass activities[6].
3. The policy of a Government in respect to those external forces, which are trying – with the help of the local elites and the “Street” – to impose terms of surrender of that Government in a country, that has to face an “orange” aggression, must be to “wave with hand and keep smiling”. To make believe that the suggested (from the outside) approaches of tackling the internal political “crisis” are not quite clear. To suggest postponing of the imposed decisions – in order to better understand the situation and to think over everything more and more thoroughly. Moreover, KEEP ON SMILING! Better – to smile directly and boldly staring to “partner’s “ eyes, at the same time, for example, starting whatever military exercises with artillery or missile shootings in those part of the country, where is may “puzzle” the “partners” most. To play for time, to propose counter offers which are knowingly not acceptable for the counterparts. To agree on everything by a declaration of some “third” person on behalf of the power and – after some time – to deny it with indignation in whatever speech or interview of the first or the second one. In the deep Russian slang, such behavior is called “to switch on a fool”. While winning time by the aforementioned ways, it is crucial to work hard with that part of the local elite, which tends to join the “orange” party, and with that part of the “Street”, which consists of paid instigators. All this must help to win time and to prevent the consolidation of the destructive elements, who in fact are agents of the external pressure[7].
Incidentally, namely the first Maidan of 2004 demonstrated the climax of the might of the “orange techniques” – so called, non-violent overthrowing of governments. The second Maidan (2014), which was accompanied with bloodshed, with armed and disguised militants, has marked a decline of such methods of seizing power. No doubt that the “orange scenario” will be used somewhere and sometime in the future, but most likely, a sheer violent scenario will frequently be replacing it. Now masks are thrown off; nobody is keen on pretending to be not involved. To be more precise, masks are more and more often seen on the “peaceful protesters’” faces. Only now, they have not carnations in their hands but rather baseball bats and bottles with flammable liquid. A violent coup d’état in its full swing. So to say – the classics of the genre, elaborated during centuries: violence and mass informational manipulations. Such is the face of the “revolution”, which the USA impose all over the world. It implies that the response to such techniques of powers’ overthrowing should be adequate. Rallies and pickets will not defeat militants, one cannot resist to baseball bats and traumatic guns with only posters and placards. All attempts to violently seize power must be rigidly responded by law enforcement units. This refers to the counteraction to our possible future “Maidan” in Russia, which will be definitely masterminded and instigated by our American “partners” in 2016, during the Duma’s elections – or a bit later – during the Presidential elections. If the economy of the USA and their satellites continue to decline faster, then the attempts to set up such “Maidan” in Russia may start even in 2015…
Anyway, let us come back to 2004. Euphoria was in the air, happy faces in the streets. Freedom and democracy have won. Now, ten years later, contemplate this without pity is impossible. If freedom took an upper hand at that time – why it turned up that was needed a new Maidan just a decade later – after the “final victory of democracy”? Why did the Ukrainians in 2010 absolutely freely and independently elect Yanukovich? Though they in 2004 came for the third, obviously illegal round of the elections[8]… The answer of this question one can find by understanding the techniques, which Americans used in Ukraine. We are considering now those two politicians, who were suggested to Kuchma as the leaders of the East and the West of Ukraine. In order to prevent the situation when one leader can gather sympathies of the most of Ukrainian people no matter of which part of the country. Both of them – Yanukovich and Yushchenko – used to be Prime Ministers of Kuchma’s Governments, both were entirely oriented onto the USA[9]. This orientation was via family
Just recall Russia after the events on “Bolotnaya square” – it is quite a demonstrative example how the “orange” elite “got hurt”. They were deprived of mandates, removed from mass media, was sentenced to probation. No preventive steps of the same kind with respect to the local elite were made in Ukraine. As a result, an accomplice and a colleague of Yanukovich – Petr Poroshenko, the former foreign minister and former minister of economics and trade, – became one of the main sponsors of the Maidan. And later he became the President.
After arrests of the main leaders of the turmoil at Bolotnaya square in Moscow on 6 May 2012, further unrests would never reach such scale. It was not done in Ukraine.
In Ukraine, Yanukovich – instead of “switching on a fool” – has believed to the promises of the West, he started “fair” negotiations, he fulfilled all his obligations, and after that was immediately deceived and had a narrow escape from being murdered.
In the first round of the elections of 2004 Yushchenko won 39.26 % votes, while Yanukovich – 39.11 % of them. Yanukovich won the second round of the elections. But the opposition started the first Maidan. 3 December 2004 the Supreme Court of Ukraine decreed that an unparalleled in all human history third round of elections should take place – as a new voting instead of that, which had taken place during the second round. Finally, Yushchenko won 51.99 % votes, while Yanukovich – 44.21 %. The results of the elections has divided Ukraine into two almost equal parts. Now it is obvious, that those were first steps to the civil strife.
Victor Yushchenko before taking a position of the Prime Minister also was the head of the Bank of Ukraine – the main banking regulator of the country – a kind of a Central Bank.