by Jim Cole at CovertAction Magazine

[This is Part II in a four-part series analyzing the 2014 Maidan coup. Part I is here. It discusses the psycho-social aspects of color revolutions; some of the thousands of think tank/NGO change agents which received billions in U.S. and EU funding since 1989 in Ukraine; outlines some of the regime-change techniques of weaponized aid and political, diplomatic and economic methods; the novel use of tech and social media operations employed in Ukraine during the Obama years; and, lastly, the shift from soft power to dark power, the point at which violence is required to achieve regime change.—Editors]

The Psychology of Color Revolutions

Color revolutions are U.S.-funded regime-change operations utilizing a sophisticated understanding of psychology, sociology and political organizing to foment and precipitate an “electoral revolution” resulting in a U.S. client state or one that meets other geopolitical purposes. They require a large ecosystem of change agents, including military, intelligence and diplomatic government actors, foundations, NGOs, PR companies and other contractors and corporate co-conspirators and media, developed over years with millions or billions in investment.

They have been successful in Serbia (2000), in Georgia’s Rose Revolution (2003), in Ukraine’s Orange Revolution (2004), in Lebanon’s Cedar Revolution (2005), Kyrgyzstan’s Tulip Revolution (2005), Kuwait’s Blue Revolution (2005), Iraq’s Purple Revolution (2005), and in Czechoslovakia’s Velvet Revolution (1989). Others, such as Ukraine 2014, were ultimately more characterized by violence but featured the same change-agent organizations; still others, such as Venezuela (2018) and Belarus’s Slipper Revolution (2020), failed, likely as the target regime is too entrenched and/or the soft-power ecosystem is too inhibited…