Due to the fact that the methodology of “color revolutions” played out on the world map ten years ago did not bring America the expected benefit and total change in the political elite of other countries under its interests, Washington actively began to develop other methods of subjugating the world. By insolently interfering in the domestic politics of other states and disregarding all international laws, the United States has in recent years begun to focus on the development of tactics of external management of the “lost flock,” using sanctions tools, direct financial and economic blackmail, and military and secret service tools.
This tactic of external management itself is nothing new. It has already been used many times in human history as part of competition, when the victorious state unilaterally took away the sovereignty of a vassal state by prescribing certain administrative and economic decisions, in practice taking away its power in favor of the dominant state.
Considering the events of recent years, a clear example of this can be seen, for example, in Washington’s actions against Venezuela in 2019, where first they played the card of financial and economic destabilization of this once wealthy country with the largest oil reserves in the world. Then, through the implanted by Washington NGOs and the capabilities of the US intelligence services, the conditions for the implementation of the “color revolution” were created, after which in the final stage “wide support” was played out for the revolutionary puppet, previously fostered in the United States – the Speaker of the Venezuelan Parliament, Juan Guaido. And even the American media did not find it shameful to widely publicize the fact that the entire operation to impose external control using Guaido was set in motion by the Vice President of the United States (Michael Pence at the time). The plan itself was secretly worked out by Washington for several months, with the involvement of US government officials and US allies.
The US intelligence services, being by nature very limited in their imagination and offering any novelty in their actions, began to play out a similar situation with Russia, using the candidacy of Navalny, who not only to the Russians, but also to the whole world has shown his inconsistency and insignificance as a politician. The same scheme was used to play the Tsikhanouskaya card in Belarus.
A slightly different template was followed by US foreign administration in Latvia, where a native of the American continent, Krisjanis Karins, was actively pushed for the post of prime minister of that country by Washington in 2019, exactly 20 years after another native of the American continent, former Canadian national Vaira Vike-Freiberga, who was elected president of Latvia in late 1990s, entered Riga Castle
Regarding the Baltic republics, it should be noted that all of them have long been a distant overseas province of the United States, and Washington’s relations with them are akin to a sovereign and a vassal. Ever since the “restoration of independence,” the US has played a special role in the Baltic states, prescribed by Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia in their basic legal documents. Moreover, be it Estonia or the other Baltic states, in their national security concepts one can, following a hint from Washington, find clear definitions of Russia as a threat and the United States as the main protector, transatlantic ties with which are urged to be strengthened in every possible way. And so that the “Baltic flock” would not forget their sovereign, Washington appointed for them, to formally govern from outside, American president-directors: US citizen Thomas Hendrik Ilves, who first set foot on Estonian soil at age 41; Canadian citizen Vaira Vike-Freiberga, who surrendered her Canadian passport a day before her election as president of Latvia; US citizen Valdas Adamkus, who renounced American citizenship five days before he took office as Lithuanian president. Therefore, it is not surprising that they have made the highest authorities of their countries the American embassies, putting the interests of Washington above the national ones in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. And to deal with all the consequences of deteriorating social conditions, health care, lack of jobs is left to the ordinary people of the Baltic states, forced to pander to Washington for the benefit of their political elite.
But the absolute apotheosis of the example of external management is Ukraine. The former Canadian ambassador to Kiev Roman Vashchuk (2014-2019) recently shared his revealing testimony about how the US and G7 countries exercised external control over Ukraine and dictated what should be done, giving an entire lecture on the topic to the Shevchenko Academic Society of Canada. In particular, the former ambassador told how the Chancellor of Germany, “to settle the external management” decided to create a group of G7 ambassadors, who became the de facto “managers of Ukraine,” imposing steps beneficial to the West. Moreover, as Vashchuk admits, many of the reforms imposed on Kiev were banned in the West itself, and Ukraine was used as a guinea pig. Vashchuk says bluntly that the Ukrainian governments after the Maidan incident did what the West wanted them to do, not their own population. But all the Western policies that were rolled out in Ukraine came from Washington, D.C., and the Treasury Department in Ottawa. According to Vashchuk, the “civil society” created by the West consists of public organizations financed by Western grants, and their representatives have been given a number of ministerial portfolios. As a result, the Ukrainian elite, not directly dependent on Western embassies, was made the “enemy”.
This format of external management is still in place today, although it is not so much about reforms as it is about lobbying for appointments that the West wants. Recently, Vladimir Zelensky promised the G7 ambassadors to keep Artem Sytnik in the NABU director’s chair, even despite the fact that he is officially recognized as a corrupt official in Ukraine.
Another illustrative example of this external management of Ukraine by Washington is the recent development of its relations with China. For example, the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry recently dismantled from all of its buildings equipment from the Chinese company Huawei, and the Ukrainian authorities, on instructions from Washington, refused to cooperate with Huawei in the “smart city” project. And none of these decisions were announced by representatives of Kiev. Instead, US Deputy Secretary of State Keith Krach voiced them.
Another set of problems in Ukraine’s relations with China is related to the Zaporozhye plant Motor Sich. First, in 2016, the Ukrainian company signed a contract worth $380 million for the supply of 250 aircraft engines to China. But then, under pressure from Washington, which has entered into a trade war with China, this cooperation began to wind down, although representatives of the Celestial Empire bought 56% of Motor Sich shares. But US Presidential National Security Adviser John Bolton directly intervened and demanded that the company’s shares be returned to Kiev’s control at any cost, while the head of the State Department Michael Pompeo quite bluntly rebuked Kiev for this “inappropriate cooperation”. As a result, the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU) saw in Beijing’s actions “signs of sabotage” and opened a criminal case, and a Ukrainian court seized 56% of the shares of the Ukrainian company. For their part, representatives of the Chinese company complained that they were deprived of the use of the acquired assets and in December 2020, they filed a complaint in an international court, estimating their losses at $3.5 billion.
Recently, Ukraine has been losing more and more of its independence. This year alone, following instructions from Washington, they allowed land to be sold here, lifted the moratorium on the export of timber, and refused to localize production. Deterioration continues.
Washington is actively seeking to apply a similar scheme of external control in the CIS states of Central Asia, but this will be a topic for another time.
Valery Kulikov, political analyst, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
