The common point is that they’re using legitimate unrest to ask for something else entirely.Ĭolour revolutions were and still are a favourite of the CIA because you can’t really trace it back to them (not in time at least) and all it takes them is money and meeting with locals.
Sometimes protests are started by bought locals. Sometimes the people that are funded are not really leaders and locals didn’t even know them until they suddenly took an interest. Foreign powers start funding and even sometimes training people who align with their interests and they put them to work for co-opting protests to promote regime change. The pattern of a colour revolution is: foreign funding -> local “leaders” -> protesting masses.
What was originally “we’re tired of not having these simple things, please give us them and we will stop picketing” now has turned into “we will topple the government and throw molotov cocktails at the police”. But it’s being weaponised by the United States and they’re funding protests in Cuba so they can point and say “look, people don’t want the communist party in charge! They’re protesting for more freedoms!”. That’s a legitimate grief that has led to some unrest sometimes – even if the embargo is not Cuba’s fault and is literally only supported by the USA and Israel. The embargo is hitting Cuba really bad (cost 60 billion dollars since 1960) and this prevents them from having much-needed medical supplies (especially against covid), cheaper internet access or just more consumer goods.
A colour revolution uses legitimate griefs people have with their government to co-opt the movement and promote regime change instead for foreign interests that fund the revolution.įor example a colour revolution is currently attempted in Cuba by mobilising the diaspora who, in turn, mobilises the Cuban population.
0 kommentar(er)
