September 2nd, 2015 –
Crimea-24 – translation and analysis by: Joaquin Flores
The Russian army will teach how to counteract the emergence of color revolutions. This is reported by the “Nezavisimaya Gazeta”. For the first time in history, at “Rajewski”, within the framework of the “Slavic Brotherhood-2015” joint exercises, paratroopers from Belarus, Serbia and Russia elite troops train in riot prevention.
According to military expert, Lieutenant-General Yuri Netkachev:
“The barricades in the streets, constant demonstrations, and extremist appeals, massacres, fighting with the police, mass murder, and so on – This is not a revolution in the classical sense, but as elements of a hybrid war. And hence to neutralize these elements regular troops must be specially trained.”
“It is therefore logical that the General Staff of the so-called color revolutions regards as a form of warfare, and is almost ready to use troops in this war, “
And according to a member of the Academy of Military Sciences Edward Rodyukova, exercises with the military of Serbia and Belarus allow them to form the so-called ‘International’, which in case of need can come to the rescue:
“The army should be able to restore order. Russian leadership is important to have good allies, who in difficult times may come to their aid. ”
[ J. Flores – on the face it, these would be very much incomplete. Military responses to these kinds of uprisings are necessary at a later stage, as they evolve towards an ‘Arab Spring’ scenario with a foreign backed militia that suddenly appears. Russia knows this. Their advice in Macedonia was critical, and much was learned from the Syria case.
Putting that together, my best estimation would be that this training is in ordered restraint, and how not to escalate a response.
Success in thwarting ‘color revolutions’ involves being able to mobilize a counter-polaric force using the same means: social networking, peer to peer media, and activist groups which can mobilize against foreign backed ‘color’ grouping.
This means ‘community organizing’ and a politically ‘mobilized population’. This generally works against how Western governments ‘teach’ other countries what democracy is ‘supposed to be’. Having a pro-regime ‘mobilized population’ is often associated with fascism and communism. It is hard to have a ‘governmental’ organization approved by the UN (etc.) as a ‘human rights’ or ‘pluralist’ group engaged in civil society.
Nevertheless, this is the proven effective tactic. We must recall how critical and successful the counter-mobilizations were in Syria, Libya, and Macedonia. Had NATO not bombed Libya, it is likely that pro-Gaddafi volunteers and the ‘mobilized population’ would have won in short time.
Governments targeted for ‘regime change’ which are relatively weak coalitions, with ministerial appointments made in the context of compromise, are in a much more prone position. If they were elected using ‘top-down’ methods, such as access to legacy media, mass media, and expensive campaigns, they stand less of a chance to survive. Mass media giveth, and mass media taketh away.
One good antidote to the ‘color revolution’ tactic is for the government to reach into the grass-roots level and build popular support around important reforms in public policy areas. They must achieve these not through decree, but through the mobilization of mass publics towards those ends. The public must own those accomplishments, and see these endangered by the ‘color’ protesters. These mass publics must be mobilized and their sense of having won it must be synthesized, as the conclusion is foregone. In that sense we can say that these campaigns will be ‘astro-turf’ more than grass-roots.]