The Non-Governmental Octopus
by Kaan Disli and Johnny Vedmore via NEWSPASTEFor a century or more, we have been heading towards a major conflict between East and West. This march towards all-out war has been exacerbated by an organised army of non-governmental organisations which were created to target former-Soviet nation-states after the fall of the Berlin Wall. This is the story of how the march of the NGOs led directly to the violent events in the Ukrainian Maidan, laying the ground for the war to end all wars.
There is an order to the world. Whether you like it or not, there is an order. Over the last 200 years, that order has become increasingly more distinct. After World War II, a nefarious group of power players formed what we refer to now as the “New World Order”. Men like Dean Acheson, William Donovan, Henry Kissinger, the Dulles brothers, John J. McCloy, Kermit Roosevelt, John Kenneth Galbraith and many other powerful players, helped to create a lethal intelligence apparatus which allowed the US to take political control in country after country, in coup after coup, from 1952 onward. Originally, this infrastructure wasn’t only designed to combat Soviet influence around the world, it was also linked to US national nuclear defence strategy. This was of course motivated by an ever evolving technological arms race with risks like no arms race ever experienced before. After the 1950s, when Kissinger’s grand strategy of perpetual limited warfare had been adopted as official US policy, and Herman Kahn’s notion of mutually assured destruction had also been accepted by those in power, the 3-dimensional chess board grew an extra dimension.
Throughout the 1970s onward, a veritable armada of trusts, foundations, non-governmental development organisations and other initiatives founded in the West have been very busy financing the creation of numerous non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with the intention of entirely infiltrating civic society in Eastern Europe. These organizations pay special attention to students and the younger generation, carefully targeting their message at those who can be easily influenced. This group of funds, foundations, and trusts, most of them with links to US intelligence apparatus include: The National Endowment for Democracy; The Open Society Foundation; The United States Agency for International Development; the Civil Society Development Foundation; the Carpathian Foundation; the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation; The Fund of Canada, alongside many other entities created with the continued political infiltration and eventual permanent policy control throughout Eastern Europe in mind. The latter point is very important to note as these organizations were not set up to simply capture the allegiance of a specific target population within the nation state they were infiltrating, they were also responsible for giving the citizens of these countries new allies and, by doing so, new enemies too.
In the late 1980s, alongside the armada of wealthy funds, foundations and trusts which were specifically created to focus on political realignment in Eastern Europe, the German Marshall Fund (GMF) was observing the fall of Soviet Russia in real time. One of the main purposes for creating the GMF was to train American-aligned leadership candidates to replace the Soviet-aligned leaders during the period when Soviet-style communism was losing its grip on the general population.
This article will go some way to explaining how development organisations linked to the Central Intelligence Agency, alongside an armada of trusts and foundations such as George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, created the infrastructure required to wage all out fifth-generation warfare on, not only the people of Eastern Europe, but also every observer worldwide.
The Colour of a Bloodless Coup
In 1989, one of the first European colour revolutions happened in Czechoslovakia which is now commonly referred to as the “Velvet Revolution”. The term “colour revolution” specifically refers to a number of protest movements that happened in former-Soviet states which proceeded the fall of Communism. Czechoslovakia had been under one-party Soviet rule for over four decades and was a complex country with two distinct ethnic groups and languages. Within a few years of the Velvet Revolution, the country split in two, often referred to as the Velvet Divorce. The manner in which the Velvet Revolution was conducted became a template for Western intelligence apparatus which were busy designing, propagating and inciting future political uprisings in the region.
The model was based on civic activism and, in the post-Soviet era Eastern European countries, people were breathing for themselves for the first time. However, it wasn’t long after that initial taste of freedom that all former-Soviet controlled regions began being systematically targeted by deep-state funded Western NGOs. While Czechoslovakia had been previously firmly behind the iron curtain, US NGOs such as American Fund for Czechoslovak Refugees—which existed from 1971 to 1982—had already been making connections with significant disaffected citizens and these curated contacts would eventually be used to ensure American-aligned opposition hopefuls were waiting behind the scene and ready to act when the time came. Organizations such as George Soros’ Open Society Foundation and Guido Goldman’s GMF weren’t fully prepared for the events which unfolded in countries such as Czechoslovakia during this period, and they were to learn some very vital lessons.
The tactics of these powerful organisations changed over the decade or so following the collapse of Communism. Soon, the initial routes into local government within former-Soviet countries were the focus of attention. The well-coordinated pattern of seemingly innocuous civic activism by carefully selected controlled opposition groups with allegiances to NGO’s throughout this period was soon successful. The collapse of all the former-Soviet aligned regimes in Eastern Europe allowed for the political reformation of the entire region.
One of the best guides to the relentless pressure applied by the NGOs in post-Soviet Eastern Europe is a paper entitled “Reclaiming Democracy: Civil Society and Electoral Change in Central and Eastern Europe” which was produced by Joerg Forbrig and Pavol Demeš with funding from the German Marshall Fund of the United States and the Erste Foundation. The paper covers a number of extremely questionable operations by NGOs which happened in Slovakia during the decade after the fall of Communism. The study reveals the large number of organizations involved in the 1998 election process, stating:
The paper also states that the NGOs present were assisting with “various services including training, information, legal counselling, the development of community foundations and policy analyses,” noting that:
The OK ‘98 Campaign saw an enormous coalition of NGOs form a massive movement against the then Slovak PM, Vladimir Mečiar, a perceived enemy of both NATO and the European Union. Another fact mentioned by the GMF-funded study is that:
The West’s armada of NGOs had become complex and fluid.
In 2003, these NGOs had just helped create regime change via the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia, but the most significant strategic target for many NGOs and their intelligence linked backers was Ukraine. The aforementioned report produced by the German Marshall Fund documents the push by NGOs to strategically influence the elections of democratic nation states, saying:
What should be especially noted about the latter statement is the eagerness of the so-called “western policymakers” to test the boundaries between non-violent regime change and civil war.
In fact, Ukraine’s 2004 presidential election became a pivotal moment in this NGO-centred operation. The political battlefield of Ukraine had become significantly polarized, with the two choices for leader being in many ways emblematic of the East vs West dynamic for all those taking part.
The importance of the Ukrainian Orange Revolution cannot be understated, as almost 1 in 5 Ukrainians participated in the event. But this kind of engagement wasn’t necessarily due solely to the will for change. Instead, many people found themselves mobilized into participating in an event which shifted Ukraine’s permanent political, strategic and economic alignment from Russia to Europe. The Ukrainian/Russian relationship had been a long affair, sometimes complex, and sometimes brutal, but many Ukrainians and Russians living in the region before the millennium saw each other as family. However, this began to change throughout the late 1990s and became much more pronounced in the early 2000s.
The main organization behind the majority of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine was PORA, a civic youth organization known as the “It’s Time!” campaign. Throughout 2004, PORA distributed 40 million copies of “print materials” by using a massive network of what the writers of the GMF paper describe as “35,000 permanent participants and an even larger number of regular supporters.” The paper also states that PORA created:
The election itself saw Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, who had been the serving PM since November 2002, take on Viktor Yushchenko, the opposition candidate pushing for further European integration while also suggesting that Ukraine may become a member of NATO.
In a section entitled: “The Development of Civil Society as an Effective Opposition Force in Ukraine”, Kaskiv, Chupryna and Zolotariov write:
The monumental geopolitical shift in Ukraine’s long history happened during the Orange Revolution and was organized by over 30,000 non-governmental organizations. The initial Colour Revolutions had been successfully influenced by just a few hundred well-organised and laser-focused NGOs, whereas the Ukraine result had been achieved using 30,000 such organizations. However, most of those who took part in Ukraine’s manipulated democratic process didn’t know that the 2004 election result was actually thanks to covert western geopolitical military strategy which, in some part, dated back to Harvard in the early 70s.
An Industrial NGO Complex
The infrastructure implemented created an almost perfect template for non-violent regime change of a kind which could easily be enacted in any country on Earth. There was one event in particular which saw these techniques utilised to perfection and which we can use as a case study of a colour revolution orchestrated by western powers, the anti-Yanukovych coup known as “The Maidan” in 2014.
The complex network of NGO’s which had been carefully constructed were able to provide the necessary organizational infrastructure for a strong pro-Western opposition, such was the case in Ukraine during The Maidan.
The events in Ukraine which followed were fuelled by various multilateral pressures, however, a late rejection of the EU economic deal and the decision to forge closer ties with Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union became the spark in a powder keg. The Ukrainian opposition forced Yanukovych to flee the country and soon replaced him with a president with more European leanings. Although this method of regime change may be seen as “non-violent” by some, in reality this type of foreign interference eventually results in thousands of men dying in unnecessary military conflict.
The absolute scale of the NGO operations cannot be understated. The Open Society Foundation (OSF), owned by controversial philanthropist George Soros, estimates that just one of their initiatives—a festival called ‘Docudays’—was able “to combine screenings with human rights education and advocacy reaching nearly 150,000 people.”
The decision to engulf Ukraine with activists was obviously not made over-night, the seeds of this strategy were planted decades ago. We already learnt that it was disclosed within Reclaiming Democracy that as early as 2003 there were more than 30,000 NGOs in operation. The National Endowment for Democracy’s CEO, Damon Wilson, claimed that:
Ukraine, being NED’s fourth largest grant-making program, has been awarded 334 grants for NGO’s in the period approaching the invasion by Russia on 24 February 2022. It should also be noted that in 1991 one of NED’s co-founders, Allen Weinstein, declared:
Five years before Weinstein made those comments, Carl Gershman, who was then-president of NED is also quoted as saying:
NED had also been involved in the Iran Contra affair, where they provided resources to Colonel Oliver North’s ‘Project Democracy’.
In the run up to the Maidan, one of the US sponsored events to promote ‘democracy’ was called ‘TechCamp’. In 2013—before the Maidan and the Donbas war—Ukranian parliament member Oleg Tsarov spoke at the event, claiming that 300 people were trained as operatives to stage a civil war in Ukraine. According to the US embassy in Ukraine:
At the onset of the Maidan protests, the United States’ Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland, was publicized offering sandwiches to pro-European Union activists in Independence Square in Kiev. Nuland, who was a former-National Endowment for Democracy Board Member and had previously been a key advisor to Dick Cheney, played a hidden role during this period.
In a phone conversation leaked to the media on 4 February 2014, Nuland, who was Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, are heard discussing who is going to head the new Ukrainian government. During those conversations, Nuland’s opinion of the EU is succinctly expressed, she can be heard saying:
In a speech at the National Press Club in Washington DC, Nuland also revealed the US had spent $5 billion since 1991 in order to “promote democracy” in Ukraine.
SNIPERS MASSACRE IN MAIDAN
On 20 February 2014, nearly 50 Ukrainians were killed during clashes between the Euromaidan protestors and the Berkut police force in and around Independence Square. This became a momentous day in Ukrainian history and put the country on a seemingly unavoidable path to regime change. After this tragic event, the various parties involved in the Maidan, with the help of many independent deputies, were able to form a majority in the Ukrainian parliament. Soon after they had seized political power, Yanukovych was blamed for the massacre and he was even threatened with violence by Volodymyr Parasiuk, the commander of the special Maidan company, unless he resigned.
However, the Massacre at Independence Square appeared to bear all the hallmarks of a false flag operation and evidence suggests that it was actually conducted by armed Euromaidan militia groups in order to shatter the legitimacy of the Yanukovych regime.
There were over a 100 witnesses who said they’d seen snipers shooting at protestors from nearby buildings which were under the control of protestors, locations such as the Hotel Ukraina, the Zhovtnevyi Palace, the Music Conservatory, Muzeinyi Lane and the Arkada buildings. BBC reporters based in Kiev at the time also reported to have seen the shooters wearing green helmets like that of the protesters. This group of snipers also clashed with the Berkut police which eventually saw the authorities forced to retreat. One anonymous protestor who was interviewed by the BBC admitted that he was present in the Kiev Conservatory and claims he “was shooting downwards at their feet” referring to the Berkut police. Two members of the Parasiuk led group were recorded by a Ruptly video shooting from the 14th floor of the Hotel Ukraina with a hunting rifle.
After a close examination of the wounds received by the casualties, it was clear that the direction of the bullet wounds proved the many claims that the gunfire had come from the Maidan direction rather than from the police. The relative height difference between the entry wounds and the exit wounds indicated that the shots had been fired from a very steep angle and could only have been achieved if the gunfire had come from a tall building. In a leaked phone conversation between EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and the Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet, Paet can be heard saying:
Paet also went on to say:
Serhii Horbatyuk, the head of the special investigations department investigating crimes against Euromaidan activists has also stated:
As a consequence, three suspects were arrested in 2014, all members of the Berkut police unit. A Reuters article from 10 October 2014 entitled Special Report: Flaws found in Ukraine’s probe of Maidan massacre reported:
By 2018, the amount of people who were said to have lost their lives as a result of the Maidan massacre had risen to 48.
The Post Maidan Players
After the massacre on the Maidan, a new political elite emerged to take control of Ukraine, with many candidates put forward who had not previously held any public office. In fact, those who now occupied the highest offices in the land were a hodgepodge of activists, journalists and investment bankers, all of who had been thrust onto the political scene following the Maidan murders. This new elite were obviously more aligned to western thinking, with many of them projecting a clear affinity for Europe. In Mychailo Wynnyckyj’s Ukraine’s Maidan, Russia’s War: A Chronicle and Analysis of the Revolution of Dignity, the author explains:
Some of the new faces who emerged in the post-Maidan government were heavily connected to various NGO’s, CIA cut-outs, and organisations which were set up and run by so-called billionaire philanthropists.
For instance, between 2005 and 2007, Hannah Hopko, who is listed as a World Economic Forum Advocacy Coordinator, worked as the Communications Manager for the Ukraine Citizen Action Network—a USAID contractor—in Kyiv while also leading various environmental journalism training programs in Donetsk, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Hopko was also a member of the executive committee of the National Council of Reforms and the Anti-Corruption Action Center (AntAC) which “received 59 percent (or $1 million) of its nearly $1.7 million budget since 2012 from U.S. budgets tied to State and Justice, and nearly $290,000 from Soros’s International Renaissance Foundation (IRF), according to the group’s donor disclosure records.” Unsurprisingly, AntAC is also a NED grantee.
Another of the post-Maidan Ukrainian leadership, Svitlana Zalishchuk, also found her experience rewarded. In 2014, Zalishchuk became a member of the Steering Committee of the World Movement for Democracy which had been founded by the National Endowment for Democracy. The organisation designed and implemented more than 30 projects nationwide, involving hundreds of civil society organizations, supported by international donors including USAID, CIDA (Canadian Embassy), SIDA (Swedish Embassy), Omidyar Network, and Soros’ Open Society Foundation. She is also the founder of the NGO ‘CHESNO’ which is again funded by USAID and the Omidyar Network, but was also funded by the International Renaissance Foundation – which is the Ukrainian branch of the Open Society Foundation. Zalishchuk is also the co-founder and Executive Director of the Kyiv-based ‘Centre of United Actions‘ NGO which has the National Democratic Institute (NDI) listed as a partner. It should be noted that the main funders of NDI are: NED, USAID and US State Department.
Another person who was richly rewarded after the Maidan was Oleh Rybachuk, the former-Chief of Staff and right-hand man of President Yushchenko. Rybachuk is the founder of the public campaign for fair elections “Chesno” alongside Zalishchuk and was Chairman and co-founder of the NGO “Centre UA”. The Kiev Post reported:
Rybachuk is even a fellow at the NED and maintains close ties with Soros. In fact, Oleh Rybachuk was one of the original architects of the Orange Revolution and had organised the “New Citizen” public initiative. The latter initiative was run in coordination with Centre UA, and was designed to function as a means of uniting various opposition NGOs and Think Tanks. The New Citizen organisation also “played a big role in getting the [Maidan] protest up and running.” On the New Citizen website, 55 other public organizations are listed as partners. Nearly all of the organizations were cooperating with Soros linked groups. The Financial Post reported on Rybachuk in March 2012, describing his goal of creating an NGO web in Ukraine:
Natalie Jaresko, who served as Minister of Finance for Ukraine, also has an array of questionable links to the US funded NGO Establishment. She is a distinguished fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center which is also led by Damon Wilson, the CEO of NED, and she is also the Aspen Institute’s Chair in Kyiv. Currently, Jaresko is a member of the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on the Future of Financing and Capital. She also held several key positions in the private business sector including for Ernst & Young LLP as their EY-Parthenon Managing Director responsible for “Turnaround Restructuring and Strategy”.
In February 2001, Jaresko became president and chief executive officer of Western NIS Enterprise Fund, which had been disbursing USAID funds to small and medium-sized businesses in Ukraine and Moldova since 1995. Mustafa Nayyem and Serhiy Leshchenko, two journalists who work for the NED-supported newspaper Ukrainska Pravda, were also linked with the same actors. In the post-Maidan government, Nayyem became the Deputy Minister of Infrastructure and was particularly influential in getting the Euromaidan up and running. He was one of the six journalists chosen for the “2012 U.S. Elections Program” which was funded by the US State Department where “participants were able to meet with the State Department and other governmental agencies to delve the U.S. opinion of Ukraine’s progress towards a more fair and transparent election process.”
Many other post-Maidan politicians also had links to Soros’ enterprises and others. The NED-supported newspaper, Ukrainska Pravda, which had been instrumental as a western propaganda tool in Ukraine, eventually sold 100% of it’s corporate rights to Dragon Capital, an investment company managed by Soros Fund Management. The head of the investment bank of Dragon Capital was a man named Max Nefyodov while Andriy Pyvovarsky sat in the position of Vice President, they became the Minister of Economic Development and Minister of Infrastructure respectively. Oleksandr Starodubtsev, who became the Director of the Department of Public Procurement, was colleagues with Nefyedov at Dragon Capital.
Oksana Markarova was the Deputy Finance Minister under Natalie Jaresko with whom she also worked in a US backed investment fund. Markarova is the founder of ITT investments a “partner in several equity deals with Dragon Capital.” Dmitry Shymkiv who was the ex-CEO of Microsoft Ukraine, later became the Deputy Presidential Chief of Staff and National Reform Council Executive Director. The council under his leadership asked the International Renaissance Foundation—the Ukrainian branch of Soros’ OSF—to find an executive search company that will select 24 foreign candidates for positions in the new Yatsenyuk Government. This service which Pedersen & Partners and WE Partners provided was also paid for by Soros’ International Renaissance Foundation.
The ties between the Ukrainian Government and Soros got stronger and stronger after the installation of the new Ukrainian regime. In a leaked correspondence from 19 September 2015, published by the pro-Russia hacking group “CyberBerkut”, Soros can be seen advising to the then-Prime Minister of Ukraine Arseniy Yatsenyuk on how to prevent a natural gas crisis from emerging due to high gas prices during the November and December when Ukrainians would not be able to afford to pay. Soros’ advice was of course aimed at maintaining the regime’s stability and not let it be threatened by another Maidan like counter-coup, with the infamous master of manipulation stating:
On the other side, Soros was meeting up with US officials like the US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, who asked Soros what the US governments stance should be towards Russia during breakfast on 31 March 2014. Soros replied by stating:
On that occasion, Soros was referring to the elections on 25 May the same year which resulted in a Poroshenko victory, also stating that he believed Obama was ‘too soft’ on Putin. In a draft called A Short and Medium-term Comprehensive Strategy for the New Ukraine, and in various correspondence with Ukrainian officials, Soros told western nations which strategy they should implement in order to weaken Russia by countering Putin’s influence in Ukraine.
This was to be achieved by approving financial and military aid to Ukraine. It was also suggested that Western allied leaders “should declare that they will do whatever it takes to help the new Ukraine succeed short of getting involved in direct military confrontation with Russia or violating the Minsk agreement.”
According to the strategy, although direct military conflict is to be avoided with Russia, Ukrainian forces were to be covertly trained by allied nations inside NATO camps in order to ‘meet but not raise’ the military capacity of Russia. The sitting president Petro Poroshenko was to be advised by General Wesley Clark, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO during the Kosovo war, who had previously carried out the infamous aerial bombing campaign in Yugoslavia. The Atlantic Council, an American think tank with close ties to ex-CIA members and the US State Department were also setup to advise the president.
We can see in other leaked OSF documents, that not only were the OSF trying to manipulate public opinion inside Ukraine, they also did their best to legitimize the new Post-Maidan government, helped to influence its perception internationally, and focused on left-wing movements with anti-American sentiments within 5 main target countries, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, and Greece. The goal was to encourage and control the internal debates in the target countries by amplifying pro-Maidan voices while at the same time arguing that Russia was in fact influencing these debates via domestic conduits, actors and outlets.
In Greece for example, the plan was to provide information to at least 6 newspapers; 10 audio-visual outlets (TV and radio); 6 internet sites; and 50 opinion leaders. The person who was awarded the grants in Greece, and soon became responsible for “mapping out” the Ukraine debate was Iannis Carras, who is an expert on NGOs and social movements. In a correspondence, Iannis can be seen talking to a person named ‘Matthew’ with whom he explains his agenda. Iannis told Matthew that he had already interviewed Greek ambassadors and he knew all the Russian correspondents. He warned Matthew to “not say you are doing this for Open Society because it is likely to close down doors. There’s a lot of suspicion about Open Society in Greece, mainly because of its positions vis-à-vis the former Yugoslavia.”
On the other hand, the OSF was funding investigative journalism focused on Russia with grants worth $500,000. In a proposal called “Russia in Europe: The Reactionary Values Agenda” it suggested that they prepare a report which demonstrates Russia subverting EU democratic values through meddling in other countries’ affairs. The author of the proposal can also be found admitting:
It was claimed that this supposed Russian meddling was achieved mostly by promoting “traditional values”. In fact, what these western organisation decided constitutes traditional Russian values, were clearly being painted as the problem and became what the report was to combat:
The overall objective was to amplify the voices of organizations which were the antithesis of Russian values. This tactic was implemented to scare the citizens of Europe into believing that their individual rights were in immediate danger:
They also admit that although publicly they try to portray themselves as a neutral and unbiased NGO, they are in fact ideologically driven. On the risks of this strategy they explain:
Reports made in 2013 also show that the OSF were obsessed with ‘cleansing’ what they termed to be ‘cultural intolerance’ from Ukrainian society:
These leaked blueprints are completely in congruence with the approach western nations have taken since the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine war. To many spectators it appeared that NATO had become too arrogant to believe it could be possible to draw Ukraine into the western sphere of influence and away from Putin inch by inch while ignoring Russia’s security concerns.
Since Russia cannot possibly match the propaganda capacity of the international community or their financial firepower, the only option left for a cornered great bear is to march through Ukraine and to physically take control. Putin has proven that he’d rather accept the burden of an economic blockade and destroy Ukraine, rather than let NATO win the most important battle in modern Russian history.
The Road to Bloody War
The army of NGOs which marched throughout Eastern Europe sparked colour revolutions in many countries. This method of warfare, which seems relatively peaceful and innocuous in comparison to the years of war which had come before, will always eventually lead to violence and military action. The tactics now being enacted by CFR-aligned groups, Soros-aligned organisations, along with the various militant student groups, is essentially preparation for all-out war. In fact, the approach which Western forces have taken could be summed up by Sun Tzu himself.
Tzu, famous as a tactical mastermind of ancient warfare famously stated: “the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting,” as well as also wisely exclaiming: “So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.” But maybe the most pertinent advice from Sun Tzu in relation to the creeping NGO takeover of Eastern Europe may be the infamous lines:
When World War II ended, the Allies had cut a tense quick deal which created new front-lines, but neither Establishment, East nor West, had an immediate appetite for the horrors of war. Most importantly, the huddled masses were fed up with conflict. This left the Western powers in a strange juxtaposition. Almost every leader who was to attain significant power over the five decades following WWII had themselves been forged on the harshest battlefields. Most of the people who held significant political power in post-WWII governments had tasted all out warfare and, although brutal, war had made the introduction of new policy almost frictionless, especially in relation to creating overarching infrastructure with the potential to subdue the masses.
Kissinger himself had headed up a unit hunting down prominent Nazis. His troops were able to break down doors throughout parts of previously-occupied Europe without warrant or warning under the auspices of hunting down despicable Nazi Party members, stolen art, alongside and array of other reasons. This kind of systematic action also allowed the same people who men like Kissinger had been rounding up to be organized, documented, and later, smuggled out of danger via Operation Paperclip and other complex and well documented intelligence programs.
These well-versed military men, who walked the halls of power during the Cold War era, were often rightly frustrated and cajoled by peace movements and civil rights obligations. Regardless of the public sentiment, the powerful elite have been desperate to get back onto the battlefield. New organizations have been forged out of the fire of this societal stand-off between the peaceful masses and the warmongering minority who sit in the highest offices in the land. In the 1950s and 60s, organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations, alongside working groups such as the Rand Corporation and the Hudson Institute, began looking for a new way to wage war. The inevitability of newly emerging dangerous technological progress with the potential to greatly shift political power dynamics was obvious to all involved. This was essentially the race to fifth generation warfare and the forging of a new chess board with an extra dimension.
By the 1970s, the infrastructure had been created and the intelligence networks had evolved enough to allow for non-governmental organizations to become the weapon of the future. But this process of manufacturing seemingly peaceful coups will not lead to world peace, in fact, we are on the road to the most dangerous war ever waged.
In essence, the West has attempted to posture themselves into a position where they can win the war before entering onto the battlefield. The western actors have undermined Russian society in a similar way to what happened during the run up to both World Wars. The reason why Ukraine is the focus of Western hegemony is not only due to its obvious strategic position, directly alongside Russia, but it also has an indigenous Russian population in the East of Ukraine. Russia is surrounded and the West has control of an area which has similar dynamics to that of Poland pre-WWII. In the 70s and 80s, many of the people on the ground in Russia and Ukraine saw themselves as, if not brothers, cousins who were closely linked by a joint culture and history. But this has changed drastically over a period of a few decades and, as NGOs became common place throughout 1990s Eastern Europe, the tension between Ukrainians and Russians has become more and more palpable, obvious, and is advertised to us as another new norm.
The Cold War was the start of the process that is leading us toward World War III, it is the initial tactical phase of the coming conflict. The fall of the USSR signified idealogical defeat and led to the public infiltration of break away territories by an NGO army funded by the Western Establishment. What we have seen recently is Russia’s occupation of the parts of Ukraine which is home to a sizeable Russian speaking population. There is no more wriggle room; this is as far as the West can push before the Bear responds. If we go back to the root of all of this, we can see the birth of a future which has been designed for us and which we are walking blindly towards. The future is one of perpetual limited warfare and military grade psychological operations.
As this new era of fifth-generation warfare develops, with many new and potentially dangerous technological solutions on the precipice of being realised, and with growing polarization in all areas of politics, culture and society globally, we can be sure that this bated escalation will continue. In the future, we are likely to look back in hindsight and realise that the Massacre on the Maidan was THE bridge too far.
