1. Geopolitical Picture of the Modern World in the Context of Growing Instability
  2. Strategy of “Controlled Chaos” in the Conditions of Chaos in International Relations: Myth or Reality?
  3. Actual Aspects of the New World Order Formation on the Platform of the Russian Model of Noosphere Policy
  4. Color Revolutions and the Problems of Dismantling the Political Regimes in a Changing World






The report is devoted to the analysis of the problems associated with the dismantling of the political regimes in modern states (both authoritarian and democratic type), and with the role of technology in the process of color revolutions. The problems with dismantling of political regimes and the problems associated with the color revolutions in modern conditions become extremely severe and urgent. This is not only due to the fact that the events in Ukraine, if looked at in detail, repeat the exact scenario of the color revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East, known as the “Arab Spring”, in particular, the revolution in Egypt, which indicates no coincidence in the event data. The reason is that instead of the traditional dismantling tools that are familiar to the world community comes a new generation of more delicate instruments that combine power methods of influence with technologies of manipulative control of mass consciousness and mass behavior of the broad masses of the civilian population.

It should be noted that in the history of the world, there have always been problems with the dismantling of political regimes. Before, instruments of such dismantling tools were mostly violent methods in the classical sense, applied in armed coups, local armed conflicts, civil wars, and military interventions. The international community was able to develop effective methods to counter this threat and to create effective mechanisms of political regulation of these processes, including at the international level. No matter who and how they criticize the UN, the organization operates and its potential and ability to manage the political stability and settlement of international conflicts even in the collapse of the Westphalian system is far from exhausted. The acuteness of the problems that is associated with the threat of military coups in the various countries of the world, does not cease to be relevant and is not removed from the agenda. However, in general, for the world community, this category of threats is familiar and the international community knows how to react to it.

However, today the world is changing, and more subtle technologies of color revolutions are replacing the armed coups technologies. They cleverly disguise as the true revolutionary movements and are virtually unopposed by countries with already well-established democracy and by the Oriental States that have preserved the traditional way of life. Repetition of the scenario of color revolutions in Ukraine is a legitimate concern, since a strong confidence is developing that Ukraine is not the end point of this scenario. It is a bargaining chip in the geopolitical game, where the punch of American directors of color revolutions could be directed at Russia, China, and Kazakhstan.

The reasons for the increased attention to the color revolutions lie in the fact that during the last three years there were coups in a number of countries with completely stable political regimes, which led to full or partial dismantling of the political regimes that for many years successfully resisted external and internal enemies; for example, the Egyptian, Tunisian, Syrian and Libyan regimes successfully resisted Islamism.

There is a striking similarity in the scenarios of regime change in these countries, which can be seen as a pattern or an organizational chart; and it is used for guessing the general features of the so-called velvet revolutions that have destroyed the communist regimes in Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

It is unlikely that such a coincidence could be called accidental, since the probability of an exact match of such scenarios of regime changes in countries differ significantly at the level of political organization of power, as well as in terms of socio-economic development, and with the spectrum of unresolved problems, relatively, if not negligibly small.

In this respect, Syria and Libya are radically different from Ukraine and Georgia, but it is not difficult to notice that the revolution of 2014 in Ukraine (which received the name Euro Maidan) is exactly the same as the scenario in the “Arab Spring” revolution in Egypt, including the behaviors of the opposing sides.

All this may indicate that using the example of various countries and regions, we are dealing with the same phenomenon – the result of the application of the color revolution technology. However, despite the bright brand name, there is nothing revolutionary about them. Even today, the Western media says that the color revolutions, which they call the technology operations to export democracy through civil disobedience, are so perfected that their methods have become a guide to changing political regimes 1. All these arguments together determined the choice of the theme and focus of the study.

The analysis of the role and place of the color revolutions in the transformation of the world political system are presented in the report in the context of global changes, which the system of world politics and international relations is experiencing today, including the entire world order as a whole. In this regard, the color revolutions and problems of the forced dismantling of political regimes are well inscribed in the global problems of international relations that shape the global agenda. To create a coherent and complete picture of the processes taking place in the modern world, the report presents the results of the analysis of some of the most acute and pressing global problems of international relations, playing the leading role in the formation of a new world order based on the principles of multipolarity, along with the color revolutions.

The authors refer the chaos in international relations and the immersion into the world of “controlled chaos” to these problems, as well as the fight against web-based forms of international terrorism and political extremism, countering of global production and transit of drugs (and the severity of this problem multiplies in connection with the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan), and the managing of international conflicts.

The authors draw attention to the fact that many of these problems are a direct product of short-sighted policies of the Western world leaders, and especially the United States that, with their idealistic desire to build a “democratic peace” by any means from Tripoli to Kabul and from Belgrade to Astana, have artificially nurtured, educated, consolidated and armed the forces of those, with whom they will have to fight on all continental fronts in the coming decades. The tragedies of the Libyan, Syrian, and the Yugoslav peoples can serve as an example of such a policy, plunged into civil war, as well as the events taking place in Ukraine.

In this study, special attention should be paid to the analysis of the role of the “controlled chaos” technology, in shaping of the multipolar world and in reformatting of the modern system of international relations, which, in turn, is transforming into a state of anarchy itself, as was noted previously by American constructivists. This context analyzes the actual issues of the formation of the modern world order: the transition from unipolarity to multipolarity. Using the example of a color revolution in Ukraine, which received the name of Euromaid, a new question arises of the principal applicability of the Anglo-Saxon concept of the “controlled chaos” technology for the dismantling of the political regimes in the Commonwealth of Independent States in the interests of “democratization” in its North American understanding.

The crisis of the unipolar world clearly requires the nomination of new global alternatives based on restored principles of justice and values ​​of peaceful coexistence. As Foreign Minister S.M. Lavrov rightly pointed out, today “the fates of the world cannot define even the most powerful state, nor opposing military-political blocs, as it was during the “Cold War,” not even a narrow concert of the “chosen” countries and centers of global power. The idea is to build a just, democratic and stable, ideally – a self-regulating system of international relations. Russia is playing a leading role in shaping this new just world, acting against the dictates of individual countries, even those with extensive experience in the development of democracy.

Today, Russia really got in the way of the wave of color revolutions and “controlled chaos.” This is no accident. It is thanks to Russia and its foreign policy that NATO’s military intervention in Syria did not take place; precisely because of the foreign policy of Russia that the peoples of South Ossetia and Abkhazia escaped genocide and got a chance to gain real independence; precisely because of Russia, the people of Crimea escaped the fate of other civilians, murdered by the new Kiev authorities in the Donbass. Russia has a powerful foreign policy potential capable to stop the tide of chaos and channel the energy of the world leaders into re-creation. In this regard, it is appropriate to quote the words of Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation S.A. Ryabkov: “We have to work using our advantages … a positive attitude of people to Russia, the absence of prejudice, understanding that our country is an important international power, a source of polycentric and multipolar world order.” 2

Thus, Russia has the right to rely on the assistance and collaboration of all progressive forces, interested in maintaining global peace and stability, all who oppose the color revolutions and the chaos that they bring to the world civilization. With view of the above, I would like to quote the words of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Sergey Lavrov: “The philosophy of the joint creative work lays in the basis of our entire foreign policy. We are ready to go far forward in the development of long-term deep-sided cooperation with all that show willingness.” 3


  1. Geopolitical Picture of the Modern World in the Context of Growing Instability


The modern geopolitical picture of the world is characterized by extreme instability. Its main feature is that geopolitical boundaries separating modern states and the nations, exist now not so much as the geographical boundaries of waters (mountain ranges) and coastlines, but in the minds of people who have learned to divide society into their own and other, on the basis of belonging to a certain national interests, values, ideological concepts, doctrines, and patterns of political behavior that continental and island nations can equally willingly follow. Symbols, having the character of markers are used to consolidate these boundaries in the minds of the population, marking “their own” and allowing to identify other “their own,” and separated from “others.” Often, these markers are very primitive in character. It can be flowers (roses in Georgia, tulips in Kyrgyzstan, cornflowers in Belarus, cacti in Mexico, and jasmine in Tunisia) in the hands of the members of the color revolutions in the CIS, the orange rags of fabric in Ukraine or white ribbons in Russia, dates in Tunisia, in Egypt, etc.

However, in some cases, more complex symbols and symbolic design are used to separate “their own” and “others,” such as democratization. The adherents of this democratization seek to implement the Western liberal values into the lives of traditional societies at all costs that revive the traditions of the Crusades, or technical devices, such as iPhones and iPads that allow the use of social networks to mobilize conflict society (the “Twitter revolution” in Egypt in 2011, and others).

These markers can combine large population masses, living in different parts of the globe, in different States, in areas with varied terrain and climate, on the islands and on the mainland, as well as mountaineers and the inhabitants of the plains. Thanks to modern means of transport and communication, geographical boundaries of today become transparent and manageable and do not serve as natural boundaries that hinder foreign expansion of the leading world powers that claim to have leadership in the modern world.

Belonging to a particular religious denomination or sect (as usually as a result of revisionism or modernization of traditional teachings and beliefs) is often chosen as a marker, which has a mystical mission to save the world, a certain part of humanity (consisting mainly of “their own”) and a certain part of the same human civilization and culture (not all). Extremists are especially fond of these markers and see no point in “reinventing the wheel.” They prefer to exploit the historical archetypes, rooted in the subconscious that are receiving a new sound in the modern world.

The crisis of modern society is a crisis of identification, finding a place in the existing set of civilizations in the world , cultures and values. Inconsistency and mutability of areas of influence of these cultures and values ​​in modern conditions lead to their permanent drift, a displacement relative to the fixed geographical boundaries and guidelines that American constructivists have correctly noted. European culture is now retreating before the onslaught of Islamic culture. Old Europe is rapidly Islamized, which is impossible to ignore. Mosque of Notre Dame is a nightmare for all Europeans now, which is close to reality more than ever. The US which was founded by “white Anglo-Saxon Protestants,” by contrast, is rapidly catholicizing because the country’s percentage of the Hispanic population is rapidly growing. Simultaneously, there is an onslaught of Islamic culture, due not only to immigrants of Arab origin in the US, but also the rapidly growing black population that is willing to accept Islam, more simple than Catholic and Protestant Christianity, in their understanding.

Under these conditions, geographical boundaries and frontiers do not protect against the impact and penetration of foreign culture and do not guarantee the preservation of their own identity. On the contrary, the identity of the modern man needs constant support from the outside, which he seeks and finds in symbols and markers that reconstruct the borders of cultural community to which he belongs, in circumstances where these same geographical, linguistic and valuable boundaries ​​continuously erode and disintegrate into fragments.

The geopolitical reality of the modern world today is formed basically on the nature of the spatial distribution of the centers of political instability that can grow quite quickly to international conflicts and small wars in the current environment, and not on terrain features or probable theater of operations. 29 Their appearance is usually not directly related to the geopolitics of modern states. The basis of most conflicts are causes that are specifically historical in character. Only a few conflicts are linked to the geographical factor that played a role in the conduct of state borders between the former colonies of the European countries or fragments of empires (e.g., Ottoman) that gained independence in the 20th century. Geopolitics in the zones of conflict is manifested in the fact that the great powers, such as the United States, aiming for world leadership, encounter the resistance of other powers on the way, who value their independence and seek to control the political instability on the scale of entire regions, plunging them into a state of “managed democracy” or a more “controlled chaos.” The boundaries of the regions that become subject to external control the Americans determine on the basis of their own geopolitical ideas and stratagems, which are markedly different from the classical concepts of the past (Mackinder, Haushofer, and others). Typical examples of such geopolitical designs are the new generation of the Greater Middle East, Greater Central Asia, and others.

As a result, the geopolitics of the modern state is forced to reckon with the centers and arcs of the political instability, which now significantly complement the geographical factor in politics, and even adjust it in a certain way. Landscape of the geopolitical picture of the world today forms an arc of political instability, elongated mainly along the geographical parallels.

Now, the Arab countries form the largest arc of instability, which experienced a wave of color revolutions of the “Arab Spring” in 2011 – 2012: in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria. Turkey can be added to this chain of countries, where today the second Kemalist revolution is actually unfolding, similar in scenario to the classic color revolutions in Eastern Europe and in the CIS. Iraq, Iran (balancing on the brink of armed conflict with the United States) and Afghanistan, that the US and its allies still retain in the interests of the military and political pressure on Iran and China, are also associated with this arc.

Afghanistan borders Pakistan, a nuclear power that in the last few years has been balancing on the verge of collapse, but is actively involved in Afghan affairs, as an ally of the United States and as an independent force. Israel becomes an important component of this arc, which often acts as a provocateur and initiator of conflict processes. Palestinian autonomous region, where the power belongs to the radical Hamas is easily provoked, giving a legitimate reason to start a large-scale war, which draws in other charming participants in the Middle East settlement, including the United States and Iran. India that has frozen conflict in Kashmir with Pakistan closes the arc of instability, as well as North Korea that make titanic efforts so that people would not forget about it completely.

Closer to the equator is the second arc of instability. It is made up of the African countries: Mali, Congo, Sudan, South Sudan, and Somalia, where armed conflicts stably flare and fade, sometimes degenerating into a civil war. African countries have similar problems that destabilize the political situation, and one common trouble: most of them have large reserves of mineral resources and raw materials that are of interest to the great powers. Thus, the struggle of the great powers and of world leaders (USA, France, and China) for control of the uranium mines has become a major cause of conflict in Mali, where gunmen and mercenaries rushed being out of work after the war in Libya and after Gaddafi’s death. The presence of huge oil reserves in the Sudanese province of Darfur has long been a cause of the civil war between rebels representing the indigenous people and the Sudanese Arabs, supported by the official authorities of Sudan. However, the rebel troops secretly receive significant military aid from the United States (weapons and mercenaries, who are moved from the neighboring Chad). China supports the Sudanese army in the conflict, for which Sudan is a major and strategically important energy suppliers. There is also the problem of piracy in the Gulf of Aden, where Somalia is making a significant contribution to the formation of an arc of political instability in the region.

North of the arc that was formed after the color revolutions of the “Arab Spring,” an arc of instability is formed that runs through the Muslim enclaves in the largest cities of the old Europe, such as London, Paris, and Rome. It has a strategically important site in the Balkans, in the Albanian Kosovo enclave that Western politicians usually call an “independent and sovereign state.” Kosovo is a geopolitical pole, where the interests of the two forces in the world have met in this historical perspective, developing its expansion in different directions and with different perspectives. They still, however, feel comfortable in a temporary state of political symbiosis of the Western Anglo-Saxon Protestants, represented by the United States and its NATO allies, and the Salafis represented by the radical Islamic organizations and by the warlords of Albanian separatists, that turned into the structure of transnational organized crime (just like in Afghanistan after the arrival of the US and NATO).

The line of the arc extends in the direction of the North and the South Caucasus, where there is also a strong separatist Islamist sentiments and active illegal armed groups, fueled by money, arms, mercenaries and means of ideological war on the part of the Salafi regimes of the Persian Gulf, especially in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as well as a rapidly Islamized Turkey that includes the Caucasus (both South and North ) in the area of its national interests. At this level the arc of instability, Dagestan is the most difficult point, where today international terrorists and extremists are waging an undeclared war against the Russian Federal Government that, even with good intentions, cannot simply be called “the fight against remnants of the gangs” and crime. It is sad that in this war against Russia, even those countries that once thrived in a single state of the USSR now support international terrorism. These countries include Georgia, which until recently was under the Saakashvili regime, who came to power with the support of the United States as a result of a color revolution. Today Saakashvili is announced as a wanted criminal by the new Georgian authorities (which does not prevent him to live peacefully in the US), but many of his associates or former colleagues (that came from one incubator of leaders of the color revolutions) retained their positions and power. In this arc of instability, Georgia is a major foothold for the Western (especially American) influence on political processes in the region today, and it also plays the role of the provocateur government that is even capable to enter an armed conflict with its neighbors, especially with Russia, in the interests of its Atlantic partner, as the events of August 2008 have shown.

Then the arc of instability passes through the states of Central Asia, which are kept in power by authoritarian secular regimes, similar in nature and methods of the exercise of power to the regimes fallen as a result of the Arab revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa. The US policy in the region has led to a whole series of color revolutions, some of which failed, destroying the existing system of government in the republics (Kyrgyzstan, for example). Some were managed to be stopped by applying the army and special forces to suppress the rebellion (Andijan revolt in Uzbekistan).

In Kyrgyzstan, the color revolution has succeeded twice (the first and second “Tulip Revolution”), resulting in the country’s economy being completely destroyed, and all of the assets were brought abroad and sold. Another wave of color revolutions in the Central Asian states will not survive, so with the direct participation of Russia in the region an interstate structure to ensure safety are being established, such as the Collective Security Treaty Organization. They allow to combine the efforts of various Central Asian countries to counter external threats from both the “soft power” of the US and NATO, as well as from international terrorism, Islamism and crime. Nevertheless, in 2011, a repeat of the “Arab Spring” revolutions has become a very real threat to the states of Central Asia, which showed the ability of technology to break the traditional arrangement of Eastern societies, destroying their mechanism of security and internal control constructed for centuries and using the methods of “controlled chaos” to lead the country and the people to a new political reality. In reality, this will not be a place of secular institutions of government, and the road to power will be open only to radical Islam of various stripes.

The arc closes in Western Asia, in the region of Afghanistan and Pakistan, where it is tied in a complicated knot, which proved to be too tough for the British Empire, for Soviet Union, for the United States and for NATO, that have spent more than a decade on a war with the phantom world of the terrorist threat and on construction of not less than the phantom state with an ideal democracy, that succeeded in a Muslim country. This knot wove together the problems of nation-state structure of Afghanistan, Islamism and terrorism, Pashtun separatism, the Taliban, drug trafficking, which has become almost the only sector of the national economy, and the fundamental problem of the inability of the peoples and tribes of Afghanistan to agree among themselves. For the ten years of the country’s democratization, not only was the United States unsuccessful in solving their basic problems, but it also added a lot of new ones that are still getting its foreign policy development, and not in the best way for the Western world.

The arcs of political instability induce numerous hotbeds of conflict on its periphery, which, in terms of geography, have a point or a local character. As a rule, these conflicts generate contradictions between two or, at the most, three participants in world politics. An example of such conflicts is the conflict between China and Japan with respect to the disputed islands in the South China Sea (Sёnkaku), zones of frozen conflicts (Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Karabakh, Transnistria, the Uzbek-Tajik conflict, and Kashmir), etc. All of them are based on reasons not related to the causes of the conflicts, developing along the arc of instability, but the aggravation of some conflict exacerbates other hotbeds of conflict intensity to bouts of violence and political provocations, including armed provocations.

The presence of several arcs (or zones) of instability in the modern world leads to the fact that the states that are caught in the intervals between these arcs are forced to be closer political and defense plans for the sake of their safety with the states that are in the same relative stability zone, or cell, which is formed by an arc of instability. At the same time, the unity of basic needs, such as safety, peaceful development and coexistence, and protection against new threats and challenges are defined by the trajectory of rapprochement and partnership of different countries, regardless of their geographical location or their dividing into marine and continental power. This trend explains many contemporary alliances between countries and political forces that were previously considered irreconcilable antagonists. Thus, the network of arcs of political instability covering the globe in the form of a grid cell, thus becomes a geographical factor in modern conditions that determines the modern picture of geopolitical processes, determines the difference between the policy of some powers in relation to others, and to draws the line between geopolitical actors.

The arc of political instability in the world today plays the role of transport corridors to carry conflict and political tension from one point of geographical space to another. It is the routes along the arc of instability that fighters, weapons and funds move that support terrorists and separatists, as well as certain emotional states and moods, spreading among the masses of civilians through the mechanisms of “emotional contamination,” known in the psychology of mass political processes. An example of such transit movements is the conflict in Syria, where the global Islamist International is fighting against Assad, including the combat Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan or the conflict in Mali, where the Libyan fighters became one of the main driving forces that fought against Gaddafi.

So, in addition to the geopolitical zoning, the arcs of political instability define the network traffic arteries and corridors, which today carries political influence and cover vast geographic territories, including ones previously inaccessible to direct external control. Radical ideologies, propaganda, mass psycho-emotional state border use the same transit corridors, preparing the ground for new conflicts.


  1. Strategy of “Controlled Chaos” in the Conditions of Chaos in International Relations: Myth or Reality?


The structure of the modern world is changing rapidly. The current political reality “is increasingly determined by the global political instability, where the world has moved due to the erosion of the Westphalian system. In the background of its disintegration and chaos in international relations is the formation of a new world order based on the principles of multipolarity.”15

On the one hand, there is the final destruction of the Yalta-Potsdam world system that emerged as a result of the victory of the anti-Hitler coalition in the Second World War on the German national socialism, Italian fascism and Japanese militarism. A new world order is forming on its ruins, which various experts call either multi-polar or nonpolar.

On the other hand, the formation of a new world order comes in the context of growing global instability and chaos in international relations, where the stability of the political regimes of nation-states depends on their ability to resist the color revolutions and “controlled chaos” technologies.

There is an overall difficult and even somewhat paradoxical situation.

1) On the one hand, the formation of a new multi-polar system is leading the world to order.

2) On the other hand, a number of States, occupying a leading position in world politics, emphasizes the importance of anarchy in international relations and upholds the right to use “controlled chaos” technology to eliminate political regimes that do not fit into the new world order.

According to some, a multipolar world is successfully formed; at the same time, according to their opponents, this process is accompanied by an increase of entropy, increasingly taking the form of a black hole, where the emerging world order itself may disappear, and not having enough time to form. Such a result may well be reached by the advances of Americans – those “big kids” of world politics – to chaos technologies that they naively considered “manageable.” The result has already manifested itself in the so-called revolutions of the “Arab Spring.”

The collapse of the modern world system based on the Westphalian architecture of international relations, later modified by Yalta and Potsdam agreements, is probably the objective and inevitable process even in the face of universal peace and prosperity. The modern world is changing rapidly, becoming more complex and acquiring new qualities, and these changes are the cause of modernization and adaptation of previous models and patterns of international relations, many of which do not maintain the pace of development and decay, giving life to new system solutions.

Apparently, this is what is happening today with the Yalta-Potsdam system: its disintegration began at the end of the “Cold War,” when it became clear that the countries of the socialist bloc were unable to sustain an arms race with the North Atlantic Alliance. However, this system continued to hold its position even after the defeat of the USSR in the “Cold war” and its decay into a conglomeration of newly created states, many of which have never before in its history had personal experience of national statehood. The unipolar world, which replaced the era of global confrontation between the two superpowers (the Soviet Union and the United States) based on American centrism and hegemony of a single nation, in fact, has never been completely unipolar:

1) First, contrary to the expectations of Western governments, the collapse of the USSR was not completed by further disintegration of its largest part – the Russian Federation, which not only failed to stop the fragmentation process, but also announced it as the successor of the Soviet Union.

2) Second, The US and many emerging “political giants of the second tier,” such as China, Brazil, India and other countries that gained strong momentum and space for development rushed into the resulting post-Soviet political vacuum. Now these states are called “new poles of the emerging multipolar world.” This breakthrough was so rapid for them (and for the whole world) that the Americans, temporarily blinded by its hegemony, missed it. As a result, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the world’s transition into the unipolar phase, United States almost immediately received a belt of new states as rivals rapidly gaining the power, who have learned to deal effectively with US foreign expansion, following the American terminology by uniting into “volitional coalition.”

3) Third, the United States, immediately after the end of the “Cold War” that were quick to say that they assume full responsibility for the fate of the world, have not fulfilled that task. By proclaiming their mission to be the ubiquitous spread of democracy and liberal-democratic values, they are engaging in a military conflict with almost half of humanity. Their actions have generated an enemy, against which the modern nation-state is powerless, even as powerful as the United States. We are talking about the network of transnational terrorist organizations, which have become an almost unsolvable problem for the US in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and in all the regions where the Americans were trying to establish democratic regimes (in the Anglo-Saxon sense of the term.)

However, the United States had one of the main roles in the world. In a sense, the United States retain their position in the center of the world order even today.

However, with the United States leading the transformation of the world after the end of the “Cold War” into “monopoly,” in reality did not demonstrate the power of a modern system of international relations, but its weakness. As a result of prolonged violent combating, the international community was able to nominate only one single development scenario based on one pole, one undisputed world leader that will combine the functions of the judge and of the police. This model, although inherently contradictory and unbalanced, was very much dependent on the whims of Washington and was not immune to mistakes of uneducated and incompetent people, who happened to be at the top of the pyramid of power, such as the notorious “Texas Cowboy” Bush, who led the country from his own ranch.

For the system of international relations, the transition to unipolarity meant regress not progress, because any miscalculation in the policies pursued by this single world pole would immediately lead to a crisis of the entire system, built on the basis of the principles, ideology, interests and values, with the pole as the carrier. In the future, it is manifested in the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, in the color revolutions in Syria, Libya, Egypt, and in an attempt to forcefully resolve the problem with Iran. Using the example of the United States and its foreign policy, the unipolar world system has shown its weakness, of which the new generation of actors immediately took advantage, coming out today to the forefront of world politics. They are the so-called “actors outside the sovereignty” of non-state members in international relations, the subjects of public diplomacy and “soft power.”

The weakening of the unipolar system has not led to its automatic conversion to a multipolar one. It obviously needed sufficient time for the most actively developing actors (nation-state) that spent the entire “Cold War” in the shadows of the USSR and the USA, to have found independence, to realize their potential and their increasing role in the transformation of the political system of the modern world, and to rise to the level of the new poles. Also, understanding and lack of resistance is necessary from the great power known to all, that has “saddled” the only world pole.

All of the above has so slowed down the purely evolutionary (in nature) process of rebirth of the unipolar system into a multipolar one that between these two events there was a temporary gap that was filled with non-state actors in world politics. As a result, it weakened the Westphalian system even more, since the primacy of nation-states in the implementation of relations among nations and peoples started to become actively challenged by transnational corporations, by private military companies, by international humanitarian funds, by international extraterritorial political parties (such as the Baath), and by national liberation movements, etc. Today, their role in world politics and in international relations is almost more than the role of nation-states themselves.

In view of these and many other reasons, a new world system that is emerging based on multipolarity, may not be formed at all and may go directly to the state of “controlled chaos” and anarchy. In a “controlled chaos” global pole lose their role and importance, and are no longer necessary, because the world of chaos is built on entirely different principles, models and paradigms of global governance. Only time will tell how likely is such a prospect of anarchy.

Today, considering the transitional period in which we live, we can say that the idea of a multipolar world is so popular that several young politico economic “giants of new wave,” such as China, India, Brazil, tend to play the role of the world’s new poles with varying degrees of success. With the appearance of these new poles on the world map, Russia must realize it no less than the United States, who constantly perfect their prestige.

In general, all new world powers, claiming their own pole in the emerging multipolar world, are relatively friendly towards Russia. Russia has a trusting relationship with India, Brazil, and China, characterized by the “strategic partnership” formula. In addition, all these countries together with Russia are included in the unification of the BRICS, that claim the status of an international organization.

However, the content and format of this partnership differ markedly depending on the choice of the partner. Thus, a strategic partnership is most actively developing between Russia and China. The relations with India are markedly inferior to the Russian-Chinese on the same pace and level of development, encountering many difficulties in understanding the mutual rights and obligations of partners in this process. Brazil and Russia are developing a special format of relations, in which both countries seek to come up with a consolidated position in the formation of the international agenda, including the United Nations. They want to use the format of BRICS on the regional level to limit penetration and influence of non-regional players in the region, formed by the territories and impact zones of the five member states of the association. This will, generally, allow Russia to withstand the “controlled chaos,” by building alliances with other emerging poles of the new world system that are conducting their own foreign policies, an alternative policy to Washington.

At the same time, today, a wave of “controlled chaos” came close to Russia’s borders, floating over Ukraine on the way. Brutality and uncompromising struggle that over the course of a few days has overgrown from separate clashes of hooligans and police into an organized armed rebellion, cannot be ignored. The danger of the current situation in Ukraine is primarily that an armed rebellion raised by radical nationalists has the potential to escalate into a civil war. Hence, it is not far from the “revolutionary terror.”

The color revolution in Kiev put Ukraine on the brink of civil war and the collapse of the state in the geopolitical tension lines. This process, we can say for sure, will not pass peacefully and painlessly. In the case of collapse, Ukraine will repeat the Yugoslav scenario: war of all against all, genocide, terrorism, and foreign intervention. All this will hit the security of the neighboring states, where the flame of the color revolution may spread. It is even scary to imagine the consequences of this scenario for Russia. The “Arab Spring” revolution that swept the CIS and hit Russia, may be the beginning of “Christian winter.”

A colored revolution is the invention of Anglo-Saxons and North Americans. They are the only ones that know how to apply these techniques in practice. We can say that the color revolutions are their signature style. However, there is no reason for the United States to replace Yanukovych with Poroshenko, Tymoshenko or Klitschko. All these years Yanukovych, pretending that his heart was with Russia, in fact, carried out an entirely pro-Western and pro-American policy, and was an obedient executor of the will of Washington and Brussels, substituting Russia whenever it suited the interests of his clan or his Western “partners” and “mentors.” That is, he was absolutely loyal from the American point of view. The United States had no reason to replace him, as there was no need to remove Mubarak, one of the most faithful and loyal allies of the United States in the Arab world. Therefore, the Americans preferred to control the situation in the early stages of development of a color revolution, in a relaxed manner and in deep shadow. No matter who wins, he will still be in the “stable” of US foreign policy. If Yanukovych would have won, the color revolution would become a warning and a lesson for him, as once was Okruashvili’s speech against Saakashvili in Georgia. If Tymoshenko or Klitschko come to power, they will run to the United States right away for foreign support and recognition, as only the influence and authority of the United States can make European politicians out of ordinary rebels and bandits, with whom civilized Europe will eventually speak.

The rebels that destroyed Yanukovych’s regime were faced with one cardinal problem after the final takeover: they got a poor country in permanent crisis with a destroyed and plundered the economy, with a blank budget, with huge debts, and with corrupt authorities. To overcome the crisis, the new government needs a considerable amount of money. In addition, supporters and other “loyal fighters” must be paid off in case of victory, since they are counting on their share of the former state-owned property, and the possibility to plunder. Even the leaders have the desire to increase their financial situation through the “trophies” in a stormed city and country, given away to be plundered. The United States seeks to make the European Union the source of these funds that, in the case of rapid balkanization of Ukraine, will be forced to pay for their own safety, restoring the country’s economy devastated by the civil war. The EU is finally beginning to understand this more clearly.

When analyzing what is happening in Ukraine today, we cannot neglect the US policy in the region. According to his statements, President Obama is very concerned about Russia’s strengthening in the South Slavic direction. He continuously threatens Russia with sanctions on behalf of the United States and on behalf of the EU. However, a reasonable question arises: in the understanding of the American president, what are the “political sanctions” against Russia? Should we be afraid of them?

Political sanctions are, primarily, a wave of moral reproach and condemnation that should fall on Russia and make her feel ashamed of the offense. Moral condemnation is, of course, a powerful factor. Unfortunately, however, US efforts to act as a universal reformatory, and zealous guardian of moral rules are known for their double standards and are perceived with irony in Russia. As a result, American politicians expose themselves to be ridiculed.

So what are the political sanctions?

Even for a moment, it is ridiculous to imagine that the political sanctions will squeeze Russia out of the number of permanent members of the UN Security Council – an organization created at the initiative of the Soviet Union, whose legitimate legal successor is modern Russia. What will they do? Will they take away the ticket to the Security Council from our permanent representative? Will they say that it has expired?

Barack Obama threatens the Kremlin that once Russia is expelled from the G8 (it finally happened on March 19th), it would be immediately politically isolated. Putin, however, has left the trump ace, which the Bush White House administration is unable to beat: a G20 forum, which shall immediately overcome the “Big Eight” that was weakened by the loss of Russia and thrown to the dustbin of history, thanks to the participation of the young giants of the world economy, such as China, Brazil, and India. The structured pro-Russian BRICS and the SCO are serving as insurance for this castling. It is interesting that in recent years, it was the US that was afraid of strengthening the role of G20, by strongly encouraging Russia not to rely on this platform and solve their basic foreign policy objectives on the G8 platform. Today, thanks to the deliberate policy of Barack Obama, the US pushed Russia into the arms of new global giants, the so-called developing countries, that regard the United States and their global politics rather skeptically.

While threatening Russia with sanctions and trying by all means to convince others of the need for a united Europe to isolate Russia, Obama is repeating the ways of another character. This time it is a historical one with an ambitious career that has suffered a complete disaster, ironically, near Moscow. The name of the character is Napoleon, who, if he were alive, would be able to tell Obama much about the mysterious Russian soul, which a Kenyan cannot understand. Obama, however, has already put on Napoleon’s shoes and would hardly listen to him.

Barack Obama’s politics in regards to Russia, based on global economic sanctions, is exactly the same as one of the projects of Napoleon called the Continental blockade 16 that he hoped would bring England to her knees. The isolation of Russia that the US is insisting on is all the same continental blockade of Napoleon. It is an idea that has not changed for two hundred years. Only the countries’ roles were reversed: in place of the British Empire is now Russia, and instead of imperial France is the new world hegemon, the United States. The EU as a whole hold the same position. In this game, the United States regards the EU about the same as Napoleon thought about the set of the small German states that he united into the Confederation of the Rhine, to which he appointed himself as protector. History has a habit of repeating itself, although the second time almost always comes as a charade. Though, there is only one difference today: Obama is not Napoleon, and Kerry is not Talleyrand. He cannot even come close to him in comparison.

In this regard, it is important to note that Napoleon’s France went to war with Russia because of a continental blockade that Russia was a part of, but only pro forma, turning a blind eye to a huge illegal trade that was happening. England imported huge amounts of Russian timber, potash, canvas, hemp, tar and other goods required for the construction and equipment of ships. After quickly defeating the Russian army, Napoleon hoped to force the Emperor Alexander to completely cease any trade with England. As a result, Napoleon reached and even briefly took Moscow city, which did not save him from the impending disaster, brutal and merciless both to the conqueror, and to the nations involved in his adventures.

Two hundred years later, Obama, who studied history poorly at school (or just used the American patriotic textbooks), hurried to repeat the path of Napoleon, consciously going for a confrontation with Russia. Just as Napoleon, Obama gathers a set of satellites under his banner that are willing to do anything for the approval of Washington. These are the Poles, who have forgotten the lessons of the Volyn massacre, and the Bandera. One must be blind not to see the neo-nazism in them. Instead of “big battalions,” Obama’s major shock ram are the color revolutions and the “controlled chaos.” The European Union is assigned the expendable role yet again, in full accordance with the historical tradition. The question is what will all this lead to? Will it be beneficial for America? What force will it face, when setting free the genie of the color revolutions? It is true what they say: the history of others teaches nothing.

Summarizing the preliminary results, we can say that in the current difficult situation, the resolution of the crisis in Ukraine is subject to the following four basic conditions.

The first condition is the non-interference of the armed forces of Western countries (The US and its NATO partners) into the internal affairs of Ukraine, Russia and the Slavic world, in the form of direct military intervention according to the Grenada or Panama scenario.

The second condition is the peaceful regulation of the crisis through the convening of a peace conference (for example, in Yalta), which should be open to all States concerned by the events in Ukraine, interested in the speedy resolution of the crisis in a peaceful way and seeing it as the sole purpose of their peacekeeping mission. Obviously, the peace conference in Ukraine should be convened under the auspices of the UN Security Council following the example of the Geneva-2. Not only Ukraine and Russia should be involved, but also Western countries which includes the US and the EU states, as well as the new world poles (China, Brazil, and India), associated with Russia through different formats of partner relations.

The third condition is a quick federalization of Ukraine and its transformation from a unitary state into a constitutional asymmetric federation consisting of at least four regions: the central district headed by Kiev, West, East, South. Only this step will help avoid the collapse of the country along the lines of Yugoslavia.

The fourth condition is the legitimate transfer of power to any of the candidates, who will come to power by legal means, by means of free and democratic elections, which are the only legitimate mechanism for change, renewal and replacement of the government. Of course, such a candidate cannot become a Nazi or a person mired in cooperation with Ukrainian Nazis that had staged the armed rebellion.

With regard to the task of countering color revolutions in Russia, it should be noted that the operation of the US to reformat the former Soviet Union to a certain extent concerns our country today as well. It is no secret that the organization of the protest movement “For Fair Elections” includes a part from the directors of the color revolutions, which is observed in all of its attributes – from “white ribbons” symbols to the level of organization of rallies and demonstrations, requiring huge investment funds. It is no accident that Anthony Michael McFaul was appointed as the new US ambassador to Moscow, a talented writer and director of the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine and the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia. If Washington funded the “White Revolution” scenario in Russia, it was done to achieve one goal only: if Russia will be busy with its own problems, it will not have time for Iran. This should be enough time for the Americans to start and finish a ground operation.

In general, the scenario of “white ribbons revolution” is fully consistent with the classic scenario of color revolutions in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, except for one detail: the scenario is truncated and calculated rather to demonstrate the power than the actual result (regime change). This is primarily indicated in the funding levels that have been allocated by the US State Department for the organization of a color revolution in Russia. One of the leaders of the opposition, who arrived in 2012 at the Seliger and denied any US involvement in the events on Bolotnaya Square, in the heat of debate, let it slip out that the amount allocated for the organization of the “white ribbons” by the United States was a little more than the amount spent on the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia. This amount is certainly sufficient for Georgia or Ukraine, but negligible for Russia, in which color revolution will only be a success if the rebellion breaks out simultaneously in two dozen major cities and regional centers. All this points to the fact that the main task was only to scare the Russian government and force it to immerse themselves in their internal problems and not be involved in the international situation.

The need for a “revolution of white ribbons” in the United States disappeared after it became clear that ground operation against Iran has been postponed indefinitely. The reason for it was Syria, whose situation was unable to be resolved, as quickly as with Libya’s. After this, the chance to start a “revolution” in Russia was turned down by the team from Washington. Americans pragmatically decided it was not worth spending more money on it.

Two years ago, speaking about the consequences of the fall of the Gaddafi regime, D. McCain expressed the opinion that the change of power in Libya will be a signal for other countries that are “striving for a democratic change”: “This will serve as a message for Bashar al-Assad, Yemen, and other dictators. The echo of the “Arab Spring” will be heard around the world – from China to Russia and Israel.” Thus, McCain did not rule out that Russia and China will be the next targets of the wave of color revolutions.17

The statement of Senator McCain, of course, has the character of a “trial balloon.” He says it all quite sincerely, without noticing that he was being manipulative. The “trial balloon” always aimed at provoking public opinion, including the views of the political and military allies and opponents of the United States to express their attitude towards the possibility of such interference in the internal affairs of these countries and their own assessments of the reality of the process. While the real political weight of McCain is negligible and his odious figure known to all, this statement should be taken seriously. This kind of probing of the political situation for its loyalty to the new goals and plans of the US external expansion suggests that these plans have been developed and are waiting to be executed. In this sense, McCain’s statement should be taken as a signal, and the events in Ukraine regarded as one of the stages of this plan.


  1. Actual Aspects of the New World Order on the Platform of the Russian Model of the Noosphere Policy


In recent years, an increasing number of Russian and foreign experts say that the world is experiencing a period of major changes, which resulted in the formation of a new world order that is going to replace the classical Westphalian system. These processes cause not only revolutionary changes in the international relations through architecture and institutional design, but also major shifts in the collective outlook of the world’s major nations that are realizing their national interests in a global world with special actors of the Westphalian system, the nation-states.

Everywhere in the world today, a change of views takes place on key issues and problems of international relations, as well as global and regional development; change and reassessment of traditional values, including devaluation, as well as, such fundamental values ​​as human rights and freedoms of a democratic society, and the institutions of the democratic world; changing paradigms of evolutionary development of modern society, which resulted in the coming alternative concepts and ideas based on the movement towards universal order through the promotion of anarchy in international relations and the imposition of “controlled chaos.”

The so-called democratic (liberal democratic) values that are promoted worldwide by the Anglo-Saxons and their followers from among the Western countries and that are detached from their North American Anglo-Saxons carriers (they do not have enough for all the countries, where they seek to impose their own model of democracy), are going into free drift (according to Wendt and other American political constructivists)18 freely penetrating the borders of sovereign states and covering new territory. Such drift often has the chaotic nature of Brownian motion.

In response to the persistent attempts of forced democratization and the need to impose the American way of life related to the traditional oriental type and built by the tribe, clans and communities principle, actively reviving archaic methods and mechanisms that have long gone down in history, to mobilize the conflict that can withstand new challenges and external threats aimed at the destruction of their own unique identity. Coercive democratization of Eastern societies (in Iraq, Afghanistan and in other countries) is leading to the revival of a strong, communal self-defense mechanisms that the Americans seek to destroy, plunging different parts of the world into “controlled chaos.” It is a way of directly contradicting their desire to unify the world and bring it to a brighter future, united under a single system of values ​​and institutions of “democratic peace” for all nations and peoples. This inconsistency of the US global policy allows the question of the reasonableness of the political course, pursued by the block of Western countries, to be put on the agenda, and the presence (or absence) of common sense elements, which is the fundamental concept of the noosphere policy.

The formation of this world order is accompanied by the emergence of new poles that serve as new centers of attraction of the driving forces of world politics and the elements that make up fierce competition for the US-centered concept of a unipolar world, winning the “Cold War” for the time being. The centers of these poles are the so-called “emerging giants” of world politics. They are the developing countries that are rapidly gaining momentum during the global confrontation between the USSR and the United States, which are on the periphery lines of geopolitical tensions and major fronts of the “Cold War.”

The paradigm of a multipolar world implies the arrival of the global policy of the new world based on the principles of reasonable sufficiency and balance of global politics of the great powers, acting as the world’s poles or gravitating towards one or the other world centers of power. A multipolar world involves the creation of a flexible system of political poles, a center of gravity of world politics, connected by a plurality of flexible and elastic ties. In the case of the strain of such a system as a result of external factors (threats) or the destruction of one of the poles, these ties are not broken, but take a new form. The global system based on the architecture of multi-polarity, then, relatively easy restores its original shape. This distinguishes it from the concentric system that existed in the era of a unipolar world, when the crisis that engulfed a single pole, was able to destroy the entire system, causing decay processes of vertically aligned relationships between the “world center of political decision-making” (a role that the US has long advocated) and subordinate elements (steps) from the other actors in international relations, supporting global politics of Washington, or that forced to put up with it.

The financial crisis of 2007 – 2009 demonstrated how fragile a world order can be, based on just one pole. In this regard, a multipolar system that is structurally much more complex and multifactorial, in practice, is more flexible with respect to the new challenges and threats and better performs the functions of global security and stability, although it requires constant reform, modernization and underlying audit of forms and mechanisms of development of collective management decisions. This system is more reasonably arranged and more accurately meets the requirements of common sense that is returning to world politics as a noosphere component, the ideology of rational world order, a reasonable policy, and as “smart power.” Even countries traditionally following a policy of non-alignment, maneuvering between the world centers of power, and entering into temporary alliances that are dependent on the current situation and current problems have to admit the advantages of this form of organization of the system of international relations.

It is the principle of reasonableness, material and spiritual harmony (of value) of the world, based on the noosphere thinking and guaranteeing a reasonable arrangement and organization of life as an individual, as well as society as a whole, and not the principle of political expediency, so beloved and practiced by American neo-realists, that is increasingly the main argument for choosing one or another variant of design of international relations. Curiously, many of these ideas that have not lost its relevance for almost a hundred years, can be found in the works of V.I. Vernadsky, dedicated to the noosphere principle of social organization 19. The moral and ideological foundation that these ideas have formed, becomes extremely popular in today’s society of liberal-democratic type, while experiencing a protracted financial, economic, spiritual and moral crisis.

In recent years, leading American, Western European and Russian scientists and experts are increasingly paying attention to what tools exactly are used to create a new world order, how the architecture is formed and the institutional design is planned, and how new concepts of global ideology are embedded in the consciousness of citizens. It is obvious that direct coercion, carried out by some states against others, or collective coercion carried out by authorized agents of some States in accordance with the mandate selected by the UN Security Council, i.e., favorite American “hard power,” cannot serve as the main tool of evolutionary and revolutionary changes. It is because only the instrument that is able to work on this system without destroying its structure and without breaking the bonds between its elements can be effective in the rapidly increasing complexity of the architecture of international relations.

“Hard power” cannot serve as such a tool for various reasons: it is too straightforward, does not consider “local nuances” (i.e., cultural and civilizational diversity of the social environments, in which there is a formation of various elements and configurations of the new system of international relations), and it cannot provide a result that would remain unchanged for a long time in the absence of a constant power support.

Political pragmatism, professed by American neo-realists, in fact, turns into a bazaar bargaining process, in which reasonable grounds of some decisions are often deliberately swept aside or ignored in favor of private interests and short-term benefits. Under these conditions, a “soft power” tool of political influence and the driving force of social and political transformation of the modern world is put forth. This tool is not based on the power factor, but on the “soft” information and psychological impact technology on the individual consciousness of citizens and collective (mass) consciousness of society at the level of individual countries, nations and the international community as a whole.

The term “soft power” was already being actively discussed for more than twenty years since its introduction by John Nye. 20 We can agree with A.V. Budaev that the interpretation of John Nye and that of his neoliberal followers of “soft power” is that it is the ability to control the political consciousness and behavior of rivals by influencing their system of values, attitudes and cultural and civilizational archetypes. 21 It can be argued that the concept of “soft power” has become one of the most popular in the international political discourse and practice in the struggle for power and influence in the international arena.

Tools and techniques of “soft power” manage the mass consciousness and behavior of the various sectors of society, political elites and interest groups, acting on their value system, introducing into the consciousness their own values ​​(i.e., values ​​of the democratic world) and the corresponding imperatives of political behavior. Their actions are extremely efficient in the formation of a multipolar world and the erosion of the Westphalian system. In situations, where the system of international relations and in its current structure of international security mechanisms block the attempts by some great powers to assert their interests with the help of “hard power”, the “soft power” easily overcomes these barriers and enters the ultimate goal of defeat – the human psyche, providing its voluntary obedience and obedient following of directives coming from the architects and writers of “soft power.” All this causes a protest of the civilized society, which stands for a global governance, where the collective human mind, noosphere factor, and a reasonable way of life would have played a decisive role, and not the technology to manipulate consciousness.

Russia is not an exception. The concept of “soft power” in modern Russia is also gaining the popularity, which, however, the Russian side gives its own reading and interpretation. In the legal aspects, the Russian definition of “soft power” first appeared in the new edition of Foreign Policy Concept of Russia in February 2013. It states that “soft power” is a “comprehensive tool for solutions of foreign policy goals supported by the possibility of civil society, information and communication, humanitarian and other alternative methods of classical diplomacy and technologies.” 22 Its appearance (actually meaning the institutionalization of the term) in the new Russian Foreign Policy Concept is not accidental. It is already impossible to ignore the fact that in the modern world “soft power” is becoming one of the key factors in the formation and instruments of international relations at all levels of the global political system, from global to regional and local level.

Moreover, the more and more common opinion is that “soft power” is an organic attribute of the great powers. States that play supporting roles in world politics, usually do not possess such power in their own resources. The presence of “soft power” advocates a kind of marker that its source, a State, is on the verge of becoming a global power with global interests in various regions of the world and is ready to conduct a global foreign policy.

According to A.V. Budaev, the Consul General of the Russian Federation in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil responds to such criteria today by actively forming its own format of “soft power”, different from the North American one, and no less actively implementing it in its relations with other countries, including Russia. 23

The appearance of the term “soft power” in the main Russian foreign policy documents indicates that Russia intends to be actively involved in the global processes of formation of a new world order, using her own model of “soft” political influence. However, it should be noted that the Russian definition of “soft power” given in the new edition of the Russian Foreign Policy Concept of 2013 largely coincides with the classical definition of American public diplomacy.

Thus, according to E. Gullion (1967), public diplomacy is “the relations between states that do not involve the traditional ties of government.” 24 It is difficult to judge today, whether this is a coincidence or if it is by design. Perhaps, at the time of the generation of this definition, the noosphere went “wacko” and meanings got reversed, giving the original interpretation of the concept of the “soft power.” It is worth noting that the confusion in the senses can hardly lead to anything beneficial for the country. It is a sensible approach that everyone in the world called everything by their proper names.

If in Russia’s foreign policy today, the concept of “soft power” can actually be replaced with the concept of American public diplomacy. It is public diplomacy that will develop in Russia, and the “soft power” format will never be formed. Meanwhile, public diplomacy cannot replace the “soft power,” as public diplomacy is only a conductor of “soft power,” the channel of bringing the “soft power” influence to target audiences, and nothing more. All of this becomes clear when approaching the analysis of the Russian concept of “soft power” (more precisely, foundations of this concept emerging today) from the standpoint of the theory of noosphere of V.I. Vernadsky. Thus, it is a reasonable approach to Russia’s “soft power” that allows for the correct accents in the processes that accompany the institutionalization of “soft power” in Russian foreign policy space.

At the same time in the US the debate over the role of the “soft power” in the formulation and implementation of foreign State policy is gradually eroding. “Soft power” in American political discourse has long been superseded by the new concept of “smart power.” According to American scientists and researchers, “smart power” is a tool of foreign policy influence, providing reasonable a combination of resources and tools of “soft” and “hard power,” practically at the foundation of the teachings of the noosphere that had penetrated to the West. In its simplest sense, it is a combination (or rather, symbiosis) of the two earlier forms of instrumental impact on the global political processes, the “hard” and “soft power.” Rallying point for the use of this arsenal (set) of instruments of political influence is a factor of the mind, choosing from a set of “hard” and “soft” tools the one that is most relevant to the current political situation and problems to be solved in these circumstances. Thus, the eternal contradiction and inconsistency of US foreign policy is removed, as well as it has shown to work in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in Central Asia,25 that caused the conflict of interests and values of realism and liberalism (in their latest versions). In this case, according to some scientists, the Americans used the tools of “soft” and “hard power” to “smart” approach in various combinations and in a variety of combination regimens. The choice of “hard” or “soft” instruments depends on how much time is allocated for solving a problem of foreign policy.

For example, if it is necessary to get a specific result at a given point of the political process, “here and now,” then there is nothing more effective than “hard power,” based on a direct, open field coercion, with extensive use of military methods and techniques of “convincing” the opponents. However, the results achieved by the “hard power” are short-lived; their conservation needs constant power support, constant external pressure on society that “embarked on the path of democracy,” the decisive force suppressing opposition. Once such external pressure is released, the situation immediately returns to the starting point of the political process, where the outside interference of a foreign state in the form of “hard power” occurred. An example of such a situation can be Afghanistan and Iraq (its current Shiite government, expressing friendly feelings towards Iran).

If there is time to prepare for foreign political operations, the US uses “soft power,” which requires a lot of time to prepare for the operation, but gives the results that remain unchanged for a long time. Even in the event that there are no military forces in the region, the results remain stable. Some political regimes and their leaders in the CIS and Georgia are an example of the results of applying the Anglo-Saxon “soft power.” They came to power as a result of the so-called color revolutions, which, by far, are the most striking embodiment of organizational technologies of the “soft power.”

The intelligent approach to strategic objectives, both military and political, acts as the main driving force of “smart” impact. Americans get frames for “smart power” from the classical university environment. 26 However, the noosphere component of the North American “smart power” is objectively limited to Anglo-Saxon cultural and civilizational sector of general knowledge, Anglo-Saxon paradigm and liberal democratic worldview. As the results of the US foreign policy show in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, where the Americans have not yet achieved a truly democratic society (e.g. in Afghanistan), the Anglo-Saxon world cannot serve as a universal platform for contemporary social formations, since it requires an individual approach, based on the knowledge and principles of intelligent life. Moreover, the American approach to the formation of a new world order is the technology of the transformation of the political space and the dismantling of the political regimes that do not fit into the American model of democracy, which destroy the noosphere shell of human civilization that an outstanding scientist, V.I. Vernadsky, mentioned so often in the works. It is the increasing chaos in international relations that is already prone to anarchy due to the selfish behavior of actors and the application of the Anglo-Saxon technology of the so-called “controlled chaos” in the interests of building a new world order.

Indeed, the formation of a new multipolar world is accompanied by the global increase in political instability, by the multiplicity of international conflicts (such as longstanding ones, as well as completely new, which manifest themselves in a whole range of the early unknown shapes and colors), and by political chaos, covering entire regions hit with the wave of color revolutions, rather than by increased levels of world order, by the formalization of international relations and by the growth of structuring of the modern world community. We were able to observe these features in 2011 – 2013 in North Africa and in the Middle East, in the chain of coups that have been generally termed as the “Arab Spring.” Today, there are few who doubt that the “Arab spring” revolutions are Anglo-Saxon color revolutions, adapted to the cultural and civilizational environment and the conditions of traditional Eastern societies. Many see a pronounced American trail in these pseudo-revolutions that emerges when the Arab revolutionaries use classical templates, diagrams and color revolutions scenarios developed by the Americans and having characteristic features that are easily detectable by the observers.

Nevertheless, in the Arab world it is not the external organization of coups that is alarming in color revolutions, but the special technologies that Americans use for “atomization” of Eastern societies for the destruction of their clan-tribal community structure, transforming frightened individuals who have lost the support of the race, under whose protection they used to be all the time, into a community of individuals. This protection, with which eastern communities provide its members, is an insurmountable barrier to the technology of mind control that simply cannot get through to the consciousness of their victims and targets. This is the reason why the classical Anglo-Saxon technologies of color revolutions developed for Western-type societies, for the democratic or semi-democratic societies of consumption and winning individualism, proved to be ineffective in a different cultural environment, such as in Iran. Generalizing the experience of the failure for the US-British “Green Revolution” in Iran in 2009, the United States completed the classical scheme of color revolutions with two important components: “controlled chaos” technology and controlled chain reaction with feedback, implemented by the Americans in the revolutions of the “Arab Spring.” After two years, they fully proved themselves in the Arab East. It was done, in order to gain control over entire regions, such as the Broader Middle East, or just the Arab East, including the Near East, the Middle East and Africa, in the context of growing political instability

The very ability to manage regions using even the most advanced technologies cause serious doubt among professional political scientists and diplomats. The Americans, however, genuinely believe that this is possible and that they will be successful. They appeal the confidence in the outcome to the success of the color revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen and other countries, where the political chaos that they propagated in the early stages really showed some signs of control. Meanwhile, the noosphere approach to the analysis of this situation gives a forecast of the situation in the regions, which have experienced the color revolutions, as opposed to the expectations of the United States. A sensible approach to life and politics does not allow for a combination of creation and destruction, as well as order directly arising from the growing “controlled chaos.”

It is important to note that the Americans are using technologies for the construction of a new world that have nothing to do with the tools of creation and sharpened only for destruction. Those are the “controlled chaos,” technologies used in a political crisis, with an existing or a specially created (artificial) political instability. It is no coincidence and it has a logical explanation: in the Anglo-Saxon understanding, the process of building a democratic peace is inextricably linked with the destruction of the old structures of the Westphalian system, the devaluation of its values ​​and its deliberate dismantling of institutions, such as the UN. All this does not really fit in with the formal logic, common sense, and reasonable arrangement of life sought today by the progressive mankind. In addition, Americans use chaos technologies that they naively call “manageable,” in their desire to remake the world to their own liberal-democratic standards. This, in turn, allows to doubt that common sense, reason, and principles of rational organization of life of nations, nationalities, ethnic groups and individuals are the basis of the main platform of the Anglo-Saxon foreign policy.

The current policy of the United States in Afghanistan, Iraq, Middle East, North Africa, Iran, as well as the recent events in Ukraine is obviously contrary to the basic principles and laws of the noosphere organization of a modern global society. All this brings a question into the world agenda for the need of an urgent search for a cultural-civilizational and a spiritual-valuable platform that could replace the Anglo-Saxon idiom of global democratization in the foundation of the emerging multipolar world, or at least make it a competitive alternative. In our view, the noosphere outlook, suggesting a reasonable approach to the organization of human life and society should become this new platform.

There are certainly quite a few compelling reasons for such a conclusion.

First: the noosphere outlook assumes a reasonable conversion of the existing world order and the system of international relations, in order to transition to the new architecture of international relations and their institutional design accompanied by an increase in collective intelligence of human civilization. “Noosphere, created in the process of evolution of man and nature, requires a qualitatively new approach: global governance of planetary processes.” 27 The system of international relations and the emerging world order are integral parts of the noosphere.

Second: the noospheric world view considers all of humanity, all of civilization and culture as a single matter of human civilization, which, combined with knowledge (noosphere), becomes a model of the cosmos, of the universe. The evolution of the modern world is inextricably linked with the evolution of the human mind and its ability to make informed decisions and to choose reasonable alternatives even in the face of political turmoil. The transformation of the world order is determined by objective historical process, the homeostasis, in which the poles of a multipolar world play the role of the fundamental constants that define the configuration of the system of international relations. In these circumstances, it is the noosphere approach that creates opportunities for the fullest realization of the creative potential of the mind. American ideas of the universal (compulsory) democratization and widespread imposition of liberal-democratic values, in terms of knowledge of the noosphere, look like a specifically induced interference that may cause a reaction to strengthen horizontal links in the emerging world and in world politics and activate the processes of active formation of a single universal rational of the planetary civilization.

Third: V.I. Vernadsky’s ideas of noosphere imply the negation of cultural and civilizational segregation and the selection of the Western Anglo-Saxon civilization, which serve as the basis of the modern Western liberal-democratic expansion. Reasonable approach to the formation of a new world order that is replacing the decaying Westphalian system stems from the principles of rational organization of life and, therefore, is in high demand in those societies that seek to resist the expansion of the United States and attempt to maintain or even revive the unipolar world. Reason dictates that the time of the unipolar world already gone forever. The harmonization of the coexistence of man and nature in a particular environment, the noosphere, is coming to replace it.

The ideas of the noosphere policy, based on a special Russian cultural-civilizational outlook and on a reasonable approach to contemporary global politics and international relations, represent a global value because it is the first attempt to put forward a real alternative to the ideological concepts of the USA, based on realism, liberalism and constructivism – the classical school of American political thought. This is not only a real alternative, but the best alternative in the BATNA space, about which so much has been written by famous American political scientists, such as Fisher and Ury. 28 This alternative voluntarily (without imposing), not forcibly proposed by political nations and peoples of the modern world of the Russian civilization, is devoid of the mechanisms of oppression and belittling of national dignity of some nations in favor of others that the United States are so fond of doing. Its powerful civilizing force that is associated with the great concepts and ideas of V.I. Vernadsky born in the depths of Russian cosmism, is an organic expression of hopes, dreams and aspirations of the Russian people and, thus, are so different from any Western concepts of democracy. The value system of the noospheric doctrine, based on the original natural values ​​of the Russian civilization, is stable and not prone to drift, where the basic values ​​and values ​​of Western democracies are today. New concepts and currents of the political thought, born on the fundamental basis of the noospheric thinking and the noosphere world, are successfully developed through the ideas of V.I. Vernadsky, applying them to the currently existing real political practice.


  1. Color Revolutions and the Problems of Dismantling the Political Regimes in a Changing World


Color revolutions are a technology of the implementation of coups and of external control of the political situation in the country, under the conditions of an artificially created political instability, where the pressure on the government takes the form of a political blackmail, using the youth protest movement as a tool.

In spite of the significant differences of states, where they break out, (in the geopolitical, social, and economic terms, and the international situation) they all fit into the same organizational chart that involves organizing the pattern of the youth protest movement, converting it into a political crowd and using this power against the current government as an instrument of political blackmail. This clearly indicates that the color revolutions, in principle, cannot be the realizations of the objective hopes and aspirations of the majority of the population.

The purpose of any color revolution is a coup, i.e. a seizure and hold of power by force.

The objects of the color revolutions are power and power relations; its subject is the political regime.

Color revolutions have necessary and sufficient conditions for their success.

A necessary condition for the implementation of a color revolution is the existence of political instability in the country, accompanied by the current government crisis. If the political situation in the country is stable, it is necessary to artificially destabilize it.

A sufficient condition is the presence of a specially organized (in the form of a special network) youth protest movement.

The characteristics of color revolutions are:

1) The impact on power is exercised in a special form of political blackmail

2)Youth protest movement serves as the main tool for influencing the power.

The color revolutions only resemble real revolutionary movements. Unlike the real revolutions, caused by the objective development of the historical process, the color revolutions are technologies that are successfully masquerading as natural processes. They differ in the level of an almost theatrical drama that Western political scientists are diligently trying to pass off as natural and spontaneous manifestations of the will of the people that suddenly decided to regain the right to govern their own country.

At the heart of the technological scenario of a color revolution is the Anglo-Saxon (North American) ideology of democratization, suggesting the export democracy and the democratic institutions and values ​​in the neighboring countries.54 In practice, only their authors and their developers, the Anglo-Saxons, are able to use the technologies of color revolutions. In any country where the color revolution began to unfold, we look for the trail of North America.

There are two versions of the explanation of the causes of the color revolutions: the version of spontaneity and a version of the recreation of the color revolutions (random and not). Both versions have a right to exist, and both are not certain.

Supporters of spontaneity of the color revolutions insist that the cause of the revolution is the objective social contradictions that are manifested in the forms of popular uprisings and mass protests of the “oppressed” people. Poverty, fatigue regimes, the craving for democratic change, and demographic situation are cited as such reasons.

Meanwhile, when we look at the socio-political situation in almost every country where there was a color revolution, it often turns out that the existing contradictions and social breaks were not their main and only reason, although they have become a catalyst for the subsequent events.

For example, in Egypt, until the color revolution there were the so-called subsidy for tortillas, providing access to the main product, the Corn tortillas, for the poorest segments of the population. In the slums of Cairo, however, on the roof of each hut there is a satellite TV dish, and Libyan nationals received welfare (and a lot of other benefits), which was so great that people stopped working and put to work the visiting guest workers from Egypt and other African countries; the standard of living in Tunisia, the most democratic of all authoritarian countries in Africa, became very close to the South of France (Provence and Languedoc), and even exceeded southern Italy. One of the reasons for the burst of protest movements in Syria is that Assad decided (without any pressure) to soften the authoritarian regime and began to conduct liberal reforms that the Islamists immediately took advantage of, as well as their supporters from the United States, etc.

The supporters of the recreation of the color revolutions indicate multiple repeatable scenarios (a democratic template) of these revolutions in various countries around the world that are very different both in terms of the political system, and in the nature of the socio-political problems. They claim that all the colored revolutions are “​a blueprint,” and the likelihood of the recurrence of the same event on the same pattern in nature is negligible. On the basis of these findings, supporters of the recreation of the color revolutions point to a number of grounds, on which any externally spontaneous popular revolt can set a color revolution.

Every color revolution has its own features that show technology.

First, it is a feature of the Anglo-Saxons’ external politics, their distinctive style of work.

Second, it is a strict correspondence of the revolution to the plan of any base template (or scenario). All color revolutions develop in the same scenario using a template pattern.

Third, this is how the youth protest movement is organized and used, which is controlled by the technology of reflexive control (it is also an American invention).

Fourth, there are certain recurring features in the selection and the nomination of the revolutionary leaders.

Fifth, in some color revolutions, revolutionary ideology that allows recognizing them as fake is completely absent. This is due to the fact that the Americans, the authors of the color revolutions, do not always understand the mentality and the psychology of the people. They want to bring “the value of a true democracy,” and cannot offer an ideology that is organically accepted by all sectors of society.

The color revolutions are often called the technology or instruments of the “soft power” as it is understood in the perspective given to this term by John Nye.55 This approach, based on the principle of analogy (externally color revolutions are non-coercive techniques of regime change), is not quite accurate and is often misleading, causing the color revolutions to be considered softer and, therefore, more a progressive and a less dangerous form of social influence on authoritarian regimes. Thereby, a campaign to promote color revolutions unfolds, in defiance of any form of self-armed coups.

In our view, it is difficult to determine what is actually a more dangerous phenomenon for the international security as a whole: the color revolutions or local armed conflicts. The modern Middle East, immersed in color revolutions of the “controlled chaos,” is a full proof. It still seems pretty obvious that modern color revolutions in nature are not a manifestation of the “soft power.” Color revolutions are nothing but an organizational form of state intimidation (i.e. blackmail, the object of which is an independent and sovereign state), masquerading as a legend and slogans of the national revolution.

Color revolutions are not “soft power.” It is a hacking tool of democratic regimes in transition, copied from the Anglo-Saxon model by the non-Western countries which have tendencies of imitating. One could argue that Americans not only created a model of the democratic structure of the state, focused on the “export,” but also took care of the creation of the special tools for its demolition and dismantling, if it suddenly became necessary. In today’s world, such tools that act as master keys to break the political regimes of the Western liberal type, are the technologies of the color revolutions.

Special attention is given to questions related to the risk of escalating a color revolution in a civil war or an international conflict, in the phase of an armed confrontation. Color revolutions use military force as a factor of the service function that their writers and technologists resorted in case of emergency. Military force for color revolutions is not the main tool. Its use is rather forced and secondary in character. Nevertheless, it is impossible not to draw attention to the fact that modern color revolutions really create the conditions and reasons for the subsequent military intervention.

There is only one underlying model of a color revolution. It is the creation of the protest movement and turning it into a political crowd and directing its aggression to the current government, in order to get it to voluntarily withdraw from public office and to give up control of the country. This pressure on the government always takes the form of blackmail and ultimatums with threats of massacres and, rarely, physical attacks against the dissidents. If the government starts to resist, a color revolution enters a phase of armed rebellion. Sometimes this is accompanied by an armed revolt with the intervention of the Western countries, as it did in Libya, and may be in Syria.

The model of color revolution consists of five main stages or phases:

  1. Any color revolution begins with the formation of the country’s organized protest movement – the main driving force of the future color revolution.

At the initial stage, before the big opening, the protest movement is generated in the form of a network of conspiratorial cells, each of which has a leader, and three or four activists on call. These networks bring together thousands of activists that make up the core of the future of the protest movement. Before becoming the leaders of the cells, many of them are trained in special centers, specializing in promoting democratization.

The activists are recruited from the youth environment that is extremely mobile and easily entrained with different bright appeals and slogans.

The network principle of the organization of the protest movement resembles the principle of global terrorist organization networks, which, in fact, is the same organizational technology.

  1. This network emerges from the underground to the streets of major cities at the same time and on cue, which is called the incident. Such incident can be any event, shocking society and getting a powerful public outcry. As a rule, it is initiated on purpose.

In the revolutions in Serbia (Bulldozer Revolution 2000), Ukraine (2004), and Georgia (2004), the results of the elections were such incident, which were declared fraudulent. The revolution in Tunisia (2010), a country with an authoritarian regime, began with the self-immolation of a trader on one of the central squares of the capital: an insignificant event across the country.

It is important that the incident would attract the attention of the whole society and would be the subject of extensive discussion, interpretation, a rise of universal excitement, and it would initiate spontaneous forms of mass behavior. 3. After the incident occurred, the protest network rises from the underground to the streets, where a group of activists of the cells become a catalyst for massive spontaneous processes, involving all major sectors of the population.

The mechanisms to mobilize the conflict are turned on, one of which is the “Twitter revolution” – involvement through social networks.

The cells begin to rapidly grow with citizens that are dragged into a spontaneous protest movement and that they pushed to take part in mainly out of fear for their future. The overall mood of anxiety leads to the fact that the consciousness of men that goes into the so-called borderline and becomes subject to a mass panic reactions, general hysteria, often manifested at the level of reflexes and instincts. From this point, there is only one step from becoming a mass protest of the community into the crowd of protesters.

  1. The next step in the scheme of a color revolution is the formation of a political crowd. To do this, a large enough area (Maidan) needs to be chosen that could accommodate large masses.

The activists lead their elected protesters to this square, where there is a complete fusion of the participants into a single mass during the hours of the meeting, known in psychology as the crowd. There is a complete emotional fusion of individuals with the crowd, where bright ”revolutionary” identification symbolism begins to be to be used, in order to identify “their own” and “foreign”.

In these conditions, the mind controlling technologies affect the crowd, introducing new values ​​and imperatives, and reprogramming a person . It is these technologies that are used in Protestant totalitarian sects.

It creates the conditions to sustain the existence and functioning of the crowd: financial security, tents, hot meals, clothing, money for the activists, means of attack (and armature …), and etc. The “Home Front Command” is well-organized.

  1. On behalf of the crowd, crucial requirements come to those in power using the threat of mass riots or, at least, of the physical destruction. In that case, if the government does not sustain this pressure, it is swept by fury. If the government accepts the challenge and is ready to fight, the crowd becomes a major ram factor that the authors color revolution apply to those in power. In the future, such a revolution inevitably turns into a rebellion, and in some cases into a civil war, accompanied by military intervention.

The evolution of organizational charts and patterns of color revolutions are pretty well traced by the example of the revolutions of the “Arab Spring.” Thus, the “Arab Spring” revolutions have their own characteristics that distinguish them structurally and technologically from its predecessors – the color revolutions in Central Asia, Ukraine, Georgia, and even the so-called “Green Revolution” in Iran in 2009. The feedback mechanisms (iterative mechanism is well known to mathematicians) and “controlled chaos” are added to the classical scheme to implement a color revolution (i.e., a coup) that allow to control the political instability not only within a single, relatively small countries (such as Ukraine or Georgia) but across the entire region (Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, and etc.).

The feedback mechanism is a special correction mechanism that allows it to identify and to eliminate the shortcomings in the implementation of schemes of the color revolutions in real-time, modifying them under specific conditions of the particular social and cultural environment. Such a mechanism was first worked out in the revolutions of the “Arab Spring,” in which coups in the countries that are victims of a wave of the “forced democratization,” are not carried out simultaneously but sequentially along a chain. Each subsequent implementation scheme of color revolution took the mistakes made ​​in the implementation of the previous scheme into account. The introduction of color revolutions into technological schemes of feedback mechanisms in real-time, based on iterative schemes, is a direct result of their evolutionary development, allowing the immersion of entire regions and not just individual countries into the revolutionary processes.

The mechanism of the “controlled chaos” is another evolutionary breakthrough in the technology of color revolutions, which allows the use of “democratic schemes and templates,” originally developed for the Western type society (individualistic) in terms of traditional Eastern societies, that are resistant to the promotion of democratic and liberal values in their original form. In order for the Western and Anglo-Saxon technology of the colored revolutions started to work in this kind of socio-cultural environment, the traditional structure of the social order must first be destroyed, which is what the technology of the “controlled chaos” does (and very successfully). The main goal of these technologies is to prepare a traditional society to use technology to control mass political consciousness and mass political behavior that is achieved with the help of its “atomization,” the breaking of the bonds between individuals and the community, the introduction Western type surrogate individualism into the consciousness of citizens.

Modern developments in Ukraine (2013-2014) are also relevant to the color revolutions, as they repeat the Egyptian scenario exactly. Therefore, it can be expected that the color revolution in Ukraine also opens the way for foreign intervention, as in Libya, and may be in Syria.

In the events in Ukraine, we can discern some signs familiar to the color revolutions in the CIS, Georgia, and Central Asia, that engulfed Ukraine in the 2000s in the “orange” frenzy, as well as in the recent revolutions of the “Arab Spring.”

Comparing the current Ukrainian color revolution with recent events in the Middle East and North Africa, it should be noted that the scenario of the Ukrainian revolution of 2014 is exactly the same as the revolution in Egypt, that destroyed the Mubarak regime, and the Egyptian president was dismissed from his post and imprisoned. There are too many coincidences, which are:

1) the nature of popular unrest, which escalated into riots that were passed as the spontaneous, but in fact were not.

2) a well-organized protest movement, supported by paramilitary militias, the Ukrainian nationalists, had been transferred to Kiev from the Western regions of Ukraine, where they trained all these years in special camps, studying the tactics of resistance of the special units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Security Service of Ukraine, as well as the tactics of the war in an urban setting.

3) the blockade of the authorities to seize the strategic and vital infrastructure of the capital.

4) the use of mechanisms for conflict mobilization of a community, involving it in the conflict on the side of the “representatives of the people in revolt,” inciting hatred against the regime, the wide ideological treatment of those that come under the influence of radicals

5) large-scale information war

6) a well-organized supply of the rebels with everything they need to continue the fight, including special equipment, clothing, food, financial means used for the services of mercenaries and provocateurs.

These similarities of the Egyptian and the Ukrainian revolutions, however, are limitless. In both cases, under the guise of the people in revolt, organized and well-armed groups of rebels are included in the armed struggle: in Egypt – the Islamists , and in Ukraine – the Western nationalists. For the public this struggle that has all the signs of the beginning of the Civil War, is presented as a “national liberation movement, deployed by the people in revolt against the criminal regime.”

In both cases, “people in revolt” were opposed by the weak, indecisive and corrupt power that is afraid to take decisive action and that is slow when it comes to making a choice, torn between recent allies that tend to distance themselves from it the new conditions, makes contradictory statements, demonstrating their helplessness and discrediting itself perhaps more effectively than the opponents do. That is how Mubarak behaved. Until the last moment, he believed that the US would come to his aid and save him from his own play of a color revolution, hoping that this is just an educational measure. His hopes, however, were dashed just like the expectations of Viktor Yanukovych that an almost European Ukraine is not the wild Egypt; Ukrainians are not illiterate Arabs, and all will settle by itself.

A few years, Yanukovych repeated the exact behavior of Mubarak: despite the obvious threat posed by the burgeoning insurgency, which began with really a trifling unrest in the so-called Independence Square, he did nothing to stop this revolution. Instead of tough but fair measures to restore order (as Alexander Lukashenko did with the “Jeans Revolution”), Yanukovych started an incomprehensible political game, playing with the West (EU and US), then with Russia, hoping that Ukraine will receive the next tranche of financial support from both sides in the background of his “intended great role in containing chaos.”

Yanukovych’s weakness was the reason that at first he lost the support of the electorate, and then his supporters turned away from him that began to rapidly disperse or just run over to the enemy’s side. In these critical conditions, Yanukovych still ordered the suppression of the power of the Maidan, but he did not have the willpower to finish it. When the rebels pulled in the illegal armed nationalist groups to the Maidan and began to form squads of “self-defense” out of the the bulk of the protesters, the suppression of the rebellion was only possible at the cost of bloodshed. Yanukovych did not dare to do this for the fear of, not so much, the killings, but for the safety of their capital and accounts in foreign banks, which he could be deprived of overnight could after being recognized as an “international criminal offender.”

Yanukovych’s playing around with the European Union also played a fatal role. FIrst, the EU insisted that Yanukovych would strongly suppress the riots in the capital, restoring the rule of law. When he finally started doing so and the first victims appeared, the EU immediately began to blame Yanukovych’s regime for human rights violations and the genocide of his own people, as well as the urgent need to make concessions to the rebels and to negotiate with them. When Yanukovych, following recommendations, went to negotiate with the rebels, they thought it was the recognition of the weakness of the government and intensified their actions, entering a phase of uncompromising armed struggle. As a result, Yanukovych and his team just escaped from Kiev, instead of continuing to fight or take responsibility for their actions.

The differences between Egypt and Ukraine are really small: in Egypt, the Arabs came to the Cairo Square, and in Kiev they were the Ukrainian nationalists, and ordinary citizens, dissatisfied with the dominance of the Donetsk clan. In fact, in both cases citizen became “tired of those in power,” which served as the catalyst for the color revolution from both, the Mubarak regime and the regime of Yanukovych. That is what appeals to the nationalists, forgetting the obvious analogy, which can be traced between the Ukrainian and Egyptian scenarios.

In similar revolutions in Syria and in Libya, the Islamists were the ones against the regimes, with which these regime have been struggling for decades; The Ukrainian nationalists are composed of many Catholics, Greek Catholics, and many of those that adapted some Protestant sects, mostly totalitarian in character that preach extremism. In fact, in both cases, the success of the coup became ​​possible only because of the weakness and the infinite fluctuations of the ruling regime, initially an extremely self-confident one, and then quickly fallen in spirit, serving as an example that gave a signal to its supporters “to escape if you can.” In Egypt, moderate Islamists came to power after the revolution, and in Ukraine, extreme nationalists seized power, which is about the same.

During the entire time that North Africa and the Middle East were swept by the tsunami of the color revolutions of the “Arab Spring” and the world’s attention was focused on to the tragedy of Libya and Syria, Russia has not ceased to argue, when will the tide of the color revolutions return, and when will the last bastion, the regime of Bashar al-Assad, be swept away. It was pretty obvious for all that the implementation of new technologies of the color revolutions, based on the “controlled chaos,” having a run-in the Arab East, thereby will not be limited to the East. A question arose: which country is next in line to be thrown in the chopper? Will it be Iran, where the so-called “green revolution” almost reached its goal in 2009?

The states of Central Asia were called as the following objectives of the color revolutions, where the previous model of the color revolutions failed to ensure the stability of the puppet regimes that came to power in the wake of a color revolution. Belarusian partisan regime has long been a strong annoyance for the whole of the West, something resembling the Gaddafi regime; some had mentioned China. However, the wave of the color revolutions did not continue to format the Muslim East, and suddenly emerged in Ukraine, directly on Russia’s borders. Hence, the obvious conclusion: the purpose of the new wave of the color revolutions is not Ukraine and not the Yanukovych regime, but Russia and its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Russia, based on the Ukrainian experience, must prepare for the fact that it will be the next target in the list of the Anglo-Saxon color revolutions that already have the experience in eastern traditional societies and under a super-centralized state built on the principle of the “power vertical,” not having airbags in the form of a civil society. A country needs a state concept to counter the color revolutions, both in Russia and, in general, throughout the CIS, having its implementation be backed by road map. It would be naive to hope that this time the wave of the color revolutions will bypass Russia. There are no miracles or exceptions in politics. It’s just that the Americans have been searching for approaches to Russia, based on the experience of a test color revolution, the so-called “revolution of the white ribbons.” Finally, this approach is found. Ukraine was nothing more than the last dress rehearsal for a revolution, using a country with a similar mentality, culture and civilization identity.

The situation is similar to Ukrainian, is developing today in Venezuela. Here, a protest movement unfolds, which has all the hallmarks of a classic color revolution. This may mean that the United States, having realized a scenario of a color revolution in Ukraine, used another Russian ally – Venezuela. Moreover, we can say with confidence that this time the US created a wave of color revolutions, not in a single country (Ukraine, for example) or a region, but launched an offensive in several strategic directions making countries, such as Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela their targets, i.e. those countries that are (Ukraine – until February 2014) Russia’s strategic allies.

A color revolution in Venezuela is possible, moreover, it is inevitable. The fact is that due to the credibility and popularity of Venezuela in the Latin American world, the use of brute military intervention by the United States can be ruled out, as it was in Grenada and Panama. Therefore, in the quest to destroy the gains of the Bolivarian revolution and to undermine the pursuit of freedom by the people of Venezuela, the United States will use the “soft power,” “soft” coup technologies, disguised as spontaneous acts of political processes and popular revolutions, the way it was organized in Tunisia, Libya, Syria. Libya, particularly, is an illustrative example, where the color revolution turned into a civil war, and the last one turned into the intervention by France and Great Britain, as well as the United States that later came to the rescue. Of course, Venezuela is not Libya, and here the Americans will use a special scenario, based on all the same basic scheme similar for all the color revolutions. Most likely, the scheme, repeating an armed rebellion of 2013 – 2014 in Ukraine will be applied in Venezuela, which began with “Euro Maidan.”

The first sign. Those protest movements and demonstrations that are currently taking place in the largest cities of Venezuela, is the first sign of the beginning of the color revolution. Please note that the protest demonstrations take place in major cities at the same time, hence, they cannot be considered spontaneous, due to a high degree of synchronization of operations.

The second sign is the coverage of these protests by the Western media, in which there are signs of and the elements of information warfare. There are other signs that definitely do not point to chance and external handling of the protests.

If it is a color revolution, the support for the opposition groups from the outside is a prerequisite of its success. The organization of large-scale protests, even the ones that look spontaneous, is very expensive. None of the forces within the country, sympathetic to the rebels, have such funds. As a rule, the channels of financial income in the country to organize a color revolution are quite easily detected by the financial intelligence.

Preliminary tests of the color revolution scenarios in Venezuela were held during the election campaign, when the Chavistas actually lost (or won by a whisker) in all major cities, but won in provincial areas.

All the signs indicate that the “controlled chaos” technology is used in Venezuela. The “controlled chaos” technology is a technology of destruction of structures and institutions of civil society that can resist the rebels and the participants of the color revolutions. They make the human environment receptive to the slogans of the color revolutions, since technology if the color revolutions were developed by Americans living in a society of individualists and liberals, for similar societies and social formations. The pure technologies of the color revolutions have stalled in the East because society is not liberal there, but organized by the communal, ancestral or tribal basis. The “controlled chaos” destroys a community structure, resulting in a lot of people being deprived of social protection and experiencing feelings of fear and panic, being forced to seek refuge, organizing into a crowd, which is then used by the directors of the color revolutions.

In the case of Venezuela, “controlled chaos” will be necessarily involved to destroy the social unity of those, who gained a lot from the peaceful Chavez revolution, and to weaken the rest of the Hispanic world that may not come to Venezuela to help.

There is a system of measures that help reduce the risk of the color revolutions. It consists of three groups.

The first group of measures is aimed at detecting and blocking financial flows going to finance the protest movement.

The second group of measures is aimed at involving the social base of the protest movement, young people aged 18 to 35, in the activities of the non-governmental organizations of pro-government orientation.

The third group of measures is to create “valves to let off steam” a society to relieve tension that would not allow a society to “overheat” like a steam boiler, and then throw out the accumulated energy in the form of a social explosion.

It is interesting that in the latest works of the Western authors (including British and French) there appear assessments of the color revolutions, which are contrary to the notions of color revolutions as instruments of democratization and formation of a democratic world as imposed by the United States. For example, some scientists are beginning (still quite cautiously) to argue that none of the color revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa have brought prosperity to the Christian world. On the contrary, the “Arab Spring” has stirred up the most dangerous, extremist forces representing Islamism and forced them to withdraw from the deep underground, which the Western countries now have to deal with at the official level.

The “Arab Spring” that began under the banner of democratization of the Arab East, accelerated the retreat of Christianity under the pressure of radical Islam, which strengthened with the beginning of the colored revolutions of the “Arab Spring.” The “Arab Spring,” created with the money and with the help of American and Western European allies, has become for Western Christian civilization that is already experiencing an acute crisis, the beginning of the “Christian winter.” 56

Western Christianity has put down another line of defense. It makes us seriously think about what role today he color revolutions actually play in world politics in the formation of a new world order, and what will it become if the wave of the color revolutions will not be stopped in time.


The modern world is experiencing an era of global change, accompanied by the collapse of the Westphalian system, the growth of the global political instability, the reconfiguring of the system of international relations that existed in the postwar world, international legal nihilism, the devaluation of values ​​and a decrease of the role of international institutions, such as the UN. Even S.V. Lavrov in an interview to the “International Affairs” journal has noted that “the historical processes continue to gain speed. We see this in the acceleration of the deep, as they say, tectonic shifts in the redistribution of power and influence at the global level, in the rapid developments in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as in a number of other areas of the world.” 62 In these circumstances, it is necessary to develop a new platform for the global unification and integration, on the solid foundation where a new architecture of international relations and a new design of international institutions can be built that meet the realities of the emerging multipolar world.


By Manoilo Andrei V., Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor, Department of Political Science, Moscow State University named after MV Lomonosov,
and Karpovich Oleg G., Head of the Centre of the Institute of USA and Canada of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Political Sciences, Doctor of Law, Professor



[1] Kara-Murza S. Revolution Export: Saakashvili, Yushchenko, 2005.
[2] Ryabkov S.A. Latin America Requires a Special Approach // International Affairs. 2012. № 2. p. 14.
[3] Exclusive interview with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov to the “International Affairs” journal. 15:30 09.13.2012.
[4] Budaev A.V. The Role of “Soft Power” in the Russian Foreign Policy (for example, Russian-Brazilian relations). Dissertation of a PhD candidate of Political Science. Diploma Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2014.
[5] Wendt A. Anarchy is What States Make of It: the Social Construction of Power Politics // International Organization. Vol. 46. ​​№ 2. Spring 1992. P. 391-425.
[6] Tsygankov A.P., Tsygankov P.A. Crisis of the Idea of “Democratic Peace” // International Processes, 2005. № 3.
[7] Nye J. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. NY: Public Affairs Group, 2004.
[8] Budaev A.V. The Role of “Soft Power” in the Russian Foreign Policy (for example, Russian-Brazilian relations). Dissertation of a PhD candidate of Political Science. Diploma Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2014.
[9] The Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation //
[10] Ibid., Budaev A.V.
[11] Manoilo A.V. Interests of US Foreign Policy in Afghanistan // National Security / notabene. 2012. № 3. pp. 76-81.
[12] Nikolaev S.A. Central Asia in Geopolitics: American Vector (1991-2008 gg.) // International Affairs. 2011. № 2. pp 27-44.
[13] Ibid., Nikolaev S.A. pp. 27-44.
[14] Message of the President of the Russian Federation to the Federal Assembly, December 12, 2013 //
[15] Budaev A.V. The Role of “Soft Power” in the Russian Foreign Policy (for example, Russian-Brazilian relations). Dissertation of a PhD candidate of Political Science. Diploma Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2014.
[16] Tarle E.V. Napoleon, 1939.
[17] McCain Predicts the “Arab Scenario” in Russia, China and Israel // MKRU.
[18] Wendt A. Anarchy is What States Make of It: the Social Construction of Power Politics // International Organization. Vol. 46. ​​№ 2. Spring 1992. P. 391-425.
[19] Vernadsky V.I. Scientific Thought as a Planetary Phenomenon: Science, 1991.
[20] Nye J. Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. NY: Basic Books, 1991.
[21] Budaev A.V. The Role of “Soft Power” in the Russian Foreign Policy (for example, Russian-Brazilian relations). Dissertation of a PhD candidate of Political Science. Diploma Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2014.
[22] The Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation //
[23] -.The Role of “Soft Power” in the Russian Foreign Policy (for example, Russian-Brazilian relations). Dissertation of a PhD candidate of Political Science. Diploma Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2014.
[24] Nye J. S. Soft Power.The Means to Success in World Politics. NY, 2004.
[25] Nikolaev S. Central Asia in Geopolitics: American Vector (1991 – 2008). // International Affairs. 2011. № 2. S. 27-44.
[26] Chiharev I.A. “Smart Power” in the Arsenal of World Politics // International Processes. 2011. № 1.
[27] Vernadsky V.I. A Few Words about the Noosphere // Successes of Modern Biology, 1944. Vol 18, Iss. 2. pp. 1888-191.
[28] Lebedeva M.M. World Politics. Moscow, 2007.
[29] Manoilo A.V. Valuable Bases of Management Conflict between Civilizations: Russian model // The Moscow Univ. Journal, Cer. 12. Political Science, 2012. № 3. pp. 89-92.
[30] According to the materials of Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Science
[31] According to the materials of the Institute of the Far East, Russian Academy of Science
[32] Coffman B.I., Mironov S. Terrorism: Past and Present. Kazan, 2002, pp 344-346.
[33] According to the materials of the Faculty of Political Science, Moscow State University
[34] Semin A.V. State, Ethnic Groups, Separatism and Human Problems. “Round Table”: Problems, Discussions and Suggestions: Sci. Manual / Institute of International Law and Economics. A.S. Griboyedov, 2000, pp 34-38.
[35] According to the materials of the Institute of Latin America, Russian Academy of Science
[36] Ibid.
* In this paper, an ethnic group refers to the socio-linguistic community.
[38] According to the materials of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Science.
[39] According to the materials of the Institute of Archeology, Russian Academy of Science.
[40] According to the materials of the Institute of the Far East, Russian Academy of Science.
[41] According to the materials of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Science (S. Lukonin).
[42] According to the materials of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Science.
[43] According to the materials of the Institute of the Far East, Russian Academy of Science.
[44] According to the materials of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Science
[ 45] According to the materials of the Institute of Europe, Russian Academy of Science.
[46] Separatist Organizations Operating in the Philippines.
[47] Separatist Organizations Operating in Thailand.
[48] According to the materials of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Science.
[49] Ibid.
[51] According to the materials of the Institute for African Studies, Russian Academy of Science.
[52] of the Institute of the Far East, Russian Academy of Science.
[53] According to the materials of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
[54] Hale H.E. Democracy or autocracy on the march? The colored revolutions as normal dynamics of patronal presidentialism // Communist and Post-Communist Studies. 2006. Vol. 39. № 3. P. 305-329.
[55] Nye J. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. NY: Public Affairs Group, 2004.
[56] Filiu J.-P. The Arab Revolution. Ten Lessons from the Democratic Uprising / London: Hurst & Co, 2011.
[57] Hamas as Bait // Peace and Policy. November 17, 2012. //
[58] Obama is Scared // Peace and Policy. 2012. August 28. // Http://
[59] Obama is Scared // Peace and Policy. 2012. August 28. // Http://
[60] Obama is Scared// Peace and Policy. 2012. August 28. // Http://
[61] Obama Prepares to Accuse Assad in the Use of Chemical Weapons // Peace and Politics. March 22, 2013. // Http://
[62] Exclusive Interview of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov with the “International Affairs” journal.15:30 13.09.2012.


Sharing is caring!


  1. You cannot forget the “sniper’s” at the right moment to justify sending in the armed mercenaries. This will not be possible in Russia. I think this template has been and is currently being used in the USA itself-Occupy was a good example and the Ferguson rebellion, is characterized as a race problem. However, none other than Warren Buffet stated that their was a “class war going on and his side is winning” There is nothing wrong with Liberal Democratic-once we solve the class problem.

Leave a Reply