The post-Soviet space, which accounts for about 20 % of the world's natural resources, encourages financial aristocracy in North America and Western Europe to actively participate in a challenging game that will surely "worth the candle". All feeling: control of the region power, sooner or later, will acquire the status of superpower (and store it in the foreseeable future), will determine the future geopolitical and geo-economic processes in Eurasia and, as a consequence, the fate of the world.

Once ardent defender of the national interests of the United States Henry Kissinger said: "He who controls the oil, able to control and state". This thesis has not lost its relevance. In the early 2000-ies the words of Kissinger will accurately reflect the logic of foreign policy of the Republican administration J. Bush, which, temporarily stimulating the American economy the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, with jealousy will observe how Russia uses its natural resources, mainly oil and gas, to restore its former position in the world. They resorted tried for the whole XX century indirect methods of political action: the dollarization of the national economy, leading to a dependence on credit of U.S. banks; anti-Soviet and anti-Russian propaganda, supported, unfortunately, a number of domestic media; psychological pressure on the Russian ruling circles by increasing the number of military bases at the perimeter boundaries.

Given the military technical heritage of the USSR left mainly for Russia, Washington's strategy, following the traditions of the "cold war", decided once again not to tempt fate by turning to non-violent struggle for power in post-Soviet republics. The neo-cons, ex-in 1950 - 1960 –ies of the Stalinists and Trotskyists, in one voice talking about a permanent democratic revolution. Once again, the followers of Leo Strauss appealed for help to the Institute by albert Einstein, still predominated Dr. gene sharp, the eminent writer of non-violent coups.

1. Georgia 2003 G.: "the rose revolution"

First in the list of successful coups (along with Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan), the Georgian "revolution of roses" is a nonviolent operation, aimed at the displacement of Shevardnadze; part of the "chess game" for control over the supply of Azerbaijani oil. In this regard, we agree with the American economist William Engdahl, who believe that "since the days of the Clinton administration Washington supported all proposals for the construction independent of Russian control of the oil pipeline from Baku, then through Tbilisi to the Black sea and then in the Turkish Ceyhan pipeline" [5, p. 272]. In his characteristic critical style, Engdahl reveals the immutability (since early 1990s) strategy of the USA towards Azerbaijan: "Friendly America President Heydar Aliyev, a former Soviet times a functionary of the Politburo, received the presidency from the hands of the same person, who as a former Ambassador of the USA in the respective countries, was responsible for directing the "rose revolution" of 2003 in Georgia, the operations of the Serbian Otpor in 2000 and the "orange" revolution of 2004 in Ukraine — Richard miles. During the 1992 coup that brought Aliyev to power, miles was Ambassador in Azerbaijan" [5]. Let's get back to Georgia.

Despite the loyalty of Eduard Shevardnadze to the White house, the United States was closely involved in the preparation of the new Georgian elite, which, they conceived, was to take power only from American hands, betraying thereby forgotten Soviet past. Washington is betting on a young lawyer Mikheil Saakashvili, a graduate of Columbia University. Working in the new York law firm "Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler" (in Georgia, the company became a legal partner youth organization "Kmara"), providing legal support to the American oil and gas projects in the CIS, Saakashvili understands in practice for the America of the former Soviet economy. Over time, this aspect of the biography will outline it against other nationals educated in American universities. As competitors for the enviable support he had many during the 1990s, America has invested in the Georgian elite "about a billion dollars, allocated for the stabilization of the budget" [4, p. 93]. As soon as Eduard Shevardnadze has passed the point of no return, passing (summer 2003) "Gazprom" and RAO UES of Russia control over gas and power distribution networks in Georgia, America put Saakashvili in the vanguard of the revolutionary movement.

Strike force of the Georgian coup was built in the manner of Serbian events in 2000: a specialized organization created in 2002 for the change of power, became Kmara, were trained in U.S.-funded camps in Serbia. Financing "Kmara" was implemented through the Soros Foundation, which was also the TV channel "Rustavi-2".

The symbol of the revolution was the red rose, denoting in Christianity, love, purity and Holiness; these way the opposition wanted to demonstrate his difference from the existing regime, which, according to their statements, mired in violence, deceit and corruption.

Opponents of Shevardnadze implemented a wide range of non-violent actions: strikes, boycott, hunger strikes, nonviolent occupation, presentation of falsified documents, the block of information lines, the removal of pointers, the waiver of taxes, waiver positions and work with the government. All these actions coincide exactly with the recommendations of the Institute of albert Einstein, who, staying in the shade, function as a think tank operation.

The conductors of the "rose revolution": the state Department and the U.S. Embassy in Tbilisi, the Soros Foundation, freedom house, the international development Agency of USA, the Republican and Democratic parties, acting through the national democratic Institute and international Republican Institute.

Chronology of events: on 2 November 2003, after the elections to the Parliament of Georgia, the CEC announced the victory of Pro-governmental bloc "For United Georgia"; TV company "Rustavi-2" says that the exit polls won block Saakashvili's "National movement". On November 21, the U.S. state Department calls the election in Georgia was falsified; the next day after this statement, in Tbilisi organized a rally of fifty thousand, the members of which burst at the first meeting of the Parliament during a speech by E. Shevardnadze. On 23 November the Minister of foreign Affairs of Russia I. Ivanov convince Shevardnadze to leave Georgia to avoid bloodshed, and the Supreme Court Annuls the election results; Shevardnadze resigned and the acting President becomes N. Burjanadze. At subsequent presidential elections held in January 2003, Mikhail Saakashvili gaining 96% of the votes and becomes the new head of state.

In General, coup in Georgia demonstrated the unreadiness of governmental structures to confront non-violent operations, which are realized to the accompaniment of the Anglo-American media, in a broad sense - "soft power" of the United States. However, despite the "velvet sheath" regime change, its result was far from non-violent principles of the new Georgian leader took the line to an open confrontation with Moscow, which resulted in the fighting on the territory of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which forced the Russian leadership to use force to restore the status quo.

Georgia, despite the traditional ties with Russia, which is actually incorporated into the Western system of governance, which, in particular, manifested in the displacement of the Russian language English. The Americans, recognizing special interests of our country in Transcaucasia, do fill the information vacuum in the former Soviet Republic. Communication capabilities of the United States, partly implemented during the "rose revolution", creating, in the reasonable opinion of a philosopher-neomarxist S. G. Kara-Murza, new realities "of public consciousness, experiencing a deep and prolonged crisis of ideology: the people becomes a crowd, not even leaving their apartments; he atomservice and loses the ability to maintain a steady position; when the small threat of injury authorities, the population quickly and seemingly unmotivated switches on the side of the party, "which takes"" [1, p. 208].

2. Ukraine 2004: "the orange revolution"

Turning to the analysis of the "orange revolution" in Ukraine, peaking in October-December 2004, please refer to earlier events, prepared domestic political changes. The attention of American political consultants to Ukraine can be traced back to early 2000, when non-governmental organizations have conducted a psychological campaign "Ukraine without Kuchma", which United under his banner wide protest and layers of diverse political forces, from anarchists to ultra-nationalists. During this non-violent operations U.S. refining technologies of management of public and political pressure on the government, once again discredit President Leonid Kuchma.

The goal of American policy was presented to the public by former U.S. Secretary of state Madeleine Albright in early 2004: "the United States is not important who becomes President of Ukraine, but we are very interested in the question of what will be gained by this victory" [2, c. 95]. Americans already openly declared that the choice is predetermined. Bid was made on Yushchenko, whose candidacy was lobbied actively by his wife E. Chumachenko, who worked for a long time, the U.S. state Department and the foreign relations Department of the White house.

The pace of the race was increased in early April 2004, when there were indicated two main contenders for the presidency: V. Yanukovych and Viktor Yushchenko.

At first the initiative was for Pro-government forces: by early 2004, the vast majority of TV channels, electronic and print media were controlled by the presidential structures; February 17, 2004 cease broadcasting popular programs of Radio "Free Europe"/ Radio "Freedom" in Ukrainian, which was conducted in a private range on the network of radio "Dovira". The authorities tried to block the propaganda campaign from the outside, which could seriously disrupt the plans of the supporters of the coup. To support them Madeleine Albright, who visited in early March, Ukraine, multivalued makes the statement: "it is Necessary to strengthen support for independent media and civil society, will require considerable financial expenses and with the assistance of democratic States-neighbours of Ukraine, who will be able to provide objective transmission media and centers for training of people involved in the mobilization of voters monitoringom" [2, c. 96]. In other words, the "iron lady" confirms the intention of the US Administration to change the government in the former Soviet Republic.

This company was involved: national democratic Institute, international Republican Institute Information Agency of the U.S. Agency for international development of the United States, freedom house, the Soros Foundation, the Friedrich Ebert Foundation.

The financing of the coup: "it's Time" and the affiliated organizations have received funding via "PRAVEX-Bank" and "Western Union". Confirming in December 2004, the fact of rendering of material support of Ukrainian opposition leader, member of the house of representatives of the Congress R. Paul, noted that the money for the opposition went through the "Polish-American-Ukrainian cooperation initiative" (PAUCI), which was administered by the American freedom house. PAUCI in turn transferred the state money numerous Ukrainian non-governmental organizations. According to the head of the International Republican Institute L. Kraner, since 2002, the U.S. state Department has provided the Ukrainian opposition with more than 65 million. through various non-governmental organizations. As one of the links, it is called the Eurasia Foundation financed by the Agency for international development of the United States.

The shock troops of the "orange revolution" - the movement "Pora", created by the analogue of the Serbian Otpor and Georgian Kmara. "It's time" appeared in July 2004 by combining 340 regional and national associations. The core of "Time" became the national liberal Association "Freedom of choice". The newly formed organization was supported by such major nationalist groups like UNA-UNSO and "Trident behalf of Stepan Bandera", - the efficient organization of Ukrainian nationalism.

The small rally on the Maidan (Independence Square in downtown Kiev) began immediately after the vote, but since November 24, 2004, after the announcement by the Central election Commission (CEC) preliminary results, according to which the defeated rival Yushchenko — Yanukovych, the opposition called on its supporters to start an open-ended meeting. Supporters of Yushchenko, as well as in their time, the team of Saakashvili made a bid for 124 non-violent method of struggle – the boycott of the elections. Was deployed tent camp, in which, according to S. Kara-Murza, "at the same time there were 2-3 thousand people; in the first day there was about 200 tents, three subsequent about 300" [1, p. 240].

Carefully used in Serbia and Georgia, non-violent action literally paralyzed Ukraine. Tent camps located in the symbolically important parts of the capital on the Central square and government buildings, reflected the 173 and 183 methods of nonviolent struggle ("nonviolent occupation" and "non-violent acquisition of land"), described J. Sharpe in his writings. Organizing numerous rock-concerts and performances of Ukrainian pop stars (36 method Sharpe – "the staging of plays and musical works" [3]), the citizens, in obedience to magnetic "effect of the crowd", often joined the ranks of the protesters. The psychological and physiological characteristics of the crowd, inherent in each person, were used at full capacity.

The symbol under which United Ukrainian opposition, became orange, which, prior to the beginning of active actions on Independence Square, began to run part of the population in items of clothing or accessories (before the second round of elections — the whole of Kiev, thousands of trees of Kiev were full of "orange ribbon"). Then to an orange color was added the symbolism of Victor Yushchenko: the logo with a horseshoe of happiness, "So!" (eng. "Yes!") and orange (Ukr. - Pomaranch), which his supporters gave each other and the opponents. Thus, political scientists have adopted a 7 ("logos, caricatures, and symbols"), 8 ("banners, posters and visual AIDS"), 18 ("the hanging of flags and symbolic colors"), and 19 ("the wearing of symbols") the methods of nonviolent action [3].

The opposition found support among high-ranking "international intermediaries" - the Supreme Commissioner of EU on foreign and security policy J. Solana, OSCE Secretary-General Y. Kubish, presidents of Poland and Lithuania, Aleksander Kwasniewski and V. Adamkus. The actions of these politicians has reinforced the confidence of the team of Viktor Yushchenko, using the appeal of "soft power" the U.S. and the EU to improve its image in the eyes of Ukrainian citizens and world public opinion.

In the bitter struggle for power, which is expressed in numerous non-violent actions, as well as under external pressure (including financial investments in foreign Bank accounts of high-ranking Ukrainian officials), the Supreme Court of Ukraine adopts the decision on repeated presidential elections, the results of which 10 January 2005 President Viktor Yushchenko becomes. On 23 January took place the inauguration of the new President, after which (25 January) the tents of the protesters in Kiev were dismantled.

3. Kyrgyzstan 2005 "Tulip revolution"

A non-violent coup d'état was a success and in Kyrgyzstan. Similar attempts at regime change we will observe in Belarus, Uzbekistan, Armenia and Azerbaijan, but in these States, the authorities will stand ready to use military force – something that will be missed A. Akaeva. As in the case with Georgia and Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan has been involved revolutionary the abyss during the election period: February — March 2005 parliamentary elections, the results of which were unrecognized by observers from the OSCE and the European Parliament (124 method is the "boycott of elections").

The name of the revolution – "Tulip revolution" the researchers attributed to A. Akayev himself, who sought to call this phrase an analogy with the events in Georgia and Ukraine, to emphasize the American part [6].

Given the clan structure of society, their mutual enmity and the struggle for property, events, even for the Americans, took an unexpected turn: were committed several political murders, and peaceful demonstrations often became riots and mass clashes with police. Non-violent discipline, appearing for J. Sharpe the basis for any successful operation was rejected. Meanwhile, the opposition can be blamed in full ignorance of the non-violent methods. Thus, according to the decision taken at the meeting in Jalal-Abad on 15 March, opponents of Akaev create parallel authorities leadership and Coordination Council of National unity of Kyrgyzstan (XNEC) that exactly coincides with the recommendations of Gene sharp, in particular, with its 198 method – "dual sovereignty and parallel government" [3].

On 3 April, the opposition reaches its objective: following the talks between Akayev and the new Parliament speaker Tekebayev in Moscow, a Protocol was signed on the early resignation of the President "in accordance with its own statement."

As often happens in history, the new rulers coming in to replace the old, are rarely better, often they don't even bother to try to eradicate the causes of social unrest, not to mention the methodology for dealing with non-violent coups. This had not escaped and Bakiev: after coming to power in 2005 after A. Akayev, he loses his post in April 2010 after a similar coup. Accusing his predecessor of corruption, nepotism, socio-economic polarization of the rich North and poor South, he had no idea that it would be overthrown to the accompaniment of the same slogans.

The success of the American policy of regime change in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan is supported by the fact that in the countries still dominated the Asian type of leadership. The essence of this type is as follows: the entire state system is locked on one person, depends on his will and sentiment; there are no restraining and guiding force in the face of the aristocracy or oligarchy. He has a yard and close who are just following orders. Simply put, the ruling class is himself, the sole master. Bringing such a leader from power by the revolution, the Director brings down the whole system. In Western countries, the non-violent ousting of the President or Prime Minister would have meant just a change of scenery, as decisions are taken not by these people, and the financial aristocracy, international bankers, as they are called.

4. Russia and America: Alliance or rivalry?

Summarizing the results of the U.S. non-violent coups, it is important to focus on their geopolitical and geo-economic nature. Moreover geopolitics we consciously put in first place, because it is the power, the desire of the subject policy to influence the object, determines the course of historical events. In turn, geo-Economics is a tool of influence on planetary processes, but it is not an end in itself. The reader may verify consistency of this build after reviewing memoirs and biographies of influential financiers XIX and XX centuries: directly or indirectly, they all unanimously asserted that desire power and recognition, to change the world, but not of money; big Finance that drives economic development of national economies, concerned about the problem of savings is not savings for themselves, but for power. The same principle drives the United States in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. US foreign policy is preparing a bridgehead for control of the global development in the twenty-first century, as it did after two world wars. However, this time we are talking not about control over Europe or the British colonial Empire, complex interdependence is forcing America to bring under its banner all the "arc of instability" from West Africa to East Asia. Responsible politicians in Washington and financiers in new York wall Street understand that such a task is impossible without the participation of Russia, its political-military and human potential. Paradoxically, but non-violent revolutions in the former Soviet space, blocking Russian influence in Eastern Europe (Ukraine), the Caucasus (Georgia) and Central Asia (Kyrgyzstan) – are preparing for a global partnership of America and Russia, which the White house intends to play first fiddle.

If to summarize the main currents of modern world politics, we will witness two hypertrend. The first is of ascending nature, expressed in the next: population growth in the oil-rich Arab Muslim countries creates a threat to U.S. access to this macro-region, the rule which provided American hegemony throughout the twentieth century the Second hypertrend down: he lies in the rapid urbanization of North America and Europe where the population loses its former attraction to the distant military campaigns, they become less and less active from a political point of view; state-forming ethnic groups become extinct (and sometimes degenerate), gradually eroded by gene flow. In this situation, only Russia remains a reliable ally of the United States. But to make our country more pliable, America cuts communication arteries, toppling the leaders of the Soviet era. Non-violent revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan – tactical aim of policy. The task of the strategy of the U.S. - Russia; without its participation, no world political structure is not just unreliable, it is impossible and disastrous.

To put pressure on Moscow, America shows substantial engagement in the electoral cycle in 2011 – 2012, during which the Russian political system was in a very vulnerable position. Many non-violent speech the so-called "non-systemic opposition" began after the elections to the State Duma of the VI convocation, held December 4, 2011, and continued during the campaign for elections of the President of Russia, held on March 4, 2012. The protesters claimed that the elections were accompanied by violations of law and mass fraud. One of the main slogans of the majority of shares "For fair elections!". To soften the protests, Moscow goes on assignment: 14 December 2011 resigned from the post of Chairman of the state Duma Boris Gryzlov is leaving, the head of the high Council of party "United Russia".

Supporting anti-government protests, the White house in the person of its press-Secretary Dzh. Carney called the protests a positive sign of democracy support in Russia.

This time the symbol of antigovernment protests becoming a white ribbon. Following the prescriptions of political scientists, the opposition has used 123 and 124 methods of nonviolent action - boycott of legislative bodies boycott of elections and. Not behind the protesters and leaders of the Duma factions – Gennady Zyuganov and Vladimir Zhirinovsky, seeking to win over to their side population, negative attitudes to the "Unified Russia" and the Prime Minister. So, for example, speaking at a rally on January 22, 2012, the Chairman of the Communist party not only rejected the results of elections to the State Duma (124 method), but also called for the creation of a "government of national trust" and "public television channel", which corresponds exactly to the two methods of non-violent struggle: 1. Dual sovereignty and parallel government (198 method); 2. Alternative communication system (180).

Attracts attention and motor rally on the garden ring, organized by the "League of voters" on 29 January 2012 in protest against the current government; to demonstrate her determination, the parties closed the Garden ring, creating temporary difficulties in the movement of urban transport. From the point of view of non-violent techniques, the participants involved: 1) 42 method of sharp – motorcade (procession); 2) method 176 – blocking of roads; 3) method 18 - hanging of flags and symbolic colors; 4) method 19 – wearing characters.

The response of the government forces was made only on February 18, when supporters of Vladimir Putin organized a similar car procession. If at first the Russian authorities acted quite uncertain, for presidential elections the situation has changed: throughout the country have held rallies in support of the Prime Minister and Kremlin-controlled media confidently kept the defense of the internal frontier. Anticipating pre-prepared accusations of rigged elections, the entourage of Vladimir Putin takes unprecedented step: at each polling station in the country installed cameras to monitor the voting process, which could be traced (via the Internet) everyone in real time. So, the protesters have lost their main argument.

Not wanting to hand over the initiative to their opponents, supporters of the Prime Minister organised in the night of 4 to 5 March 110-thousand rally in support of their candidate, who has already received congratulations after the announcement of preliminary voting results.

 Despite the landslide victory of Prime Minister in the elections, the government is still in quandary. To prove to the population its efficiency, the government has yet to win the battle Royal with increasing de-industrialization of industry and to respond to the demographic challenge, which threatens the depopulation of the Russian population. Only solving these problems, we can embark on a voyage of unstable spaces of global politics, which now portend a storm. Russia has the last chance to survive in the brutal conditions of globalization and this chance we will be able to use only joining post-Soviet space into a single state, neo-Imperial formation, able to protect all our citizens from the growing wave of violence in the greater middle East.

References:

1. Kara-Murza S. G. the Revolution for export. - M.: Eksmo, 2006.
2. Orange networks: from Belgrade to Bishkek / resp. ed. A. Narochnitskaya. - SPb.: Aletheia, 2008.
3. Sharpe J. 198 methods of nonviolent action http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/scannedPDFs/The%20198%20Methods%20of%20Nonviolent%20Action%20-%20Russian%20.pdf.
4. Chauprade A. Chronique du choc des civilisations. – P.: Chronique-Dargaud, 2009.
5. W. Engdahl A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. - London: Pluto, 2004.
6. V. Radyuhin Moscow and Multipolarity // The Hindu. Thursday, Dec 30, 2004.

Tags: Central Asia , USA