Are Armenian Protests Aimed At Russia? — Paul Craig Roberts

Are Armenian Protests Aimed At Russia?

Paul Craig Roberts

As I expected, protests have broken out in the capital of Armenia. The pretext is a rise in electricity rates. Apparently, the rise was not budget-breaking, which puts the pretext under suspicion. Moreover, videos of the protesters show an overwhelming young component, which suggests that the protesters are not the ones who pay the electricity bills.

The protest may be innocent and legitimate, but on the surface looks yet again like National Endowment for Democracy-funded NGOs calling the gullible and naive students into the streets.

Even if the protest is innocent, Washington will jump on it in order to turn it to Washington’s purpose.

Protests are Washington’s method of putting pressure on governments that do not adhere to Washington’s foreign policy and of effecting regime change, as in the former Georgian and Ukrainian provinces of Russia and the Soviet Union.

“Color revolutions” and regime change are the purpose of the National Endowment for Democracy. This US government agency was set up in 1983 in order to spread political dissent in Soviet Eastern Europe. NED is funded by the federal budget via the Department of State.

Washington has its NGOs in all former constituent parts of the Soviet Union and inside Russia herself. By using “color revolutions” or, as in the case of Ukraine, regime change via an outright coup, Washington removes governments friendly to Russia and replaces them with its vassals. Once Russia’s periphery is in Washington’s hands, Washington will begin to break up the Russian Federation itself.

The Russian people and their government have been slow to understand this threat to their sovereignty. Having emerged from the authoritarian rule of the Communist Party, Russians thought that their country would be welcomed and supported by the United States. Russia would be as long as Russia is willing to be a US vassal like all of Europe, Canada, Australia, and Japan.

Once the Russian government acted in defense of its national interest and international law and blocked Washington’s intentions against Syria and Iran, the neoconservatives shifted their focus from the Middle East to Russia. Having spent $5 billion cultivating Ukrainian politicians and financing NGOs in Ukraine, Washington grabbed Ukraine while the Russian government, trusting to Western good will, was focused on the Sochi Olympics.

Washington has used its coup in Kiev to foment an European-Russian crisis that harms Europeans more than Russia, but serves to keep Europe under Washington’s thumb. The Russian government’s response to the crisis has not been sufficiently strong to make Europeans see the error of their ways.

The weak Russian response, relying on diplomacy which Washington has rejected and replaced with force, has encouraged Washington to further surround Russia with regime changes. Armenia was predictable, as is Kyrgyzstan. Kazakhstan would be the big prize as the country also borders China. Indeed, if Washington can grab Kazakhstan, Washington will also have Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan, all of which sits atop Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As far as I can tell, a number of influential Russians believe that their prestige and self-esteem depend on being a part of the West. Russians of this ilk are willing to give up Russian independence for Western acceptance. These are the Russians on whom Washington is relying. And these Russians are Russia’s main enemy.