In 2004-2005, the press was packed up with the speculations on the so called "revolutions" in the different parts of the former USSR. Too much attention to such minor events that did not significantly influence the social situation in the affected countries could hardly be justified, and the only reasonable explanation was money and foolishness. Money bought the journalists, and they played fools to spread the undisguised propaganda through their newspapers, radio and TV stations, as well as through the Internet. Obviously, nobody but a fool (or an absolutely dishonest person, which is nearly the same) can pretend to take all those theater shows for serious, and fancy them to be wide popular movements that spontaneously began and restored some kind of justice in the end... Only a fool would not notice the close similarity of all such "revolutions", with exactly the same scenario used in all the cases (Yugoslavia, Georgia, Adjara, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan... Who is to follow?):

1. On the threshold of some general elections, a group of black PR professionals spreads rumors about the possible violations of the rules by the present administration. This rumor is immediately replicated by the Western press (sometimes even before any doubts are publicly expressed inside the country).

2. A group of specially instructed guests from the USA and Europe comes to the country to "control" the electoral procedures. In reality, these people are to collect or fake as many cases of "democracy violations" as possible and they are sure to deny the legality of the elections well beforehand, regardless of what happens.

3. Immediately after the elections, if the results are not satisfactory, the internal provocateurs together with their "international" colleagues declare that there have been too many law violations and the results have been falsified. They imitate mass protests and pay for any kind of disorders, with the media presenting them as a wide social movement (though the span of that "movement" entirely depends on the sums spent by the foreign sponsors).

4. If the powers do not get afraid and resign, the gangs of aggressive people (of course, well paid and equipped) start fighting, arsons, pillage etc., which is presented by the media as people's struggle for liberation. Since everybody understands, who is directing the show, the police and the army are sure to withdraw from any intervention and there is nobody to draw the hooligans to order.

5. When the legal government is terrorized enough, its leaders prefer to escape, or resign. This is often done to prevent further escalation of violence, as the USA and Europe publicly express their support of the "opposition" and hence the financial resources for the civil war become almost inexhaustible.

6. After the new leadership is established, the country becomes an obedient satellite of the USA and opens all the doors for US companies in the country's economy.

There are local variations, but they can hardly hide the basic sequence. It is evident that this scenario has been coined in the United States, being repeated again and again. The USA does not even try to disguise their involvement, or invent a different scheme, just to make things look more realistic.

Well, nobody doubts that the USA will continue their imperial policy, subduing the entire world and cultivating international terrorism. This is natural and logical. The strange thing is that Russian media are so exalted about all those "revolutions", and nobody tries (or is not allowed to?) indicate that the purpose of all that activity is the isolation of Russia, cutting it from all the traditional markets, breaking industrial cooperation and thus complete destruction of its economy. Modern Russia feeds on oil and gas, and this source of income (almost the only available) will eventually be cut, since the cost of transit will push Russian oil out of competion. This means that the United States will be able to crudely dictate anything to Russia, thus making it a colony of the West.

It is really amazing how Russians have quickly forgotten their own language and, today, their mentality is molded by the American model. Thus, in the English language, the word "revolution" is used for any kind of coup d'état, regardless what happens after that. This usage is very convenient for the official ideology, since it makes no difference between a plain terrorist and a person fighting for freedom, which allows arbitrary decisions on who is who, and such a decision is certainly to be made by the ruling class. In the former Russian language, there existed three different terms, equally translated to English as "revolution". The Russian word "revolution" meant only a special kind of transformation, when the social organization drastically (qualitatively) changed moving from the lower to a higher level of economic and social development (or at least directed to such a change). The opposite type of transformation, with the society degrading from the higher to a lower level, was called a "counter-revolutionary coup", and there was also a special term for any change of regime without a qualitative change in economic and social organization (just a takeover). In these terms, the French revolution of 1879 and the Great October Revolution of 1917 were revolutions in the strict sense, while the destruction of the USSR in 1990s was counter- revolutionary. The fruit and vegetable "revolutions" in the former Soviet republics do not change the social system at all, and they should not be called revolutions in Russian. In many other languages (like French or German), one could follow the same rule and never refer to the events of 2004-2005 as revolutions, classifying them as mere coups d'état. However, this scientifically correct usage is hardly ever to break through ideological pressure, and an honest and well educated journalist is just a fairy tale.