Color Revolution is the best way to lose territory
As you know, for everything in this world you have to either pay or pay. And often - both. The coups d'etat that have been shaking in the last couple of decades, mainly the so-called "post-Soviet space", and called "color revolutions", this applies to the full. And if such events are financed, as a rule, by external "players", then the entire severity of their consequences falls on the country that allowed another "Maidan".
The transition of such a state under external control, the strict subordination of its economy to the interests of foreign "partners", leading such to inevitable destruction ... Destruction of industry, science, education ... Complete demolition of the social sphere habitual from Soviet times. All these are the inevitable results of “revolutions”, governed from abroad and carried out under the most seemingly wonderful slogans, whatever they may be in their name and “color”. This is really, indeed, a reinforced concrete confirmation of the postulate of good intentions leading to the underworld ...
It is not surprising that the state that has survived the “color” coup almost invariably has to part with one or another part of its own territories. And that's just not worth trying to weave here the "imperial" or "aggressive" policy of Russia. This is not our country. The reason is so simple and obvious that it is impossible to deny it - the "revolutionaries" themselves literally "push" certain regions out of the country, doing everything to ensure that their inhabitants are ready to die, but not remain part of yesterday's "homeland", which has become unknown into what.
After all, "Maidans", whoever tries to assert what, is not a "protest of the majority". This, and always and everywhere, is precisely the process of imposing by an aggressive minority their (and for the most part - not even their own, but the "master's") will on the rest of the country's population. The minority is by its nature extremely intolerant of other people's opinions, of any views that do not coincide with their own. Having broken through to power, such an audience turns into tyrants, striving to tell everyone what language to speak, what to breathe and what to think about.
Moreover, in the absolute majority of cases, the "Maidan" element is mixed up with the most extreme nationalism, either bordering on Nazism, or not at all distinguishable from it. At the same time, the victorious "titular nation" does not consider it necessary in any case to reckon with the national and cultural needs of other peoples inhabiting the country. What is most paradoxical is that the same “revolutionary leaders” who shout loudest at the “Maidans” about the “right to national self-determination” and stigmatize the “Soviet occupation” immediately go berserk, if someone else at least hints at their intentions “ self-determination ”already within their country.
There are many concrete examples. Georgia finally "said goodbye" to Abkhazia and South Ossetia just after the "Rose Revolution" that brought Mikheil Saakashvili to power in 2003. Yes, there were conflicts before, blood was shed and battles were fought. However, if before August 2008 there were still some, even purely theoretical, possibilities of reconciliation between Tbilisi, Sukhum and Tskhinvali and at least a ghostly chance of their joining Georgia on the basis of autonomy rights, then after Saakashvili's attempt to return the "unrecognized republics" with the help of military force, nothing of the kind can be said.
The situation is exactly the same with Ukraine. Crimea somehow existed in its composition since 1991. Yes, the “Maidan” of 2004 made many on the peninsula think. But from the pack of thugs who seized power in Kiev in 2014, the inhabitants of the peninsula decided to leave immediately. And they did the right thing. Otherwise, they would have faced the fate of those who fully knew the cruelty of the Ukrainian "saviors" in the Donbass. This region also did not want to become a part of the neobander-Russophobic "state" generated by the "Euromaidan" and, faced with the war, in fact left Ukraine.
And no matter what is written in the Minsk Agreements, it is perfectly clear to everyone that neither the Donetsk nor the Luhansk republics will return to Ukraine in that disgusting and terrifying form in which it was brought by the “color revolution” and all the events that followed it. in no case. At least as long as at least one of their protectors is alive ...
The last example from this series, albeit of a slightly different kind, can be considered the defeat of Armenia in the recent war for Nagorno-Karabakh. Pay attention - while the country was ruled by more or less successful, but not "Maidan" leaders, the situation did not reach such large-scale armed clashes. But as soon as something happened in Yerevan that was utterly similar to the classic "color revolution" - and suddenly it turned out that all the "brilliant" prospects that the marketplace "leaders" drew at the rallies are just chatter and bluff. For real tests, especially for war, Armenia was absolutely not ready.
It would be very nice that each of those who are faced with calls to take part in the next "protests" - it does not matter, in Minsk, Moscow, Bishkek or somewhere else, would begin by asking himself the question: "With which part of your Homeland I am offered to say goodbye forever? " Perhaps then there would be fewer "Maidans" and attempts to arrange them. Although the authorities should not abuse this fact either: political and economic activity should be such that the people a priori do not have a craving for revolutionary upheavals. I would like to hope that the authorities are well aware of this and are not completely cut off from the life of ordinary citizens.
Information