|
2025-02-07 Government Corruption
|
|
The Global Web: How USAID Ruled the World, and Can It Live Without It
|
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited.
by Nikolay Antonov
[REGNUM] The fewer days remain before the "starvation death" of the recipients of USAID grants, the more interesting details emerge about who actually received them. The matter has already reached such monsters as the media company Politico, The New York Times and Associated Press. What can we say about the Ukrainian dog Patron, who sadly admitted on his page in a social network that "my cartoons, comics and books became possible thanks to the support of USAID."
The huge web that ensured US influence, the implantation of the narratives they needed, and the management of public opinion was created over decades through huge budgets. But this was not just a cashbox for distributing money, but a complex system that formed controlled elites, undermined state institutions, and prepared the ground for revolutions.
But how exactly did it work, where did it come from and why is it under attack today - we will figure it out further.
FACTORY OF "COLOR REVOLUTIONS"
When the John F. Kennedy administration created the U.S. Agency for International Development in 1961, the publicly stated goal sounded noble: to help Third World countries combat poverty, develop infrastructure, and improve their quality of life.
But the real meaning was different. USAID was originally a scalpel in the hands of the CIA, a subtle instrument for adjusting the political landscape of the world. The Cold War was in full swing, and the United States watched with alarm as the USSR effortlessly expanded its influence. Former French and British colonies in Africa were becoming independent one after another, and with independence came socialist self-awareness. Latin America was erupting with hotbeds of left-wing radical movements, and pro-Soviet governments were rising in Asia as well.
The Americans needed a means that would allow them not only to counteract these processes, but also to covertly control regimes, pushing them in the right direction. However, traditional methods – coups with the help of the CIA, financing military juntas and political assassinations – by that time no longer always worked. The world was becoming more sensitive to open interference.
Thus, the idea of “soft power” was born in the White House, which would later become the foundation of American geopolitics. The agency was supposed to become not only a donor, but also a curator. To create an environment in which politicians, journalists, activists and businessmen needed by the US would receive advantages over others. And this machine started up with amazing efficiency.
A CLASSIC EXAMPLE IS CUBA.
In the 1960s, the United States failed to directly intervene militarily on the Island of Freedom (the famous “Bay of Pigs Operation”), but this did not mean abandoning subversive activities. The new tool began to finance Cuban media (including illegal radio stations), which reported on the “real” state of affairs under Castro. In the 2000s, the agency went further and launched the “Cuban Twitter,” the social network ZunZuneo, which was planned to become a platform for coordinating protests.
To avoid suspicion, the financing scheme was hidden through Panamanian offshore companies and shell companies in Liechtenstein.
Another example is Chile, 1973. The government of Salvador Allende, the democratically elected president, took the socialist path, which enraged Washington. USAID, together with the CIA, began investing in the “democratic opposition”: grants were received not only by opposition politicians, but also by trade unions, entrepreneurs, newspapers, and student movements.
So when General Augusto Pinochet staged his coup, everything was ready for it: the new press had already formed public opinion, the trade unions were divided, the younger generation saw salvation in the military dictatorship.
In Guatemala, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia, the agency worked through networks of NGOs, universities, youth movements, thus creating a “parallel society” that could be activated at the right moment. But the real evolution of USAID began in the 1990s, when the USSR collapsed. America realized: there was no longer a need to play hide and seek, it was possible to enter post-Soviet countries openly, in the format of “developing democracy.”
FAVORITE BRAINCHILD
Ukraine can rightfully be considered one of the main USAID projects, brilliantly adjusted by the “revolutions” in 2004 and 2014, and then finally consolidated by 2019, the year of the last elections. Here, American specialists created a controlled society, where every significant element of the system — from the media and courts to ministries and the president — was somehow connected to the donor structure.
The history of Ukraine's dependence on USAID began long before the Maidan. Already in the early 1990s, the first programs for "democracy development" entered the country through the agency. Grants were distributed generously: first for reforms, then for support of "civil society." And by the early 2000s, the agency was already directly managing entire sectors of Ukrainian politics and economics.
The first big test of the system was 2004 – the “orange revolution”, created, financed and brought to a victorious end by Western structures. By that time, the grantors had already been working closely for several years with journalists, activists and politicians who were soon to become the “face of change”.
In 1999, the agency began supporting Ukrainska Pravda, an online publication that became the main mouthpiece of the “progressive forces” attacking the power of President Leonid Kuchma. Dozens of other independent media outlets, from regional publications to national channels, were formed with money from USAID and the Soros Foundation.
A separate important area is “civil society.” Grants for systemic development were received by youth movements such as “Pora,” which literally copied the Serbian “Otpor,” the organization that led to the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic.
USAID, together with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and Open Society, financed “activist trainings,” taught how to properly organize protests, conduct information attacks, create a “crisis of trust” in the government, and raised opinion leaders. “Independent” media outlets spread scandals about “falsifications,” hundreds of activists organized protests, and special structures provided legal protection for those “victimized by the government.”
Victor Yushchenko, brought to power through street protest, was a convenient figure: a man of the West, an economist with American connections, who worked in the Ukrainian National Bank with the support of international structures. Under him, the US received a completely controlled administration, but all the work had to be started again when Viktor Yanukovych came to power and began to restore ties with Moscow.
This was unacceptable for the United States, and they began to prepare a new coup, which was supposed to be final.
By 2013, Ukraine had created a system of governance that worked like clockwork. The USAID budget in the country at that time amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars, which supported almost all leading publications and TV channels. At the same time, the Americans grew “independent” anti-corruption organizations, which after the coup in 2014 would become full-fledged (and parallel) government bodies, like the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU).
Legal control: In 2013, USAID began funding the DEJURE project, which took control of the judicial system. Through this mechanism, the “right” judges were appointed and those who could interfere were eliminated. An entire generation of future managers also grew up on grants, one of whom, journalist Mustafa Nayem, was the first to call for people to go to Maidan in November 2013. And then he became a people's deputy of Ukraine and deputy minister of infrastructure.
When the protests began in 2014, the US did not even have to intervene much – the mechanism was already in place. “Independent” media created the necessary picture, activists filled the square, controlled courts blocked the government’s decisions, and anti-corruption structures “legitimized” any accusations against it.
The new government in Kyiv immediately signed all the agreements Washington needed, opened the doors to Western corporations, began a policy of breaking with Russia and moving to the rails of a new ideology. And with the departure of USAID, Ukraine lost access to billions of dollars in infusions, the media found themselves on the brink of survival, and anti-corruption structures were left without funding. Panic began in a country built on grants and managed manually.
The only question now is who will be the first to admit that the entire Ukrainian “independence” is nothing more than an artificially created product that was supported by foreign funding.
TRUMP, UKRAINE AND COVID-19
A separate page in the Ukrainian project is how a fully controlled system was used as a tool in the fight against Donald Trump.
It was through Ukrainian grant structures that materials about the “connections” between Trump’s campaign headquarters and Russia were distributed, it was Ukraine that became the main supplier of compromising material for the Democrats, and it was through the hands of its “activists” that the Joe Biden administration dealt blows to its opponent, similar to the neutralization of the head of the Trump campaign headquarters, Paul Manafort.
In 2016, The New York Times, citing the Ukrainian NABU, reported that the name of Manafort was mentioned 22 times in the “black ledger” of the Party of Regions of former President Yanukovych. He allegedly received $12.7 million in cash from the party’s coffers. And now it turns out that the newspaper, the anti-corruption structure, and the “activists” who stirred up the scandal were all on the payroll of USAID.
An amazing coincidence.
And when the world plunged into the chaos of the pandemic in 2020, the American economy finds itself in deep crisis, millions of people lose their jobs, the stock market collapses, and the main victim is once again Donald Trump. His key trump card in the election, a successful economy, evaporates before our eyes.
But the real story comes later. Democrats are using Covid as an excuse to launch mass mail-in voting, a scheme that gave Biden seven million “surprise” votes that ultimately gave him victory.
How is this connected to USAID? Very directly. It was through the agency that hundreds of millions of dollars were allocated in 2019–2020 for “pandemic projects” related to monitoring, control, combating “disinformation” and “educating the public” about vaccination.
Moreover, while the US was engulfed in BLM protests and devastating lockdowns, it was USAID that funded Democrats’ preparations for mass mail-in voting. Through organizations affiliated with the agency, methodological recommendations were developed, tools for digital control of ballots were developed, and activists were trained who would later provide the Democratic Party with the votes it needed.
Now we are told that the agency has been pouring millions of dollars into biolabs around the world. Through grant programs, it has pumped money into projects related to the study of coronaviruses, funding research that was directly or indirectly aimed at manipulating pathogens.
Back in 2009, USAID launched the PREDICT program, one of its key initiatives officially aimed at “monitoring potential zoonotic disease threats.” Under the auspices of combating future epidemics, active work began with biolabs around the world. Among the project’s partners was EcoHealth Alliance, an organization that has donated millions of dollars to the Wuhan Institute of Virology since 2014.
This money went towards “enhancing the functions” of coronaviruses, which in scientific language means creating new, more dangerous strains.
By 2017, a USAID report clearly states that the PREDICT program had “successfully identified and classified 1,200 new viruses.” Among them were several strains of coronaviruses that, as it now turns out, may have served as the basis for the development of COVID-19.
Interestingly, the PREDICT program was shut down in 2019, a few months before the pandemic broke out. Why? According to the official version, funding for the project was stopped due to “achievement of key goals.” But if you remember that the pandemic began right after that, it seems that the goals were actually achieved — and “monitoring” turned into a real global epidemic.
It is not surprising that one of the first targets of the Republicans was USAID, now openly called a "criminal organization." Obviously, the current US president has every reason to take it under control. And this is far from just the liquidation of one organization. We are talking about dismantling the system of shadow control over entire states, which has accumulated colossal experience in management. So the question naturally arises: will the countries that have lived under his hand for years really be able to gain independence?
|
Posted by badanov 2025-02-07 00:00||
||
Front Page|| [11134 views ]
Top
|
|
Posted by Skidmark 2025-02-07 02:39||
2025-02-07 02:39||
Front Page
Top
|
|
Posted by Mercutio 2025-02-07 09:56||
2025-02-07 09:56||
Front Page
Top
|
|
07:19 Grom the Affective
06:58 Mullah Richard
06:55 Besoeker
06:48 MikeKozlowski
06:45 Airandee
05:19 Gloluns Turkeyneck4904
04:40 Skidmark
00:49 Skidmark
00:44 Skidmark
00:34 Skidmark
00:28 Thing From Snowy Mountain
00:27 DooDahMan
00:24 Skidmark
00:20 Grom the Affective
00:14 Grom the Affective
|
