NEO – American Ambassadors: Old Dogs and Old Tricks

___

… by  Vladimir Odintsov,  … with New Eastern Outlook, Moscow

___

[ Editor’s Note: Vladimir Odintsov takes us behind the scenes into a story that Western media has chosen to ignore, the below-the-radar conversion of the State Department into America’s primary tool of regime change around the world.

It is now the tip of the spear in many of these efforts, with huge funding and its own intelligence and paramilitary operatives.  Where in the past this kind of work was strictly a CIA domain, it has been shifted into the State Department for its diplomatic cover.

As Vladimir describes below, ambassadors move up the promotion line by helping out in regions where America is on the attack. Their successful regime change record is their main qualification for being selected to knock off the next country.

The American people never had the opportunity to vet this policy because the powers that be know they would never approve of an offensive strategy like this. So in effect, we have experienced what is a soft coup in foreign policy, where being on the offense is hidden from Americans with slogans like “pursuing our interests”, which of course includes knocking out the governments of other countries.

The NeoCons love all this, but Democrats who claim to know better have also been aboard this train and seem to be enjoying the ride. Where are all the anti-aggressive-war lefties who used do marches against things like this? Have they all died off?

The biggest irony is that this Neo-Cold War aggression that went into full speed under the Bush regime has been continued by the Obama administration without missing a beat. Sure, the Bush hoodlums inserted stay-behinds, like Victoria Nuland, in key non-political positions that could not be changed via political appointments.

This is part of what had fueled the over-generalization that there is no difference between the two parties. This is a lazy prognosis, and one that VT has always refuted.

They are different, and just because they aren’t opposed in particular areas, like the one today, does not convert them into the same thing with different wrapping.

Each policy issue has to be analyzed on its own. This is more work, which casual readers don’t have time to do.

We have VT people who brief foreign leaders on the many anomalies and apparent inconsistencies in American politics and foreign policy. They are not interested in slogans and over-simplified explanations… well… most of them anyway. So we thank Mr. Odintsov and NEO for their contribution.

The people in the East are closer to the areas of regime change and watch it play out. We become stronger by combining our research and analytical resources when bigger efforts are required… Jim W. Dean ]

_______________________________

–  First published  February 16, 2015  –

In recent years the US prestige in the world has been deteriorating rapidly in the international arena due to the unpopular, outright failed policies, which is forcing the White House to go back to a dusty book of tricks that had previously been used by Washington to create an image of prosperity and happiness.

A number of states around the world paid a bitter price in an attempt to recreate this image in the actual life, which led to a wave of “color revolutions” around the globe in pursuit of “American-style democracy”, due to actions of Victoria Nuland, John McCain and the likes of them. It’s no wonder them that there’s nobody in the line for some more US-style democracy.

The US stagnant political machine is extremely reluctant to change its ways, therefore it is repeating the scenarios that have already been tested, regardless of the fact how good they did or didn’t work last time.

It’s suffice to recall the theatrical show with “Saddam Hussein’s WMD tubes” that were displayed by the US Secretary of State Colin Powell at the UN security council to justify American military aggression against Iraq.

The White House couldn’t care less about the fact that was no weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq as long as the trick worked, and now it seems that the sitting Secretary of State – John Kerry is apparently has some hope that pulling a similar trick once again will allow him to obtain the international support needed to unleash new aggression, this time against Syria .

This habit of using old tricks has already become a tradition in the White House, therefore the United States started using old ambassadors that have proved their “efficiency” in the creation of unrest, social conflicts and the consequent “color revolutions”. Some of them were summoned back from retirement, even despite their age!

To create “pre-revolutionary conditions” and put the personal experience of unleashing “color revolutions”, the White House has sent John F. Tefft an ambassador to Moscow back in 2014, even despite the fact that he is far from being “sympathetic” with Russian.

This diplomat was behind revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, where he had previously worked.

Another example of Washington’s dubious practices of Washington can be traced in Kyrgyzstan, where the former ambassador Pamela Spratlen that had failed in creating “revolutionary preconditions for regime change” was “temporarily” replaced by a 78-year-old diplomat Richard Monroe Miles.

The specified appointment looks alarming since the now retired Miles is widely known as “the architect and ideologist of Georgian revolution”, that has made a number of states to suffer severe political crises.

According to his official biography, Richard Monroe served in the Marine Corps from 1954 to 1957 which may be the reason for his devotion to armed regime changes he’s been staging so often. After obtaining his university degrees, he entered the U.S. Army Russian Institute in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany, where western special services had been preparing “anti-soviet specialists”.

Miles began his diplomatic career back in 1967, after working in the US diplomatic missions in Oslo, Moscow, Belgrade, Berlin, it curious that he was appointed Consul General in Leningrad.

For the first time, Miles had been an ambassador to Azerbaijan in 1992, where he “witnessed” the transition of power from the Nationalist government of Abulfaz Elchibey to Heydar Aliyev.

Then, in 1996-1999, when Slobodan Milosevic was still in power, Richard Monroe Miles was appointed ambassador to Yugoslavia, where he oversaw the Kosovo war and the slaughter of Kosovo Albanians. He left the country as the NATO forces started bombing it to the ground.

The sad course of events in this country is well known: Milosevic declared himself the winner of the presidential election, however, since the opposition led by Vojislav Kostunica refused to recognize the results, Milosevic was forced to resign. Later on and soon, due to the orders of Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic, Milosevic was forced to undergo a hearing in the Hague Tribunal.

In 1999-200, when Miles headed the US Embassy in Bulgaria, Bulgarian Prime Minister Ivan Kostov lost parliamentary elections to a pro-American candidate Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, the heir to the Bulgarian throne.

Between April 2002 and August 2005 Miles led the US Embassy in Georgia, then retired, but in November 2008 he was invited to work in the State Department and as Chargé d’Affaires of the US, when he sent to Turkmenistan “for setting the story straight the American way.”

In 2004, Miles became the recipient of the State Department’s Robert C. Frasure Award for “peaceful conflict resolution”, which is curious since that very year saw the blossoming of “Georgian democracy” under Mikhail Saakashvili. This was the result of the “Rose Revolution”, which was directed by Richard Monroe Miles himself.

He is also credited with the preparation of the “soft assault” scenario of the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict. According to the publications of Georgian and American journals of the time, Miles received 1.2 billion dollars to change the Georgia government on the back of his personal assurances that he’s able to do so.

And now one of the authors of “color revolutions” is sent to head the US diplomatic mission in Kyrgyzstan on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the April events and the upcoming parliamentary elections.

Furthermore, this May will see the final stage of Kyrgyzstan’s accession to the Customs Union (hated by the White House!) and, as a consequence, the accession to the Eurasian Economic Community, which cast a painful blow against the US geopolitical interests and ambitions in Central Asia.

Given the fragile inter-ethnic harmony in the south of the country, and the looming presence of Wahhabi elements in this very region ( that emerged there due to the ongoing meddling of Washington and Saudi Arabia), along challenges the national economy faces and the ongoing rivalry between the political elites, the White House has already planned to create “revolutionary preconditions” that are to be created by Miles himself.

It is noteworthy that Miles will have the status of “temporary Ambassador”, hence according to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, he will need no approval of Bishkek. And so it is easy to guess that Washington wants to use this technicality to send such a controversial figure to Kyrgyzstan with no good intentions on his mind.

Under these conditions, Washington would never refuse to pursue new “color revolutions” in Russia and along its borders to put an end to the Eurasian integration processes. And it is quite possible that the White House will not only be using its ambassadors to do so, but may have tried to put other old tricks to “good use”.

Vladimir Odintsov, political commentator, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Jim W. Dean

Jim W. Dean was an active editor on VT from 2010-2022.  He was involved in operations, development, and writing, plus an active schedule of TV and radio interviews.

• Read Full Complete Bio >>>
• Jim W. Dean Archives 2009-2015