in deadly results remain the same. this week will examine the anatomy of a qu. what's it look like? how does one develop and who is most often to blame for the former us marine corps intelligence officer, turned to un weapons inspector scott ritter. shed some light on the issue. all right, let's get into the m o me . i said tomato, you say tomato. i say coo, the u. s. government says regime change when one party or group a sous power by force, that usually leads to a lot of bloodshed, whatever the word game that's known the world over as a crude, a top. but in the age of social media sensitivity and kindness in recent years, terms like bloody coo or

a thing of the 20th century in the 21st century pop culture as dictated by and proliferated by the us state department. we now call it regime change, toppling whoever is labeled a dictator. authoritarian or despot regime change is much better packaging for selling a war destabilization against another country or sometimes even against your own. so what is the m o behind a cou? i mean, regime change. how do they spring up, or are they actually grown? so for that, let's turn to a military expert with international experience. he was one of the 1st voices to blow the whistle on w. m. d. 's in iraq, which we know ultimately found saddam hussein to be on the receiving end of regime change. scott ritter is a former us marine corps intelligence officer and later became un weapons inspector

. scott, always good to see you. a coo, to, that's a 4 letter word. the u. s. government has largely purged that sort of language from its official lexicon. the term is now regime change. recently we heard president biden and others in his administration say the quiet part out loud in regard to the latimer potent, they said this proxy war in ukraine is actually about regime change. so let's 1st address the, the shift in language here. why doesn't the us use the term coo anymore? i mean, you said it's a, it's a 4 letter word. it's a dirty word. there's a lot of negative connotation attached to it. many us supported crews in the past of produced the leadership of that that has been embarrassing to the united states . it's also something that tries in the face of a international law cou implies that we are actively supporting

a military junta to forcefully take over a, from a government oftentimes a democratically elected government. and we don't want to encourage that anymore. so we speak of regime change, see a regime change could be as simple as an election that you voted out a regime. it's very harmless, lidless, nobody gets hurt. a regime change can also reflect the independent will of a sovereign people who cited to liberate themselves from an oppressive regime. or this is wife. in the case of a, my dawn and in the ukraine in 2014, we speak of a revolution, a regime change where the people ousted the pro russian. you know, a victory on a coach. we don't admit that it was a could a tar carried out by ultra training. osh ultra nationalists of funded and supported

by the united states one would be a blatant violation of international law. the other one is the lawful expression of free will by a sovereign people. and indeed, if one takes a look at these sanctions that were imposed on russia a prior period because of the special military operation. this was a regime change operation. this was about bringing harm to the russian people of such a scope and scale that the russian people would become alienated, a disenfranchised up from the russian government and rise up and removal at him, recruited from from power a regime change, but never a coo and what. 2 are the characteristics, either kill, how might one know if they were being code? generally speaking, we speak or could a talk, an implication is military. so the 1st key is that there are guns involved. there's usually violence involved or the threat of violence regime changes. i said it's a,

it's a more, you know, warm and fuzzy thing, an election, you know, maybe a demonstration, but a qu is guys in uniforms. kicking the door down when he guns in your face saying your day is done, you're finished. sometimes they shoot you, other times they arrest you, sometimes it just escort you out, put you on an airplane and fly you off. but generally speaking, when we speak of a qu, it sub men in uniforms of who are coming in forcefully removing from power. then in replacing you with martial law because of the, the genesis of the crew is a center dissatisfaction toward sub there, the kind of constitutional rule that has been transparent. so the idea is to suspend the constitution replacer with martial law. and then the military will work to restructure society in a way that suits their needs and then in only then they may seek to transfer power back to civilians. but this time, the civilian population will understand that if they get out of step one more time,

they'll be could again, i mean one only has to take a look at the history of turkey. recently, they had a succession, a 960 seventy's eighty's, ninety's of military coups. you knew as a coo attention st. all right, so i heard so theologists say that one of the things that are part and parcel of acute talk is being able to shift public opinion. language is one of those methods . it's one of those tools. what would you say are other methods of fomenting a cou? i think one of the key aspects, if you're going to form into crew, is to create economic discomfort. it's hard for a military to successfully carry out a qu, when the population is satisfied, the government hour. and, you know, it goes back down to james carville, and the advice he gave to bill clinton, when bill clinton was 1st running for president,

stop talking about foreign policy and as it's the economy stupid. and that's the lesson that, you know, every american politician understands at the end of the day. it's about, are you better off today than you were when the current power came in to power? is the answer is no. then they run a risk of, you know, being ousted by an election. but if you can do a qu, your bypassing the election, you go straight to the ouster part. one of the ways that you want a foam into crew is to take advantage of, you know, economic difficulty to eliminate the people from the government by pointing out that the reason why they're suffering economically is because of the bad policies of the government. you're generally want to tie the economic difficulties to notions of corruption, that these are the people you intrusted to look out for your welfare. but instead of looking out for you, they're always looking out for themselves. they're enriching themselves, shore bank accounts and stuff she want to create this mythology in many cases,

probably true of your corruption, of a, of a leadership be lead out of touch with the, with, with the people. so these are the kind of sentiments you want to abs because one of the most vulnerable periods of a crew is when a 1st happened. i mean, the person more scared than the president that's being forcefully moved from power . is the people doing it because you've just taken a big step into the unknown. if a cou fails, you're off times accuse of treason, and you can put up against the wall and you get shot, where you're the one being sent on exile. and one of the best ways to make a crew fail is that the people go to the streets. all right, so, so let me get this right. sanctions that are probably likely a tool then to help foment a kill the united states. and it's infinite wisdom is under the impression that we can exacerbate economic tension in a targeted country. um, by imposing sanctions we, we did this with iraq, a place that i have an intimate experience with. you know,

our policy early on in the, in the saddam regime, in the post gulf war period was that, um, we were hoping that there would be a coup that we would get the, his military leadership to apply the 75 cent solution, which is the price of 9 millimeter board back in his head and, and then replace him with someone that looked like saddam talk like saddam. but this was a name saddam and needed some of that didn't work. so then we went into a prolonged period of trying to apply pressure on iraq through economic sanctions under the belief that if we made the iraq, the iraqi people suffer, that they would rise up. and that generals would recognize the suffering and say we now need to get rid of so now, but that didn't work. why? because jane sanctions generally backfire against those people who are imposing them, either politically or in the case of what's going on with russia right now. they just actually blow black and you suffer worse economically. with iraq. what

happened is the iraqi people rallied around their leadership instead of alienating the iraqi people from the iraqi leadership. director leadership was to say the economic suffering that you have right now isn't because of me. it's because of these outside powers that are opposing sanctions. you will be hard pressed to find any examples of economic sanctions actually working. generally speaking, when they apply sanctions, they had the opposite effect. instead of encouraging a coup against a leader, you what removed you actually strengthen the hand of that leader. it's worked and it's worked against us in iraq. it's worked against us in iran working against us in russia. all right, so who is our never spontaneous events? right? they are engineer, they're a process. they take time and planning, civil unrest for as organic as many of them appear. oftentimes, especially in this day and age, those to our engineer who tends to be behind the engineering of today's modern

civil unrest. whether you know it's domestically or abroad, can you think of any persons or groups or countries that come to mind? i mean, crews are socially engineered and even though we speak of a military coup it's, it's not the us military's job to go in and, and create conditions for a good, a tough. that's the job of the central intelligence. and that's who's behind the vast majority of the nefarious actions in the world today or the c i. a's job is to go in and i say, manipulate societies, they do that by buying off politicians. they do that by funding oppositions. they do that by a deliberately undermining economies. they do that by planting this information by taking control the media, seating the media with, with false narratives or narratives to support their point of view but, but basically by manipulating aside from the inside out. it's so it's done by

intelligent services and the intelligence services that do this more than anybody else are the united states and the british m. i 6, i think anywhere you go in the world, if you scratch deep enough, you're going to find the cia. and i'll say this, i mean, i know there's people out there who believe the cia has been used. i believe that ca, analysis used to be solid when i was doing the soviet target. i had high respect for other the sofa vision within um ca, that was a swamp of soviet analysis. um, i even had respect for some of the a c i officers who were working the operation side against the soviet target. um, but today i, you know, when i take a look at it to see i, they bring nothing positive. if you have a ca station in an embassy in your country, they're not there to help you. they're not there to help you there. they're hurting their job. isn't to, you know, promote your interest,

the job is there to solely promote the interest of the united states. and even if you think you have a cooperative relationship with them, it's not, it's only cooperative in so far as to see. i use it as being beneficial to a larger intelligence plan. a larger intelligence are good. ok, so they're either working with you to try and bring unrest somewhere else in the world or they're working in your country who fall ment unrest in your country. so there is an outcome that beneficial the united states not necessarily beneficial to you, but i would say the number one, a bad actor in the world today is the central intelligence agency, which basically exists to create the conditions that further american power, usually at the detriment of the nations that they're involved or it's scott ritter and don't go anywhere. there's a ton more to unpack here. coming up next, can we blame a qu on mark zuckerberg. we'll examine the role of social media in modern day coups

. we're going to discuss it when we return, sit tight, the ammo will be right back with oh, need to come to the russian state. little, never the tires on the no sense game with speedy when else calls with will van in the european union. the kremlin media machine, the state on russia for date, and r t spoke neck, given our video agency, roughly all bands on youtube with

some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities and other countries. the united states of america is different. wearable people long to be free, they will find a friend in the united states. ah, with you, little bit about it all. ready? basie, sincerely, city, and draw. you look at the incentives of each cigarettes. p color revolutions, is one among several means to reach the goal. of conquering foreign lands and

bringing them onto the help of u. s. western economic interests. people in sadie, i didn't that he did what i grew valley did them. okay. yeah. yeah, you shouldn't correct date. so no. we must say low their soft balestreri cat. the final goal of these seeing revolutions is to ensure that there are no independent players in the world anymore. oh, mark, zach or barn could some of the 21st century cruise be blamed on facebook? right, look, i'm not trying to be sued for libel or slander, so i won't lay these issues squarely at his feet, but nowadays regime change operations happen right before our very eyes on social

media. scott ritter is joining us again. scott, thanks for sticking around. still want to talk about so in the 20th century, a post mortem of places like iran, 1953. she lay 1973, bolivia, 1980 iraq, 2001 libya 2011. and i believe future historians will refer to ukraine in 2014 as an example. all had so called us intervention in lieu of the term coo or regime change operation. what's been the result of us intervention for some of these places? well, 1st thing is, none of these places emerged better after the u. s. intervention than they were before the intervention. everything the united states touches when it comes to this kind of activity where there's a dies. there's not a single example where the united states went in and touched the country and said,

i'm intervening to achieve a change in regimes and everything came up smell of roses. it doesn't work that we looked at libya under gadhafi priorities and i must sit here is singing the praises good. i'm not going to pretend to do some sort of wonderful democratic leader and all this stuff. so he was gadhafi, we know who he was, what he was is a man who cared about his country, but he was his man who invested heavily in the infrastructure as country. if you take a look at the infrastructure of libya, pre 2011, it was a, it was a, it was a nation who is doing okay. i mean, the high standard living a modern, you know, facility post usps intervention. libby is, is, is, is a hello, it's a, it's an economy is in tatters. it's infrastructure ruined. it's, it's a civil war. i'm nothing good and we can go across down the road. every single place that we touch is up worse off than it was before we touched what happens when?

oh had i think perhaps fame, reject the u. s. o or intervention? oh well, um, it probably don't last very long. um. it's rare to have a leader that says we, we don't want your assistance, we don't want your help. we're going to go it our own way. because normally the united states were not a benevolent nation. we don't have a tendency go out and offer assistance to people just because they needed and out of the kindness of our heart, we offer assistance when it benefits us when there's an outcome that we desire. and that outcomes usually linked to a geopolitical you know, impact that we want, that furthers what we call our national security interests. so a nation refusing help means that they have competed a process of achieving an outcome that decision makers have made a decision. is necessary for a larger objective so we can't just simply go,

oh okay, you don't want our help. gosh, we'll walk away from this one. if you don't want our help and we're going to find somebody who does want our help. if you reject american assistance, you're rejecting a, you're, you're doing, you're not just rejecting assistance, you're hurting national security. and now you become a threat to the united states and threats need to be removed. so we'll find a way to removing what role does the traditional legacy media play if any, in cooper and for this i'm referring specifically to, to tv and to print? well, normally speaking, traditional legacy media is that which the majority of a population you know, gets their information from and, and generally speaking, it's government troll, depending on where you're in or government influences even here in the united states. the people who report on government things know that there hostages to certain sources of information that are comprised primarily. ready of anonymous

senior level, government officials who feed them data that allows them to have a headline story. you remove the government source, you really got nothing. so legacy media is there to promote a way of thinking. so you can either gain control of the legacy media if you're ca, start planting stories that undermine facing the government. or is you're the government. you can, you can seize control yourself and only put forth stories that, that, that are favorable to you. this is why there's a new kind of media, the social media, facebook, the twitters telegram, whatever that is out there that allows an in around to be to be put there. but even then that's, that's not as effective as one would think. you know, united states is called it digital democracy where we use these, the social media platforms to engender public unrest. again, it hasn't been successful. it failed in egypt failed in iran. it failed in turkey.

it's failing in russia. it failed. just about everywhere that we've, we've tried to use it. and the other thing about legacy media is that it is, it can be used by the government to sell emissions. so let's say the u. s. legacy media, you know, one would think that, you know, rush, we tried to explain it to alter, you know, the point of view in the states, but we use it. the united states government uses it to shape american opinion. and then detroit influence opinion abroad. because american media has historically had a rather positive cache attached to it. people were like, you know, when walter cronkite speech people listen but that day is gone and there are no more walter gates in america, media. the american media is a total shell out to the us government. we see that ukraine today where it is become a veritable stenographer for deliberately misleading and falsified intelligence

. information. leach by the u. s. government, they've even acknowledged. they've admitted it. yeah, we're leaking stuff. we know it's not true, we want to get it out there to shape perception. and that's the role of the media today to shape perception. it's no longer to inform people. it's the shape perception. and that means you're not the media that just means you're supple rock and out. and you know, as you mentioned in today's day and age, social media deserve as a whole separate address. social media plays an outsider role in our everyday lives . what's their impact on coups, you know, i was involved with iraq back when there wasn't meaningful social media. so we don't primarily with the legacy media. and one of the ways that we fomented or supported the notion of a coup in iraq was to reprogram the american public to get them to accept it face value. anything negative that was said about saddam hussein and saddam hussein's iraq. and that was largely successful. i mean, i was somebody who was empowered with truth 1st hand truth. i did the chopper 7

years, there was no one had better access to the reality of iraqi weapons of mass destruction status than me. but i couldn't get traction in the mainstream media. they were very successful in downplaying, what i had to say and exaggerating a counter opinions. today we have a situation in ukraine where i have taken a contrarian position to the mainstream narrative. and i was able to gain some traction in social media because it's not controlled, or at least we thought it was in control by mainstream media. but what we found out is it actually is thanks to the 20162020 elections. the united states congress and the powers that be, have determined that social media is through a direct threat to american democracy. because the people who access social media can't be controlled by area of, of it's being shaped by mainstream media. there's alternatives. so the government

is put pressure on social media to silence voices of descent. and i've been famously banned from twitter. what control is this have on cruise? united states again has for some time now been trying to implement a policy of aaliyah digital democracy. it's basically using social media to foment social unrest, the can lead to regime change type activities and targeted nation. so iran has been famously targeted for this, or the 2009 green revolution of what's going on today in regards to the, the, the, the, the a, the poor lady who was a, who lost her life in police custody over a job. you know what she murdered by the iranians? no, she died of a heart attack apparently, according to the video, but that didn't stop the cia and my 6 and other a foreign elements using social media to create a narrative to create a perception inside iran,

the fomented unrest. and that's the role of social media today in that, in that regard. but it's not succeeded. of there's a couple reasons why one of social media is internet based in the internet can be turned off. and that's the end of it. um, and 2 of the social media works your 2 way. so you, you can promote your idea, but there's a lot of other ideas out there. so oftentimes the targeted information package you're trying to get out gets looted by other information. that's that. so that's competing for time space on the, on the social media it's a, it's an imperfect platform. um, a lot of people. ready believe there's promise and hope in it for changing the way people think. but at the end of the day, a people think the way they're going to think and um, a tweet or facebook posting isn't going to change that reality. scott ritter. thank you so much for staying with us and talk about that. so you can see

a rose by any other name. i forget it at the end of the day whose regime change intervention, whatever you want to call it, the end result is the same d, stabilizing of that country, blood deaf violets. you get the picture crews are inherently undemocratic. yet the hender minds who aid in this, this sort of political destabilization purport to be spreading democracy, ironic that's going to do it for this weeks episode of modus operandi the show that dig deep into foreign policy. i'm your host manila chan. thank you for tuning and we'll see you again next week to figure out the ammo. ah, ah,

i am, my name is frank richardson. so daughter you got in the movement in any age, 13 or 14. we were violent towards those people because we believe there were this race. we were here 1st and this is our country being part of that movement. i got your sense of power. when i felt powerless, we got attention when i felt invisible and accepted when i talked to level life after, hey, is an organization that was founded by for skin, neo nazi white supremacists in the u. s. in canada. and they found each other and they knew that they wanted to help other guys get out was 2 parts to getting out of a violent extremist group. the 1st part is disengagement, which is where you leave the social group. and then the next part is d. radicalization work belief systems audiology are removed. it was very impactful. when someone finally came along with no fear, no judgement,

you heard my story did nothing to challenger it validate on cheap energy coming from last year. russian gas chip and she bows affordable and she grew up in the stable, which has been proved, not the case. did you say? well, that is no longer there a day when it's a it's a so phone. if i can't, if i need to shut it off, you could simply the water bottle. is there muslim love ship was like, well you dealing me when you both used to lunch and wounded and cooking, probably squeaking like me even on little shampooing. who your why did you decide on sanctions, your sanction country? a section of course them because you want to jane. a person

that hasn't happened. actions hasn't function a, a boat intimidation mall, the general elections in nigeria as a country council by the state of a question both scheduled on monday. and i thought he's condemned by riots by is really set the in the west bank kind of who was overnight, which left at least one past, needs dead and more than a 100 miles will do. and so i have been reported in several use plenty of regions on monday that as our correspondent follows the bottles of russian artillery done by.