supply of food and energy, we have to make sure that countries in asia, africa, and america not too strongly and negatively impacted by the terrible war of aggression that russia started against ukraine here. and that the impact is not too negative for them. supply shortages, thus the one priority of our work boat. oh, love shots also reiterated about hazel commitment or ceiling. the deal between europe as well as you look in union as well as in their defeated deal. and why do they want to do that? essentially because of course, a, it is going to strengthen our use ties with, in the indoor specifically june that but more importantly, they believe that by doing saw if they can father rightfully moscow. so basically, winning india, we're from russian arms and energy, but into doesn't one that there's a clear answer to that, nor in factor as far as feminist or knowing the more the during his wizard is concerned. a why he said that the conflict should be sold with dialogue and

diplomacy. but, you know, keeping in line with the countries are abroad still now. he in fact are the seen from are seeing anything against russia. now mean by last week there was also a g. 20 of finance ministers meet in india. and while the finance sheets had a lot to ponder upon, discuss economic problems. but what really happened was that oil that got overshadowed by the western demands for india or to condemn russia now in the us taking a subtle stance in it, refused to comment on the incident as were in june, was saying, germany is all sholtes, wearing a black tie much like for a funeral, spend saturday trying to pressure india to cut its ties with russia. but why would germany be so short sighted considering germany in europe, still buying russian energy for doing so through sellers like india learn more, but aren't you thought on the

hello, i'm manila chan. you were tuned into modus operandi. the political lexicon gets a re brand. traditionally called a kuda car, now coined regime change, but the 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 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 who? 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 tom. 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 ammo 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, coo, 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 vladimir putin. 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? but 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 from a government oftentimes a democratically elected government. and we don't want to encourage that any more. 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. you see 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 of this his 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, it meant 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 the sanctions that were imposed on russia a prior 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. recruiting from from power a regime change, but never a coo and what. 2 are the characteristics as

a kill. how might one know if they were being coded? generally speaking, we speak with could a talk, an implication is military. so the 1st key is that the, 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 the ku 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, i'll put you on an airplane and fly you off. but generally speaking, when we speak of a coup, it sub men in uniforms 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 towards 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 and 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 that we 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 know, as a coo attention the st. all right, so i heard, so theologists say that one of the things that are part and parcel of a coup d'etat 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 i was, it's the economy, stupid. and that's a 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. but one of the ways that you want a foment, who 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 because of the bad policies of

the government. you generally want to tie the economic difficulties to notions of corruption, that these are the people you entrusted to look out for your welfare. but instead of looking out for you, they're only looking out for themselves. they're enriching themselves, shore bank johnson stuffs you 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 it 1st happen. i mean, the person more scared than the president. it's being forcefully moved from power. is the people doing it because you've just taken a big step into the unknown. the qu, fails, you're off times, accuse of treason, and you can put up against a 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 to 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 the rock a place that i had 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 cou, that we would get the, his military leadership to apply the $75.00 cent solution, which is the price with $9.00 millimeter board, the back of his head. and um, and then replace him with someone that looked like saddam talk like damage. this was a name saddam, and he did 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 also 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 words against us in iran, in fortune 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 coups 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. the ca job is to go in and 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 of. but basically, by manipulating the society from the inside out it's, it's done by intelligent services and the intelligence services that do this more than anybody else, or the united states. and the british m, i 6, i think anywhere you go in the world, if you scratch deepen up, you're going to find the cia. and i'll say this, i mean, i know there's people out there who believe the ca, as good ca, analysis used to be solid. when i was doing the soviet target, had high respect for the sober division within the ca, that, which was far from soviet analysis. i even had respect for some of the ca,

officers who were working the operation side against the soviet target. but to day, you know, when i take a look at it to see a they bring nothing positive. if you have a see a station, 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. a job is there just 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 argot. 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 foment unrest in your country. so that there is an outcome that beneficial the united states not necessarily beneficial to you. but i would say the number one 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 with. are a scott ritter and don't go anywhere. there's a ton more to unpack here, coming up next, can we blame qu on mark zuckerberg? we'll examine the role of social media in modern day cruise. we're going to discuss it when we return that type, the em out will be right back. i ah ah, to come to russian state to never outside us on the north landscape with within the 55 with us be the one else holes with we will ban in the european

union, the kremlin media machine, the state on russia today. and archie spoke back to even our video agency, roughly all brand on youtube. and it says with for mark zuckerberg could some of the 21st century coups be blamed on facebook. right? like i'm not trying to be sued for a liable 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. i'll still lot 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 u. s. intervention for some of these places? well, 1st thing is, none of these places emerged better. um, after the u. s. intervention than they were before the u. s. intervention, everything the united states touches when it comes to this kind of activity withers

and dies. there's not a single example where the united states went in, and i touched a country and said, i'm intervening to achieve a change in regimes and everything came up, smell of roses, it doesn't work. i will look at libya under gadhafi priorities and i must sit here singing the praises gadhafi. and i can pretend to be some sort of wonderful democratic leader and all this done. so he was gadhafi, we know who he was, what he was as a man who cared about his country, but he was his man who invested heavily in the infrastructure his country. if you take a look at the infrastructure of libya, pri, 2011, it was a, it was a, it was a nation who was doing ok. i mean, the high standard living a modern a facility post usps intervention. libby is, is, is, is a hell, it's a, it's an economy is in tatters. that infrastructure ruined it's a civil war. um, 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 a head of state perhaps same, rejects the u. s. h, or intervention? oh, well, um they probably don't last very long. i it's rare to have a leader that says we don't want your assistance. we don't want your help. we're going to go with our own way. because normally the united states were not a benevolent nation. we don't have a tendency to go out and offer assistance to people this because they need it. and 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 your impact that we want that furthers what we call our national security interest. so a nation refusing help means that they have competed a process of achieving an outcome. that's a 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, then we're going to find somebody who does want our help. if you reject american assistance, you're rejecting 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 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 see a star planting stories that undermine faith in the government or is you're the government. you can, um, you can seize control yourself and only put forth stories that, that, that are favor. would you? this is why there's a new kind of media, the social media, facebook, the twitters telegram, whatever that's out there that allows an entire round to be to put there. um, but even then that's, that's not as effective as one would think. i know united states is called it digital democracy where we use visa, the social media platforms to engender public unrest. um a, again, it hasn't been

a successful it, it failed in egypt. it 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. um and the other thing about legacy media is that it is it, it can be used by the government um to a so a mission. so let's say at the the u. s. legacy media, you know, one would think that, you know, russia, we tried to exploit it to alter um, you know, the point of united states, but we use it. the united states government uses it to shape american opinion and indeed try and influence opinion abroad. because american media has historically had a, a rather positive cache attached to people were like, you know, when walter cronkite speaks people listen, i'm, but that they is gone. there are no more walter crack. it's an american media. american meat is a total seller, a to the u. s. government. we see that in ukraine today, where it is become a veritable

a stenographer for i deliberately misleading and falsified intelligence. information leaked by the u. s. government. they've even acknowledged that they've admitted it. yeah, we're leaking stuff, we know it's not true that 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 meet your simple up 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 st. iraq.

and that was largely successful. i mean, i was somebody who was empowered with truth 1st hand truth. i did the shop for 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 release. we thought it was in control by mainstream media. but what we found out. ready 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 just 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 and rest, 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 has a lost her life in police custody over a job. you know where she murdered by the iranians. know she died of a heart attack apparently according to the video, but that didn't stop on 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 it 2 ways. um 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, it's looted by other information that's, that's of, 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 to talk about that. so if you can see

a rose by any other name, i forget it at the end of the day, close regime, change intervention, whatever you want to call it, the end result is the same destabilizing of that country, blood death violence. you get the picture. coups are inherently undemocratic, yet the henge ammons, who aid in this, this sort of political destabilization purport to be spreading democracy. i run it that's going to do it for this week's episode. i've modus operandi the show that dig deep into foreign policy. i'm your host manella chan. thank you for tuning and we'll see you again next week to figure out that m l a

on cheap energy coming from last year. rush and gush chip and she bows. affordable and ship. you are finished a boat, which had be both, not the case. did you that will that the from no longer there a it's a so form that i can't that i need to should it? good. okay. if it's it, the water bottle of their muslim love ship was like, well, you did a new one year both use convention wanted and you could, you probably square him like me even the who your career, who your why do you decide on sanctions, your sanction country a section of the person because you want to change the behavior of the government because cruise them why that hasn't happened, actions hasn't function. ah

ah, hungary brown, the i talk on the nord stream pipelines, a terrorist act goldsboro, un investigation. boeing. that's such an incident had never or be repeated. also ad on the program this our palestinian authorities didn't know really settlers for their part in violent riots in the west bank ton of who are up which left at least one palestinian dead and wounded more than a 100. that follows the killing of 2 jewish is really there in a shooting attack on your luck. we are not afraid of them. he is really army or protecting the settler.