It will take a good fifteen-twenty years, but you simply trick the small nation. Overthrow their government. Propagandize their minds. Steal their elections. Bribe their media. Bribe the teachers. Bribe the musicians.
Bribe the military. Invest billions of dollars in a long-running color revolution.
As USAID documents will reveal, all this started in 2003 as the US State Department persuaded Ukraine they could poke the bear and expect Western backup "to the last man." Which means when it's all over, there will only be one Ukrainian male left alive. No one really thought about that because the slogans all sounded so inspiring.
"The campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in Western branding and mass marketing," The Guardian's Ian Traynor wrote of the 2004 upheaval in November that year.
How Much Did the "Orange Revolution" Cost?
The US and its allies reportedly spent $65–$100 million over two years to support Viktor Yushchenko-led opposition, with much of the funding allegedly covert and funneled through NGOs.
The US State Department:
in FY2003 and FY2004 officially allocated $188.5 million and $143.47 million, respectively, for "assistance programs" in Ukraine
$54.7 million (FY2003) and $34.11 million (FY2004) went specifically to "democracy programs" in Ukraine on the eve of the 2004 election
"Democracy program" funds were used for electoral and government reform, independent media, political development, and training for administrators, lobbyists, and NGOs. The money was channeled through the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the Eurasia Foundation, National Endowment for Democracy (NED), US Embassy in Kiev, and others.
They cannot do what they want in the nation or to the nations of the world. They are limited by written Constitutional restrictions.
“Absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people.”
-- John Jay, The Federalist No. 4
He was Director of the Counterterrorism Center.
In his resignation letter to the President, he explains why he cannot be a party to an illegal war.
"Early in this administration, high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media deployed a misinformation campaign that wholly undermined your America First platform and sowed pro-war sentiments to encourage a war with Iran. This echo chamber was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States, and that should you strike now, there was a clear path to a swift victory. This was a lie and is the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into the disastrous Iraq war that cost our nation the lives of thousands of our best men and women. We cannot make this mistake again.
"As a veteran who deployed to combat 11 times and as a Gold Star husband who lost my beloved wife Shannon in a war manufactured by Israel, I cannot support sending the next generation off to fight and die in...
"The erosion of fatherhood and their role as spiritual leaders disrupts the transmission of faith. Western [Christian] civilization is sustained not by markets or constitutions, but by moral and spiritual inheritance handed down within families.
"The path forward is clear: we must stop neutralizing male vocation and once again preach sacrifice, duty, and spiritual headship without embarrassment. That requires rejecting the narrative that fathers are incidental to this journey and that their natural authority is a threat rather than a gift. If we internalize that story, we should not be surprised when faith, family, and inheritance continue to fracture."
-- Daisy Inglese