Chapter 22 2. The ending of the "Color Revolution"

If the "Arab Spring" pinned the expectation of some Western forces to overthrow China, then the "Color Revolution" is even more a model of Western forces' attempts to overthrow China's political system.The three countries (Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, and Georgia) that have experienced the "color revolution" are all former socialist countries and countries with economies in transition. In a sense, they are much more comparable to China than to Arab countries.But the Western forces still made a wrong calculation. The "color revolution" failed so quickly that even many people in the West felt ashamed.

Let's start with the Ukrainian "Orange Revolution" in 2004.This so-called "revolution" was full of drama: first, Western-led opinion polls challenged the official statistics of the Ukrainian general election, triggering a wave of large-scale demonstrations. His handsome face quickly turned ugly, his complexion turned dark, and his face was covered with pimples. The "poison incident" undoubtedly helped Yushchenko. In the end, in the "color revolution" under the banner of peaceful resistance, Yushchenko won the election, and the West rejoiced.Soon afterwards, Yushchenko's face also miraculously returned to the "Prince Charming" era (some people do doubt the conspiracy theory).

Behind the success of this "color revolution" is the support of Europe and the United States. They sent a large amount of funds to the so-called "civil society" against the government through various channels, and then exerted pressure through diplomacy and public opinion. The government could not use violence against the demonstrators. The army dispatched by the Ministry of the Interior was later recalled, and the generals of the army turned to the opposition. The government finally compromised. The Constitutional Court ruled that the general election was invalid and called for a new general election.In the second round of the general election, Yushchenko, chairman of the "Our Ukraine" alliance and presidential candidate, defeated Yanukovych, the presidential candidate of the "Party of Regions", with a support rate of nearly 52%. "Prince Charming" Yushchenko and beauty politician Tymoshenko formed a "two-headed politics" combination and shared the victory. Yushchenko sat on the throne of president and Tymoshenko won the position of prime minister.But their unity was expedient, and the two soon clashed fiercely, leaving their former allies as strangers.

As civil strife intensified, the economy withered, and corruption surged, mainstream Ukrainian public opinion on the "color revolution" also changed from "hope" to "disappointment": five years after the "orange revolution" in 2009, the economy shrank and the currency depreciated by half , the country is in debt and even faces bankruptcy.By 2010, the first general election after the "color revolution", Yushchenko, who had received 52% of the support, only received 5% of the support, ranking fifth among the 18 presidential candidates. Far behind the former rival Yanukovych.According to a 2009 poll conducted by the Pew Center in Ukraine, only 30% of Ukrainians support "democracy", a full 42 percentage points lower than in 1991.

Massive demonstrations backed by the West in 2014 led to fresh turmoil, with violent clashes between opposing sides and Kyiv becoming a bloody battlefield.The United States and the European Union directly intervened in the situation in Ukraine. The United States was dissatisfied with the relatively conservative policies of the European Union and directly planned the formation of a new Ukrainian government. As a result, the democratically elected President Yanukovych fled to Russia. How ironic is this to the Western democratic model!Russia fought back strongly and sent troops to Crimea. The citizens of Crimea also voted to join Russia, and Russia accepted this request.The relationship between Russia and the West has quickly entered a trough.

It is also necessary for us to evaluate Ukraine's "Orange Revolution" by Chinese standards.Deng Xiaoping said that whether a country's political system is good depends on three key points: first, whether the country's political situation is stable; second, whether it can enhance people's unity and improve people's lives; and third, whether productivity can be continuously developed.If these three criteria are used to evaluate Ukraine after the "Orange Revolution", then we can say with certainty that Ukraine's performance in these three aspects is "very bad": Since the "Orange Revolution", Ukraine has been fighting internally Constantly, the chaos is inevitable.After Yushchenko came to power, he did not focus on people's livelihood, but engaged in "class struggle", was busy liquidating history, grasping historical issues such as the "Great Famine" and the Ukrainian uprising army, and joined the United States in a dangerous game of joining "NATO". Make a treasury empty.Former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko was imprisoned on corruption charges, the country fell into deep internal strife, and various demonstrations and conflicts continued all year round.

The Ukrainian people are not more united, but more divided.The Ukrainian people are roughly divided into two irreconcilable camps, the so-called pro-Western western region and the pro-Russian eastern region. Both sides are fighting in various forms in order to get candidates who can represent their own interests to come to power.The Ukrainian national flag, which is half yellow and half blue, seems to symbolize the economic and political belonging of the eastern and western Ukrainians. No matter who becomes the president, almost half of the citizens are always unhappy, and the Western general election model is constantly exacerbating this division. . In the middle of 2006, I visited Ukraine and chatted with college students camped out in Independence Square. They waved the flags of the European Union and the United States, and their hearts were full of longing for the Western world.In fact, the positions of the EU and the United States on Ukraine are also very different, but they both oppose Russia’s influence. The contradictions among the "Russia" ethnic groups have resulted in no peace for Ukraine, and the prospects for the restoration of unity in Ukraine have been very slim.

The development of Ukrainian productivity has also been hit hard.Anyone who has been to Ukraine will sigh: a big country (in terms of territorial area, Ukraine is the second largest country in Europe), with vast and fertile black land, and a deep industrial foundation left by the former Soviet Union (in those days, the Soviet Union "Kuznetzo The aircraft carrier Izve, Antonov aircraft, T80 tanks, advanced aero-engines and the launch vehicle Zenit are all made in Ukraine), but today the economy is in a slump.Inflation, economic depression, surge in corruption, currency devaluation, and people's living standards plummeted.Ukraine is a wealthy republic in the former Soviet Union. In 1991, Ukraine's per capita GDP was four times higher than that of China, but now it is only half of China's.Ukraine has the reputation of "Europe's granary", and its heavy industry, especially military industry, is also very developed. After Ukraine became independent in 1991 and embraced Western institutions, many people were very optimistic about the prospects of Ukraine.But the fact is that the ending after more than 20 years is miserable, how many thought-provoking lessons there are in it!

Let's look at Kyrgyzstan. Kyrgyzstan gained independence in 1991, and former President Akayev came to power. He admired the Western democratic model very much, and carried out a comprehensive transformation of the country according to the Western model of separation of powers and free market economy, but Akayev ate Western democracy on his own. bitter fruit. In March 2005, the so-called "Tulip Revolution" that overthrew President Akayev broke out in Kyrgyzstan, and the Akayev regime that had ruled Kyrgyzstan for 15 years fell instantly.Bakiyev as supreme leader.American political circles and media once rejoiced at the revolution, claiming that it was a victory for "democracy and freedom."However, the "revolution" also brought continuous social turmoil. The political forces representing different regions in the south and the north fell into infighting, and the economy of Kyrgyzstan suffered heavy losses.Moreover, after the outbreak of the revolution, the development of the situation in Kyrgyzstan was quite different from the expectations of the West. The relationship between the new government and Russia seemed to be more harmonious than that with the West.

In less than five years, another revolution broke out, overthrowing Bakiyev, the democratic hero of the "Tulip Revolution", and triggering violent conflicts. China had to evacuate its nationals from Kyrgyzstan on a large scale.The huge negative impact of these turmoil on Kyrgyzstan's politics, economy and society continues to this day.I went to Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan, in 2006. It felt like a county in China in the 1980s. On the surface, it was at least 20 years behind Urumqi at that time.The democratic model that the West is proud of, the so-called two-party democratic model of "you sing and I will show up" has been repeatedly performed in Kyrgyzstan.

As for Georgia, the situation is also bleak. The so-called "Rose Revolution" broke out in Georgia in 2003, and the pro-American Saakashvili drove away President Shevardnadze.In order to commend Xiao Sa as a "democratic hero", then US President George W. Bush paid a special visit to this small country with a population of less than 5 million, praising it as a "beacon of democracy" in the Eurasian region.I have watched Saakashvili's English speech many times on TV. His English is very good, and he is full of words that Americans like to hear. This must be the main reason why he has won the favor of Americans, but more importantly. He is extremely hostile to Russia. During the Beijing Olympic Games in August 2008, Sa naively thought that he could make a decision and provoked the Georgia-Russia war, and got the support of the United States. As a result, President Putin strongly countered and Georgia completely lost control of the two republics.The war and the global financial crisis have severely damaged Georgia's economy. Although the economy has recovered in recent years, Georgia's economy is vulnerable. The lives of most people have not improved because of the "color revolution". Half of the country's population still lives at the poverty line the following. If we measure Georgia and Kyrgyzstan by Deng Xiaoping's three criteria for evaluating the quality of political institutions mentioned above (and this applies to all Arab Spring countries), then these countries' performance is "very bad".The political situation in these countries has not become more stable, but has become more turbulent; the people have not become more united, but have become more divided; the lives of ordinary people have not improved, but deteriorated, because productivity has been greatly damaged. In short, the results of the "Color Revolution", like the "Arab Spring", can also be summed up in four words: "miserable".This is not only the personal experience of the majority of people in these countries, but also the feeling of many Western governments and people.Today's China can confidently examine the profound crisis that the so-called "universal values" have brought to the "color revolution" countries and the "Arab Spring" countries, which will help us more firmly follow the path of success we have explored Road to greater glory.

---

Notes: