a robot must protect its own existence with the 2nd world war affected millions of people. during the conflict, the balance of power was held by the leaders of 3 nations. the united kingdom, the united states, and the u. s. s. r. that is dying. when they go to the men tried cruise, so keep up as not because hitler was weak and knew he would wake and he was bluffing. he was the major political figure, certainly one of the most prominent political leaders of the 20th century where they wished to report the germans of the germans to renewing support the russians.

and that way let them destroy each other. there was that kind of sentiment in the west at this time. the redrawing of european borders had begun britain and the united states, and then just really planned to attack the ussr of britain to survive. russia had to be sacrificed, is as doctor to be likened to the west mesa ford from us was the luck of some record duke scuttle and miss ramos. hello no. where enough the cold war had begun. ah, hello, i'm manila chan. you were tuned in the modus operandi, the political lexicon gets a re brand, traditionally called a qu, they top 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 say tomato, you say tomato. i say who? the u. s. government says regime change when one party or group assumes 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 desperate 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 vladimir putin. they said this proxy war and 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, as 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 produce 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 anymore. so we speak of regime change. see, a regime change could be as simple as a, an election that you voted out a regime. it's very harmless. bloodless, 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 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 buy 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, recruited from from power a regime change, but never a coo and what are the characteristics other kill, how might one know if they were being code? generally speaking, we speak or could a talk an implication is military. so the, the 1st key is that there are guns involved. there's usually violence involved or the threat of violence regime change. they said it's a, it's a more, you know, warm and fuzzy thing, an election, you know, maybe a demonstration. but the 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 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 ku is sumter dissatisfaction toward sub there, the kind of constitutional rule that has been transparent. so the idea is to suspend the constitution, replace it 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, 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 clint was 1st running for president. stop, talk about foreign policy and as 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. one of the ways that you want a foam into qu, 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 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 accounts. so if 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 a 1st happen. 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 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 coup 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 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 right 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 saddam. 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 the 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 about leader. it's worked and it's worked against us and iraq. it's works 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 2 are engineers. 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 person's 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 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, by an 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 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 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 vision within ga that was responsible for soviet analysis. i even had respect for some of the ca, officers who were working the operation side against the soviet target. but today, you know, when i take a look at it, the ca, they bring nothing positive. if you have a ca station, an embassy in your country, they're not there to help you. they're not there to help you, they're hurt, their job isn't to, you know, promote your interest. the job is there just solely promote the interests 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. ready 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 volatile 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. ah,

ah, at this hour, american and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm iraq, to free its people. and to defend the world from great danger. with food and medicines and supplies and freedom with the me

mark zack or burn could some of the 21st century cruise 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, 953, 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 um, after the us intervention, than they were before the us 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 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 is 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, what he was, his man who invested heavily in the infrastructure, his country. if you take a look at the infrastructure of libya, pre 2011, it was a, it was a, it was a nation that was doing ok. i mean, they high standard living a modern oh,

you know, facility post you as intervention. libby is, is, is, is a hell, it's a, it's an economy is in tatters, such 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 say rejects us aid or intervention? oh, well, they probably don't last very long. 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 just 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 further is what we call our national security interest. so a nation refusing help means that they have impeded a process of achieving an outcome that the 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're cia and start planning 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 digital democracy where we use these are the social media platforms to engender public unrest. um a, again, it hasn't been the successful 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 can be used by the government up 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 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

then di trying influence opinion abroad because american media has historically had a, a rather positive cache attached to it. people were like, you know, when walter cronkite speaks people listen, i'm that they is gone. there are no more walter crack. it's an american media. american media is a total cell up to the u. s. government. we see that in ukraine today, where it is become a veritable a stenographer for i'm deliberately misleading and falsified intelligence. information leaked by the u. s. government. they've even acknowledged that they've admitted it yet 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 means your simple 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 so i'm saying iraq and that was largely successful. i mean, i was, somebody 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 contrary and 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 me. 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 a 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 has a 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. it can lead to regime change type activities and targeted nation. so iran has been famously targeted for this of 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 loss, your 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 on the cia and my 6 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. there's a couple reasons why one 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, you know, 2 ways of 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. 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 to talk about that. so 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 d, stabilizing of that country, blood death, 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 in. we'll see you again next week to figure out the ammo in. ah oh. in the year of 1954, the united states of america engaged in warfare against the people of vietnam. the white house supported the corrupt puppet government of southern vietnam. in 1965 americans began their invasion following the aim to defeat the forces of vietnamese

patriots. the pentagon was confident that the victory would be on the american side, due to its military superiority. however, the vietnamese turned this war into a total hell for the occupants. unable to cope with the guerrillas, the american army started blanket bombing alongside using chemical weapons and napalm which burnt all alive. the village of my lay wearing 1969 american soldiers killed 504 civilians, including 210 children, became a tragic symbol of this war. all in all, during the whole period of this conflict, the usa dropped on vietnam more than $6000000.00 tons of bombs, which is 2 and a half times as much as on germany during the 2nd world war. in 1973, the american army under the pressure of the rebels, withdrew from vietnam. and only 2 years later did the puppet regime in saigon fall

. however, the vietnamese paid a high price for their freedom. more than 1000000 vietnamese people became the victims of american aggressors. ah, the 2nd world war i think 2 millions of people. war during the conflict. the balance of power was held by the leaders of 3 nations. the united kingdom, the united states, and the u. s. s a.