-The content of the document clearly and exclusively aligns with US/NATO security interests and national interests.
-The network of organizations undersigning the document are NGOs largely based in Ukraine, increasing plausible deniability.
This would fall within the NSC’s guidance and directives to achieve plausible deniability for CIA operations as the United States government is not officially (overtly) undersign the statement or acknowledge a role. It is therefore safe to assume the CIA is operating through the undersigned NGOs (cutouts) to further America’s national security interests.
2)
All of this can be classified as covert if the only requirement is plausible deniability. There are no official US signatories and only two organizations which reside in the United States. One is Ukranian-aligned and one is a foundation. The document itself only references the goal of EU/NATO membership and inclusion of “western partners”.
3)
State Dept: Represented here through clear US national interest defined in the “red lines” requirements of the text.
DoD: Represented there through clear US national security interests in the “red lines”
CIA: By requirement of NSC would be the necessary conduit of any funding and direct control via cutouts.
4)
Govt(DoD):
Red lines on NATO membership
Red Lines on security and defense policies, Strategic Defense Bulletin
Private Sector:
Energy sector interests in redlines
IMF Involvement
“Foundation” NGOs
Private funding for NGOs
Civil Society organizations are referenced throughout the document and represent the bulk of the signatories
News Media/ Fact Checkers:
“Media and Information Policy” red lines.
National Television and Radio Broadcasting Council
Information/Media NGOs as signatories
5)
The complete absence of any issues and interests which do not fit the mold. You would expect some bullet points and signatories to reflect interests that are specifically and uniqely (perhaps even oddly) Ukranian and which wouldn’t align with the blob picture if this was genuine.
(I took the exercise too literally and did not check the donors page for any of these answers as Mike did, which would have changed some of them)
NSC 10/2 creates a praxeology for covert action against threats to the Blob’s power and control, ranging from propaganda and subversion to economic warfare and sabotage.
The Plausible Deniability Doctrine states the Blob’s need to deny responsibility for any and all NSC 10/2-like actions; there can be no clear proof they were pulling the strings; this is why pass-throughs like NED or the Atlantic Council are used as cat’s paws for the Blob’s dirty work. The Blob itself needs to be seen as above the fray, a seemingly objective, principled arbiter of truth.
Covert action is the preferred method to control or uninstall a leader, like a Zelensky, should he challenge the Blob by crossing one of the red lines mentioned, like “extending preferential treatment to oligarchs.” This kind of vague language is useful and able to be interpreted according to the Blob’s needs. Should covert action fail, overt action then becomes necessary. This includes action that would foment political instability, leading to placement of a Blob stooge. Overt action includes, for example, rule of law programs to control the language of law and thus its power and enforcement. Covert actions would include American tax dollars going to CIA-asset media mouthpieces and Mockingbird-style “news” from “Internews-Ukraine.”
The US State Dept. might as well have written this document it so clearly aligns with their political agenda in this region rich in minerals, although it gives the appearance of being Ukrainian-written.
There is a tacit threat that failing “to seek real democratic change,” i.e., doing something the Blob frowns at, could result in the DoD using its resources to push for a more agreeable leader.
The CIA and its pass throughs would then move to use both covert and overt methods to tilt the country’s leadership back into the vassal position, whether through color revolutions bottom up, or top down kidnappings like in Venezuela.
The Blob’s Whole of Society quadrants include government (NATO, IMF), private sector (an entrepreneur signatory and energy firms: gas and oil companies), civil society (the alphabet mafia NGOs) and media (National TV and Radio Broadcasting Council), which are all referenced in “the red lines memo.” This united front allows for a full-court press on regional politics from the Blob’s henchmen.
What stands out is how skilled the Blob is at making communication Orwellian and difficult to understand, process, and relate to others–unless one is in the know and speaks the language. The memo is written by a professor type who doesn’t want the uninitiated to read or get it, but in sum essentially just says: cross the Blob and die. Do what you’re told, and we’ll win your “hearts and minds” with a spigot of flowing cash, influence, and status. … Do what you’re told, or else…
MY QUIZ ANSWERS:
1)
NSC Section 10/2 applies as:
-The content of the document clearly and exclusively aligns with US/NATO security interests and national interests.
-The network of organizations undersigning the document are NGOs largely based in Ukraine, increasing plausible deniability.
This would fall within the NSC’s guidance and directives to achieve plausible deniability for CIA operations as the United States government is not officially (overtly) undersign the statement or acknowledge a role. It is therefore safe to assume the CIA is operating through the undersigned NGOs (cutouts) to further America’s national security interests.
2)
All of this can be classified as covert if the only requirement is plausible deniability. There are no official US signatories and only two organizations which reside in the United States. One is Ukranian-aligned and one is a foundation. The document itself only references the goal of EU/NATO membership and inclusion of “western partners”.
3)
State Dept: Represented here through clear US national interest defined in the “red lines” requirements of the text.
DoD: Represented there through clear US national security interests in the “red lines”
CIA: By requirement of NSC would be the necessary conduit of any funding and direct control via cutouts.
4)
Govt(DoD):
Red lines on NATO membership
Red Lines on security and defense policies, Strategic Defense Bulletin
Private Sector:
Energy sector interests in redlines
IMF Involvement
“Foundation” NGOs
Private funding for NGOs
Civil Society organizations are referenced throughout the document and represent the bulk of the signatories
News Media/ Fact Checkers:
“Media and Information Policy” red lines.
National Television and Radio Broadcasting Council
Information/Media NGOs as signatories
5)
The complete absence of any issues and interests which do not fit the mold. You would expect some bullet points and signatories to reflect interests that are specifically and uniqely (perhaps even oddly) Ukranian and which wouldn’t align with the blob picture if this was genuine.
(I took the exercise too literally and did not check the donors page for any of these answers as Mike did, which would have changed some of them)
Amazing answers.
This is fantastic. Well done.
NSC 10/2 creates a praxeology for covert action against threats to the Blob’s power and control, ranging from propaganda and subversion to economic warfare and sabotage.
The Plausible Deniability Doctrine states the Blob’s need to deny responsibility for any and all NSC 10/2-like actions; there can be no clear proof they were pulling the strings; this is why pass-throughs like NED or the Atlantic Council are used as cat’s paws for the Blob’s dirty work. The Blob itself needs to be seen as above the fray, a seemingly objective, principled arbiter of truth.
Covert action is the preferred method to control or uninstall a leader, like a Zelensky, should he challenge the Blob by crossing one of the red lines mentioned, like “extending preferential treatment to oligarchs.” This kind of vague language is useful and able to be interpreted according to the Blob’s needs. Should covert action fail, overt action then becomes necessary. This includes action that would foment political instability, leading to placement of a Blob stooge. Overt action includes, for example, rule of law programs to control the language of law and thus its power and enforcement. Covert actions would include American tax dollars going to CIA-asset media mouthpieces and Mockingbird-style “news” from “Internews-Ukraine.”
The US State Dept. might as well have written this document it so clearly aligns with their political agenda in this region rich in minerals, although it gives the appearance of being Ukrainian-written.
There is a tacit threat that failing “to seek real democratic change,” i.e., doing something the Blob frowns at, could result in the DoD using its resources to push for a more agreeable leader.
The CIA and its pass throughs would then move to use both covert and overt methods to tilt the country’s leadership back into the vassal position, whether through color revolutions bottom up, or top down kidnappings like in Venezuela.
The Blob’s Whole of Society quadrants include government (NATO, IMF), private sector (an entrepreneur signatory and energy firms: gas and oil companies), civil society (the alphabet mafia NGOs) and media (National TV and Radio Broadcasting Council), which are all referenced in “the red lines memo.” This united front allows for a full-court press on regional politics from the Blob’s henchmen.
What stands out is how skilled the Blob is at making communication Orwellian and difficult to understand, process, and relate to others–unless one is in the know and speaks the language. The memo is written by a professor type who doesn’t want the uninitiated to read or get it, but in sum essentially just says: cross the Blob and die. Do what you’re told, and we’ll win your “hearts and minds” with a spigot of flowing cash, influence, and status. … Do what you’re told, or else…
Wonderful