Democracy in a Russian Mirror
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To send this chapter to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.
To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.
To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.
INTRODUCTION
“Color revolution” is an ambiguous term in Russian as well as English. Its meaning is difficult to pin down, and so is the nature of the upheavals that, between 2003 and 2010, convulsed Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, and Kyrgyzstan. Were these color revolutions a second wave of the “velvet revolutions” that accompanied the fall of Communism in 1989? Or did they represent something new, a distinct type of revolution specific to post-Soviet space (or post-Communist space, if we include Serbia in 2000)? Or were the color revolutions, as the Russian propaganda machine alleges, inspired from abroad and directed against legitimate authorities in sovereign states and, indirectly, against Russia itself?
The real or imaginary involvement of the West in the color revolutions is the main reason why Russian officials adamantly deny the revolutionary character of these events and classify them, instead, as mere coups. In Kyrgyzstan, no Western involvement could be proved in either the Tulip Revolution that overthrew President Askar Akayev in March 2005 or in the events of April–June 2010 that resulted in the ouster of President Kurmanbek Bakiyev. Nor did anti-Russian motives play a significant role. Nevertheless, in the first case, Russian propaganda easily found a way to concoct a story line involving both outside interference and an anti-Moscow plot. A local “mafia,” allegedly associated with foreign forces, became a substitute for “the West,” and the pro-Russian character of the new regime was declared to be a “victory for healthy forces” over the “conspirators.” In April 2010, by contrast, the Russian mass media dropped all mention of foreign influence from its interpretation of the Kyrgyz events, focusing exclusively on the domestic factors that unleashed the mayhem.
From a scholarly perspective, in any case, the question of the nature of the color revolutions remains wide open.
WERE THERE ANY REVOLUTIONS?
Those who lose by a revolution are rarely inclined to call it by its real name.
Ironically, official Russian criticism of the so-called color revolutions is explicitly or implicitly based on the traditional Marxist definition of social revolution.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.