In this model, third-party intervention could contribute in three ways:
1. Artificially inflate the initial number of protesters by using paid/trained/armed provocateurs, therefore triggering a revolutionary cascade among the general population (e.g., dump a bunch of armed Cuban exiles in the Bay of Pigs and hope that the people rise up against Castro).
2. Increase the impact of the protests by supplying money, weapons, and training to organizers (e.g. training the Afghan mujahideen to fight the Soviets, arming Ukraine to fight Russia).
3. Use espionage, assassination, or other methods to diminish the regime's ability to defend against protests (e.g., Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, et al.).
These techniques are also used by non-state actors who provide the "spark" that turns a peaceful demonstration into a violent one, or at least cause enough damage so that the protest can be condemned as violence/terrorism.
The mainstream sociological explanation for revolution is pretty bare-bones compared to the 12-week advanced courses the CIA must have lying around. I don't think any revolution happens unexpectedly.
So where does the CIA come in?
In this model, third-party intervention could contribute in three ways:
1. Artificially inflate the initial number of protesters by using paid/trained/armed provocateurs, therefore triggering a revolutionary cascade among the general population (e.g., dump a bunch of armed Cuban exiles in the Bay of Pigs and hope that the people rise up against Castro).
2. Increase the impact of the protests by supplying money, weapons, and training to organizers (e.g. training the Afghan mujahideen to fight the Soviets, arming Ukraine to fight Russia).
3. Use espionage, assassination, or other methods to diminish the regime's ability to defend against protests (e.g., Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, et al.).
These techniques are also used by non-state actors who provide the "spark" that turns a peaceful demonstration into a violent one, or at least cause enough damage so that the protest can be condemned as violence/terrorism.
The mainstream sociological explanation for revolution is pretty bare-bones compared to the 12-week advanced courses the CIA must have lying around. I don't think any revolution happens unexpectedly.
Astroturf revolutions tend not to have much staying power. Look at the Arab Spring. Much ado about nothing.
Leaders were killed, coups were had, refugees were generated, weapons were sold, though.
An excellent point. Whether something is a success depends on what you're trying to achieve.
LOL: “These things happen in totalitarian states. Maybe you can think of some examples.”