Other theorists have also referred to this concept, according to Elio Perera Pena, a researcher at the Center for International Policy Research (CIPI).

Speaking at the Round Table, the expert pointed out that the United States conceptualized this type of war through the terminology dictionary of the Department of Defense, in 1990, a conceptualization that continued to develop until today.

“Unconventional warfare is when there is a condition of a resistance movement in a target country and a completely worn-out population.”

According to Perera Pena, this concept began to be located for analysis in US governing documents, including Training Directive 1801 of the US Special Operations Forces.

According to that text, for unconventional warfare to occur, there must be at least two essential conditions:

Convenience: The war will go ahead if the resistance movement is going to serve US interests.
Feasibility: When the resistance movement is really strong, has the power, and the population is worn out, dissatisfied and diverted from their attention.
Regarding hybrid warfare, the CIPI researcher clarified that it refers to when regular and non-regular methods are used.

The former include first generation wars (since ancient times, with the use of uniforms), second generation wars (for example, the one applied in the First World War, where there are battle fronts with trenches) and third generation wars. , used in World War II, where there are flank maneuvers, by the rear, light and heavy weapons, and a further increase in the maneuverability of aviation.

The latter include fourth and fifth generation warfare. In both, it is proposed that physical space, digital space and cyberspace will be used.

“The new computerization and communications technologies change the meaning of generations of wars, because what it is about are battles where apparently no shots are fired, although in governing documents of the United States it is said that there could be armed confrontations ”, commented Perera Pena.

However, he reiterated, the fundamental thing is the destabilizing message using the new information and communication technologies.

“It is said that in the fourth generation of war the frequency of destabilizing messages increases and in the fifth the intensity increases, causing irreversible neuronal damage.

“What it is about is working on the subconscious of the individual, achieving that in the cognitive process the objective that, from the think tanks and information centers, they try when they launch a war is fulfilled: influence, persuasion and conviction in the subconscious of the individual.

“They put this guy in a glass capsule, so he’s in one physical space but his mind is somewhere else,” she argued.

The researcher noted that they take advantage of real situations in a given country to launch this type of attack.

Pedro Etcheverry Vázquez, deputy director of the State Security Historical Research Center, referred to the doctrine of the so-called soft coup, recalling that it was conceived by US neoconservatives and exposed for the first time in July 1982 by President Ronald Reagan, before the European Parliament, through the so-called democracy programme.

In 1983, the Alberto Einstein Institution Foundation was created in Boston, with resources from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and directed by the anti-communist ideologue Gene Sharp.

Etcheverry Vázquez said that the soft coup doctrine was present in the events that occurred in the European socialist camp, in 1989, and in the Soviet Union, in 1991.

According to the deputy director of the State Security Historical Research Center, the book From dictatorship to democracy (1993), by Gene Sharp, founded hundreds of methods of internal destabilization, beginning with a first phase with the use of protest actions through symbolic acts, assemblies, rallies and marches, supported by extensive media coverage.

He added that later the organizers of the protests move on to other forms of civil disobedience and non-cooperation that are a little more advanced. Later they resort to the so-called non-violent intervention, which has to do with the obstruction of streets, the “peaceful” occupation of official offices and institutions, disrespecting the country’s authorities.

“Many of these street demonstrations are geared towards a higher degree of aggressiveness, while others protest peacefully. However, in other places there can be events involving common criminals who go beyond the limits, heating up the atmosphere, with the closure of large avenues, the burning of vehicles and violent acts against police forces.

Etcheverry Vázquez pointed out that without media support, all of this “would remain mute,” “without the possibility of confusing the masses.”

The film images where the repression is observed cause contradictory visions in sectors of the population, which gives rise to large media campaigns against violence and the alleged violation of human rights.

“These international media transform the images and put audio on them that confuse the viewer. And this situation, repeated many times, projects an image of chaos with the purpose of questioning even the governability of a country. The so-called failed state.

In 1996, Gene Sharp had contacts with anti-Cuban groups in Miami, gave lectures at Florida International University and gave interviews for Radio Martí.

“Shortly afterwards, terrorist organizations such as Brothers to the Rescue, Democracy Movement and the Cuban Democratic Directorate, which had nothing to do with democracy, are illegally introducing Sharp publications into Cuba as if they were sports or religious literature.”

“So there could be a person in a park reading a Cuba Socialista magazine while the text indicated how to carry out sabotage, or open a supply book in a public place when what was inside was instructions,” the manager added.

According to Etcheverry Vázquez, during 2001 and 2002 different sectors of the counterrevolution carried out provocative acts and acts of public disorder, as well as called for alleged hunger strikes, commemorative marches and conferences before the foreign press that provoked the repudiation of the people, because “It was known that there was a show behind it to earn money.”

On January 28, 2009, USAID produced a document entitled Support for Cuban Civil Society, another “pleasing” title for the ear. “This document constitutes irrefutable proof of the seditious and interfering nature of the projects designed against Cuba.”

In December of that year, when working for USAID as a contractor, the North American Allan Gross was alerted in Havana, who illegally introduced -what was demonstrated in the trial- means of infocommunications with which he supplied and trained independent internal networks to guarantee a future interaction between the small cells created and free satellite access to the Internet, in the same style as the espionage network of the 1960s.

“That is why we say that it is nothing new, but that it is changing as science introduces development in the different techniques.”

Gross was charged in 2010 and convicted in 2011 of acts against the integrity and independence of the Cuban state.

The manager also referred to the ZunZuneo operation, which ran from 2009 to 2011, masked in a social messaging network. “Behind all this is the actions of US intelligence officers.”

“They have been doing everything for 60 years and everything has failed due to the action of the people,” he stressed.

Constructive chaos theory and the concept of failed state
The CIPI investigator added that these strategies have been “duly organized.” He added that one of the United States Security advisers compiled all the materials related to the so-called soft coup, giving rise to what would later be called Constructive Chaos Theory to overthrow governments under the color revolution formula.

“The first of these paradigms is the soft blow. This is based on the economic, political, military and all kinds of blockade; location of that attacked country on blacklists; the obstruction of economic and commercial relations, as well as the wear and tear of the population through all possible tactics”.

He added that the second paradigm of the Constructive Chaos Theory is carrying out a discrediting campaign, especially on issues such as human rights, freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

“The third paradigm is street demonstrations that would start out as peaceful but whose goal of destabilization is for them to become violent. For these demonstrations, they would use psychological tactics such as placing women and children in the first positions and then, through the media, show that the police were the ones who attacked the people and not the provocative core of the protests”, he maintained.

The expert explained that the next step is to request the resignation of the president and the fall of the government has passed.

Referring to the conceptualization of the so-called failed state, Perera Pena commented that a precedent is what happened in the National Assembly of Venezuela in 2015, where an attempt was made to overthrow Nicolás Maduro based on the judicialization of politics through the state decree failed.

“We have seen these types of elements later in Bolivia, in Ecuador, in Brazil, Argentina. What it is about is that from the previous study of the judicial system of those countries a supposed internal movement is generated to propitiate a coup d’état since the president is not the one who agrees”.

He also explained that the concept of a failed state has already been used by the United States on other occasions throughout history to sacrifice “a partner”, such as in Panama, Argentina, Colombia.

Apply more pressure to the boiler

Cuban police cars that were overturned by protesters on a street in Havana. Photo: AFP

For his part, Pedro Etcheverry Vázquez elaborated that what happened on July 11, 2021 revealed that the design of the subversive program of the United States government and its intelligence services attempts to cover up the inability of the US government to destroy the Revolution.

“The propaganda influence against a society overwhelmed by the scarcity of basic products, inflation, the lack of public transportation and blackouts will continue to be used to motivate new destabilization attempts against Cuba.”

He added that both the CIA and the NED continue with a strong campaign to generate tensions “to put more pressure on the cauldron.”

“Influence programs on disaffected and dissatisfied groups and on youth sectors constitute a wear that worsens the internal situation in Cuba, trying to escalate to more shocking situations of provocation such as those denounced by our government.”

He warned that after a year of the riots of July 11, the enemies have not ceased to encourage acts of vandalism against the country, “because we are in the presence of an operation directed by the intelligence services of the United States with millionaire budgets of the USAID and the NED and the complicity of the Cuban American right”.

He also said that digital media has long promoted media terrorism, which instigates acts of vandalism by fringe groups with the aim of provoking a police response and putting on a media show. “False news was spread with the aim of promoting an opinion matrix about the apparent ungovernability in Cuba.”

The United States, social networks and double standards “à la carte”

Illustrative image.

Later, commenting on the use of digital social networks in the strategy of subversion, Elío Perera Pena, CIPI researcher, said that the United States handles them with double standards. “The United States is the main instigator, not ruling out other European powers that we know of.”

He also referred to how Agnotology is intended to be implemented, which is the study of deliberate acts to sow confusion and deception in the American educational system. “Those who went to Afghanistan were gallant soldiers in defense of the nation.”

As part of this double standard, said the expert, in 24 American states what can be said on social networks is regulated, and for some of these publications, citizens are taken to court.

He also said that Europe also has regulatory laws on networks.

Attorney General’s Office: “One of the purposes of the State is to protect national sovereignty”
Speaking at the Round Table this Tuesday, the chief prosecutor of the Directorate of Information and Analysis of the Attorney General’s Office, Ana Hernández Mur, pointed out that Cuba, like all States, has the right to defend itself in the framework of established regulatory systems.

Cuba is a State of law and social justice, she stressed and added that within this framework the country and the people have the purpose of defending the nation. She stressed that one of the purposes of the State is to protect national sovereignty.

“The Attorney General of the Republic’s fundamental mission is to exercise control over criminal investigations and the exercise of public criminal action before the courts on behalf of the State, in addition to the general control of legality,” he recalled, citing the Constitution of the Republic.

On the other hand, Hernández Mur pointed out that facts that constitute a crime are investigated, such as setting fire to facilities. “As a result of the investigations, decisions are made and, where appropriate, people are brought before the courts.”

Other facts that are being investigated are related to obstructing public roads, impeding vehicular traffic:

“There have been acts of aggression against the authorities, and we are not only talking about law enforcement, but also officials who were in those places.”

The prosecutor referred to the use of minors in situations of this type. In this sense, she stressed that families have a duty to protect minors. “Are we then going to reach danger or some situation with our minors?”

On this, she said that the Penal Code has answers for, once the investigation is concluded, make decisions and take the authors to court in this case.

“The Prosecutor’s Office will continue to defend the State and the interests of all citizens of our country,” she concluded.

(By: Randy Alonso Falcón, Oscar Figueredo Reinaldo, Edilberto Carmona Tamayo, Lissett Izquierdo Ferrer, Andy Jorge Blanco/ Cubadebate)

The same state that they call “failed” bravely called, just a week ago, for a referendum on the very advanced Family Code. The unequivocal majority of the Cuban people supported it, and a few hours later it became law. Before, this inclusive project, conceived from popular participation, had to go through a fierce campaign of demonization based on supposed moral and religious precepts. Overtly political manipulations were not lacking either. None of this prevented the triumph of the yes, reflected in a pale and reductionist way in the hegemonic press.

Coinciding with the entry into force of the Code, a devastating hurricane hit the western region of Cuba, leaving dozens dead in the United States in its wake. It is painful and difficult for any country that suffers such a contingency to get back on its feet, alleviate the suffering of those affected, try to recover from the damage and move forward.

For Cuba – economically strangled and slandered for decades – the challenge is multiplied. Only the incontestable decision to allocate the scarce resources of the country so that no one is left abandoned and the conviction that only with the participation and support of the people is it possible to move forward, can explain why we managed to overcome it again, without stopping thinking about going far beyond.

While people and organizations from all over the world have expressed their solidarity and offered concrete support to Cuba, while sister governments have provided assistance and friends like those of The People’s Forum have called on President Biden from the pages of the New York Times to show signs of the most elementary humanitarian spirit and does not hinder the Island’s purpose of rising up with its own efforts, other voices have taken advantage of the tragedy to install the opinion matrix that our ills and the difficulties to face them are a consequence of the inability of the Cuban government.

They want to capitalize on the logical discomfort of citizens deprived of basic services in the hope that nature will finally achieve what so many desperate attempts to destroy the Revolution have not been able to do. Now they politicize demonstrations and spontaneous claims, move through the networks hysterical and aggressive hate speech, incite street violence, oppose the slightest relaxation of the blockade and follow the script of the “soft coup” to the letter.

In a few days, sixty years have passed since the October Crisis, perhaps the moment of greatest risk experienced by the revolutionary process, those days in which -as Che said in his farewell letter- Fidel shone like few statesmen in history . Once again, fate offers us the alternative of surrendering to adversity and threats or imposing ourselves on them with imagination and audacity. No “failed state” could dream of the second option; no worthy people would support him.

Today the Cuba so often defamed is recovering from the ravages caused by the hurricane. Instead of the repression attributed to the fabricated “virtual country”, in the “real” one, the authorities constantly visit the affected areas and talk directly with the citizens.

As in all difficult situations, solidarity, the basic principle of our coexistence, comes to the fore. Let our friends know that the overwhelming majority of the people recognize themselves in their leaders, participate in the recovery of the country and defend the principle that is on the threshold of the new Constitution approved in April 2019: “Cuba is a socialist State of law and social justice, democratic, independent and sovereign”.

Havana, October 2, 2022.

Among those fitting this profile are several highly visible faces and audible voices participating in the reality show produced January 27 outside the Ministry of Culture. If they were seriously interested in addressing artistic or cultural problems, and the functioning of this institution, why did they refuse the opportunity?

In this recent period, I have witnessed complicated, difficult, heated debates among artists, intellectuals and cultural promoters, during which, on more than one occasion, disagreements and divergent opinions emerged. I have attended artistic performances characterized by critical assertions, even highly critical, related to our national reality, and can testify to the fact that via constructive interaction, and analysis that is not exempt from passion, concerns and legitimate disagreements have been addressed.

But this was not the case during the January 27 events, as I observed in the manipulators participating, fishing in muddy waters. The confrontational tone was set well beforehand and the audience that needed to witness the spectacle had been previously arranged. Against the Revolution, everything; with the Revolution, nothing. Zero dialogue, aggressive positions. Vulgar words, common places.

After the planned performance came the summoning of the triangulated media financed by U.S. agencies and institutions; live broadcasts from the site of the events via social networks; the media harassment of the Minister and other authorities; the violation of the right to privacy in communications between the provocateurs and the representatives they targeted.

All this to create an artificial atmosphere of chaos, intolerance and ungovernability, reproduced by the enemy media in collusion. They had even prepared a sort of international panel discussion, offering analysis ready to be consumed, more like a junk food buffet, more from abroad than Cuban, to be used on international platforms.

Silvio Rodríguez unambiguously exposed the falsity of the episode: “I have tried to view the mentioned video of Culture functionaries attacking the artists, but have not been able to do so. I saw one in which the deputy minister Fernando Rojas invites them several times to enter the ministry; then something very confusing occurs, some shouting, and there is a young man saying there are police with pistols present (which cannot be seen either). On two of the opposition’s web sites, to see the video, they request that you approve the cookies. If they are so interested in disseminating the supposed injustice, they should facilitate the process, right?”

The simulation failed. Using culture, one of our greatest strengths, it will be impossible to upset the table of the political system we have freely adopted.

(Taken from Granma)

The show was intended to generate a climate of violence and chaos that would allow them to sell to the world an image of Cuban institutions divorced from the reality of creators and artists, attempting to promote repudiation of our functionaries, presenting them as violent, close-minded individuals who opposed any sort of understanding.

Everything had been rehearsed in advance. The supposed discontented creators had no intention of meeting with anyone at the Ministry, and were actually only a minority of those present, since most were members of the “independent” press in the service of U.S. interests. The repeated requests made by one of the deputy ministers to enter the building, to talk, went entirely unheeded.

The group’s mission, carefully planned beforehand was to provocatively challenge authorities and somehow oblige them to take action. They were looking for a confrontation, escalating the tensions in hopes that someone would lose control.

This is a textbook tactic. The idea is to stay at the site, stage a sit-in to attract attention, use the media, that are part of the plan, to generate supportive public opinion, call for more participants on social networks, and construct a little Maidan outside the Ministry of Culture. This is the old, many times failed, dream of the CIA to repeat the Kiev events in Havana.

The process of staging a soft coup has been outlined by the Center for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies (Canvas), the socio-political subversion lab of Srdja Popovic, founder along with Slobodan Dinovic of the Otpor movement that in 2000, on orders from and financed by the CIA, contributed to overthrowing Yugoslavian President Slodoban Milosevic. The Center’s manual states that one of the first tasks is the creation of hotspots of “civil disobedience, violence and chaos,” besieging government institutions, functionaries, and workers, generating anxiety, distrust and fear.

What occurred in front of the Ministry in Havana is part of this “non-violent” war strategy against Cuba, one more attempt to create the detonator needed to make a soft coup possible.

Following U.S. instructions precisely, as projected in Gene Sharp’s manual and by the aforementioned Canvas, a veritable “pack” of mercenaries was launched to provoke, discredit and harass Cuban authorities and present the anti-Cuban protestors as victims.

The version of the events disseminated by the U.S. embassy in Havana on Twitter is so far removed from the reality of what occurred at the Ministry of Culture on January 27, it appears to have been drafted elsewhere. The truth made clear in the manuals of creators, financiers, and promoters of this type of aggression is that such actions are violent, interventionist maneuvers meant to produce coups, that in turn lead to the establishment of “failed states” in the hands of “transitional governments,” incapable of confronting U.S. forces on the battlefield and therefore easy to occupy and subjugate.

As has been denounced on previous occasions, what is sought is the creation of conditions for a direct intervention in Cuba, in the style of 1898, with the United States presenting itself as the “savior” of a country in chaos. Choosing the eve of the anniversary of José Martí’s birth as the date for this disturbance was miscalculated by those who do not know the history of our country. For Cubans, Martí is a symbol of independence, a constant reminder to be true to our ideals, ideas that revolutionaries carry deep in our hearts and that, time and time again, defeat the plans of the empire and its mercenaries.

(Taken from Granma)

The aforementioned statement from the Ministry reaffirmed that the institution would not agree to meet “with persons who have direct contact with and receive financing, logistical support and propaganda support from the U.S. government,” nor “with news media financed by U.S. federal agencies.”

In November, members of the misnamed San Isidro Movement refused to recognize authorities and assumed a threatening posture to attain their demands by force. Many of those who arrived at the Ministry came with the intention of participating in a peaceful demonstration; others, however, had previously received instructions to raise a wide range of concerns, ideas and demands. Citizens involved in acts of vandalism against MLC stores on the island also participated.

January 27, shortly before an online March of the Torches took place on social networks to commemorate the 168th anniversary of the birth of José Martí, the Ministry once again reiterated its principles, in response to another counterrevolutionary provocation, and reaffirmed its willingness to dialogue without conditions or coercion.

The Ministry repeated on Twitter “its willingness to dialogue with honest creators on any issue related to the Cuban Revolution’s cultural policy and reiterates its refusal to accept provocations or dialogue with mercenaries.”

This message was included in a statement from the institution, entitled “They don’t want dialogue and stage provocations to the limit,” which was issued in connection with an incident that occurred the previous morning, when a meeting was scheduled with three spokespeople chosen by a small group of individuals characterized by their provocative attitudes and relationships with media financed by U.S. federal agencies.

Ignoring the agreed-upon plan, some thirty persons congregated in front of the Ministry’s headquarters. They were asked to participate in dialogue or leave, given the health risks involved in such gatherings in public spaces, during the covid-19 epidemic.

Faced with their refusal to cooperate, the Ministry’s workers reacted immediately, gathering in front of the provocateurs and urging them to leave.

Alpidio Alonso, Minister of Culture, said on the occasion: “They do not want any dialogue whatsoever. They were invited to enter several times, but did not care to do so. And we are not going to allow this at the Ministry of Culture. We are working too hard here for them to come here with this kind of provocation. They disrespect the country’s entire artistic movement which is revolutionary…. If they come in a defiant, provocative tone like this, they are going to receive an energetic response from our people.”

Media expert Javier Gómez Sánchez has addressed events such as these, noting that the first thing to make clear in the present situation is “that the first and principal aggression, the principal act of violence, was to surround an institution and create a state of siege for the people who work inside.”

Another behavior repeatedly assumed by the counterrevolution is “to refuse any understanding, to use cell phones and social networks to mobilize more people, to manipulate the media, and do so while receiving money from the country that sustains a cruel economic, financial and commercial blockade against ours, in order to create the worst possible environment, to provoke as much as possible, until they achieve a reaction they can use to their advantage.”

Gomez Sanchez urges all revolutionaries to think clearly about the objectives of the counterrevolutionaries, who seek to obscure the principal act of violence, and attempt to trigger a judgmental response in us, questioning the revolutionaries besieged by provocateurs, instead of supporting them.

Simply noting who were among the first to express “solidarity” with the disruptors is revealing, indicative of the intentions of the “peaceful, patriotic artists disposed to dialogue” who are besieging state institutions. Shortly after the provocation, the U.S. Embassy tweeted its concern for the “demonstrators,” and presumed to advise the Cuban government to listen to those who are paid with the dollars allocated in Washington to finance subversion in Cuba, by the millions.

(Taken from Granma)