The implicit strategy of such active measures (according to the sources), is to take advantage of homegrown, nativist movements and co-opt them from the inside. In other words, it's best if one's own countrymen, as you put it, start and maintain the movement. At some point, the foreign power either influences it from the sidelines or outright funds and takes over the group.

In the case of at least one state separatist movement (and at least one white power movement, IIRC), both were revealed to have leaders who traveled back and forth to Russia and/or received funding.

I would also invite you to go back to the origins of the Trump campaign, and see how it evolved. It originally began as an active measure, with the Trump campaign hiring paid actors to promote his campaign announcement. There's a paper trail behind this, and several of his former staffers have come forward recently and admitted it.

> The implicit strategy of such active measures (according to the sources), is to take advantage of homegrown, nativist movements and co-opt them from the inside.

You just described US foreign policy in South America and SE Asia.

Somehow people think the United States is too big or too exceptional to be the target of agitprop.

It's also the case, that the best historical, academic sources consistently point out that Russian disinformation and propaganda is some of the best in the world. From what I understand, based on what I've read, the US has actually learned from them. I think part of this has to do with their two decade head start over the US in political warfare. In other words, Russia has more experience doing this kind of thing over time.

You really think Russian agitprop is the best in the world? The US has conducted so many regime change operations I can't even count them, and they mostly start with propaganda aired from outside the country, funding from CIA front groups, and eventually the funding of death squads or invasions. Russia has taken Crimea, a piece of Ukraine that secures its access to a seaport, but nothing that compares to anything the US has done in recent memory (illegal invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, supporting coups in Boliva, etc) or currently (encouraging separatist movements in China).

This theory is like a mirror image of what the empire is doing to the world.

I would disagree. The Russian interference in the 2016 United States election has been described as the most effective hack of all time.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a49791/russian-dnc-ema...

Further, the successful use of cyberwarfare by Russia, is considered the leading example of its kind.

And I haven't even mentioned Brexit, or hundreds of other campaigns to weaken western democracies.

It's pretty clear that Russia leads in this regard.

The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were worthless failures, and resulted in the loss of trillions of US dollars that could have gone to building American infrastructure, funding universal healthcare and education, and improving the lives of average citizens.

These invasions fundamentally weakened the US at home and abroad. They did not serve the interests of "empire" at all.

We seem to be talking about different things.

Can you suggest some good reading material on the subject?

Active Measures: The Secret History of Disinformation and Political Warfare (2020), by Thomas Rid.