You don’t even know what you’re talking about, conflating apples and oranges. The Baltic independence movements aren’t referred to as color revolutions, those happened in the 2000s in Yugoslavia, Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan.

And of course, something cannot be the result of foreign involvement, awful racial-nationalist thought that has plagued the Baltics for ages (and still does), and malevolent capital interests if lots of people are holding hands, that much is clear.

Holy liberal brainrot. Did you just seriously link the wikipedia article for “color revolutions”, a series of CIA-backed counterrevolutionary and deeply reactionary insurgencies, as a list for successful non-violent ‘revolutions’?

All of those color revolutions had massive detrimental effects on the population, skyrocketing inequality, destroying decades of progress in women’s liberation (the ex-Yugo regions for example still aren’t close to catching back up), and destroying education systems and economies, forcing them to sell out to international capital.

So how exactly did they produce “better institutional outcomes” than actual Socialist revolutions? Easier to exploit on the world market? Better startup culture? Lmao