Well, despite the trenchant analysis, the point is not that the US creates completely fake movements. There are real issues of racism, religious tensions, women's rights, etc, and the point is to exploit these, arm the various groups, raise the temperature, and ultimately orchestrate a coup.
For example, the US had a program to arm tibetans and train them to commit sabotage in China in the 1950s. That's not to say that Tibetans did not exist as an ethnic group or that they had no grievances against Han Chinese. That's not how this stuff works. So the point is that by drawing boundaries to include large Russian populations in the 1920s, this created exactly the recipe for racial conflict when the provinces became independent nations. Then appeals could be made to people like your father to take up arms and foment violence. It just requires a steady stream of funding, propaganda, buying media, stoking up long standing hatreds, etc. That's the recipe of color revolutions. It's also how the British operated in many parts of the empire, exploiting existing ethnic dividing lines.
Similarly in the Arab world, there were legitimate grievances, for example in Libya. Of course the end result was the dismemberment of the nation, but that's how the US operates -- they pry open existing grievances and create chaos and violence in order to further geostrategic goals.
To be fair, The Soviet Union did the same thing during the cold war, famously providing funding for various radical racial groups in the U.S. in an attempt to create chaos in America in the 1960s. So it wasn't just the US and Britain that operates this way. The point is to leverage whetever fractures there are in society and make those larger.