Ukraine 'breakthrough' underway as Kyiv smashes through gap in Russian lines

There is ZERO excuse for the neo-Soviet Russian warmongering neo-cons to start invading sovereign countries again.
They are in full colonialist expansionist mode.

Opinions do vary, indeed.
I’m talking about facts though.

Actually, you are only changing the subject and not addressing what I posted.

I will repeat it for you.

Opinions do vary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7s76OfHMiU&ab_channel=ProjectGreat
All Gone. Ukraine Lost Entire Armored Column After
Crossing Russia's First Line Of Defense. 2023.09.21
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXykstcxDjE&ab_channel=MilitarySummary
The Ukrainian Assault Platoon Was Defeated in the
Zaporozhye Direction. Military Summary 2023.09.21

- - - - -

The list is long..... it’s official and all over the internet.

Well, if it is on the internet, it must be true.

Also, 200.000 dead Russian citizens (soldiers).

As the guys with the artillery and shells, and an air force, and bombs and
missiles, kill a lot more than those without, it must be true that there the
Ukrainian dead is approaching 1,600,000. Because the internet says that
Russian shovels are eight times as lethal as Ukrainian propaganda.

Apparently you were so desperate to change the subject that you just posted
some irrelevant random bullflop.

If the Russian navy were reduced to two rowboats, it would still be bigger
than the Ukrainian Navy.

The Ukranian air farce would not need a single mountain of old tires to cover
it. A single garbage can lid might do it. The Russians have Russian aircraft.
The Ukrainians have Soviet aircraft.

The entire Ukranian economy is a tin cup. Ukraine used to be the
second poorest nation in Europe. Now it relies on begging to pay
government salaries and pensions.

I am sure there a lot of Ukrainian people who are fed-up with their
warmongering politicians. They even managed to piss off the Poles.
As President Duda stated, “Ukraine is behaving like a drowning person
clinging to anything available ... A drowning person is extremely
dangerous, capable of pulling you down to the depths … simply drown
the rescuer.”

Practically nobody knows or cares what the unit of Ukrainian currency is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEHdx6g-0co&ab_channel=DefensePoliticsAsia

LETS FACT CHECK: Ukrainian media added more
audience to Zelenskyy's UN speech???
Defense Politics Asia
Sept 21, 2023

The Ukrainian people deserve better than the government they have, but
they can't vote out the penis pianist comedian.

The only thing you need to have heard about this Ukraine thievery is:
“Well, son of a bitch...”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The Bidens are corrupted to the bone.
It’s a dangerous mistake to let that blind ourselves concerning Russia’s bloody quest for Lebensraum polices.
They want to restart the Soviet Union. If we let them succeed in that task, letting them do all the horrors they have already done to us in history, our children will never forgive us.

NOW is the time to deplete once and for all our archenemies.
It costs 8% of our military budget, and a bit more for Europe’s budget (proportionally speaking), while Ukraine give their blood to defend what left of the West.

May Regan’s soul come back on earth!

There is ZERO excuse for the neo-Soviet Russian
warmongering neo-cons to start invading sovereign
countries again.

The DPR and LPR declared independence in 2014. On February 21, 2022,
Russia officially recognized the LPR and the DPR. DPR and LPR have
each had a functioning government since 2014, but only occupied a portion
of each oblast.

After Russia recognized both DPR and LPR, it rapidly entered into a
mutual defense agreement with each. Russia came to the defense of each
pursuant to their mutual defense agreement. At the request of each, DPR
and LPR were annexed and became Russian territory.

You keep sending links, trying to shift the subject.
You send those links : Well, if it is on the internet, it must be true. Right?

I can do as you do, sending thousands of links about exploding Russian Ships, tanks, S400 missiles systems, helicopters, planes, shipyards, submarines, etc...

But what is the point of doing that?
I sent you a few, because you sent me a few.

You failed to name the true perpetrator of this war.
It is Russia. They invaded a sovereign nation.
Why don’t you denounce this criminal activity?

Are you also supporting the criminal invasion going of our southern border?

Why this love for illegal invaders? Why not denounce ALL illegal invasions and annexations?

“The DPR and LPR declared independence in 2014.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Are you out of your mind?

Because some pro-russia traitors within Ukraine, paid and weaponized by the Kremlin, decided to overtake areas within Ukraine, YOU accept that as a normal thing??

So, if Cubans in Florida decide to annex Floria and link it to Cuba with brutal force, you would applaud that wouldn’t you?

I see that you are hating nationalism. Truly sad.

Who are you working for? Which country?

What Black Sea Fleet HQ doink?

How about we worry about the US southern border and not Ukraine. Like arm it up and shoot invaders. That’s why we have a military - to protect the UNITED STATES. Who GAF about Ukraine?

“How about we worry about the US southern border and not Ukraine. Like arm it up and shoot invaders. That’s why we have a military - to protect the UNITED STATES. Who GAF about Ukraine?”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If we had followed your dangerous philosophy decades ago. Letting Hitler or Stalin take over the world just because “Who GAF” about the world, we would probably all be speaking Russian or Germain today. America would be run by Moscow or Berlin.

It’s terrible that nearly half of America have become doves or hippies, feeding our enemies lust for war and expansionism.

You see... your push for letting our enemies enthusiastically replace us every where in the world, makes us shockingly weak.

Russia and China don’t think like you do. They would NEVER say “Who GAF” about other countries. In fact, Russia and China have the direct OPPOSITE views as you do!
As they laugh at our Republican sleepy isolationist mentality, they are pushing forward everywhere, invading, annexing countries, replacing us by force in Africa. We lose ground as they expand. You enjoy that?

What happened to good old American patriotism? Our strength!?

Nearly half of America is turning towards a hippie-peace-woke-lgbt-ProChina-ProRussia-madhouse.

There is still a majority of courageous American though.
Russia and China will NOT replace us.

Who are you working for? Which country?

I spent twenty (20) years on active duty for Uncle Sam. For what country did you suit up for? Claim one; I need a good laugh.

Because some pro-russia traitors within Ukraine, paid and weaponized by the Kremlin, decided to overtake areas within Ukraine, YOU accept that as a normal thing??

Because some anti-monarchy traitors within the Colonies overtook areas within the British realm, I accept that the former Colonies became free, sovereign, and independent states, effective July 4, 1776. And do not leave out Vermont which was a free, sovereign and independent state from its declaration of independence in 1777 until it joined the constitutional union in 1791.

How did Ukraine get to be a sovereign nation other than by being kicked to the curb? Did they win a war of independence that I missed? How did the revolutionary government that seized control of Ukraine in 2014 gain ownership or control of DPR or LPR?

You keep sending links, trying to shift the subject.

Oh yes. You posted a link to an article indicating Ukranian forces had penetrated Russian defenses. I responded with two links to Youtube videos with maps indicating that Russian forces had destroyed the Ukrainian forces which had penetrated the initial line of defense. I can see why you feel compelled to consider that to be an attempt to change the subject from Ukrainian victory to more dead Ukrainians.

You failed to name the true perpetrator of this war.
It is Russia. They invaded a sovereign nation.

DPR and LPR declared independence in 2014. Do you deny that?

DPR and LPR had maintained an independent government since 2014. Do you deny that?

In February 2022, Russia officially recognized the independent states of DPR and LPR. Do you deny that?

Immedately upon the grant of international recognition, DPR and LPR entered into mutual defense agreements with Russia. Do you deny that?

All that happened before the so-called Russian invasion. Do you deny that?

Syria (29 June 2022) and North Korea (13 July 2022) recognized the independent states of DPR and LPR. Do you deny that?

In September 2022, following referenda in DPR and LPR, Russia annexed DPR and LPR. Do you deny that?

The United States declared independence on July 4, 1776. Following the Revolutionary War, ended by a Peace Agreement in 1783, the United States has been considered an independent country since July 4, 1776, even though the Crown did not recognize such American independence until 1783.

Vermont declared its independence in 1777. It joined the constitutional union in 1791. The United States Supreme Court found that Vermont had become a free and independent state in 1777, and having spent 14 years as a free, sovereign and independent state,Vermont joined the union as a free and independent state with self-appointed borders in 1791.

When a state declares its independence and subsequently establishes its independence, it is recognized as independent from the date of its declaration. Do you deny that?

https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/nato-chief-admits-expansion-behind-russian-invasion

NATO Chief Admits NATO Expansion Was Key to Russian Invasion of Ukraine
The continuing U.S. obsession with NATO enlargement is profoundly irresponsible and hypocritical. And now Ukrainians are paying a terrible price.
By Jeffrey D. Sachs
Sep 20, 2023
Common Dreams
During the disastrous Vietnam War, it was said that the US government treated the public like a mushroom farm: keeping it in the dark and feeding it with manure. The heroic Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers documenting the unrelenting U.S. government lying about the war in order to protect politicians who would be embarrassed by the truth. A half-century later, during the Ukraine War, the manure is piled even higher.
According to the U.S. government and the ever-obsequious New York Times, the Ukraine war was “unprovoked,” the Times’ favorite adjective to describe the war. Putin, allegedly mistaking himself for Peter the Great, invaded Ukraine to recreate the Russian Empire. Yet last week, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg committed a Washington gaffe, meaning that he accidently blurted out the truth.
In testimony to the European Union Parliament, Stoltenberg made clear that it was America’s relentless push to enlarge NATO to Ukraine that was the real cause of the war and why it continues today. Here are Stoltenberg’s revealing words:
“The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that.
The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that.
So, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.”
To repeat, he [Putin] went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.
When Prof. John Mearsheimer, I, and others have said the same, we’ve been attacked as Putin apologists. The same critics also choose to hide or flatly ignore the dire warnings against NATO enlargement to Ukraine long articulated by many of America’s leading diplomats, including the great scholar-statesman George Kennan, and the former US Ambassadors to Russia Jack Matlock and William Burns.
Burns, now CIA Director, was US Ambassador to Russia in 2008, and author of a memo entitled “Nyet means Nyet.” In that memo, Burns explained to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the entire Russian political class, not just Putin, was dead-set against NATO enlargement. We know about the memo only because it was leaked. Otherwise, we’d be in the dark about it.
Why does Russia oppose NATO enlargement? For the simple reason that Russia does not accept the U.S. military on its 2,300 km border with Ukraine in the Black Sea region. Russia does not appreciate the U.S. placement of Aegis missiles in Poland and Romania after the U.S. unilaterally abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.
Russia also does not welcome the fact that the U.S. engaged in no fewer than 70 regime change operations during the Cold War (1947-1989), and countless more since, including in Serbia, Afghanistan, Georgia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Venezuela, and Ukraine. Nor does Russia like the fact that many leading U.S. politicians actively advocate the destruction of Russia under the banner of “Decolonizing Russia.” That would be like Russia calling for the removal of Texas, California, Hawaii, the conquered Indian lands, and much else, from the United States.
Even Zelensky’s team knew that the quest for NATO enlargement meant imminent war with Russia. Oleksiy Arestovych, former Advisor to the Office of the President of Ukraine under Zelensky, declared that “with a 99.9% probability, our price for joining NATO is a big war with Russia.”
Arestovych claimed that even without NATO enlargement, Russia would eventually try to take Ukraine, just many years later. Yet history belies that. Russia respected Finland’s and Austria’s neutrality for decades, with no dire threats, much less invasions. Moreover, from Ukraine’s independence in 1991 until the U.S.-backed overthrow of Ukraine’s elected government in 2014, Russia didn’t show any interest in taking Ukrainian territory. It was only when the U.S. installed a staunchly anti-Russian, pro-NATO regime in February 2014 that Russia took back Crimea, concerned that its Black Sea naval base in Crimea (since 1783) would fall into NATO’s hands.
Even then, Russia didn’t demand other territory from Ukraine, only fulfillment of the U.N.-backed Minsk II Agreement, which called for autonomy of the ethnic-Russian Donbas, not a Russian claim on the territory. Yet instead of diplomacy, the U.S. armed, trained, and helped to organize a huge Ukrainian army to make NATO enlargement a fait accompli.
Putin made one last attempt at diplomacy at the end of 2021, tabling a draft U.S.-NATO Security Agreement to forestall war. The core of the draft agreement was an end of NATO enlargement and removal of U.S. missiles near Russia. Russia’s security concerns were valid and the basis for negotiations. Yet Biden flatly rejected negotiations out of a combination of arrogance, hawkishness, and profound miscalculation. NATO maintained its position that NATO would not negotiate with Russia regarding NATO enlargement, that in effect, NATO enlargement was none of Russia’s business.
The continuing U.S. obsession with NATO enlargement is profoundly irresponsible and hypocritical. The U.S. would object—by means of war, if needed—to being encircled by Russian or Chinese military bases in the Western Hemisphere, a point the U.S. has made since the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. Yet the U.S. is blind and deaf to the legitimate security concerns of other countries.
So, yes, Putin went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to Russia’s border. Ukraine is being destroyed by U.S. arrogance, proving again Henry Kissinger’s adage that to be America’s enemy is dangerous, while to be its friend is fatal. The Ukraine War will end when the U.S. acknowledges a simple truth: NATO enlargement to Ukraine means perpetual war and Ukraine’s destruction. Ukraine’s neutrality could have avoided the war, and remains the key to peace. The deeper truth is that European security depends on collective security as called for by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), not one-sided NATO demands.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F6Tuz3EXQAABURc?format=jpg&name=900x900

US Secretary of State, James Baker, addressing Gorbachev, 9 February 1990, at the Kremlin, Moscow, on a unified Germany joining NATO + no NATO expansion
United States Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520
Memcon from 2/9/90
meeting w/USSR Prem.
Gorbachev & FM
Shevardnadze, Moscow,
USSR
MEMORANDUM OF CONVERSATION
Date: Friday, February 9, 1990
Time: 1:00 pm - 3:00 pm
Place: Kremlin
PARTICIPANTS:
Secretary Baker
President Gorgachev
Eduard Shevardnadze
We understand the need for assurances to the countries in the East. If we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east. At the end of the day, if it is acceptable to everyone, we could have discussions in a two plus foukr context that might achieve this kind of an otcome. Maybe there is a better way to deal with the external consequences of German unification. And if there is I am not aware of it. We don't have German agreement but we have mentioned it to Genmscher and he said he wants to think about it Dumas liked it and now I have mentioned it to you.
Source: US National Security Archive
https://nsarchive.gwu/document-05-memorandum-conversation-between [dead link]

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52240.pdf

Volume 3007, I-52240
117
No. 52240
____
Ukraine and Russian Federation
Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. Kiev, 31 May 1997
Entry into force: 1 April 1999, in accordance with article 39
Authentic texts: Russian and Ukrainian
Registration with the Secretariat of the United Nations: Ukraine, 2 October 2014
[...]
Article 6
Each High Contracting Party shall refrain from participating in, or supporting, any actions directed against the other High Contracting Party, and shall not conclude any treaties with third countries against the other Party. Neither Party shall allow its territory to be used to the detriment of the security of the other Party.

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html

VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB
DE RUEHMO #0265/01 0321425
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 011425Z FEB 08
FM AMEMBASSY MOSCOW
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 6368
INFO RUEHXD/MOSCOW POLITICAL COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC IMMEDIATE
- - - - - - - - -
C O N F I D E N T I A L MOSCOW 000265
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/30/2018
TAGS: PREL, NATO, UP, RS
SUBJECT: NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA'S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES
REF: A. MOSCOW 147
B. MOSCOW 182
Classified By: Ambassador William J. Burns. Reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).
1. (C) Summary. Following a muted first reaction to Ukraine's intent to seek a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Bucharest summit (ref A), Foreign Minister Lavrov and other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition, stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion as a potential military threat. NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains "an emotional and neuralgic" issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene. Additionally, the GOR and experts continue to claim that Ukrainian NATO membership would have a major impact on Russia's defense industry, Russian-Ukrainian family connections, and bilateral relations generally. In Georgia, the GOR fears continued instability and "provocative acts" in the separatist regions. End summary.
MFA: NATO Enlargement "Potential Military Threat to Russia"
-----------------------------------------------------------
2. (U) During his annual review of Russia's foreign policy January 22-23 (ref B), Foreign Minister Lavrov stressed that Russia had to view continued eastward expansion of NATO, particularly to Ukraine and Georgia, as a potential military threat. While Russia might believe statements from the West that NATO was not directed against Russia, when one looked at recent military activities in NATO countries (establishment of U.S. forward operating locations, etc. they had to be evaluated not by stated intentions but by potential. Lavrov stressed that maintaining Russia's "sphere of influence" in the neighborhood was anachronistic, and acknowledged that the U.S. and Europe had "legitimate interests" in the region. But, he argued, while countries were free to make their own decisions about their security and which political-military structures to join, they needed to keep in mind the impact on their neighbors.
3. (U) Lavrov emphasized that Russia was convinced that enlargement was not based on security reasons, but was a legacy of the Cold War. He disputed arguments that NATO was an appropriate mechanism for helping to strengthen democratic governments. He said that Russia understood that NATO was in search of a new mission, but there was a growing tendency for new members to do and say whatever they wanted simply because they were under the NATO umbrella (e.g. attempts of some new member countries to "rewrite history and glorify fascists").
4. (U) During a press briefing January 22 in response to a question about Ukraine's request for a MAP, the MFA said "a radical new expansion of NATO may bring about a serious political-military shift that will inevitably affect the security interests of Russia." The spokesman went on to stress that Russia was bound with Ukraine by bilateral obligations set forth in the 1997 Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership in which both parties undertook to "refrain from participation in or support of any actions capable of prejudicing the security of the other Side." The spokesman noted that Ukraine's "likely integration into NATO would seriously complicate the many-sided Russian-Ukrainian relations," and that Russia would "have to take appropriate measures." The spokesman added that "one has the impression that the present Ukrainian leadership regards rapprochement with NATO largely as an alternative to good-neighborly ties with the Russian Federation."
Russian Opposition Neuralgic and Concrete
-----------------------------------------
5. (C) Ukraine and Georgia's NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia's influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.
6. (C) Dmitriy Trenin, Deputy Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, expressed concern that Ukraine was, in the long-term, the most potentially destabilizing factor in U.S.-Russian relations, given the level of emotion and neuralgia triggered by its quest for NATO membership. The letter requesting MAP consideration had come as a "bad surprise" to Russian officials, who calculated that Ukraine's NATO aspirations were safely on the backburner. With its public letter, the issue had been "sharpened." Because membership remained divisive in Ukrainian domestic politics, it created an opening for Russian intervention. Trenin expressed concern that elements within the Russian establishment would be encouraged to meddle, stimulating U.S. overt encouragement of opposing political forces, and leaving the U.S. and Russia in a classic confrontational posture. The irony, Trenin professed, was that Ukraine's membership would defang NATO, but neither the Russian public nor elite opinion was ready for that argument. Ukraine's gradual shift towards the West was one thing, its preemptive status as a de jure U.S. military ally another. Trenin cautioned strongly against letting an internal Ukrainian fight for power, where MAP was merely a lever in domestic politics, further complicate U.S.-Russian relations now.
7. (C) Another issue driving Russian opposition to Ukrainian membership is the significant defense industry cooperation the two countries share, including a number of plants where Russian weapons are made. While efforts are underway to shut down or move most of these plants to Russia, and to move the Black Sea fleet from Sevastopol to Novorossiysk earlier than the 2017 deadline, the GOR has made clear that Ukraine's joining NATO would require Russia to make major (costly) changes to its defense industrial cooperation.
8. (C) Similarly, the GOR and experts note that there would also be a significant impact on Russian-Ukrainian economic and labor relations, including the effect on thousands of Ukrainians living and working in Russia and vice versa, due to the necessity of imposing a new visa regime. This, Aleksandr Konovalov, Director of the Institute for Strategic Assessment, argued, would become a boiling cauldron of anger and resentment among the local population.
9. (C) With respect to Georgia, most experts said that while not as neuralgic to Russia as Ukraine, the GOR viewed the situation there as too unstable to withstand the divisiveness NATO membership could cause. Aleksey Arbatov, Deputy Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, argued that Georgia's NATO aspirations were simply a way to solve its problems in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and warned that Russia would be put in a difficult situation were that to ensue.
Russia's Response
-----------------
10. (C) The GOR has made it clear that it would have to "seriously review" its entire relationship with Ukraine and Georgia in the event of NATO inviting them to join. This could include major impacts on energy, economic, and political-military engagement, with possible repercussions throughout the region and into Central and Western Europe. Russia would also likely revisit its own relationship with the Alliance and activities in the NATO-Russia Council, and consider further actions in the arms control arena, including the possibility of complete withdrawal from the CFE and INF Treaties, and more direct threats against U.S. missile defense plans.
11. (C) Isabelle Francois, Director of the NATO Information Office in Moscow (protect), said she believed that Russia had accepted that Ukraine and Georgia would eventually join NATO and was engaged in long-term planning to reconfigure its relations with both countries, and with the Alliance. However, Russia was not yet ready to deal with the consequences of further NATO enlargement to its south. She added that while Russia liked the cooperation with NATO in the NATO-Russia Council, Russia would feel it necessary to insist on recasting the NATO-Russia relationship, if not withdraw completely from the NRC, in the event of Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO.

https://intellinews.com/former-ukrainian-presidential-advisor-perfectly-predicted-russian-invasion-in-2019-238183/

Former Ukrainian presidential advisor perfectly predicted Russian invasion in 2019
By Cameron Jones in Kyiv March 16, 2022
In 2019 Oleksiy Arestovych, advisor to the Office of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy, eerily predicted, with stunning accuracy, how events in Ukraine would unfold in 2022.
In an interview with Ukrainian news channel "Apostrophe.ua," Arestovych believed that Nato accession was Ukraine's only hope of securing its independence. "If we don't join Nato, it's gonna be absorption by Russia within 10-12 years," he said.
However, the choice was not simple and Ukraine has found itself stuck between a rock and a hard place, while also stating that any talk of Ukrainian accession to Nato would "provoke Russia to launch a large-scale military operation against Ukraine." Ukraine's price for joining Nato, he said, would be large-scale war with Russia.
Arestovych believed that Russia would have the goal of degrading Ukrainian infrastructure and turning the country into a "devastated territory" in order to make the territory of Ukraine "uninteresting" to Nato. Russia would seek to destroy as much of Ukraine as it could prior to it being accepted into Nato, due to Russia not wanting to confront Nato directly, Arestovych said. Ukraine becomes "uninteresting to Nato as a devastated territory," he said.
Arestovych predicted that a large-scale Russian invasion that ended with Russia's defeat and was followed by Ukraine entering Nato would be the best option and one that would secure Ukraine's independence.
Perhaps most spooky of all, however, was the almost pinpoint accuracy with which Arestovych predicted the nature of Russia's attack. He described an air offensive, followed by invasions from the four separate armies Russia had created on Ukraine's borders. The invasions would involve a siege of Kyiv, an encirclement of Ukraine's forces in Donbas, an advance out of Crimea aimed at securing the peninsula's water supply and another assault from the territory of Belarus. He believed Russia would seek to create other "people's republics" like those in Donetsk and Luhansk throughout Ukraine.
In 2019 Arestovych believed the possibility of the invasion was "99.9%." He said that the "period between 2020-2022 was the most critical" for the inevitable Russian assault on Ukraine.

They on the cusp of a victory.
Wait wot...
They Plateaued...
On the plateau
Oh Noes...they slipped off the plateau
Into the fjord.
Lost without hope.

Where is Hungary in all this mess....?

Hungary in Nato since the end of the cold war from 1999....(just looked it up)