Russia is not an Aggressor, and Ukraine is not a Victim

It is widely accepted that the Ukrainian crisis erupted into a military conflict on February 24, 2022, with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the seeds of the hostilities were planted about thirty years earlier by President Clinton and, later, by George W. Bush, both of whom recklessly pushed for NATO’s eastward expansion.

You do a great job of cutting and pasting Moscow’s version of events.

Thank you for recognizing talent. You do a great job of posting Ukraine propaganda.

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.

I do but speak the truth.

Alas, you say nothing in your endeavor.

And I do it without cutting and pasting.

Saying nothing without cutting and pasting is quite a talent.

I actually type

That is unfortunate. Mine types itself. Like you, no research, and it all just magically appears.

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]

and it ain’t propaganda.

Heck, this post ain't nuthin at all. Didn't address, much less rebut, anything I posted.

It is the truth that Moscow’s Neo-Bolsheviks fear.

Ah yes. Your "truth" is the same pravda I pulled off the air 55 years ago at work. I see it hasn't changed much.

You addressed absolutely nothing that I posted about the Donbas.

I quoted every single word of your post and responded to it.

You are a criminal that fosters the Stalin/Lenin genocide in Ukraine.

You are a criminal for murdering the truth and felony mopery. In myy favor, I'mk not you or one of your ilk.

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.

The Budapest Memorandum And The Russia-Ukraine Crisis

What ya gotta do when the actual words of the Memorandum just won't do. Sad. Pathetic.

The MEMORANDUM is a MEMORANDUM and could not and did not create any binding legal promise by the United States, Russia or anybody else.

The actual language of the Memorandum makes clear the limits of what was assured.

THE REAL DEAL:

Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Budapest, 5 December 1994.

MEMORANDUM ON SECURITY ASSURANCES IN CONNECTION WITH UKRAINE’S ACCESSION TO THE TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America,
Welcoming the Accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-nuclear-weapon state,
Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,
Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces,
Confirm the following:
1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.
2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the Principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.
5. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.
6. Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.
This Memorandum will become applicable upon signature.
Signed in four copies having equal validity in the Ukrainian, English, and Russian languages.

Since the day it was signed, the Memorandum was worth slightly less than the paper it was written on. Since being nullified by an actual treaty, the Minsk Accords, the Memorandum is worth nothing at all. It was never worth more than a referral to the UN Security Council where all named parties except Ukraine held a veto; or to a consultation among the states.

[Monterossa-24 #150] In post 139 you responded to nothing about the Donbas invasion.

Post #139 is your post.

To: woodpusher
You do a great job of cutting and pasting Moscow’s version of events.
I have family and friends in Alchevsk, about a 35 minute drive from Lugansk city and I know the real story of what happened in the Donbas. The fake separatist movement was a Moscow operation starting before 2014. At that time, they flooded social media with syrupy Soviet nostalgia postings. DO YOU REMEMBER ... THE WONDERFUL ICE CREAM THAT WE HAD BACK IN THE ‘80s (yes, all one flavor) and such was pushed all over Russia and its former republics. Then in the Donbas, Mafia tactics began. Agents organized pro-Russian cells, officials were bribed or threatened or both (plata or plomo), influence was gained in the mill towns and with the unions and the underfunded police were slow to get on top of the situation. Capable leaders were threatened or “disappeared” (in the Argentinian sense). But nothing really worked for the Russians so troops without insignia arrived. And soon so did a shooting war.
139 posted on 4/1/2024, 11:44:47 PM by Monterrosa-24 (Saludemos la patria orgullosos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

You seem to have gotten lost and forgot that you already responded to my #141.

Your #150 reponds to my #146, not my #141.

My #146 responded to your #144 not your #139.

Your #144 contained nothing about Donbas or Billy Bass. I quoted every word of your post #144 that I was responding to, and responded to it sentence by sentence.

My response to your #139 was at #141. Your total response to my #141 was your #142 and reads:

To: woodpusher
“...You do a great job of posting Ukraine propaganda...”
I do but speak the truth. And I do it without cutting and pasting. I actually type and it ain’t propaganda. It is the truth that Moscow’s Neo-Bolsheviks fear.
142 posted on 4/2/2024, 12:29:30 AM by Monterrosa-24 (Saludemos la patria orgullosos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

- - - - -

[Monterossa-24 #150] Do you pretend to be American? Or do you admit to being Russian?

Not that your despicable self deserves an answer, I was born un the USA of two citizen parents and I served twenty years active duty and ten years in the reserves as a U.S. military member. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service sends me a direct deposit every month to remind me of my service. Do you get one of those from El Salvador?

Who are you to question anybody about being an American. Whose military did you suit up for? You fly the National Anthem of El Salvador as your tagline.

[Monterossa-24 tagline] (Saludemos la patria orgullosos)

El Salvador National Anthem:

I assume you do not need a translation. You broadcast loud and clear that your loyalty does not adhere to the United States.

Coro:
Saludemos la patria orgullosos
De hijos suyos podernos llamar;
Y juremos la vida animosa,
Sin descanso a su bien consagrar.
De la paz en la dicha suprema,
Siempre noble soñó El Salvador;
Fue obtenerla su eterno problema,
Conservarla es su gloria mayor.
Y con fe inquebrantable el camino
Del progreso se afana en seguir
Por llenar su grandioso destino,
Conquistarse un feliz porvenir.
Le protege una férrea barrera
Contra el choque de ruin deslealtad,
Desde el día que en su alta bandera
Con su sangre escribió: ¡LIBERTAD!
Coro
Libertad es su dogma, es su guía
Que mil veces logró defender;
Y otras tantas, de audaz tiranía
Rechazar el odioso poder.
Dolorosa y sangrienta es su historia,
Pero excelsa y brillante a la vez;
Manantial de legítima gloria,
Gran lección de espartana altivez.
No desmaya en su innata bravura,
En cada hombre hay un héroe inmortal
Que sabrá mantenerse a la altura
De su antiguo valor proverbial.
Coro
Todos son abnegados, y fieles
Al prestigio del bélico ardor
Con que siempre segaron laureles
De la patria salvando el honor.
Respetar los derechos extraños
Y apoyarse en la recta razón
Es para ella, sin torpes amaños
Su invariable, más firme ambición.
Y en seguir esta línea se aferra
Dedicando su esfuerzo tenaz,
En hacer cruda guerra a la guerra:
Su ventura se encuentra en la paz.

And let's not forget your lesson.

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.

You are so anti-intellectual.

One readily observes your towering intellect.

Borrowing a beautiful line from the Salvadoran Hymn does not mean I am not a loyal American.

Neither does it mean you are an American, loyal or otherwise. Your skipping a response about your apparently non-existent military service is self-explanatory.

But I do have a fondness for the Salvadoran people and was there when they battled you communist Soviet-backed zip wads and was there all or part of every calendar year from 1984 to 1993.

I am sure you fought with great bravery as a keyboard commando and are a decorated veteran of the keyboard wars.

Nobody reads your long documents.

Well, you do. Or are you complaining about stuff when you have not read it and do not know what it says. But, of course you do not like historical documents, preferring for example, to provide a link to a propaganda article about the Budapest Memorandum rather than simply provide the text of the actual Budapest Memorandum which contradicts your propaganda. You propagandists gotta do what you gotta do—make crap up and shovel it by the pantsload.

Thank you for your kind participation in creating a thread which provides a one-stop shopping experience for all those wanting facts, suich as the Arestovych prediction, '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.'

I am sure you sticking a sock in it and throwing tiny-fisted tantrums provides amusement for many.

Gee, why don’t you cut and paste the Communist Party Congress reports (commonly used as toilet paper in the Soviet Union since real toilet paper was unavailable),

Speaking of toilet paper, let it never be said that your twaddle serves no useful purpose. I print it out, cut it up into four inch squares, and store it in the little reading room in the hope that your brilliance will rub off on me.

YOUR LESSON:

The Budapest Memorandum was not a Treaty or binding agreement on the part of anybody, and its purpose was not to guarantee the sovereignty of Ukraine; but giving up the nukes was a condition precedent imposed upon Ukraine jointly by Russia and the United States in order to receive official recognition.

Ukraine had agreed and bound itself to get rid of the nukes in 1992 with the Lisbon Protocol. According to Volodmyr Vasylenko, Ukraine’s former representative at NATO, who took part in drawing up the conceptual principles and specific provisions of the Budapest memorandum: “Ukraine had to give up nuclear weapons for it to become sovereign state and its independent status to be recognized all over the world.” As Ukrainian President Kravchuck stated, "All the control systems were in Russia. The so-called black suitcase with the start button, that was with Russian president Boris Yeltsin. ... Additionally, the West threatened Ukraine with isolation since the missiles were supposedly aimed at the United States." Therefore, "the only possible decision" was to give up the weapons, according to Kravchuk.

Moreover, Ukraine did not first agree to get rid of the nukes with the Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine signed in agreement to the Lisbon Protocol of May 23, 1992 to adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty in the shortest possible time. The Protocol and the correspondence of President GHW Bush leave no room for misunderstanding. Ukraine delayed and delayed and tried to submit a partial surrender of nukes which was met by a refusal to even receive it. Then they got their mind right and signed for recognition. The United States and Russia joined in turning the screws on Ukraine to get rid of the nukes.

https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/27389.pdf

START Treaty

LISBON PROTOCOL of May 23, 1992

Protocol to the Treaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms

ARTICLE V
The Republic of Byelarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, and Ukraine shall adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of July 1, 1968 as non-nuclear weapon states Parties in the shortest possible time, and shall begin immediately to take all necessary action to this end in accordance with their constitutional practices.

https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/letter-us-president-g-h-w-bush-ukrainian-president-l-kravchuk

Letter from US President G. H. W. Bush to Ukrainian President L. Kravchuk, June 23, 1992

Dear Mr. President:
On May 23 in Lisbon, five nations signed a protocol which opened the way for all five to ratify and become parties to the START Treaty. This historic accomplishment recognizes the essential role of Ukraine in fulfilling the obligations of the former Soviet Union under the Treaty. Imlementation of the START Treaty will enhance stability by substantially reducing nuclear weapons and strategic offensive arms and by laying a foundation for further reductions. The United States looks forward to working with Ukraine as a full and equal partner in implementing the Treaty and reducing the burden of nuclear weapons that are a legacy of the former Soviet Union.
As part of this agreement, Ukraine will adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty in the shortest possible time. This is an important step along the path laid out in the statement of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on the non-nuclear status of Ukraine. When the Non-Proliferation Treaty was negotiated in 1968 the United States formally declared its intention to seek immediate action in the United Nations Security Council to provide assistance to any non-nuclear weapons state party that is the object of aggression or threats of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used. Mr. President, let me formally state that the United States stands by that commitment to Ukraine.
[...]

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/qviw5v-c5kmg/28.pdf

Letter from President George H. W. Bush to President Leonid Kravchuk via Privacy Channels. December 4, 1992.
Over the past year, the United States and its partners have welcomed Ukraine into the western community of nations. Ukraine is a party to csce and the CFE treaty, and a member of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council. Ukraine has demonstrated its commitment to peace by the bravery of your peacekeepers now on duty in Bosnia. Ukraine's pledge in its declaration of sovereignty to be a non-nuclear state has been particularly welcomed throughout the world.

The subsequent Budapest Memorandum of 1994 non-binding assurance given to Ukraine was:

Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Budapest, 5 December 1994.

Certificate of registration of the Memorandum on security assurances with the United Nations Secretariat, 2 October 2014. (by Ukraine, twenty years after the Memorandum)

4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

United Nations Security Council (UNSC) action was sought and Ukraine received such UNSC action as it is likely to get. As Ukraine and the rest of the world well knew when Ukraine signed the NPT and the Memorandum, Russia holds a Security Council veto.

Security "assurances" are non-binding political promises, unlike the legally enforceable "guarantees" of treaties. It is like the difference between a pinky swear and an enforceable contract. And the assurance was to refer acts of aggression to the UN Security Council.

You mean you didn’t read my about page?

Why would I read your about page? Why would anyone believe anything you say?

Oh yeah, you Russian trolls usually don’t have an about page. I have one and it would answer your question about military service.

Oh wow, I am so impressed. You claim some time in the reserves as a weekend warrior. Cool.

Go back to your LGBTQP brethren and continue your hatred of Ukraine and your love for the boy-kisser Putin.

Go back to Nulandia and your piano playing comic actor brother who is in the process of getting Nulandia destroyed. There you can sign up with the Sig Heil Division of underground warriors and learn how to execute the evacuation maneuver, made famous at Mariupol and the former Azov Steel plant.

YOUR LESSON:

The alleged 15-day plan for the conquest of Nulandia.

From captured Russian documents during the first week, reported in Forbes and other news, the President of Belarus letting it slip, Russia planned for a fifteen day war. The goal was to capture Kyiv and key cities and expected the population to welcome them.

Forbes attributed the alleged documents directly to the Facebook page of the "Ukranian's military's Operational Group East."

The Forbes article directly contradicts the conclusion that the alleged documents published by the Ukranians on Facebook, if real, would mean that operations were to be completed by March 6.

https://twitter.com/Forbes/status/1499399221023178754

Forbes @Forbes. Mar 3
The Ukrainian’s military’s Operational Group East has posted to its Facebook page what it says are invasion plans captured from Russia’s 810th Naval Infantry Brigade

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienroblin/2022/03/03/alleged-captured-documents-imply-ukraine-invasion-planned-in-january/?sh=379516b51b96

Alleged Captured Documents Imply Ukraine Invasion Planned In January
Sebastien Roblin, Contributor
I cover international security, conflict, history and aviation.
Mar 3, 2022,03:50am EST
The Ukrainian’s military’s Operational Group East has posted to its Facebook page what it says are invasion plans captured from Russia’s 810th Naval Infantry Brigade.
The documents, which seemingly were stamped January 18, 2022, establish call signs and radio frequencies for operations for 15 days between February 20 and March 6, and include maps detailing plans to seize the city of Melitopol. As it happens, amphibious landing ships of the Black Sea Fleet did leave port on February 20, though combat operations did not begin until February 24.
Melitopol, which has a population of around 150,000, was swiftly occupied by Russian troops advancing out of the Crimean peninsula, obviating the need for any amphibious landing operations. However, fighting continued to rock the city until this Tuesday, and local residents are actively protesting the Russian occupation.
The Ukrainian military’s Operational Group East posted the alleged documents to their Facebook page on Wednesday, introduced as follows:
Thanks to the successful actions of one of the units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, the Russian occupiers are losing not only their equipment and manpower. In a panic, they are leaving behind secret documents.
[...]
Of course, the existence of changing daily call signs for a two-week stretch doesn’t confirm that combat operations were planned during that period when the documents were signed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.