2019: Ukraine Chooses War With Russia
Plus, Russia's Counter Sanction Alternatives
I came across a fascinating interview excerpt dating from 2019 with Oleksiy Arestovych, adviser to the Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine. What’s fascinating about the interview is that Arestovych sets out in plain terms what’s happening today. It’s not exact, but very close—so close as not to make much difference.
As you’ll see, below, the reporter begins with the premise that, if Ukraine receives some time frame in which to join NATO, this could lead to an end to the war in the Donbas because Russia won’t dare to confront NATO. That was a very optimistic, verging on delusional, presumption—and Arestovych quickly sets the interviewer straight: Far from leading to an end of war in the Donbas, such an invitation to join NATO at a future date would prompt Russia—with a 99.9% certainty—to launch a preemptive “large scale military operation against Ukraine” to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO.
As Arestovych saw it in 2019, Russia’s objective in such a war would be the reduction of Ukraine to rubble—near total devastation. However, he sees the possibility that Ukraine can emerge victorious from such devastation by preventing Russia’s physical occupation of Ukraine, and that would lead to NATO membership. The alternative, according to Arestovych is absorption into Russia—he’s possibly envisioning something like the Russia - Belarus relationship, but possibly complete absorption. When asked for the best choice, Arestovych responds without beating around the bushes at all: the optimal choice is war with Russia, after which a victorious Ukraine will join NATO.
In fact, Russia’s military operation hasn’t played out as Arestovych foresaw. Working from Arestovych’s point of view, we can see why Ukraine left it’s forces in place around its perimeters, knowing that this could lead to encirclement. The strategy appears to have been to lead the Russian military into a meat grinder affair, entailing such heavy losses that Russia would be forced to call a halt. In the interview he describes in explicit detail the Russian invasion routes—there was never any secret about this. However, Russia, far from seeking to reduce Ukraine to rubble with an overpowering air offensive, has pursued a strategy of gradual reduction of purely military resources. Ukraine has responded by withdrawing into urban areas in the hope that, by drawing Russian forces into protracted urban warfare, the resulting humanitarian crisis would bring the invasion to a halt. That hasn’t happened.
When did Arestovych foresee this large scale war happening? He states that the most critical period is 2020-2022.
Now what was going on with the US and NATO with regard to this situation during these years? Putin had repeatedly warned that Russia would never allow Ukraine to join NATO. The obvious solution, to avoid conflict with a serious nuclear power, then, would be to abjure NATO membership for Ukraine. What would be the point, except to yank Russia’s chain—and to encourage Ukraine to opt for Arestovych’s favored alternative of war with Russia? The response of the US—and do recall that this happened while Trump was president—was to arm Ukraine with ever more deadly weaponry and to train Ukraine’s armed forces in preparation, one presumes, for war with Russia. Beyond that, the US/NATO also stationed provocative dual use missile launchers ever closer to Russia’s borders, in Poland and Romania. The idea seems to have been to present Russia with a gradual, somewhat slow motion, fait accompli.
Was there a fallback in the eventuality of Russia launching a successful military intervention? One must presume that the assumption was that increased sanctions would deter Russia, or bring it’s invasion to a halt. None of that is happening, which—not to unduly belabor the obvious—is our fault. The fault of the DC Establishment—bought by Globalists—and the Deep State. Also the fault of the American people who gave their rulers the go-ahead for this insane foreign adventure during the great national debate we had on this subject—you remember that, right? Putin made no bones whatsoever that he meant business, that our strategy was an existential threat to Russia.
The Globalist pipedream of the US dominating the Eurasian landmass, first formulated by Zbigniew Brzezinski and pursued relentlessly ever since, lies in ashes, while Russia, China, Iran, and India set about creating an alternative to the petrodollar system that undergirds the US sanctions regime. The current pipedream is that Russia will somehow become enmeshed in a Ukrainian “insurgency”. In my view, that’s simply another gross miscalculation—both of Russia’s strategic objectives as well as of the Ukrainian reality. To be very brief, I don’t believe Russia intends a total occupation of Ukraine and I believe that the Russian speaking areas of Ukraine will be reconciled to closer association (in one form or another) with Russia. Whether direct incorporation, a la Crimea, or as associated states, a la Belarus, matters little.
Anyway, here’s the video with my transcript, drawn from the subtitles. I’ve made a few word changes to make the English read more smoothly. I’ve also added a few explanatory phrases in brackets. I’ve also pasted in a map of the likely Russian invasion routes that was drawn up before the invasion, for comparison with Arestovych’s description of the projected Russian invasion:
Michael Kofman (Director, Russia Studies at CNA. Senior Adjunct Fellow, CNAS. I follow Russian military capabilities, operations & strategy.) probably watched and listened to Arestovych and based his map off that:
Q: So if Ukraine receives [an invitation to become a member of?] NATO, in this case we can speak about some dates of termination of war in the East [Donbas]?
OA: No, we won't speak about any dates of termination of war. Quite the opposite! It will most likely prompt Russia to launch a large scale military operation against Ukraine, because they'll have to degrade us in terms of infrastructure and to turn everything here into devastated territory so that NATO would be reluctant to accept us.
Q: You mean that Russia will dare to directly confront NATO?
OA: Of course, Russia ... no, not NATO. They must do this before we join NATO to make us not interesting to NATO. So that we become uninteresting as a devastated territory. With a probability of 99.9% our price for joining NATO is a big war with Russia. And if we do not join NATO, it's absorption by Russia within 10 to 12 years. That's the fork [those are the two alternatives] we're facing now. And now let's make a choice [] ...
Q: But, wait, if we put it on the scales [if we weigh these alternatives], what's better in this case? [Laughs nervously]
OA: Of course a large scale war with Russia and joining NATO as a result of [Ukraine] defeating Russia. The coolest thing ...
Q: And what would a 'large scale war with Russia' be like?
OA: Well, it's an air offensive, invasion of the four Russian Armies they created on our borders, a siege of Kiev, an attempt to encircle the troops deployed in the ATO zone, Anti-Terrorist Operation Zone in Donbas, breakthrough of the isthmus of Perekon in Crimea and an advance towards the Kakhovka Reservoir that provides water to Crimea [but which Ukraine had cut off]. An offensive from the territory of Belarus, establishing new People's republics, sabotage activities, strikes against critical infrastructure facilities and so on. Airborne invasion. That's what full scale war is. And its probability is 99 percent.
Q: When? [In a quiet voice]
OA: 20 ... after ... 20 ... 2021-2022 are the most critical, 2020-2022 are the most critical.
Now, here’s a brief video excerpt of a guy explaining some of Russia’s counter sanction alternatives—they’re essentially identical to what Charles Gave described:
Who wants to bet that the US Deep State establishment has a viable alternative? Jake Sullivan took time off from following John Durham’s moves to meet with the Chinese yesterday. He was going to threaten the Chinese with serious consequences for supporting Russia. Reports are that he got nowhere with them—as if that should come as a surprise.
On the other hand, our Globalist masters may have to rethink their delusions a bit in light of events:
That rethinking isn’t totally obvious so far, although the sense of desperation is almost palpable:
https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/15/meet-the-reckless-elites-wishing-war-on-the-west-by-promoting-an-air-war-in-ukraine
Why would Wicker of Mississippi want to start WW3? Because he needs to show the military that he'll be their obedient tool:
Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, a likely candidate to become the next ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, was also quick to call for “a strong coalition of like-minded nations” to “step in and seriously consider” a no-fly zone.
Disclose.tv
@disclosetv
JUST IN - Saudi Arabia considers accepting #Yuan instead of #Dollars for Chinese oil sales, the WSJ reports.