In 2007 the Russian president Vladimir Putin came to Munich, announced that he would speak freely, without being overly diplomatic, and in his speech he told his NATO colleagues that he wanted to negotiate a lasting, and binding agreement to secure peace and stability in all of Europe. Referring to promises made to Gorbachev when he agreed to dissolve the ‘Warsaw Pact’, he noted that NATO had not kept its word, expanding Eastward, despite promises not to. And that Russia felt threatened by it, which would lead to undesirable outcomes. Possibly even another war in Europe, eventually. He told the people gathered in Munich that he would not accept nukes on Moscow’s doorstep, very much like the US had been opposed to Soviet missiles and nuclear warheads in Cuba back in the sixties.
His suspicions about NATO’s intentions dated back to his first years as president, when he proposed to Bill Clinton that Russia could join NATO too, creating a global security apparatus, but was rebuffed. He floated the same idea as late as 2020, if only the other members would be prepared to treat Russia as an equal. But Clinton moved to incorporate former Warsaw Pact countries, and made it clear he was not interested in Putin’s proposal. With rumblings of further growth Putin decided to find out if NATO was indeed posing a threat to Russia itself, by going to Munich and ask them bluntly. They answered in the affirmative by inviting Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO in due time one year after this Security Conference in Munich, very much against the advise of prominent geostrategy experts like John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs for instance, while a number of leaders from NATO countries were not too pleased either. But Putin (Russia) knew enough.
To make sure that NATO understood that Russia would stand its ground, the Russians immediately responded when Georgia attacked South Ossetia, an area in limbo after the Soviet Union broke up, of which there were many. The locals not happy at all to be split from Russia, merely because the Soviets had drawn some lines on a map to identify different Oblasts (states or provinces), with their own administration, often deliberately merging different ethnical and cultural groups to enable playing one against the other and let Moscow be the arbiter. Cynical, but often effective, and a countermeasure to deliberate ploys by NATO during the ‘Cold War’ years to stoke one group against the other, by feeding into racial, ethnic, religious and cultural tensions. During my own time in the military, during the ‘Cold War’, being trained to become an officer, one high ranking officer told us about NATO’s strategy, explaining to us there would not be an open war, but that subversive interventions by ‘our’ secret services would be sufficient to blow up the Soviet Union from the inside. And he was spot on.
To me it sounded like madness, because you would be left with badly damaged people who would be at each other’s throat. What were the chances that it would backfire over time? I started reading about the how, where and when, and it became clear to me that ‘Operation Paperclip’ had not merely been about securing scientists, but that it included securing the help of full bred Nazi’s to stoke unrest in various countries behind the ‘Iron Curtain’, which had been raised on advise of Winston Churchill, after he failed to win over Roosevelt to attack their own allies in the war, the Soviet Union. One important area of the Soviet Union receiving plenty of attention from the ‘spooks’ within NATO, working hand in glove with serious war criminals to destabilize the Soviet Union, was Ukraine. Instead of going to jail because he took part in murdering Jews, Roma and Poles together with the Germans, Stepan Bandera was used to set up a network inside Ukraine from Munich. In that city he was killed by the Russians as a traitor and the CIA operative that he was, revenging the Jews, Roma and Poles he’d killed during the war, before Hitler felt his nationalism was posing a threat, and locking him away for the second half of the war. But the Americans, and Brits, loved his bloodthirsty approach and extreme right-wing nationalism, so they let him out and let him do his thing.
As the Soviet Union collapsed, Ukraine separated from Russia, and a Ukrainian state was formed for the first time. The Crimean peninsula was given independence separately. While Gorbachev attempted to create an alliance with Crimea, Yeltsin, under the spell of the ‘Harvard Boys’, was not interested, and Crimea joined in an alliance with Ukraine instead. But it retained its own parliament, and formal autonomy. Compare to any country joining the EU, not giving up national sovereignty. In the early years, Ukrainian presidents were careful not to allow tensions within the population, with fiercely nationalistic, fascist, ‘Banderite’ cults in the West, and ‘culturally’ Russian people in the East and South, with a Tatar minority on Crimea to boot, to flare up. They were walking a tightrope. The differences exploded into view during the ‘Orange Revolution’, the mother of all ‘Color Revolutions’ attributed to NATO interference, gave the presidency to Viktor Yushchenko, through the ‘bought-and-paid-for’ courts, who proceeded to declare Stepan Bandera a ‘Hero of Ukraine’, offending those in the country who had fought against the Nazi’s during the war. Oligarchs had the time of their lives and reaped huge profits, on both sides of the political/cultural divide, but tensions grew as the country plunged headlong into the ‘Great Recession’, which plagued large parts of the world, after the ‘Credit Crisis’ in the US nearly sank the Dollar.
Yushchenko failed to pull off another ‘Color Revolution’ to get reappointed, and he lost to his arch rival Viktor Yanukovych, who had his power base in the Donetsk region, among the ‘culturally’ Russian people. Yet he ran a campaign on his ambition to bring Ukraine into the EU. However, as the country struggled economically, and Nordstream posing a threat, from 2011 onward, to the huge profits reaped by Ukraine from being a ‘transit country’ for Russian natural gas, the EU’s lackluster package for Ukraine, as it was still struggling with the fall-out of the ‘Credit Crisis’ itself, compared to what Putin brought to the table, made him change his mind. It wasn’t a firm and dramatic switch, but the NATO-countries didn’t have to be told that they were no longer the most attractive partner for Ukraine. It wasn’t just the gas. The extensive Ukrainian weapons industry was tied into the Russian market, and the industrialized Eastern part of the country had qualms about the EU’s ‘Go Green’ agenda, and extensive ‘rules’ which were emerging as a spoiler. So, the Americans made their move, set up and financed ‘Maidan’, sent one ‘Big Wig’ politician after another to Kiev to cozy up with the extreme right political factions, willing to put up a fight, and Victoria ‘Fuck the EU’ Nuland pulled it off.
Pulled what off, exactly?
A violent regime change in Kiev, when people firing from a building held by the protestors shot at security forces, as well as protestors, killing plenty of people, sacking the result of negotiations between the opposition and the president, under supervision of Germany, France and Poland, to set up early elections. Yanukovych had left Kiev after signing the deal, to prepare his electoral base in the East for the upcoming elections. He flew to the Donbas, but his motorcade following him was attacked, and he understood he was being targeted for assassination, so he fled to Russia, while Nuland’s stooges, Arseniy Yatsenyuk and Oleksandr Turchynov, prepared the stage for limited elections, which would not leave any pro-Russian candidates on the ballot, essentially offering a choice between a pro-NATO Choco Prince, and a pro-NATO Gas Queen. The people in the East and South were outraged, and on the Crimean peninsula armed people stormed the Rada, hoisted the Russian flag, and demanded a snap referendum to offer the people a choice between staying in this alliance with Ukraine, wrecked by Team Nuland, or switch to Russia altogether. Team Nuland, understanding full well that the outcome would be that Crimea would opt to become part of Russia, as poll after poll on the peninsula from 2009 onward had indicated a majority already supported such a move before the coup in Kiev, and that coup would only have convinced more people that it was time to leave the Titanic, acted by instructing the Rada in Kiev to dissolve the Rada in Simferopol on Crimea. Russian troops, already present on the island, in line with a ‘lease’ contract for military bases on the island, which included the Navy base at Sebastopol, secured the formation of a new Rada, reflecting previous election results, which saw a massive win for the pro-Russian ‘Party of the Regions’, and other pro-Russian parties, and this Rada supervised the referendum, which came back with a vast majority in favor of leaving the alliance with Ukraine, and joining the Russian Federation instead. And there was nothing Team Nuland could do about it, yet.
First they had to hold their ‘elections’, which excluded the territories held by ‘rebels’, and Crimea, obviously, which delivered the Kiev controlled part to the Choco Prince, Porochenko. Who subsequently declared civil war on the Donbas, and lost. With his military encircled at Debaltseve by ‘rebels’, which included large swats of former Ukrainian officers and men, with their equipment, with token support from Russia, which refused to engage in a similar way to what they’d done in Crimea, because the Donbas did not have a similar, independent status. To save his men, and his face, Porochenko went to Minsk, and signed the ‘Accords’ which, in its final draft, called for the creation of a ‘Federalized’ Ukraine, with plenty of economic autonomy for the regions. Since the Eastern and Southern parts of the country had almost all of the economic potential, this would leave the Western part, leaning towards the EU and NATO, begging. But it would recreate a unified Ukraine, minus Crimea, which was never part of it anyway. The ‘Minsk Accord’ was ratified in the UN Security Council, and therefore internationally binding.
Yet Merkel, Hollande and Porochenko, as well as Zelensky, revealed that the West and Kiev never had any intention to honor their signature, and that ‘Minsk’ was merely meant to buy time, and build up a huge Ukrainian military, ignoring the economic plight of the country, and its raging corruption, the second largest military force in Europe, after Russia, while preparing for the war with Russia they wanted.
Wanted why?
As explained in various articles on this blog, the NATO strategy was to use Ukraine as bait. Assuming that Russia would be tempted to take all of Ukraine, that strategy would give birth to another ‘Afghanistan Scenario’, where NATO (mainly the US with financial support from Saudi Arabia), exhausted the Soviet Union using the Taliban and Al Qaida as proxy fighters. This time ‘Stay Behind’ military and various right-wing extremist groups in Ukraine were earmarked to make life miserable for the Russian occupier, while ‘Sanctions from Hell’ would sink the Russian economy. ‘Bleeding Russia White’, as Lloyd Austin announced right after Russia launched its ‘SMO’. Except, Russia came prepared. It turned the ‘Sanctions form Hell’ on its head, ‘Bleeding’ us ‘White’, and even though the early stages of the ‘SMO’ appeared to give credence to what NATO ‘experts’ expected, as they announce that Russia would take all of Ukraine in no time at all, it didn’t happen.
Putin outsmarted NATO by not exposing Russia to a scenario identical to what happened in Afghanistan, when the Soviets tried to save a secular, women friendly, communist regime from our Muslim extremists. The initial ‘Big Arrow’ manoeuvres were meant to impress Zelensky, and make him change his mind on not honoring the ‘Minsk Accord’. Moreover, the Russians understood full well that Zelensky had not received the briefing that his country was supposed to become occupied territory, and consequently Zelensky refused to leave Kiev when his NATO-partners coached him into setting up a ‘Government in Exile’. He did allow his negotiators to talk to the Russians in Istanbul, and according to the Russians, the Turks and the Israelis, as well as Ukrainians involved, an agreement was reached. But Boris Johnson flew to Kiev, and ‘convinced’ Zelensky to stay in the fight, with NATO support for as long as it would take.
For what to happen?
Zelensky must have thought that the aim was a Ukrainian victory, but NATO doesn’t give a rats ass about Ukraine, or its people. It wants to accomplish regime change in Moscow. Tough if there is nothing left of Ukraine by that time. But if NATO thought that if the agreement would be scrapped, the Russians would escalate after all, and conquer all of Ukraine, they were in for a terrible surprise, because Russia did the exact opposite. It retreated to defendable positions, set up the ‘Surovikin Line’, and waited for the Ukrainians to show up at the ‘Meat Grinder’. In other words, they turned this war into a ‘War of Attrition’, using tanks, artillery, drones, missiles, bombs and mines to grind the Ukrainian army down. Both the Ukrainians and NATO planners saw this withdrawal as a clear sign of weakness, and they set up their ‘Spring Offensive’ to ‘cut the landbridge’ to Crimea, and take it from there. We all know what happened. It failed. It failed miserably. It was a disaster.
Still refusing to accept that Russia was able to ramp up production of everything they needed for this ‘War of Attrition’ to ‘Bleed’ NATO’s industrial production ‘White’, as well as the economy of Europe and the US, planners allowed themselves to say that, yes, the ‘Spring Offensive’ was a dud, but the situation was now a ‘stalemate’. No. It isn’t. Using the frozen soil and cold conditions, Russian troops are advancing all along the border, taking several strategic positions and fortifications, as Kiev is embroiled in political turmoil, and struggling to find fresh cannon fodder. Ukraine and NATO maintain that Russian losses are on a par with those of Ukraine, or even more severe. The Russians do not release casualty numbers, and neither does Ukraine, but the less biased observers agree that Ukraine has lost far more soldiers, and equipment, than the Russians. And I’m convinced that they are correct. Being mistaken about the real numbers is important, since there is talk about NATO preparing for war with Russia. If they assume they will only have to push, because the entire military apparatus is already on its last legs, I’m convinced that it is entirely delusional.
The moment you point out some ‘inconvenient truths’ about the road to this folly, or the reality as it unfolds, and that even Ukrainian ‘insiders’ reached the conclusion that Putin is actually a moderate, passionate defenders of NATO and Ukraine call you a ‘Russian Puppet’, telling ‘lies’, and they continue to dig deeper. Not very smart. Our part of the world is rapidly becoming unmanageable, our industrial base is gone, we are out of energy, and short of everything we need to restart our industry, with the bulk of the ‘professionals’ making money in ‘finance’, ‘administration’, ‘healthcare’, ‘education’, ‘influencing’, ‘entertainment’, ‘culture’ and you name it. War is not a ‘video game’, and allocating money to the military doesn’t buy you a victory. Less so if you spend it on ‘Kitchen Sink Generals’, talking to reporters over coffee, which have been wrong on everything since the start of this war
Those poor people in Ukraine, if not dead already, are either outraged, and beyond themselves, blaming the Russians for their sorry state, or they are turning around and blaming us, when they understand how they were played. One of the more prominent people who was with Zelensky when this disaster descended on the country, Oleksii Arestovych, has seen the light, and is calling for a settlement with the Russians, and a ‘J’Accuse’ aimed at the NATO countries, together with Russia. Traitor? Realist? Time will tell. But he’d better watch his ’six’.
While I’ve done my best to paint a truthful picture, for educational purposes, serving ‘uninitiated’ people who struggle with how we ended up in this mess, referring you to multiple sources, I do understand how certain events may look different from another angle. Or through the lens of someone involved directly, on either side. I do not maintain that everyone within NATO, or any other organization mentioned, was ‘in the know’ about the plans, let alone the details. Yet this account is much more than a convenient ‘flow’ serving a theory, since it does contain an implicit warning to all of us, to stay awake, and not lose our heads. You are not helping anybody by acting ‘Stupid’. This is therefore not an attempt to write a detailed account, touching on all the possible nuances, but to provide a responsible overview, to help people on their way as they try to put everything in perspective, and to sort out what may be in store for us in the not too distant future if we allow the present momentum to continue unabated. I would strongly advise against that. I hope you can see why. This is not going to end well. Find out more in previous articles.