Zelenskyy’s advisors are #WarPigs, and Russia’s attack against Ukraine was not “unprovoked”.

By Na'omi Allen
Mrs Allen is a disgruntled American veteran and this is her personal blog. She studies geopolitical phenomena, with a focus on countering contemporary Nazism.
 

In March 2019, Alexey Arestovich — who now serves as a psychological warfare specialist in Zelenskyy’s cabinet — gave an interview with Apostrof TV, promoting a foreign policy that can be summarized as: ‘Putin wants to restore the Soviet Union, and we must wage World War III to stop him.‘ Arestovich anticipated that seeking NATO membership would “provoke Russia into launching a large-scale military operation against Ukraine”, and that it would have devastating consequences for their own people… but he stated that Ukraine should do it anyway. In his view, no price was too high, to stop Putin.

Translated Transcript:

Q: Of course I’m interested in the question of how to stop the war [in Donbas] and return the occupied territories. What could move Putin to make such a decision?

A: To end the war? Nothing. His main goal is the restoration of the Soviet Union and victory in the Cold War, to change its outcome. Dismantlement of the European system of collective defence, destruction of NATO and the EU if not de jure, then de facto, and engaging with each EU country one-on-one, compared to whom Russia is of course stronger. The man has 150 billion in personal wealth, as they say, he’s got a nuclear umbrella, he’s 70 years old.

Q: If his goal is to remake the Soviet Union, why does he stop with Ukraine? Why not take Belarus?

A: No need for haste. These are strategic goals. I’ve talked about this before on this channel, that the operation is planned up until 2032-35. These things are not done quickly.

Q: What outcome is planned for 2032?

A: I believe it would be a new form of empire, they’ll find a way. A reconfiguration of their foreign policy as well as their internal politics. Russia, Belarus, Ukraine or part of Ukraine, possibly Armenia, Moldova, north Kazakhstan.. But those regions aren’t as important. Russia, Belarus and Ukraine must be put together. And then Russia can enter the multipolar world as an important player, top 5 or maybe top 4 of nations and/or alliances, and pursue an independent political course as she sees fit. No one should interfere on the territory of the CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States), and domination of Europe, naturally. And that’s the outcome.

Q: Why 2032 exactly?

A: Well they’re competent planners. If you look at what was happening from ‘91 to when Putin got in power in ‘99 and how often the situation collapsed, that was 8 years. To recover from it you need at least twice as long. They decided to begin in 2007, started drawing some plans after the Maidan in 2004, but in 2007 we get the Munich speech and they leave the CFE (Treaty of Conventional Armed Forces in Europe). 2007 plus 16 we get 2023, but taking into account the sanctions and other countermeasures that will be imposed on them we need to multiply this by another 1.5 and we get ‘32-35.

Q: What situation inside Ukraine can help that plan?

A: Only membership in NATO. Oh you mean us getting back under their boot? If we don’t join NATO we’re finished. We’re not strong enough for neutrality, we can’t hold neutrality. For some reason naive people think that neutrality is when you can spend very little on defence because there’s no need to fight anyone. Neutrality costs about 10 times more than war with somebody. Switzerland, while a very neutral country, has conscription, crazy defence taxes, boys and girls both serve and so on. And it’s not neighbouring Russia, but rather France, Italy and Germany. Fourth in the world in military preparedness, combat readiness, and that’s taking into account that they have 6 or 8 mountain passes. Explode those and nobody can touch you. Whereas we have 2,700 km of land border with Russia which are mostly plains. Can you imagine how much our neutrality will cost? And Hungary, and all the other claims? Therefore we cannot hold neutrality, we don’t have enough resources and even geographically no country could hold neutrality in our place. If we can’t hold neutrality then we need to either join the CIS or NATO.

Q: How can NATO accept us if we have a war, ATO (Anti-Terrorist Operation Zone, aka the Donbas)?

A: It’s one of the biggest myths about NATO that they do not accept countries with territorial disputes. They do so eagerly. More so, they even accept countries that have territorial disputes between each other, like Greece and Turkey for example.

Q: Right, but in that case the military action was done in Cyprus and we have military action on the territory of Ukraine.

A: What did Turkey create? It’s own DNR on Cyprus. It gets a lot of criticism for it but regardless it’s a member of NATO. Inside NATO there are 36 conflicts. Out of the more likely ones Spain believes that Gibraltar is occupied by the UK. Both are members of NATO. The UK fought Iceland several times over fish using demonstrations of power and the military. There are many other grievances between different countries yet they are all in NATO. Territorial claims? You can lose count.

Q: It’s all a question of political will?

A: Absolutely. If you visit Bulgaria and observe it closely and compare Bulgaria in 2019 to us in 1999, we were ready in ‘99.

Q: Then why isn’t NATO in a hurry to bring in Ukraine?

A: Because inside they had no consensus on whether they needed Ukraine at all and if we’d shift all the way to Russia with our Yanukovichs. But now it’s simple. After the poisoning of British citizens with military-grade chemical weapons on their territory, and after the downed Boeing, and attempts to overthrow the government in Montenegro, after the refugee waves in Europe, after Syria and everything else, finally they came to an understanding in the West that Russia isn’t at war with Georgia and Ukraine, it’s at war with the West. And when did they realize this? Very late. Around the beginning of ‘18, end of ‘17. The smarter ones got it at the end of ‘16 and the rest caught up. Now they see it very straight forward – it’s simple arithmetics. If they don’t bring us into NATO, Russia gets 40 million people and a million soldiers. Otherwise, they get the 40 million people and 1 million soldiers which already have experience of successfully fighting the Russians. Simple choice, isn’t it?

Q: What can the president do? His first few steps to change the current situation?

A: He needs to win over the parliament. That’s his main move. If they succeed in driving a wedge between the parliament and the president and he starts blocking the parliament’s reform package, which first and foremost aims at joining the EU and NATO, it will make it difficult. Then he’d need to dissolve the parliament and win new elections. And when he wins all he needs to do is push through NATO membership. Nothing else matters. War trumps all. All this economics, this trash, social programs, it is all sacrificed in war. If the war is lost all other issues become irrelevant. The social policies here will be introduced by Putin’s cronies.

Q: So if Ukraine joins NATO then we can start discussing the end of the war in the east?

A: No, we won’t be talking about any end of the war. On the contrary, it will most likely provoke Russia into launching a large-scale military operation against Ukraine because they will need to knock us down a notch in infrastructure terms, turn our territory into rubble so it won’t look inviting to NATO.

Q: Do you mean Russia will engage in direct confrontation with NATO?

A: No, not NATO. They have to do this before we join NATO so that we wouldn’t be lucrative for NATO. With a 99.9% certainty the cost of our membership in NATO is a big war with Russia. If we don’t get into NATO, then Russia will subsume us within 10-12 years. That’s the fork in the road we’re at currently. So vote for Zelenskyy.

Q: Well, if we try to weigh these options, which one is best?

A: Obviously, a big war with Russia and subsequent membership in NATO as a result of victory over Russia.

Q: What would a big war with Russia look like?

A: It’s a large air operation, invasion by Russian army, siege of Kiev, attempt to surround the armed forces stationed in the ATO (Anti-Terrorist Operation Zone, aka the Donbas), surge for the Crimean land bridge to secure the water for Crimea, invasion from the territory of Belarus, creating of new peoples’ republics, sabotage, hitting critical infrastructure, paratroopers, and so on. That’s what a big war is, and it’s probability is 99%.

Q: When?

A: ‘20 to ‘22 is the most critical period. The next critical period is ‘24-26 and then ‘28-30. There could be three wars with Russia.

Q: What will happen in ‘24-28? If such a big war is under way will new peoples’ republics be announced?

A: Of course. Before the Russian tanks Russian clandestine operatives will enter Kharkiv, Chernihiv, Odessa, Kherson and so on and claim them to be independent.

Q: How can Ukraine get membership in NATO without getting a big war with Russia?

A: There is no way. Possibly only if Russia gets really leaned on hard and put in its place so they know to not do anything.

Q: Sanctions? Embargo? Lean how?

A: Could be sanctions or an embargo. Could just publicly or privately let Russia know that any attempts at war will be very painful for them. Maybe bring in the US airborne division and say that, “No guys, there’ll be no war. Don’t even start it.” If NATO forces are positioned around Kiev and so on. They could do things to force a regime change in Russia by that time. Some liberals will get in power and say “Ok, you can join NATO. We are a good country again.” All this could happen.

Q: Under what conditions can there be a regime change in Russia?

A: If there will be an internal conflict among the elites in Russia, between those who don’t like the current path for the destruction of EU/NATO and victory in the Cold War, and of confrontation with the West in general, and if this faction gets stronger and challenges the current faction that is bent on creating USSR 2.0 then regime change can happen.

Q: How about a peaceful solution to the situation in the Donbass?

A: Never.

Q: Why not? I think the West is looking for such solutions.

A: The West is looking for such an option by asking Russia to rethink its positions. Why would Russia do that?

Q: Well if they threaten them with something new…

A: Well maybe if the liberals get in power, or they threaten them really hard. On the other hand, what can you really threaten a country which possesses a nuclear shield and nuclear offensive capabilities? Seriously, what can you threaten?

Q: I would think that in order to get to the point where Russia has to decide whether to press the nuclear button or not it would have to be a very serious situation.

A: The thing is that you can’t put serious pressure on people with such serious nuclear armaments. Serious pressure is the threat of violence, and you can’t threaten violence to someone with nuclear weapons. And all these economic sanctions.. For a country such as Russia.. Look at Iran, 40 years under sanctions much heavier than Russia. They stick it to the whole world, certainly to Saudi Arabia, Israel, Syria, the USA, half of Africa and half of South America. Iran runs its intrigues on half the planet and nobody can do anything about it. They are developing nuclear weapons and such. And Russia is bigger and more powerful than Iran.

Q: So if we try to summarize, in your opinion, the most important thing, or one of the most important, for the next president of Ukraine is pushing for NATO membership?

A: No question about it.

Q: Could we think of another two points for the president to focus on?

A: There are two ways of looking at these elections: historic and socio-economic. We shouldn’t forget that the socio-economic option is only available because someone is fighting very well, in general. Providing us with allies, financial help – $700 million in military aid from the US – and so on and so forth. That’s why we can even have these democratic discussions. Ukraine has no chances at neutrality. We’ll drift into one or the other economic and military alliance. It will be between NATO and the CIS. We’ve been in the CIS already and I don’t want to return there. We’ve never been in NATO, so let’s try it. But we definitely won’t hold on to neutrality. So the most historic goal is NATO membership, and no socio-economic sacrifices are too big in pursuing this goal. We have economic growth and things are not too bad. However, with a high certainty, the price of joining NATO will be a full-scale, or bigger-scale conflict with Russia. But in this conflict we will be greatly supported by the West, with weapons, equipment, assistance, new sanctions against Russia, very possibly putting NATO troops in Ukraine, a no-fly zone and so on. So we will not lose this conflict and that’s good.

Read More: Ukraine declared war against Russia in March 2021, and people should stop ignoring this.