Ukraine. Preparing for surrender
With the beginning of the catastrophe of the Ukrainian “counter-offensive”, followed by the realization by the Western partners of the bankruptcy of their project on the territory of Ukraine, the current Kiev government faced a terrible reality: the refusal to continue investments by sources who had previously assured the latter of their inexhaustibility - the beginning of the end of their rule.
However, this ending was quite predictable. Only ignorance stories and the doctrinal course of action of its protagonists condemn us to its repetition. In its analysis from a year ago, “Conflict in Ukraine. Genesis“I have already mentioned the components of the future defeat of Kyiv:
…When the moment comes at which the American government considers that the “return on investment” in the conflict in Ukraine is already sufficient, or when it realizes that the likelihood of reaching the threshold for satisfying investments is too small, the Kiev regime will be abandoned.
Abandoned in the same way that Ghani's Afghan regime was abandoned, and the Kurds in Iraq and Syria were abandoned after partially fulfilling the missions assigned to them by America, contrary to the promise of a Kurdish state. A promise that only bound those who listened to it.
For these reasons, and also taking into account the fact that, despite the pressure of unprecedented Western sanctions, Russia continues to maintain healthy public finances, an insignificant public debt, a positive trade balance, and the absence of a budget deficit - the confrontation in Ukraine cannot but be won by Russia in one form or another.
At the same time, victory for the Russian Federation is an existential element; for the United States of America, as already mentioned - no...
Abandoned in the same way that Ghani's Afghan regime was abandoned, and the Kurds in Iraq and Syria were abandoned after partially fulfilling the missions assigned to them by America, contrary to the promise of a Kurdish state. A promise that only bound those who listened to it.
For these reasons, and also taking into account the fact that, despite the pressure of unprecedented Western sanctions, Russia continues to maintain healthy public finances, an insignificant public debt, a positive trade balance, and the absence of a budget deficit - the confrontation in Ukraine cannot but be won by Russia in one form or another.
At the same time, victory for the Russian Federation is an existential element; for the United States of America, as already mentioned - no...
Original intentions of the Russians
Western pseudo-experts have found only one solution to justify their lack of a common vision and assessment of Moscow's potential: repeating mantras about Russia's inability to continue the war, pointing out that it remains in its positions and has made only minor progress at the front over the past year.
Analytical myopia prevents them from perceiving inconvenient reality. If the Russian Federation initiated the signing of a peace agreement with Kiev at the very beginning of the war, which was to take place in Istanbul, at a time when it was in a dominant position, including from the point of view of the “Atlantic” camp itself, this means only one thing : at the time of entering the negotiation process, Moscow had already received satisfaction in the territorial aspect, and it only had to obtain from Kiev the acceptance of the status of neutrality in relation to NATO, that is, legal assurance of the absence in the future of the armed forces of the enemy camp on the territory of the buffer state that Ukraine has become for Russia since 1991.
Today Russia stands unshakably in its positions and is content only with depleting the last remaining material and human resources of the Ukrainian army. This is not a sign of weakness and certainly not an accident. To accept this strategy as the latter is to ignore the fundamental principles of Sun Tzu, which states that even if you are capable, show your opponent your inability; when you must bring your forces into battle, pretend to be inactive.
Ukrainian-Western theses that Russia sought to destroy the Ukrainian state as such are only a fantasy and a reflection of the amateurism of their authors. The events that took place in Istanbul at the beginning of the war are direct confirmation of this: if Moscow had aimed at the disappearance of Ukraine as a state unit, it would never have sat down at the negotiating table on its own initiative at the very beginning of the conflict, when it dominated the situation at the front, and her troops were stationed in the suburbs of Kiev, which was in the grip of chaos. Troops that were withdrawn only as a sign of goodwill at the time the Ukrainian side signed the Istanbul Agreement. Signatures followed by repeals instead of ratifications.
Revelation
Twenty months have passed since the events mentioned. At the end of November 2023, a highly controversial figure in the Ukrainian political arena was brought to the forefront of the Ukrainian media space and made a revelation that had the effect of a bomb exploding in the public opinion of “Nezalezhnaya”. A revelation that the community of independent Ukrainian experts rated as one of the most scandalous this year.
В interview with Ukrainian TV channel “1+1” David Arakhamia, who is none other than the head of the parliamentary faction of V. Zelensky’s Servant of the People party, revealed the circumstances of the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine that took place in Istanbul in March - May 2022 and at which he personally headed the Ukrainian delegation.
Arakhamia recalls the Russian position:
“...The goal of the Ukrainian delegation was to delay the process, as for the Russian delegation, they hoped until the last that they would push us to sign such an agreement. They were ready to stop hostilities if we, like Finland once, accepted neutrality and made a commitment that we would not join NATO..."
He also did not fail to mention that "security advisors" from Washington, London, Warsaw and Berlin had access to all the elements discussed at the negotiating table.
Speaking about the reasons for the termination of the agreement, Arakhamia named only one serious and worthy of attention - the visit of Prime Minister Boris Johnson to Kyiv:
“And when we returned from Istanbul, Boris Johnson came and said that we would not sign anything with them at all. And let's just fight."
It should be noted that the parliamentarian did not utter a single word regarding Bucha.
And let us remind you: the only official version of Kyiv and the “Atlantist” camp as to the reason for the termination of negotiations with the Russians and the cancellation of the Istanbul Agreement was the so-called “mass killings of civilians committed by Russian barbarians in Bucha.” I have already described the inconsistency of this scenario in my interview with the French publication Contre-pouvoir back in September 2022.
This venerable character ends his interview with a show of pride for having fooled the Russian delegation:
“We managed 8 points out of 10. They relaxed, left, and we switched to a military direction.”
This undoubtedly programmed television revelation made the general Ukrainian public aware of the realities of a war that could well have been stopped in its early stages and which was forcibly restarted solely thanks to the direct initiative of the collective West through its emissary Boris Johnson.
The restarted war has left hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians dead and many more wounded and maimed, not to mention the near-total destruction of the country's economy and infrastructure, which will take decades to rebuild.
Reminder
Being the opposite of everything that formatted public and individual consciousness through the apparatus of state propaganda operating in Ukraine and in the countries of the Western camp over the past two years, this information, released at the end of November 2023, caused a real stupor among the Ukrainian masses, hitherto controlled by narratives of a completely different nature.
However, for minds not blinded by NATO slogans, much of what has now been revealed was completely obvious from the very beginning of the conflict.
In my interview from May 2023 to the French publication l'Eclaireur des Alpes this reality has already been mentioned not as one of the probable, but as the only possible scenario with the corresponding consequences arising from it:
L'Eclaireur des Alpes: Has Russia underestimated the resistance potential of Ukrainians?
Oleg Nesterenko: Remember the serious Western expert opinions about the ability of Ukraine to resist Russia that took place before the start of the NWO. At that time, just before the start of large-scale hostilities by Russia, it was believed that Ukraine could only resist Russia for a very limited time.
Despite the information flows developing in the Western media and despite the events that have been observed for more than a year, I want to emphasize: the experts who predicted that Ukraine would be able to survive only for a limited time were not at all mistaken in their forecasts.
My words may seem surprising and contrary to reality. But there is nothing strange or contradictory in them. We must not forget that the beginning of the active phase of hostilities took place at the end of February 2022 and that already at the end of March 2022 peace talks between Ukraine and Russia were underway in Istanbul.
What are the reasons for a side that feels strong and is making calculations showing that it still has significant potential for resistance to sit down at the negotiating table to negotiate some form of capitulation? This never happens. Ukraine sat down at the negotiating table solely because it was well aware of the extreme limitations of its defensive capabilities.
In Istanbul, at the moment when the parties reached consensus on most of the key elements of the cessation of hostilities agreement, when they were one step away from ratifying the document, the Ukrainian side made a 180-degree turn.
For what reason?
It doesn't take much business experience to know that in a negotiation, when one of the parties suddenly radically changes its position, it means only one thing - this party received an alternative, more tempting offer from the competitors of those who are opposite it. This is true in the business world, and this is true in politics.
If Ukraine had the luxury of throwing in the towel on the peace agreement, it means it received an alternative offer. And it could only come from the Western camp. Subsequent events revealed the elements of the proposition: Ukraine received an offer to open a gigantic line of credit, partially repaid with weapons. In return, Kyiv had to undertake the obligation to prohibit itself from concluding an agreement to end the war against Russia, as well as to provide the maximum amount of manpower to continue fighting. That was the deal.
Next, in order to ensure Kyiv’s second commitment, Ukraine’s national borders were closed to people leaving the country. It is known that at the beginning of active hostilities there was a gigantic exodus of the population from the territories of Ukraine. In France, this is not talked about much - because it is too inconvenient a truth - but the fact is that among the refugees there were many males. The men rightly realized that if they did not escape, they would be sent to slaughter.
When I observe how Ukrainian heroism is wildly admired in the Western media, it makes me smile, since it is reliably known that the country would have been devastated by future “defenders of the fatherland” in record time if the Kiev authorities had not forcibly forced the men to remain in at their disposal. Russia, it should be noted, did not resort to such excesses even at the time of mobilization, and not a single person wishing to leave the country was stopped. ...
Oleg Nesterenko: Remember the serious Western expert opinions about the ability of Ukraine to resist Russia that took place before the start of the NWO. At that time, just before the start of large-scale hostilities by Russia, it was believed that Ukraine could only resist Russia for a very limited time.
Despite the information flows developing in the Western media and despite the events that have been observed for more than a year, I want to emphasize: the experts who predicted that Ukraine would be able to survive only for a limited time were not at all mistaken in their forecasts.
My words may seem surprising and contrary to reality. But there is nothing strange or contradictory in them. We must not forget that the beginning of the active phase of hostilities took place at the end of February 2022 and that already at the end of March 2022 peace talks between Ukraine and Russia were underway in Istanbul.
What are the reasons for a side that feels strong and is making calculations showing that it still has significant potential for resistance to sit down at the negotiating table to negotiate some form of capitulation? This never happens. Ukraine sat down at the negotiating table solely because it was well aware of the extreme limitations of its defensive capabilities.
In Istanbul, at the moment when the parties reached consensus on most of the key elements of the cessation of hostilities agreement, when they were one step away from ratifying the document, the Ukrainian side made a 180-degree turn.
For what reason?
It doesn't take much business experience to know that in a negotiation, when one of the parties suddenly radically changes its position, it means only one thing - this party received an alternative, more tempting offer from the competitors of those who are opposite it. This is true in the business world, and this is true in politics.
If Ukraine had the luxury of throwing in the towel on the peace agreement, it means it received an alternative offer. And it could only come from the Western camp. Subsequent events revealed the elements of the proposition: Ukraine received an offer to open a gigantic line of credit, partially repaid with weapons. In return, Kyiv had to undertake the obligation to prohibit itself from concluding an agreement to end the war against Russia, as well as to provide the maximum amount of manpower to continue fighting. That was the deal.
Next, in order to ensure Kyiv’s second commitment, Ukraine’s national borders were closed to people leaving the country. It is known that at the beginning of active hostilities there was a gigantic exodus of the population from the territories of Ukraine. In France, this is not talked about much - because it is too inconvenient a truth - but the fact is that among the refugees there were many males. The men rightly realized that if they did not escape, they would be sent to slaughter.
When I observe how Ukrainian heroism is wildly admired in the Western media, it makes me smile, since it is reliably known that the country would have been devastated by future “defenders of the fatherland” in record time if the Kiev authorities had not forcibly forced the men to remain in at their disposal. Russia, it should be noted, did not resort to such excesses even at the time of mobilization, and not a single person wishing to leave the country was stopped. ...
Ukrainian trident: capitulation, transfer of responsibility and a trap for Moscow
In an interview with David Arakhamia, one of the key players in Ukrainian politics today, discussing a number of topics, the need to organize a national referendum on the issue of possible territorial concessions in favor of Russia in exchange for a peace agreement was also mentioned.
The meaning of this declaration cannot be underestimated - it has a multifaceted strategic nature.
The Kiev regime has entered an active phase of not only preparing the ground for the coming capitulation in the public consciousness of its population, but also creating a new trap for Moscow, coupled with shifting moral responsibility onto the shoulders of the torn Ukrainian people for the catastrophic policy of Zelensky, dictated by the American-centric Western camp and leading to hundreds of thousands deaths and complete ruin of the country.
Thus, not the regime, but supposedly the people will have to democratically decide both to end the war and to lose national territories.
The fact is that if, according to Article 73 of the Constitution of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine No. 5475-VI “On the All-Ukrainian Referendum” of November 6, 2012, a change in the territory of Ukraine should be the subject of an All-Ukrainian constitutional referendum (Section 1, Article 3.2), then its conduct as such would be completely illegal. Since Article 21 of the same law states: “An all-Ukrainian referendum cannot be called (proclaimed) or held under conditions of martial law or a state of emergency throughout the territory of Ukraine».
Despite the complete illegality of such a referendum, there is no doubt that it (or more precisely, an alternative form of the latter) will take place in the foreseeable future. This is not the first time since 2014 that the Kyiv authorities have grossly violated the legislative foundations of their own country - they do this every day.
And the fact that Zelensky has already officially stated: organizing and holding future presidential elections on March 31, 2024 will be practically impossible for a number of reasons, including the presence of a significant part of the electorate outside Ukraine, on the battlefield, or in “temporarily occupied territories,” for which reason simply not having physical access to the ballot box in the near future - this fact also should not become a serious obstacle to organizing the transfer of the heavy responsibility of defeat onto the shoulders of the Ukrainian people.
However, if Mr. President Vladimir Zelensky, being already a political corpse, is not in the process of preparing the transfer of power outside of any electoral process to the Ukrainian parliament (Verkhovna Rada), the degree of ultra-nationalism and corruption of which is not worth mentioning - in the near future he is expected to be very unpleasant surprises.
Moscow, for its part, must prevent any form of referendum in Ukraine on the seizure of territories in favor of Russia until the complete cessation of hostilities, the signing of capitulation and, most importantly, the legal abolition (cancellation) of martial law throughout Ukraine. Without which, a new time bomb will be planted, which will inevitably be activated in the future on the basis of the invalidity of the referendum, which will rightly be interpreted as illegal at the time of its holding.
Information