Sunday 23 July 2023

Former Ukrainian presidential advisor Oleksiy Arestovych perfectly predicted Russian invasion in 2019

This video clip is eerie. Did President Zelensky also expect the invasion and thought it necessary to preserve Ukrainian independence? I imagine so - and if so were both men unaware that Russia could destroy Ukraine?

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 "," 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.

Six days ago he suggested giving up 20% of Ukrainian territory in return for Nato membership, something I suggested before he spoke.

Had Nato been disbanded in the 1990s or had Ukraine been told firmly that membership was impossible would the invasion have occurred?


  1. A more interesting question is where we would all be if Russia’s interest in joining NATO had been welcomed. Then its naval base at Sevastopol would have been much more secure.

    Clearly, the Zelensky government knew the present war was coming and wanted it, or it would have been serious about ending the Donbas war through the Minsk agreements.

    It’s easy to overlook the impacts of the aggressive Ukrainization policy in the Donbas and other Russian-speaking areas. That was bound to lead to separatist movements, and treating those people as terrorists, banning their political parties, and killing large numbers, was ultimately sure to lead to breakaway republics. It would have been very odd if Russia had not supported them. So while NATO membership is a big question, especially when it comes to the future of Sevastopol and the Crimea, it isn’t the only trigger of the wider war.

  2. Did anyone seriously consider disbanding NATO? A ahistorical fantasy. Countries like Poland, Czechoslovakia, and east Germany had vivid memories of Russian occupation and wanted protection from Russia. Turns out maybe they were right.


    1. George Kennan warned in a May 1998 New York Times interview that Nato’s first round of expansion would be "the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else.” He warned it would lead eventually to a war and then people would say that this proved that expanding Nato was necessary when it was not. I hoped everyone knew this by now.


  3. Well, with Sweden and Finland NATO is bigger than ever. Putin had a role to play too in NATO expansion, mostly a misguidedly reactive one.

    When George Kennan gave that interview in 1998 he was about 103 years old. His days as a preeminent scholar were behind him. Noam Chomsky is in the same boat today — he is forgetful and does not understand money laundering or the Internet.

  4. He was 94. He had favoured containment of Communist Russia in 1947 but was opposed to the cold war, the arms race, the development of the H bomb, arming Germany and the Vietnam war. He was right about all those things.

  5. Chomsky has been very wrong on most things all his life but was right to oppose Nato expansion in 1998 and to say Sweden and Finland are wasting their money joining now.

  6. You’re quite laughable sometimes in your efforts to jump on any bandwagon or pundit if it suits your own worldview. What money are they wasting exactly? They both spend over 2% of their GDP on defense against Russia already and have long ago moved to common Nato systems and command structures they are quite literally slot in and net contributors to NATO without budgeting an extra cent. Finland particularily with it’s artillery brings a massive boost to the defense capabilities

  7. What a combative unknown person you are, although the information you adduce is interesting and new to me. It took ten seconds for me to google this, however.,from%20%243.5bn%20in%202019.


  9. Chomsky thinks the defence industry helped persuade the Swedish and Finnish governments to join Nato. I have no idea, but it could be.

  10. One of the problems Mr Putin's attack was that it was so well predicted - a element of surprise is very useful for an offensive. As for whether NATO should still exist - the Baltic Republics would argue very strongly that it should.

  11. So much death and mutilation, and for what? The best soil in Europe seeded with cluster bombs, flooded and fouled with dam bursts.