TPlease inform me of any
transcription errors.

Terminological note (quoting from the interviews)

"ATO (Anti Terrorist Operation in the east)" "the occupied territories? (here it means the war in the Donbass region, ATO zone)" [Ed. Note: this interview is 2019, not 2022 or later: "When? 20... after ... 20. 2021-2022 are the most critical 2020-2022 are the most critical"]

"Predicted Russian - Ukrainian war in 2019 - Alexey Arestovich" (Roman Vynnytskiy, YouTube)[2]

Advisor to Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelenskyy. Ukraine. 2019.

- Of course, the question that is interesting,
how is it possible to stop the war and return
the occupied territories?
(here it means the war in the Donbass region, ATO zone)

- We cannot stop it...

- Can something still push Putin to this decision now?

- To end the war?

- Yes.

- Nothing. His main goal is to restore the Soviet Union and win the Cold War. Replay the Cold War. Destroy the collective security system in Europe, collapse the NATO and European Union, if not de jure then de facto.

- And then play one-on-one with he countries of the European Union, each one of them separately, of course, is weaker than Russia. That's how it is, united European Union is stronger, otherwise it's weaker. Therefore... A man has 150 billion wealth as they say, he has nuclear umbrella, he is only 70 year old...

- If the goal is to gather the USSR under one country, then why he stopped at Ukraine, why didn't he go further, the same Belarus?

- Why should he be in a hurry?
These are astrategic goals, as I once said,
the operation is planned until 2032-2035.
They are not done quickly, such things.

- And what should be he result in the 32nd year?

- Well, I think that a new form of empire.
They will find some way to reconfigure foreign policy,
domestic policy. Russia. Belarus. Ukraine (or part of Ukraine),
possibly Armenia, Moldova, Kazakhstan...

- Well, it doesn't matter, these are regional agreements...
Ukraine and Belarus for sure, 3 Slavic nations should
definitely be gathered. And Russia, as a new major player,
in a world that is not unipolar but multipolar,

- where it takes its role, very significant role, an important one, top of the five or even four states or state unions and pursues its policy as it sees fit. In any case the CIS, and no one should interfere in this territory.

- Dominating Europe, of course,
And this should be the result of such policy.

- Why by 2030?

- These are normal planning. If the situation,
before Putin came to power... the collapse of state...
from 91 to 99 - lasted for 8 years.
Then to restore it you would need double the time.

- They decided to do it in 2007, finally. After Maidan
(Ukraine revolution of 2004[ Should this be 2014? ]) they began to plan.
It took one and a half to two year to plan.
In 2007 they deliveredthe Munich speech and
withdrew from the arms control treaty in Europe.

- They planned to complete it by 2023, well, given the sanctions,
and the opposition, then it is necessary to multiply the time by at least 1.5 more. The 32nd - 35th year comes out.

- What situation in Ukraine can prevent this?

- Only accesson to NATO. If we do not join NATO, then
we are finished, We do not have the strength to be neutral. We will not remain neutral.

But there is not killing and destruction of property in Swiss neutrality. Even if A is correct about the cost, It is price of life not death.[1]

- For some reason, naive people think that neutrality is
when you can spend lttle on defense because we are not
going to fight with anyone. Neutrality cost 10 times
more than a war with someone else.

- Switzerland is a neutral country where all the girls,
and boys serve military, crazy military texes, and so on.
Despite the fact that it is not surrounded by Russia.
It is surrounded by France, Italy, Germany and Austria.
(democratic states)

- They are top 4th level in the world the intensity of combat training, continuous combat training. Despite the fact that they have
6 or 8 mountain passes there, blow them up and sit for yourself,
no one will touch you, as it were.

- And we have 2,700 km of land border with Russia,
which are bare steppes. Do you have any idea how much
neutrality will cost us? And count the rest of the
countries that have territorial claims against us.

- Therefore we will not maintain neutrality, we will not have enough resources. Geographically, no country would be able to maintain neutrality in this position.

No proof given. Cooperation with both The West and Russia not possible? A U.N. protectorate?

- If we cannot maintain neutrality, we will drift either to
the "Tiaga Union" (the Eurasian Union with Russia) or to
the NATO, there are no other options.

- How can NATO accept us if we have ATO
(Anti Terrorist Operation in the east) - war,

- This is one of the main myths about NATO, that they do not accept countries with terroritorial disputes, with war.

- They accept with ease. Moreover, they accept states
that have territorial disputes among themselves.
Greece and Turkey for example.

- Yes, but there were military operations on he territory of Cyprus. But we have on the territory of Ukraine.

- Yes, but, Turkey created what? His DPR (People's Republic) in Cyprus.

- They are condemned in every possible way for this,
but nevertheless they are a member of NATO. Do you undertand?
There are 36 conflicts within NATO. Well known:
Spain believes that Gibralter is occupied by Britain,
both are members of NATO.

- Britain "fought", without shooting, but ith the use of
military means with Iceland (Cod Wars). Well, there are
a lot of claims of countries to each other in other places,

- but most striking are the Spanish-British conflict and
the Greek-Turkish one. Nevertheless, all is well in NATO.
And all territorial claims there can be listed for a long time.

- Well, is it then a matter of political will?

- Definitely. If we compare us with Bulgaria, which joined
in 2004, then we were ready to join in 1999.

- Why then is NATO in no hurry to accept Ukraine?

- Because they do not have a consensus on whether they
need Ukraine at all and whether we wlll finally drift towards
Russia with these our Yanukovychs (president 2009-2014,
meaning pro-Russian politicians)

- And now everything is simple. Now that British citizens have been poisoned with military chamical weapons on their territory and after the downed Boeing, an attemptd coup in Montenegro.

- after the wave of refugees in Eurpe, after Syria.
Finally they realized in the Wet that Russia is
waging war not against Ukraine of Georgia,
but against The West.

- And when they figured ti out, very late, somewhere by the
beginning of 2018, the most advanced ones figured it out by
2016. Now they consider it very simple, if they don't take us
to NATO, then Russia gets +40 million people and a million
of military.

- and if they take us to NATO, they get +40 million
and a million military who already have experience
of war with Russia.

- What should the president do? What are the first ten steps?

- He must win the parliamentary elections, this is the main step. Because if the parliament in disagreement with the president then reform packages will be blocked, primarily the direction of joining the EU and NATO.

- It will be necessary to dissolve parliament and hold new
elections. And when this is done, then he will need to
get a MAP(Membership action plan) in NATO.

- this is the main task now for the cadence, everything else does not matter. War shadows everything. All this economy, social sphere, all this is alwsys sacrificed to the war. A lost in war - all other ssues become irrelevant.


- All poicies will be decided by Putin's junta, as if the war is lost, that's all.

- That is when Ukraine received the MAP(Membership action plan) in NATO, then it will be possible to talk about some lines of ending the war (meaning the war in the DPR and LPR)?

- No, we can not talk about any lines of ending the war here,
On the contrary, this will most likely push Russia to a major
military operation against Ukraine.

- Becaue they will have to squander us in terms of infrastructure. and turn averything here into ruined territory, so that NATO would be reluctant to accept us.

- That is, Russia will be able to go into direct confrntation with NATO?

- No, not NATO, they will have to do this before we join NATO so that NATO are not interested in us as a ruined territory.

- With a probability of 99.9%, our price for joining NATO is a full-scale war with Russia. And if we do not join NATO,
then the absorption by Russia within 10-12 years.
That's the whole fork in which we are.

- Wait, and now if you put the bowl on the scales, what is better in this case?

- Of course, a major war with Russia and the transiton to NATO as a result of the victory over Russia.

- And what is a "major" war with Russia?

- Well, it could be an air invasion operation, an offensve by the Russian armies that they created on our border,
a siege of Kyiv, an attempt to encircle troops in the ATO zone.

- A breakthrough through the Crimean Isthmus, an offensive from the territory of Belarus, the creation of new "people's republics", sabotage, attacks on critical infrastructure, and so on. That's what a major war is, and the probability of it is 99%.

- When?

- After 2020, 21 and 22 are the most critical, then 2024-2026 and the following 2028-2030 will be critical.
Maybe even three wars with Russia.

- If such a full scale war starts, will new "people's republics" be proclaimed?

- Well, of course, before the Russian tanks enter, saboteurs will enter and proclaim Kharkov, Sumy, Chernigov, Odessa and Kherson People's Republics.

- And how can Ukraine get a MAP in NATO and not get stuck in a full scale war with Russia?

- No way. Well, except that they will hit Russia with means, that will make it clear that they are not welcomed here.

- Sanctions, embargo? What will they hit with?

- Well, sanction, embargoes, they can simply publicly and tacitly warn that it will be very bad for them when trying to wage a war.

- For example, to throw an Ameican aviation group here, and state that Russia should do nothing, not even bother. NATO contingents can come in, stand around Kyiv, and so on. They can make is do that power in Russia will change.

- Liberals can come and Russia will again become a good country.
Anything can happen.

- And under what conditions can the power in Russia be replaced?

- Well, if there is an intra-elite conflict and that part of the elite that believes what is the continuation of Russia's policy of winning the Cold War and the collapse of the EU and NATO there,

- and in general, being an oucast in the West and fighting with the West is not profitable, and it will gain enough strength to eliminate the group that is set up for the USSR-2 project.
Then yes,

- Is the option of a peaceful settlement being considered

- No, won't happen.

- Why? It seems to me that the West is considering such options.

- The West is considering such options offering Russia to change its mind. And why would they change their mind, for what reason? At least one reason.

- If they threaten...

- If they threaten... how can you seriously threaten a country that has a nuclear shield? Has nuclear weapons?

- Well, it seems to me, to bring Russia to a situation where the question will already be whether to press the nuclear button, this should be a very, some, serious decision.

- That's not the point. The fact is it is impossible to exert serious pressure on people with nuclear weapons, on such a scale as Russia has.

- Because serious pressure is a threat by force, and you
can't immerse a person with nuclear weapons by force.
And all these ecnnomic sanctions ... shh ...
for a country like Russia.

- For example, Iran - 40 years under economic sanctions much more severe than thoe of Russia. Well, and they are screwing with the whole world, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Syria, the USA, half of Africa and half of America.

- Iran is intriguing in half the globe, and no one can do anything with it. Nuclear weapons are being developed, missiles are being launched. But Russia is larger than Iran and more influential.

- That is, to sum up - do you consider the sole or one of the important decisions of the pursuing president of Ukraine to be important, is this the MAP in NATO?

- Definitely.

- Perhaps two more points?

- There are two ways to look at these elections - historical and socio-economic. We must remember that the socio-economic method is possible only becaue someone is fighting very well.

- In general, providing us with allies, support, military assistance from the United States. That is the only reason we can have these democratic conversations at all. There is no chance of neutrality in Ukraine.

- On way or another, we will drift into one or another supranational military alliance. Only it will be either "Tiaga Union" or NATO. We were in "Tiaga" and I personally don't want to. We haven't been to NATO, let's try.

- We will definitely not mantain neutrality. This means that the main task is to join NATO, and no social and economic sacrifices are such in the face of this task. Even if the dollar will cost 250,

- and since there is no such thing, but there is economic growth, in principle, in general, everything looks not so bad. But the price of joining NATO is likely to be a larger war with Russia, or a sequence of such conflicts.

- But in this conflict, we will be very actively supported by the West – with weapons, equipment, assistance, new sanctions against Russia and the quite possible introduction of a NATO contingent, a no-fly zone, etc. We won't lose and that's good.
TPlease inform me of any
transcription errors.

Zelensky's Adviser, Oleksiy Arestovych, confirms that a full-scale war with Russia was pre-planned and desired by the Ukrainian regime for the purpose of joining NATO as far back as in 2019 when this interview was conducted: "This Tweet is from an account that no longer exists." (+2023.01.14; see: here)

Interviewer: So if Ukraine receives / unclear/ to NATO
in this case we can speak about
some dates of termination of war in the East

Arestovych: no, we won't speak about any dates of termination of war
quite the opposite, it will most likely prompt Russia
to launch large-scale military operation against Ukraine
becaue they have to degrade us
in terms of infrastructure
and to turn everything into devastated territory
so that NATO would be reluctant in accepting us

Interviewer: You mean, that Russia will dare to directly confront NATO?

Arestovych: Of course, Russia ... no, not NATO
They must do this before we join NATO
to make us uninteresting to NATO
So that we become uninteresting as a havocked 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
Here's the fork we're facing now.
And now let's make a choice /unclear/
Interviewer: But ... wait ... If we put it on the scales - what's better in this case?

Arestovych: Of course a large-scale war with Russia and joining NATO as result of defeat of Russia.
The coolest thing

Interviewer: And what can a 'large-scale war with Russia' be like?

Arestovych: Well, it's air offensive, invasion of four Russian armies they created on our borders
siege of Kiev, attempt to encircle the troops deployed in ATO zone,
in Anti-Terrrist Operation Zone in Donbass
breakthrough of the Isthmus of Perekop in Crimea
advancement towards the Kakhovka Resevoir
to give water to Crimea.
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 is full-scale war.
And its probabiility is 99 percent.

Interviewer: When?

Arestovych: 20... after ... 20. 2021-2022 are the most critical
2020-2022 are the most critical
TPlease inform me of any
transcription errors.

+2024.02.16 v093
 PreviousReturn to Table of contents
PreviousReturn to Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelenskyy


  1. This assessment of a huge price of maintaining neutrality assumes that Ukraine woulsd want to remain antagonistic not friendly toward Russia. Why would Ukraine want to do this? What benefits would it provide for the Ukrainian people? Finland lived peacefully nextdoor to Russia for many decdades. If Ukraine made friends with Russia would they need to spend a lot of money and manpower defending themselves agains their friend? What were Mr. Arestovich's reasons for wanting Ukraine to be hostile toward Russia instead of seeking peace?
  2. I (BMcC[18-11-46-503]) initially made this transcript no later than 03 August 2022.
Get out if you can! NATO_icon
This page has been validated as HTML 5.