Arestovych: "We Opened a Champagne Bottle After the Negotiations With Russia!!!"

A new insider account of what went down in Istanbul.

It really is all spilling out now. The truth of what Putin surrendered to Kiev in Istanbul that is. Most recently, Arestovych decided to give an interview to Unherd which simply confirmed the narrative that I am promoting here on this blog, all on my lonesome self, I might add.

The Unherd people are very interesting as a project because they have published many stories revealing just how dependent and subservient the Kremlin is to the West on multiple occasions. Their goal is clear: to patch up the disagreements between Moscow and Washington and get things back to the way they were before all this … messiness.

This latest Arestovych interview is in keeping with that objective and it was quite good. Who is Arestovych, you ask?

You can watch some snippets here. I will just summarize the key points.

First, he reveals that he was part of the negotiating team for Kiev:

Then he explains that the terms Russia offered were very helpful to the Kiev government, namely because they got rid of Minsk I and II, which is quite the revelation.

Minsk I and II, as bad as they were for Donbass, still provided or demanded special security guarantees for Donbass from Kiev by Moscow. Doing away with them essentially telling Kiev, “OK lol, do what you like with them now, the gloves are off”. It is a restoration of Ukraine’s sovereignty essentially, or, less euphemistically, the stripping of Donbass’ autonomy.

Kiev was initially thrilled by the victory that they had achieved in Istanbul! They even opened a bottle of champagne:

But what about Crimea?

Arestovich confirms that the Kremlin offered to rent Crimea from Kiev like they used to do:

In this case, the goal was to bribe the politicians with a kind of geld that would in turn allow Russia to pretend to be standing up for Crimea, I’m sure:

Arestovich explains that actually, Russia launched 5-6 attacks on Kiev during the negotiations. With each repulsed attack, they withdraw one of their demands. So the original demands were something like this:

But then, by the end of April, the only thing that Russia insisted on was on limiting the number of armed forces in Ukraine. That was all the Russians wanted formally on paper.

Notice: no freedom for Donbass was mentioned. This is almost certainly because Moscow signed over Donbass. Putin surrendered Donbass, I just know it!

But observe how all sides are so loath to admit this. Even Arestovych, who is positioning himself to be the compromise, Russian-speaking peace candidate after Zelensky, only hints at, but doesn’t explicitly say that this whole thing was a farce.

As for why Kiev rejected the peace offer after signing onto it, Arestovich says that something happened between April 4th and 9th that changed Zelensky’s mind.

And that’s the best best bits of the interview in terms of me trying to prove to people that Putin handed over Donbass and Crimea in Istanbul and that therefore, the war was never about Donbass and Crimea as we are told it was.

But the full interview had other unrelated parts worth mentioning. Let’s get into them now.

Arestovich HATES HATES HATES women

Turns out that Arestovich is an incel fugitive living in America now because he was mean to a wahhhhhman in Ukraine on the internet #MeToo. Few understand that Ukraine is a smelly and bleeding vaginocracy like I’ve correctly claimed since literally day two, post two of this blog. It is only going to get worse as they send their hated men off to die so they can have more of the country to themselves:

OA: I have some criminal investigations against me in Ukraine. In one of my seminars which I was conducting for my online school, when I was talking about men and women’s relationships, I imitated the actions of stupid men who do not like women. And Inna Sovsun, the MP who you had before on this channel, reported me to the national police for criminal investigation by cutting out one sentence I had made in this seminar to claim that “Arestovych is completely against women”. [For further details of the controversy, see this report.] After that they collected 29 members of parliament to say that Arestovych has to be arrested immediately when he returns to Ukraine. And the secretary of our security council says that Arestovych is a Russian spy and has to be arrested by the Security Service of Ukraine when returns to Ukraine. I think it’s a completely political persecution.

Arestovych warns of the looming Forever-War

With neither side able to achieve outright military victory, what is the solution if not to get NATO and Moscow to create a new security arrangement in Eastern Europe?

OA: I think if we get into realistic policy, we have to say there’s no way to liberate Donbas. Maybe in five or 10 years, even in Crimea, it could be possible. But the only goal we can have right now is not to give Russia more territory inside Ukraine, and to force Russia to give up this military way of dealing with Ukraine. My main idea is that we don’t need Russian-Ukrainian negotiation, we need negotiation regarding all of Eastern Europe’s security. It could be multiple negotiations. We have to make a new system of security in Europe, because the previous Potsdam/Yalta so-called system, which was created in 1945, does not work at all.

FS: So you would not support negotiations between Ukraine and Russia?

OA: It’s absolutely impossible. It’s very stupid to speak about this negotiation. We have to negotiate for an all-new security system for Europe, taking into account all sides of this problem. Russia does not feel itself to be secure. And we can laugh about this, and say that we never had an aggressive approach towards Russia, but Russians think so. And they are ready to kill for this security question. So we need a huge negotiation, with both sides, all Nato members, all EU neighbours, all natural states which are interested in the security in Europe, to create a new so-called Potsdam/Yalta system, because the alternative will be 10 or 15 years of war.

FS: Does that mean that you think that Nato needs to be replaced with a new system?

OA: I think Nato has to discuss with Russia and Belorussia what it would take to guarantee not to use military force in Europe to decide political questions. And to create a new system to decide on our political equations that avoids military power being wielded in the centre of Europe. I should perhaps add that I am absolutely pessimistic that this will happen. I think we face 10 or 15 years of war in Europe. Because the opposition we have right now are very huge and cannot be decided by negotiations. But for me, for my conscience, I have to be a person who talked about this idea openly. So when I am older, at the end of my life, I could say that I was a person who provided the idea of a new system of collective security in Europe, instead of 10 more years of war.

Arestovych denounces his old friend Dugin!

I actually never really understood Dugin’s geopolitics and I doubt anyone does. I think it is easy to denounce Dugin because Dugin is impossible to understand. I too denounce him! Hire an editor!

FS: That reminded me a little bit of someone I know you were interested in, in the past: Aleksandr Dugin. I know you attended a conference with him, back in the day when you were associated with the Bratsvo far-Right party. Dugin has a big idea about Eurasia and wars of civilisations. Do you still have sympathy with his world view?

OA: I never had sympathy with Dugin. Because I was an officer of military intelligence in Ukraine and doing my military duty in Moscow, I was sitting with Dugin in one conference. But I have my own philosophical background. And we can see on the frontline Right now that some cultures — Russian political culture, China’s political culture, Syrian, Iranian — is completely against the way we do policy in the last 300 years. This is a problem we can see now in material ways: in the missiles, which are landing on the heads of Russian and Ukrainian children. This is the main sign, not what Dugin says.

FS: You believe that cultures, like Russia, like Iran, are so different from the West, that they’re now prepared to fight for their differences?

OA: They are starting to fight against the system which has been established in the world for the previous 300 years. First of all, is the so-called Westphalian peace agreement. And they are fighting against this main principle of the system.

Arestovych on Ukrainian identity

Not being a Galician Ukrainian himself, I can see why Arestovych argues for tolerance of Russian-speakers, him being one. It is also popular rhetoric. Most Ukrainians would have never supported a war! They voted in Zelensky to be a peace candidate for Chrissakes! Arestovych is simply following a winning political formula.

FS: Do you think Ukraine should be one nation?

OA: No, I don’t. I think Ukraine has to be one political nation but poly-ethnic and poly-cultural. Because if we want to hold Ukraine in its 1991 borders, even officially we have 58 nationalities here in Ukraine. Unofficially it’s more than 100: a lot of languages, a lot of different cultures, a lot of different histories, of regions. Ukrainian is a state which was created from the parts of great empires — Austro Hungarian, German, Polish and Russian — and we have absolutely different traditions. You can imagine, because for Great Britain it is easy to understand. It’s like Wales, Scotland, Ireland.

FS: So you think it should be more of a federation?

OA: I don’t know exactly how it should be formed, politically or legally, but in fact in a philosophical way we are a federation. Because the South of Ukraine is completely different to the North of Ukraine, the East of Ukraine is completely different than the West of Ukraine. And even neighbouring regions in Ukraine have different wedding traditions etc.

FS: So why should it try to be one country, in that case?

OA: This is the question. Now we practically can’t answer this question when we see the problem of recruitment. This problem of mobilisation throws light on all of our very deep philosophical and historical problems. People are not refusing to join the army because of the dangers of wounds or death, but because they do not understand the answer to the question: why do we have to be one country? Why do we have to be one state? For what reason do we need a Ukrainian state? A lot of them say the Ukrainian state gives me the ability to get out the Ukrainian passport and get into Europe or another country. This is the main superiority of Putin. Russian recruits know for what they fight: they fight for Great Russia.

FS: So you don’t believe that there is a much stronger Ukrainian nationalism now than there was two years ago? Because by report, the fact of the invasion has brought Ukrainian people together. You’re saying that has not happened?

OA: Ukrainian nationalism is the idea of less than 20% of Ukrainians. This is the problem.

OA: I think for most of them, their idea is of a multinational and poly-cultural country. And when Zelenskyy came into power in 2019, they voted for this idea. He did not articulate it specifically but it was what he meant when he said, “I don’t see a difference in the Ukrainian-Russian language conflict, we are all Ukrainians even if we speak different languages.” And you know, my great criticism of what has happened in Ukraine over the last year, during the emotional trauma of the war, is this idea of Ukrainian nationalism which has divided Ukraine into different people: the Ukrainian speakers and Russian speakers as a second class of people. It’s the main dangerous idea and a worse danger than Russian military aggression, because nobody from this 80% of people wants to die for a system in which they are people of a second class.

He doesn’t have a chance though unless he lied about being part Georgian and is actually just Chosen. I think you have to secretly submit to a 23&Me analysis to the lab in Israel before they let you run anything higher than a McDonald’s anywhere nowadays.