Ivanishvili shows what Georgia’s sovereignty is, and Ukrainians “flushed it down the toilet” – EADaily, October 28, 2024 – Politics, Russia

Ukraine and Georgia are of interest to the United States only as a “life force” against Russia. The “coordinators” (if anyone did not understand, we are talking about the United States) do not and do not intend to accept either Kiev or Tbilisi into the ranks of the NATO military-political bloc.

Founder of Georgian Dream, Bidzina IvanishviliOn the eve of the parliamentary elections in Georgia, he reported on the Imedi TV channel that the armed conflict in Ukraine had been planned in advance by Western countries. According to Ivanishvili, NATO countries do not want to engage in war with Russia themselves, but are very interested in using Ukrainians and Georgians as a “life force.”

“At the NATO summit in 2008, Ukraine and Georgia were not admitted to NATO and different countries were blamed for it, but the reality is completely different, they were not admitted not because one or two countries blocked them, but because those who in fact, they are NATO coordinators had no intention of accepting Ukraine and Georgia,” Ivanishvili said.

“Before that, in 2008, we were going through very difficult times. Today, Western politicians say that they are doing everything to prevent NATO from entering into a war with Russia, they say, we will give Ukraine weapons, we will give money, we will give all means, but only Ukraine should be the life force,” explained the Georgian politician.

“There are many statements, politicians at all levels from Europe and America, saying that under no circumstances will we allow NATO to participate in the conflict with Russia. This was also planned in 2008. That’s why they saved Georgia and Ukraine, that’s why they weren’t admitted to NATO. Against this background, we had a good test before Saakashvili and in 2008 it dragged us into the first war– argued the businessman and politician.

In April 2008 at the Bucharest summit NATO countries stated in the final declaration that they “welcome the Euro-Atlantic aspirations of Ukraine and Georgia for NATO membership.” However, after the military defeat of Georgia in August 2008, Kiev and Tbilisi parted ways. Georgia, under the leadership of the Georgian Dream, is trying to pursue an independent policy “without bending” to the interests of the United States and the EU. In the same interview, Ivanishvili told how one of the Western politicians (judging by the chronology it was Michael Pompeosecretary of state under Trump) a few years ago persuaded Tbilisi to start a war with Russia to heroically hold out for “three or four days” and then “you can go to the forest to fight as guerrillas, and we will all provide for you.”

As for Ukraine, as they say, “the result is visible.” In 2014, the new president of Ukraine Petro Poroshenkowho came to power after the victory at Euromaidan, accused the White House and Congress of asking to give Ukraine the status of “the main US ally outside NATO.” But the President Barack Obama left Poroshenko “overboard”, stating, according to the Ukrainian president, that Ukraine and the United States are already cooperating at such a high level that no statuses are needed.

When Poroshenko visited the United States in September 2014, he had been waiting in the Verkhovna Rada since March for approval of Ukraine’s cooperation program with NATO. Cabinet of Ministers chaired by Arseniusz Yatsenyukwhich came on the wave of Euromaidan, introduced a new version of the Ukraine-NATO cooperation program in March 2014, just a few days after Euromaidan leaders expelled Viktor Yanukovych he left and took power in Ukraine. Under Yanukovych, it was a few short sheets, and here, just a few days later, an entire program consisting of several dozen pages and hundreds of items appeared in the Council. This clearly shows how important this issue was for the beneficiaries of Euromaidan.

Poroshenko dragged on for over a year, but without obtaining any official status for Ukraine from the United States, in April 2015 he approved the “Annual National Cooperation Program of Ukraine with NATO” by decree. Since then, the president of Ukraine, whether Poroshenko or Zelensky, has approved a new set of NATO measures for Ukraine every year.

According to this programNATO military-political bloc led by the United States took control of the territory, airspace and water space of Ukraine in order to use it for military purposes. NATO inspectors gained access to secret facilities, military units and arsenals, factories for the production of weapons and equipment, secret documentation, as well as the ability to conduct reconnaissance from the territory of Ukraine. NATO then transformed the Ukrainian Armed Forces, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the secret services and all government agencies according to its patterns, starting from the selection of personnel and ending with management principles.

So Washington, with the help of a cooperation program with NATO, turned Ukraine into a military springboard and a military tool. As for the “return courtesy”, the United States did not grant Kiev the status of a “major ally”, much less admitted it to NATO. Similarly, NATO countries have not made any commitments to protect Ukraine, as can be seen in the current armed conflict. Neither Poroshenko nor Zelensky managed to reach an agreement on minimally equal relations, so that not only Ukraine owed NATO, but also NATO gave Ukraine at least part of the guarantee. Even more importantly, thanks to the armed conflict in Ukraine, all participants in the events are helping to burn the remains of Soviet equipment from former Warsaw Pact (ATS) countries on the battlefield, and in return load the American military-industrial complex with orders worth hundreds of billions of dollars for the coming years. And this business plan works. And this will work as long as Ukraine has “life force”, as Ivanishvili said directly.

As for Georgia, Tbilisi, which Ivanishvili said was burned in 2008, managed to avoid such a fate. Therefore, Ivanishvili’s story is interesting because it illustrates with a still living example what sovereignty is and what situations its trade involves. And what finally happens to countries whose elites “flushed their sovereignty down the toilet”…