Why didn't Russia invade Ukraine on February 16?

Now, the morning of February 16 came.

U.S. President Mr. Joseph Biden's prediction of a Russian invasion of Ukraine did not come true, the invasion did not take place.

It didn't happen today...

Now Ukraine got perhaps its last chance to preserve its statehood.

In early October of last year, U.S. Intelligence received convincing evidence that Putin had decided on a full-scale invasion of Ukraine with the goal of seizing Kyiv city, the "mother of Russian cities" and center of Orthodoxy, as well as controlling about 2/3 of Ukraine.

Massive air strikes on cities were not planned. Military command centers, ammunition depots, and military equipment would be struck by cruise and tactical ballistic missiles.

All this would be performed under cover of a powerful propaganda campaign to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, the deployment of missiles capable of reaching Moscow in 5-7 minutes, and, of course, the protection of the "oppressed" Russian-speaking population. After that, a pro-Putin puppet government would be set up in Kyiv on the bayonets of the Russian army.

The preparations for the invasion were disguised as large-scale exercises in Russia and Belarus, which take place every year. However, this time they would be a springboard for a dash into Ukraine.

The date of the offensive in February was chosen for a reason. It had, of course, nothing to do with the convenience of moving heavy military equipment over the frozen ground. Only "couch experts" can judge in this way.

It is simply statistically the coldest month in Europe. Moreover, the calculation was that under the threat of a complete cessation of Russian gas supplies, which account for up to 30% of the EU energy balance, completely, to discourage the Europeans from standing up for Ukraine.

In addition, the middle of February was chosen based on the symbolic meaning – 8 years of the treacherous attack and occupation of the Ukrainian Crimea.

Here a number of readers will loudly cry out: "What is saying Herashchenko? It just can't be true! It's one thing to take over the Crimea, which had over 70% of the Russian-speaking population, and quite another to take over Kyiv and Central Ukraine, where there will be a powerful resistance movement, where the Ukrainian army and the National Guard will shoot at the occupants without any hesitation.

And I will ask in response, "What's the difference between the invasion and occupation of Ukrainian Crimea and part of Donbass and the seizure of 2/3 of the territory of Ukraine?"

After all, that was when the first act of external aggression on European territory since Hitler was committed, unless you count the bombing of Serbia in the late 90s.

Putin's behavior today is the result of the fact that he has not suffered any substantial punishment for occupying Ukrainian Crimea and part of Donbass!

He did not become a non-handshakable person. Other countries still buy oil and gas from him. The Russian National Welfare Fund has increased manifold over the last eight years to $182 billion. Not to mention the fact that the Northern and Southern streams, with almost full consent of the EU, bypassed Ukraine from all sides, making it superfluous in the transit of Russian energy resources.

Yes, the Armed Forces of Ukraine, National Guard, border guards, and other military formations, unlike the events in Crimea in 2014, would have offered fierce resistance, although the balance of military forces would not have been in our favor.

Yes, Joseph Biden and Boris Johnson have taken a principled stand to prevent the Russian invasion, unlike Barack Obama and David Cameron, who in 2014 were not willing to show leadership and did not force Putin to retreat from Crimea and Donbass with hard and decisive actions. On the contrary, they indulged the aggressor with their softness.

I remember very well how in February and March, at every meeting with the interim Ukrainian government, U.S. Ambassador Mr. Geoffrey R. Pyatt begged not to shoot the "green men", so that it would not be worse.

Putin, who came to power in 2000 and first sincerely tried to establish partnership relations with the West (read "All the Kremlin's Men" by Mikhail Zygar), was terribly offended by the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the unilateral recognition of Kosovo in 2008.

The occupation of Crimea was Putin's response to the unilateral recognition of Kosovo's independence and the de facto forcible partition of Russia's ally in the Balkans – Serbia.

Every Ukrainian diplomat who has participated in negotiations with Russia, and anyone who follows the public rhetoric of Putin and Lavrov, knows that there is one answer to all outrage over the brazen occupation of Crimea: we protect the Russian-speaking population by cutting off Crimea from Ukraine, just as the West cut Kosovo off from Serbia alive.

And Putin's upcoming, but not yet failed, invasion of Ukraine would have been well-prepared revenge on the US for the invasion of Iraq under the far-fetched pretext of Saddam Hussein's alleged possession of chemical weapons, which in the end were not found there and all American diplomacy and intelligence knew that it was a fake.

Any discussions within the UN and the OSCE would end with Lavrov saying that we had to protect our interests. You invaded Iraq in 2003 without any decision of the UN Security Council, using a fictitious excuse about chemical weapons. So, we are following in your footsteps.

In fact, it was not just an attack on Ukraine, but a re-division of the world order that emerged after the collapse of the superpowerful USSR in 1991.

If the West had not stopped Russia's massive invasion of Ukraine, the whole system of checks and balances, built since 1945, would have collapsed like a house of cards.

Russia's allies, China, Iran and North Korea, would have deployed their full power.

China would plan and execute an invasion of Taiwan, which it considers a rebellious province.

Iran would openly declare that it, and not the U.S., has the last word in all the arrangements in the difficult Persian Gulf region, where 40% of the world's oil and gas is produced.

North Korea, with the tacit consent of China and Russia, would intensively terrorize South Korea and Japan, up to unleashing a war on the Korean Peninsula.

That's why Mr. Biden and his team, who have learned from the lessons of 2014, have taken a series of unprecedented measures to prevent an invasion of Ukraine, from a well-thought-out and massive information campaign making Putin look like a 21st century Hitler to dozens of planes with anti-tank weapons – an invaluable tool for stopping the mechanized columns of incoming aggressor.

The West can never and will never openly go to war with a nuclear Russia. Russia has over 5,000 nuclear warheads, each of which could wipe out London or New York.

Therefore, the only way for the U.S. and its allies in Europe and Asia to preserve the remnants of the existing world order and stop the invasion of Ukraine was to convince their European allies to stop buying oil and gas from Russia, which would have had disastrous consequences for its economy.

I think Joseph Biden's conversation with Vladimir Putin this Sunday was decisive.

I believe that Volodymyr Zelensky, Joseph Biden, Boris Johnson, Emmanuel Macron, and other leaders who have made efforts to prevent a large-scale war in Europe and the outbreak of World War II should receive the Nobel Peace Prize this year for their actions in preventing a direct large-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. I think many of my readers will agree with me.

What will happen to Ukraine, its fate and the fate of its citizens?

1. We are doomed to continue to live between the Europe and Russian Federation. The Russian threat will constantly hang over us, if a compromise is not found not to the detriment and not at the expense of the interests of Ukraine.

2. We will not be accepted into NATO, so as not to tease Russia. Let's be honest, even before the threat of a direct large-scale invasion by Russia, our chances were very low, and now they are close to zero. And this should be said truthfully to ourselves and to our voters. However, the U.S., Britain and probably France will sell or give us weapons and support us by any other means than participating in the direct military defense of Ukraine.

3. Minsk agreements were dead the day Petro Poroshenko signed them in February 2015. They were necessary to stop the rapid advance of the enemy after the Debaltseve battle. The return of the occupied territories on Putin's terms is the way to guarantee the destruction of the remnants of Ukrainian statehood. In addition, it is necessary to support the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky in the issue of categorical refusal to implement the Minsk agreements. Especially since after the State Duma passed an appeal for recognition of the so-called "L/DPR" yesterday, there is no point in continuing these pointless negotiations. Better a horrible end than a horror without end.

4. The Ukrainian government shall urgently develop and offer the Ukrainian people another paradigm for the development of Ukraine – a strong, armed, trained and ready to resist. Ukraine, where everyone who is supposed to pay taxes. Where every judge, prosecutor and law enforcement officer "shakes the dust" off the honest investor and businessperson. Moreover, the dishonest judges and law enforcement officers are convicted in a matter of months and sent to long-term imprisonment.

5. The path of Ukraine is the path taken by Finland, Israel, and South Korea, nations forced to live next to aggressive neighbors, but their Leaders managed to unite the nation around them and made their countries strong and economically prosperous.

So, let me finish where I started.

The invasion scheduled for today did not take place only because the West was unprecedentedly united in letting Putin know that by attacking Ukraine he would start World War II.

Ukraine today may have been given its last chance to preserve its statehood.

How it will be used depends on each of us...

Anton Gerashchenko

Блог автора – матеріал, який відображає винятково точку зору автора. Текст блогу не претендує на об'єктивність та всебічність висвітлення теми, яка у ньому піднімається. Редакція "Української правди" не відповідає за достовірність та тлумачення наведеної інформації і виконує винятково роль носія. Точка зору редакції УП може не збігатися з точкою зору автора блогу.