風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
我們在一份 13 年前的報告中發現了什麽
2024 年 7 月 24 日
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Dz7bjysXLs
探索烏克蘭加入北約的野心背後的迷人故事，北約 2011 年的報告《後橙色烏克蘭：內部動態和外交政策優先事項》中重點介紹了這一背景。盡管目前爭論激烈，但這份曆史快照顯示，當時烏克蘭人對加入北約的支持率非常低。隻有大約 20% 的烏克蘭人讚成加入北約，這受到北約轟炸貝爾格萊德等過去事件的影響。即使是由亞努科維奇總統領導的政府也選擇了“非集團政策”，避免軍事政治聯盟。該文件表明，烏克蘭最終需要在西方或俄羅斯之間做出選擇，這對中立的可持續性產生了懷疑。
烏克蘭的北約夢：可能引發全球衝突的導火索
梅德韋傑夫的警告：烏克蘭加入北約是宣戰嗎？探索影響歐洲安全未來的高風險緊張局勢
詹姆斯·布勞爾 2024 年 7 月 17 日
烏克蘭加入北約的願望和俄羅斯的反應：利害攸關？
俄羅斯安全委員會副主席德米特裏·梅德韋傑夫就烏克蘭可能加入北約發出了嚴厲警告，地緣政治格局岌岌可危。梅德韋傑夫在一份充滿不祥色彩的聲明中將烏克蘭加入北約描述為向莫斯科宣戰，強調了俄羅斯與北約之間的深刻緊張關係。這一發展引發了關於歐洲安全未來和更廣泛的全球衝突可能性的關鍵問題。
北約對烏克蘭的承諾
在最近的北約峰會上，領導人承諾支持烏克蘭“不可逆轉地全麵融入歐洲-大西洋，包括加入北約”。然而，加入北約的時間表仍未確定，反映出這一問題的複雜性和敏感性。自烏克蘭獨立以來，北約對烏克蘭的支持一直堅定不移，特別是在俄羅斯於 2014 年吞並克裏米亞以及烏克蘭東部持續衝突之後，這種支持進一步加強。
梅德韋傑夫的警告
梅德韋傑夫是俄羅斯政壇的知名人物，也是克裏姆林宮鷹派中的關鍵人物，他在接受《論據與事實》采訪時直言不諱。他強調，烏克蘭加入北約將升級為對俄羅斯安全的直接威脅，相當於延遲宣戰。這與克裏姆林宮長期以來的敘述一致，即認為北約東擴是侵略性的，侵犯了俄羅斯的勢力範圍。
梅德韋傑夫表示：“多年來，俄羅斯的對手一直在對我們采取擴大聯盟的行動……將北約推向了無可挽回的地步。”這種情緒反映了俄羅斯更廣泛地將北約視為直接對手的看法，加劇了人們對全麵軍事對抗的擔憂。
緊張的曆史
自 1949 年北約成立以來，北約一直是西方防禦戰略的基石，最初旨在對抗蘇聯的軍事力量。蘇聯解體後，北約擴大到包括前東歐集團國家，莫斯科將此舉視為戰略包圍。這一曆史背景對於理解俄羅斯強烈反對北約進一步擴張至關重要，尤其是反對進入烏克蘭，俄羅斯認為烏克蘭在其勢力範圍內。
升級的風險
鑒於當前的地緣政治氣候，梅德韋傑夫的言論尤其令人擔憂。他警告說，北約繼續支持烏克蘭，包括提供先進武器，可能會激起俄羅斯的強烈反應。梅德韋傑夫警告說：“這種企圖越多，我們的回應就越嚴厲”，暗示可能會出現災難性的升級，包括核衝突。
這種言論並不新鮮，但隨著烏克蘭衝突的持續，這種言論的緊迫感越來越強烈。梅德韋傑夫在總統任期內（2008-2012 年）從親西方的現代化主義者轉變為堅定的鷹派，凸顯了俄羅斯對西方的政策和情緒的轉變。
對全球安全的影響
烏克蘭可能加入北約的影響遠遠超出了地區政治。任命馬克·呂特為北約秘書長雖然意義重大，但莫斯科認為，這無助於改變北約的基本立場。梅德韋傑夫尖銳地指出，北約內部的真正決定是由美國推動的，這進一步證實了莫斯科和華盛頓之間的雙邊關係是這場地緣政治僵局的核心這一觀點。
北約的擴張戰略和俄羅斯的咄咄逼人的姿態形成了一種不穩定的組合，有可能破壞全球安全。隨著北約繼續堅持對烏克蘭的承諾，而俄羅斯的反應越來越敵視，爆發更廣泛衝突的風險越來越大。
結論
德米特裏·梅德韋傑夫的警告標誌著國際關係進入了一個關鍵時刻。烏克蘭尋求加入北約是一個爆發點，可能會重新定義歐洲乃至世界的安全態勢。由於北約和俄羅斯都堅持自己的立場，國際社會麵臨著一項艱巨的任務，即駕馭這些危險的水域，以防止可能造成毀滅性全球後果的升級。
了解利害關係和曆史背景對於理解當前危機至關重要。它強調了外交努力的重要性以及戰略審慎的必要性，以避免可能破壞全球和平與安全的衝突。
橙色革命後的烏克蘭外交政策
2005 年 3 月 5 日
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/ukraines-foreign-policy-after-the-orange-revolution
烏克蘭學者 Oleksandr Merezhko 討論了烏克蘭最近總統選舉的結果如何影響其與俄羅斯、美國和歐洲的關係。
烏克蘭的民主橙色革命不僅對烏克蘭的政治氣候產生了巨大影響，而且對全球事務也產生了巨大影響。它證明了盡管庫奇馬政府試圖操縱輿論，但人民的意願確實很重要。但其他國家可以從這一經驗中學到的主要教訓是，和平、非暴力的抵抗可以發出有效的信息並推翻獨裁政權。
橙色革命將影響烏克蘭與其三個主要夥伴的關係：俄羅斯、美國和歐洲。形象地說，俄羅斯和烏克蘭讓我想起了連體雙胞胎。從曆史上看，俄羅斯一直是烏克蘭最親密的戰略夥伴，也將繼續如此。在普京總統競選期間公開支持維克多·亞努科維奇之後，俄羅斯和烏克蘭試圖修複關係並建立新的關係就顯得尤為重要，這種關係應以相互尊重、不幹涉內政和承認烏克蘭有權與歐盟建立更緊密的關係為基礎。
烏克蘭與美國的關係似乎更加不平衡。烏克蘭視美國為其政治獨立的保證人；然而，烏克蘭打算從伊拉克撤出軍事部隊。盡管這一決定可能對雙邊關係產生負麵影響，但它反映了烏克蘭領導層根據國家利益製定政策的獨立性。烏克蘭政治精英認識到，對美國來說，俄羅斯比烏克蘭更重要。因此，烏克蘭必須製定靈活的外交政策，以便在追求國家利益的同時巧妙地平衡與俄羅斯和美國的關係。
關於與歐洲的關係，烏克蘭總統維克多·尤先科已將加入歐盟作為一項戰略目標。烏克蘭新領導層打算在努力建立正式加入歐盟的談判的同時，維護該國作為歐盟準成員國的地位。但迄今為止，歐盟仍忽視烏克蘭的成員國地位，這可能會對歐洲的未來產生嚴重影響。如果歐盟繼續將烏克蘭視為歐洲和俄羅斯之間的緩衝區，歐洲和西方可能會發現烏克蘭重新回到俄羅斯的軌道上。
烏克蘭革命可以看作是一個動態過程，其最終目標是用更透明、更自由的政治製度取代獨裁統治。許多人還希望新領導層能將烏克蘭的犯罪寡頭經濟轉變為更自由的自由市場經濟。橙色革命開啟了烏克蘭曆史的新篇章，並給烏克蘭一個獨特的機會，使其在國內真正的民主和社會正義以及與鄰國穩定和安全的關係的基礎上塑造自己的未來。
當北約承認不到 20% 的烏克蘭人希望加入北約時
作者：Bharat Dogra 20/07/2024
https://countercurrents.org/2024/07/when-nato-admitted-that-less-than-20-people-of-ukraine-want-its-membership/
美國總統喬·拜登於 2024 年 7 月 11 日在華盛頓特區北約峰會期間會見了烏克蘭總統弗拉基米爾·澤連斯基。圖片來源：Getty Images。
由於烏克蘭加入北約的問題最近引起了廣泛的討論，有必要回顧一下，2011 年北約曾關切地注意到烏克蘭人民對這一成員資格的接受度極低。
這可以從北約文件《後橙色烏克蘭：內部動態和外交政策優先事項》中看出，該文件由北約議會民主治理小組委員會於 2011 年 10 月準備。
該文件明確指出：“烏克蘭與北約關係麵臨的最大挑戰在於烏克蘭人民對北約的看法。北約成員國在該國並未得到廣泛支持，一些民意調查顯示，民眾對北約的支持率不到 20%。”
該文件進一步指出，北約轟炸貝爾格萊德在烏克蘭尤其不受歡迎。
盡管烏克蘭努力改善北約在烏克蘭人民中的看法，但該文件指出，“對許多烏克蘭人來說，北約的形象仍然喚起一種恐懼感。”
不僅僅是成員國；大多數烏克蘭人似乎也反對與北約建立其他形式的密切關係。正如該文件所寫，“大多數烏克蘭人既不支持加入北約，也不支持與北約進行更密切的合作。”
如果這是人民的觀點，那麽此時（本文引用的文件是在 2011 年 10 月準備的）由亞努科維奇總統領導的民選政府的觀點是什麽？
該文件告訴我們我們——亞努科維奇先生明確表示，烏克蘭不再需要加入北約（烏克蘭加入北約是 2008 年北約峰會上接受的一項政策決定）。
該文件指出——2010 年 6 月，總統簽署了一項法案，要求烏克蘭采取“非集團政策，即不參與軍事政治聯盟”。更重要的是，反對派領導人也對此表示支持。一些反對派領導人認為，烏克蘭的外交政策已經變得更加平衡。
因此，如果人民、政府和主要反對派人物不支持加入北約，事情就應該到此結束。
然而，北約文件並沒有表達對烏克蘭反對加入北約的日益一致的高興或樂觀。
相反，該文件表達了這種中立可能會結束或應該結束的可能性。更確切地說，該文件指出，“烏克蘭沒有就長期保持西方和俄羅斯之間的平衡方針是否有可能達成共識。可以說，這兩個方向至少部分是矛盾的，烏克蘭最終需要明確選擇自己的道路。”此外，該文件更明確地指出，北約的大門仍然為烏克蘭敞開。
文件中沒有給出采取這一立場的理由，盡管常識會表明相反——長期的中立政策對烏克蘭的穩定和進步非常有用。盡管烏克蘭人越來越一致地認為他們需要中立和平衡，但該文件對烏克蘭繼續走中立道路表示了嚴重懷疑。
其他人也指出，烏克蘭缺乏對加入北約或與北約建立更緊密關係政策的支持。挪威東南大學 (USN) 的 Glenn Diesen 教授在他最近的文章《用理想主義摧毀烏克蘭》中寫道（可以在作者的 substack 或 Brave New Europe 網站上閱讀，2024 年 7 月 17 日），“西方公眾很少被告知，1991 年至 2014 年之間的每一項民意調查都表明，隻有極少數烏克蘭人想加入北約 (NATO)。"
此外，西方高級外交官、學者和其他以致力於和平而聞名的專家一直在警告北約東擴，特別是不要讓烏克蘭成為北約成員。
美國外交部門蘇聯事務高級專家、後來擔任美國駐莫斯科大使的約翰·馬特洛克 (John Matlock) 在俄羅斯入侵烏克蘭時表示，“如果冷戰結束後北約沒有擴張，就不會有當前危機的基礎。”他進一步補充說：“普京的要求非常合理。”眾所周知，當時俄羅斯的主要擔憂是烏克蘭不應加入北約。
此前，英國駐俄羅斯前大使羅德裏克·萊恩 (Roderic Lyne) 曾在 2020 年警告說，推動烏克蘭加入北約是一個巨大的錯誤。他甚至更不祥地表示：“如果你想與俄羅斯開戰，這是最好的辦法。”（R.Lyne，牛津大學訪談係列：Nikita Gyazin 采訪羅德裏克·萊恩爵士，牛津大學聯盟，2020 年 12 月 18 日）。
前德國總理安格拉·默克爾表示，俄羅斯會將烏克蘭加入北約的可能性解讀為宣戰。（A. Welsh——安格拉·默克爾談烏克蘭、普京及其遺產，德國之聲，2022 年 6 月 7 日）。
此前，包括前高級軍官、外交官和參議員在內的 50 名美國外交政策專家簽署了一封題為“北約擴張是曆史性的政策錯誤”的信函。烏克蘭新任間諜頭目聯係了美國中央情報局和 M16，建立針對俄羅斯的秘密行動夥伴關係（最終導致美國中央情報局在俄羅斯邊境建立了 12 個間諜基地）。如果沒有事先計劃，這種事情不可能這麽快開始。
Ukraine's NATO Dreams: The Flashpoint That Could Ignite Global Conflict
Medvedev's Warning: Is Ukraine's NATO Membership a Declaration of War? Explore the High-Stakes Tensions Shaping Europe's Security Future
James Brauer July 17, 2024
UKRAINE’S NATO ASPIRATIONS AND RUSSIA'S REACTION: WHAT'S AT STAKE?
The geopolitical landscape is on edge as Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Russia's Security Council, issued a stark warning regarding Ukraine's potential accession to NATO. In a statement laden with ominous overtones, Medvedev described Ukraine's membership in the alliance as tantamount to a declaration of war against Moscow, underscoring the profound tensions between Russia and NATO. This development raises critical questions about the future of European security and the potential for broader global conflict.
NATO's Commitment to Ukraine
At the recent NATO summit, leaders pledged to support Ukraine on an "irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership." However, the timeline for this membership remains open-ended, reflecting the complexities and sensitivities surrounding the issue. NATO’s support for Ukraine has been steadfast since the country's independence, particularly intensifying after Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine.
Medvedev's Warning
Medvedev, a prominent figure in Russian politics and a key voice among the Kremlin’s hawks, did not mince words in his interview with Argumenty I Fakty. He emphasized that Ukraine joining NATO would escalate beyond a direct threat to Russia's security, equating it to a delayed declaration of war. This aligns with the longstanding Kremlin narrative that views NATO's eastward expansion as aggressive and encroaching on Russia's sphere of influence.
"The actions that Russia's opponents have been taking against us for years, expanding the alliance ... take NATO to the point of no return," Medvedev stated. This sentiment reflects a broader Russian perception of NATO as a direct adversary, exacerbating fears of a full-scale military confrontation.
A History of Tensions
Since NATO's inception in 1949, the alliance has been a cornerstone of Western defense strategy, originally designed to counter Soviet military power. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, NATO expanded to include former Eastern Bloc countries, a move viewed by Moscow as a strategic encirclement. This historical context is crucial in understanding Russia's vehement opposition to further NATO expansion, particularly into Ukraine, which Russia considers within its sphere of influence.
The Risks of Escalation
Medvedev’s remarks are particularly alarming given the current geopolitical climate. He has warned that continued NATO support for Ukraine, including the supply of advanced weaponry, could provoke severe responses from Russia. "The more such attempts there are, the harsher our answers will become," Medvedev warned, hinting at the potential for catastrophic escalation, including nuclear conflict.
This rhetoric is not new but has taken on a heightened sense of urgency as the conflict in Ukraine continues to grind on. Medvedev's transformation from a pro-Western modernizer during his presidency (2008-2012) to a staunch hawk underscores the shift in Russian policy and sentiment towards the West.
Implications for Global Security
The implications of Ukraine's potential NATO membership extend far beyond regional politics. The appointment of Mark Rutte as NATO's Secretary-General, while significant, is seen by Moscow as inconsequential in altering the alliance's fundamental stance. Medvedev pointedly noted that real decisions within NATO are driven by the United States, reinforcing the view that bilateral relations between Moscow and Washington are at the heart of this geopolitical standoff.
NATO's expansion strategy and Russia’s aggressive posturing create a volatile mix with the potential to destabilize global security. As NATO continues to assert its commitment to Ukraine, and as Russia responds with increasing hostility, the risk of a broader conflict looms large.
Conclusion
The warnings from Dmitry Medvedev signal a critical juncture in international relations. Ukraine's pursuit of NATO membership represents a flashpoint that could redefine the security dynamics of Europe and potentially the world. As both NATO and Russia hold firm in their positions, the international community faces the daunting task of navigating these treacherous waters to prevent an escalation that could have devastating global consequences.
Understanding the stakes and the historical context is essential for comprehending the current crisis. It underscores the importance of diplomatic efforts and the need for strategic prudence to avert a conflict that could shatter global peace and security.
2024年7月24日
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Dz7bjysXLs
Explore the fascinating backstory of Ukraine's NATO membership ambitions, highlighted in NATO's 2011 report, "Post Orange Ukraine: Internal Dynamics and Foreign Policy Priorities." Despite the current heated debate, this historical snapshot reveals that support for NATO membership among Ukrainians was strikingly low at the time. Only about 20% of Ukrainians favored joining NATO, influenced by past events like NATO's bombing of Belgrade. Even the government, led by President Yanukovych, opted for a 'non-bloc policy,' avoiding military-political alliances. The document suggested that Ukraine would eventually need to choose between the West or Russia, casting doubt on the sustainability of neutrality.
Ukraine's Foreign Policy after the Orange Revolution
The democratic Orange Revolution in Ukraine had a tremendous effect upon the political climate not only in Ukraine, but also on global affairs. It proved that the will of the people genuinely matters, despite the Kuchma government's attempts to manipulate public opinion. But the major lesson other countries can learn from this experience is that peaceful, nonviolent resistance can send an effective message and oust authoritarian regimes.
The Orange Revolution will impact Ukraine's relations with its three key partners: Russia, the United States, and Europe. Russia and Ukraine, figuratively speaking, remind me of Siamese twins. Russia historically has been, and will remain, Ukraine's closest strategic partner. It is especially important, after President Putin's overt support of Viktor Yanukovich during the election campaign, that Russia and Ukraine try to mend fences and build new relations based on mutual respect, noninterference in internal affairs, and recognition of Ukraine's right to pursue closer relations with the European Union.
Ukrainian-U.S. relations seem more uneven. Ukraine views America as a guarantor of its political independence; however, Ukraine intends to withdraw its military contingent from Iraq. Even though this decision may negatively impact bilateral relations, it reflects the Ukrainian leadership's independence in setting policy in accordance with its national interest. Ukraine's political elite recognizes that, for the United States, Russia is a higher priority than Ukraine. As a result, Ukraine must develop a flexible foreign policy so it can skillfully balance relations with Russia and the United States while pursuing its national interests.
Regarding relations with Europe, Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko has made EU membership a strategic goal. Ukraine's new leadership intends to safeguard the country's status of EU associate member while trying to establish talks toward full-fledged membership. But to date, the EU continues to overlook Ukraine's membership, which may have serious repercussions for the future of Europe. If the EU continues to view Ukraine as a buffer zone between Europe and Russia, Europe and the West might find Ukraine sliding back into Russia's orbit.
Ukraine's revolution can be viewed as a dynamic process, the ultimate goal of which is to replace authoritarian rule with a more transparent and liberal political system. Many also hope the new leadership will transform Ukraine's criminal oligarchic economy into a more liberal version of a free-market economy. The Orange Revolution initiated a new chapter in Ukraine's history, and has given Ukraine a unique chance to shape its future on the basis of true democracy and social justice at home and on stable and secure relations with its neighbors.
When NATO admitted that less than 20% people of Ukraine want its membership
As the issue of Ukraine’s NATO membership has been debated so extensively recently, it is useful to recall that in 2011 NATO had noted with concern the extremely low acceptability of this membership among the people of Ukraine.
This can be seen in a NATO document titled ‘Post Orange Ukraine: Internal dynamics and foreign policy priorities’ prepared by the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Sub-Committee on Democratic Governance in October 2011.
This document states very clearly, “The greatest challenge for Ukrainian-NATO relations lies in the perception of NATO among the Ukrainian people. NATO membership is not widely supported in the country, with some polls suggesting that popular support of it is less than 20 per cent.”
Further this document notes that NATO bombing of Belgrade was particularly unpopular in Ukraine.
Despite efforts being made to improve the perception of NATO among the people of Ukraine, this document noted, “for many Ukrainians the image of NATO still evokes a sense of fear.”
It is not just membership; most Ukrainians appeared to also oppose other kinds of close relations with NATO. As this document writes, “A majority of Ukrainians supports neither membership of NATO nor even closer cooperation with the Alliance.”
If this was the view of the people, what was the view of the democratically elected government led by President Yanukovych at this point of time (when the document being quoted here was prepared in October 2011)?
This document tells us –Mr. Yanukovych made it clear that Ukraine no longer needs NATO membership (membership of Ukraine was accepted as a policy decision at the 2008 NATO summit).
The document states–In June 2010, the President signed a bill which commits Ukraine to a ‘non-bloc policy which means non-participation in military-political alliances’. What is more, there was also support of important opposition leaders for this. Some opposition leaders believed that Ukraine’s foreign policy had become more balanced.
So if the people, the government and the leading opposition figures were not for NATO membership, the matter should have ended there.
However the NATO document did not express its happiness or optimism with this growing agreement in Ukraine for opposing NATO membership.
Instead the document expressed the likelihood that this neutrality would end or should end. More precisely, the document stated, “There is no consensus in Ukraine whether maintaining a balanced approach between the West and Russia is possible in the long run. It can be argued that these two vectors are at least partly contradictory, and that Ukraine would eventually need to clearly choose its path.” Further this document stated even more clearly that the doors of NATO remain open for Ukraine.
No reasons for taking this position are given in the document, although common sense would suggest the contrary– that a longer-term policy of neutrality would be very useful for the stability and progress of Ukraine. Serious doubts are expressed in the document regarding the continuation of the neutrality path by Ukraine despite growing agreement among the Ukrainians that they need neutrality and balance.
Others have also pointed out the lack of support for the policy of NATO membership or closer relations with NATO in Ukraine. Prof. Glenn Diesen of the University of South-Eastern Norway (USN) has written in his recent essay titled ‘Destroying Ukraine with Idealism’ (this can be read at the author’s substack or at Brave New Europe website, July 17 2024), “The Western public is rarely informed that every opinion poll between 1991 and 2014 demonstrated that only a very small minority of Ukrainians ever wanted to join the alliance (NATO).”
In addition all the time senior western diplomats, academics and other experts who are known for their commitment to peace have been warning against the eastwards expansion of NATO in general and making Ukraine a member of NATO in particular.
John Matlock, top expert on Soviet affairs in the US Foreign Service who was later US ambassador in Moscow stated around the time of the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, “There would have been no basis for the present crisis if there had been no expansion of the alliance (NATO) following the end of the Cold War.” He further added, “What Putin is demanding is eminently reasonable.” As is well-known the main concern of Russia at that time was that there should be no NATO membership of Ukraine.
Earlier the former British ambassador of UK to Russia, Roderic Lyne had warned in 2020 that it was a huge mistake to push the NATO membership for Ukraine. He stated even more ominously, “If you want to start a war with Russia, that’s the best way of doing it.” (R.Lyne, the UC interview series : Sir Roderic Lyne by Nikita Gyazin, Oxford University Consortium, 18 December 2020).
Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that Russia would interpret the possibility of Ukraine’s NATO membership as a declaration of war. (A. Welsh—Angela Merkel opens up on Ukraine, Putin and her legacy, Deutsche Welle, 7 June 2022).
Earlier 50 foreign policy experts of the USA including former senior military officers, diplomats and senators had signed a letter titled “NATO expansion a policy error of historical proportions.”
So we had a situation around year 2013-14 in which Ukrainian people, government and opposition leaders were against Ukraine’s membership of NATO and prominent western experts and leaders known for desiring peace had serious concerns regarding the high costs and undesirability of NATO membership of Ukraine.
In this situation the USA and close allies instigated a coup in 2014 to oust the democratically elected government of Ukraine and install a regime that would follow the dictates of the USA. As the leaked Nuland-Pyatt phone conversation revealed, the USA was planning a regime change, who would be in positions of power, who would be kept out, how some justification for coup would be found. (BBC Ukraine Crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call, 7 February 2014).
The general prosecutor of Ukraine Vikror Shokin later complained that since 2014, “the most shocking thing is that all the (government) appointments were made in agreement with the US.” (Newsweek, Does Ukraine have kompromat on Joe Biden, 8 August, 2023).
A Entous and M.Schwirtz reported in The New York Times (The Spy War—How the CIA secretly helps Ukraine fight Putin, 25 February, 2024) that on the first day following the coup, Ukraine’s new spy chief contacted the CIA and M16 to establish a partnership for covert operations against Russia (ultimately leading to 12 CIA spying bases along the Russian border). This kind of thing could not have been started so quickly without previous planning.
