Borovoy: NATO’s Deputy Secretary is an FSB agent. He lobbies for Putin's interests and influences Poroshenko's decisions
By Tatyana Orel
Due to the invasion of the Russian troops into the territory of Donbass before the pseudo-elections that were held last weekend in the occupied territories of "DNR" and "LNR", the oppositional politician Konstantin Borovoy addressed the president of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko through our edition, urging him "to carry out a more independent military policy. Independent of "friendly" experts. First of all, because Putin is at the origin of this expertise".
Based on the opinion of the expert group gathered on his initiative for the analysis of military strategy of Russia concerning Ukraine, he claims that one of NATO’s high-ranking officials, who is actually an agent of the foreign intelligence of Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), works for Putin.
– Konstantin Natanovich, since the annexation of the Crimea all sane and decent people feel anxious for Ukraine. But it is today that you deemed it necessary to address Petro Poroshenko urgently. Do you consider that the conclusion of the expert group gathered on your initiative can change the course of events?
– I want to inform the president of Ukraine as soon as possible that our expert group has estimated the level of the one who lobbies for Putin's interests in NATO and influences political and expert decisions of the USA and, perhaps, Poroshenko's decisions.
– Can you call this person?
– We assume that this is the person who holding the post of the Deputy Secretary General of NATO, in the past he was Deputy Minister of Defense of the USA and the ambassador of the USA in Russia where he established unprecedentedly close relations with former KGB leaders in the USSR and acting leaders of FSB in Russia. For some period of time, his residence in Moscow was called "a club of former KGB staff". They say that it was one of the reasons of his recall from Russia.
– Why did you come to such a conclusion?
– Half a year has passed since the beginning of military events in Ukraine, and I decided to sum up some results, to track down general trends. I am not very good at military questions so I gathered an expert group.
– And who was in the expert group?
– Military and political experts. It is not so important – what is important is the conclusion we have drawn. Having analyzed the events of these six months, we have found obvious discord in Putin's behavior.
– Even psychiatrists talk about it …
– With all his paranoid prudence, he behaved like a desperate reckless gambler, having thrown all military resources to Ukraine, while the situation in Russia is more than unstable, fraught with any kinds of risks and tension. The Russian army is unfit for combat. The military reform in Russia was superficial. In fact, it was one of the main claims to the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Serdyukov who has not changed anything since his predecessor Grachev who retired in 1996: the same corruption and disorganization.
Russia is only demonstrating its "decorative" army today. However, it is unfit for a real combat. Obviously, the careful Putin would have never ventured such a military adventure if he had no guarantees of that the NATO countries, including the USA will not resist its military activity, will not deliver weapons to Ukraine, but will constrain Poroshenko's actions.
– Do you consider that it is possible to make an assumption about a plot between Russia and NATO?
– We consider that it is a result of the activity of the so-called agents of the Russian intelligence services. It is obvious that this activity is carried out both in the NATO headquarters in Brussels and in Washington. At some point, Poland and the Scandinavian countries were making very strong statements about the need of arms delivery to Ukraine. It did not happen though. Putin’s desperate actions in the Crimea and in the east of Ukraine rest on the guarantees that there will be a constraining influence on Ukraine. There are no doubts about it because it is simply impossible to explain the current situation in any other way.
– And this is how you explain the indecision of the USA and the West that causes bewilderment and offense among the Ukrainians who were standing on Maidan for the European choice?
– Poroshenko hoped that Washington will help Ukraine, but, in fact, Ukraine was refused help in spite of the fact that the U.S. Congress takes quite a radical position towards Russia’s actions in Ukraine. Therefore, we consider that the origin of such decisions constraining Poroshenko and allowing Putin to make so reckless actions is in Washington and Brussels. It is clear that it cannot be a result of international negotiations – the political position of Washington and Brussels is absolutely different.
– Are Putin's threats about the use of nuclear weapons also a result of informal support of "the right person" in NATO?
– These are mere words. It is impossible to use nuclear weapon within the limited territory of military operations. But it is a very strong argument from those who basically lobby for Putin's interests in Washington and in Brussels, who convinces NATO that it is important to ‘pacify’ Putin, who as is written often acts insane.
– Do you mean that Ukraine has become a hostage of not only Putin's aggression, but also of his combination of many moves?
– Following recommendations of the West, Poroshenko constrains his "hawks" though he should understand that Putin himself can be a limiting factor. I think that the President of Ukraine should carry out a military policy that would be more independent of "friendly" experts. Ukraine has to resist the Russian aggression by all possible means without expecting decisions of Brussels or the European Union because they will never make such decisions. They do not want a large-scale military conflict.
– And what about the President’s peace formula?
– It is not a peace formula. It is the plan to encourage Putin, a retreat plan. The Crimea is already seized, the east of Ukraine too, now the Russian army will break a corridor to the Crimea, then to Transnistria, and then even Kiev might be occupied. And in this case nobody will help Poroshenko because he will prove indecisive.
– Do you consider that Ukraine will find enough forces to resist the powerful, impudent, cynical opponent?
– The 25-thousand group of Russian troops is Putin’s last resource. He will immediately withdraw them in case of the least threat to his military forces. And Ukraine has forces. Just one of the warehouses remaining after the Soviet period has enough arms for an army of one and a half million soldiers. Ukraine should not imitate opposition as Brussels recommends, but really resist. It is only then that all NATO countries will support it. Only those who want to stand up for themselves get help. Nobody will pull chestnuts out of the fire for Ukraine. Only one person can destroy Putin's plan: Poroshenko. If he does not make it, the Ukrainian government has to start thinking how to work in emigration – somewhere in London or in Paris. In the meantime, there is a systematic, methodical, quiet invasion of the Russian troops into Ukraine. We all wait for resolute actions from Poroshenko. Following Valeria Novodvorskaya who declared about her readiness to join the ranks of the Ukrainian army in spring, I do the same: if I can be useful, I am ready.
Two years prior to the terrorist act of terrorism in New York on September 11, 2001 I forwarded information to the FBI administration that Al-Qaeda was preparing plane attacks on New York skyscrapers. I did everything to provide the right people with this information, forwarding it through U.S. congressmen. They did not treat it seriously then. I hope that Ukraine will not ignore my warning.