Residents of Crimea massively resisted annexation. As they could, in their available ways. Collaborators in the Ukrainian government surrendered the Crimea in collusion with the Russian invaders. To save themselves from the tribunal, they are trying to shift the blame for the surrender of the Crimea to the inhabitants of the Crimea.
A political analysis by Author: @Prizrak_opery
The original was published with the following title:
ABOUT NALYVAYCHENKO’S FISTS
WHOM IS VALENTYN NALYVAYCHENKO REALLY PROTECTING?
Beware of anyone who wants you to impute guilt because they want power over you.
An interview with Valentyn Nalyvaychenko, titled “Here are my fists! I am ready to defend Saakashvili.” was published on August 22, 2017, in the “Exclusive by Gordon” section of gordon.ua..
Let us take the statements, made by Nalyvaychenko, and compare them to the already known facts.
In this case, we will not dwell on the statements of the Senior KGB Lieutenant Nalyvaychenko (according to the documents which he, himself, declassified) denying the allegations that he is a KGB agent. Furthermore, we will not deal with the fact that Nalyvaychenko was appointed as the Head of a special service of Ukraine on “Firtash’s quota.” The mantra, constantly repeated by the “white and fluffy” Nalyvaychenko, is refuted by an especially dedicated material, which was published under the title of “Served in the KGB”. Nalyvaychenko is also the son-in-law of the KGB of USSR Chairman, S.N. Mukha.
We will only consider those statements, made by Nalyvaychenko, which pertain to the history of Crimea’s surrender. We will use only proven facts; in particular, those presented in the research article by Andrei Illarionov, published under the title “If Russia Had Seen Ukraine’s Resistance, It Would Have Aborted Its Operation On the Annexation of Crimea” and “I. Girkin’s Testimony”.
Billboards with Nalyvaychenko have long hung in Kiev. From where the money is, Valentine?
Nalyvaychenko: This was the only President (referring to Viktor Yushchenko), who acted decisively, and we then drove the FSB (Federalnaya Sluzhba Bezopasnosti [Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation]) out of Crimea, terminated the agreements with the FSB, which were signed by the previous presidents (let us not offend them, so that they could still come and tell you all about it).
Nalyvaychenko claims that under Yushchenko, FSB officers were expelled from Crimea. In reality, until 2005, Kuchma’s Crimean SBU (Sluzhba Bezpeky Ukrainy [Security Service of Ukraine]) consisted of about 45% FSB officers. When the office was held by Turchynov and Nalyvaychenko, this percentage rose to 80-95%!
Nalyvaychenko: This time around the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation was carried out by the troops of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. There were 24 000 military personnel admitted by Yanukovych, following the “Kharkiv Agreements”, with the assistance of the Party of Regions branch, the Communists, and other so-called Crimean authorities. They are the traitors and the collaborator, who, since February 20, have been helping the occupation forces and, among other things, handed the Parliament over to them… There was no seizure of the Verkhovna Rada (Supreme Council [Parliament]) of Crimea. The Crimean law enforcement officers gave up their arms and led the Russian Special Forces into the Parliament (the evidence is present in the case of high treason against Yanukovych and his whole regime, which surrendered Crimea).
Nalyvaychenko: February 24th – I can talk about events from this moment on – there was no army on the Crimean peninsula or nearby, no SBU (it was mostly the commanding officers from the Simferopol and Sevastopol administrations who had committed treason).
Nalyvaychenko: …And most importantly, the local authorities: the Parliament, the Council of Ministers, the mayors belonging to the Party of Regions and the Communist Party in Crimea – they are the invaders and the collaborators, who are responsible for the annexation and the occupation.
Nalyvaychenko is dutifully promoting the myth of the alleged betrayal by the security forces, including the army. He is telling a lie, repeating the official (Turchynov’s) version of the Crimean events, which states that the Ukrainian law enforcement authorities and the Ukrainian army refused to obey the orders from Kyiv to deter the Russian invasion.
The fact that these statements are not true was known before. Nevertheless, it is important to obtain confirmation of these facts from a witness such as Girkin.
Girkin: “All the other law enforcement agencies, such as the Interior Ministry, were under the authority of Kyiv and obeyed the orders from Kyiv. They were not following the instructions of the new government… and even more so the Ukrainian Army. Who are the main security forces? The Army. The Army continued to obey Kyiv. Yes, reluctantly, they also sabotaged … but continued to obey. Furthermore, most units, remained faithful to Kyiv in the end, and left Crimea.”
Girkin said that he “did not see any support from the governing authorities of Crimea, it was not there. The militia gathered the deputies together in order to corral them into the chamber, so that they would vote appropriately… for sure. I was one of the commanders of that militia. I saw it all from the inside, with my own eyes.”
According to Girkin, the main reason for the success of the Russian operation of Crimean occupation, and the relative lack of success of Russian operations aimed at capturing Donetsk, Luhansk and other regions of Ukraine, is the presence of the Russian armed forces in Simferopol and Sevastopol, and their absence in other regions of Ukraine: “If there had been APCs of the Russian Marines in Donetsk and Luhansk, things would have gone the same way. Moreover, the same thing would have happened in Kharkiv and Mykolaiv. And in Odessa. And everywhere else. The only factor that was absent there and present in Crimea were the Russian troops, who provided unequivocal support… Had there been such support in other regions, there would have been the same bloodless, resounding victory as in Crimea.”
Thus, contrary to Nalyvaychenko’s claims, Girkin confirmed that the Deputies of the Crimean Parliament were gathered by force for the session, during which they voted on the “occupendum”; “the militia had corralled them into the chamber.”
Nalyvaychenko’s claims that there was no Army in Crimea are also false. According to Evhen Marchuk: “We had enough forces in Crimea in February-March of 2014 to block the first beginning stages of the annexation of the peninsula, but not enough to have a full-out confrontation with Russia. Of course, it was necessary to act very quickly, courageously, and assertively. Before Russia started using force and brought in their combat components, the situation was identical to the situation of 1994… We had enough border guards there, plus the military… So, we guard the political structures and the government administrations, such as the Parliament, the Cabinet of Ministers, the broadcasting company…”
Nalyvaychenko: None of us felt any panic, not me, not Oleksandr Turchynov, not any of the new heads of the law enforcement bodies. There was an understanding of the drama and the scale of treason, which was destroying the state completely.
Nalyvaychenko: Yes, it is possible and necessary to counteract the aggressor, but in order to do that, from the very first days, it is vital to create (and that is what we were doing) a new counterintelligence agency, new anti-terrorist forces, new Armed Forces (which were not my responsibility, Oleksandr Turchynov and the people responsible for the Ministry of Defense were in charge of those). This is the truth about what happened then, and what must be done now to recover the occupied territories.
Nalyvaychenko’s words that “there was an understanding of the drama and the scale of treason” should be interpreted as an attempt to justify the fact that no order was given to resist the aggressor. Let us see what Nalyvaychenko and Turchynov “were doing from the very first days“.
As for the Acting President of Ukraine (at that time), Oleksandr Turchynov. According to the Constitution of Ukraine, the decision to use the armed forces to deter aggression is made solely by the President or the Acting President. There is no requirement to convene the National Security Council for this decision. Also, the transfer of presidential powers in this matter to others is a flagrant violation of the Constitution, which had serious consequences the loss of the Crimea and Donbas.
In fact, one of the objectives of the well-known publication of the National Security and Defense Council meeting transcript was to shift the responsibility to NSDC for the decision to not deter the aggression.
At the NSDC meeting, Nalyvaichenko and Tymoshenko were offered not to resist Russian aggression.
As follows from the published material, Nalyvaychenko (and Tymoshenko) suggested that no resistance be put up to Russian aggression. The reference to “the Americans and the Germans” in Nalyvaychenko’s speech raises some new questions about the real role of the “Western partners” in Crimea’s surrender. However, which one of them exactly recommended “to not start any active operations” and to whom, and what true goals they pursued with these recommendations – that is a whole other separate issue.
It should be noted that the participants of that meeting were entirely correct in characterizing the actions of the Russian troops. They talked about aggression, occupation, about Putin’s plans to annex Crimea. Thus, the characterization of Russia’s actions was correct. However, after this, it was necessary to act as required by the Constitution. Nonetheless, none of the necessary measures were taken.
It was Turchynov who did everything possible for the right decision not to be made at this meeting. He informed the participants of this meeting about the nature of his conversation with Sergey Naryshkin, who was clearly trying to intimidate the members of the National Security Council.
General Mykola Hryhorovych Malomuzh gave a full testimony in November (2014), stating that two weeks before the invasion of Crimea, he told Nalyvaychenko, Turchynov, and Yatsenyuk that preparations for the Russian occupation of Crimea were underway, and specified the exact dates. General Malomuzh claimed that he was ready to take Aksenov to Kyiv and to quell the invasion. However, they refused to act.
Interesting fact. At the beginning of the Russian occupation of Crimea, the General Staff was planning an operation that could have changed the course of events. The goal of the said operation was to prevent the occupation of the steppe part of Crimea.
According to Viktor Muzhenko: „Had we taken the measures that had been planned, we would have had the chance to control the steppe part of Crimea. This would not have allowed them to hold what they called the ‘referendum’. How the events would have unfolded further, it is difficult to say now… But there was a chance…The next day Russia sent to Crimea 8-9 IL-76 cargo airplanes and up to 12 helicopters to fly over Crimea.”
The Minister of Defense, Ihor Teniukh, and the Chief of General Staff, Mykhailo Kutsin, were involved in halting the said operation. Is this not one of the reasons behind Turchynov and Avakov launching an information attack against Viktor Muzhenko, whom they find inconvenient?
On the contrary, there is evidence that Crimea was surrendered intentionally.
„People were begging for weapons to defend Crimea, but the order from Kyiv was unambiguous: collect the weapons from personnel and lock them in storage. The keys to these storage facilities are to be given to the representatives of the Russian administration. The personnel held on in any way they could, some even took up sticks, which, of course, was ridiculous. Officers who lived with their families on the territories of the military bases were angry, but what could they have done? PePo’s [Petro Poroshenko’s] order, given through his puppet Turchynov was unambiguous – surrender Crimea, surrender the military bases, all arms, ammunition, all property is to be surrendered to the Russians, do not put up any resistance of any kind.”
Excerpt from an interview, published in The Left Bank, with Major of Special Operations Forces, Oleksiy Nikiforov, who was the Deputy Commander of the 501st Separate Battalion of Marine Corps in February, 2014:
“All the commanders were led to believe that any small movement towards Russia could start World War III. Every one of them was afraid of this. Even the former Defense Minister Kuzmuk came to Perevalne (a village in the Simferopol district of Crimea – Ed.). He gathered the commanders of all the blocked units, and told them from behind a podium: ‘You be careful here, one shot in Sarajevo started World War One,’” said the serviceman.
“What was a unit commander supposed to do after that? When a representative of the National Security and Defense Council is telling you this?”
Furthermore, according to the findings of Andrey Illarionov, if the Ukrainian law enforcement agencies and the Ukrainian armed forces stationed on the peninsula had received from Kyiv (the new Ukrainian authorities) orders to isolate and neutralize the terrorists, who seized the Parliament building in Simferopol on the night of February 27, 2014, to block Sevastopol, to secure and to patrol crucial State defense and infrastructure objects of Crimea, to open fire against terrorists when necessary, then Putin’s stunt to capture of Crimea would have come to an end by the end of February or, at the very least, at the beginning of March of 2014, presumably with minimal losses or no losses at all. In which case, the intervention in Donbas may not have taken place at all.
The fact that no order was given by the Kyiv authorities to defend Crimea, not on February 27, not the next day, not in March, the fact that no such order was given even when the commanders of the Ukrainian units were asking for the order and demanding it be given, going as far as using open lines of communication and airing their requests in media broadcasts, the fact that subsequently the representatives of the new Ukrainian authorities attempted to cover up their criminal failure to act with a wide variety of versions of events, none of which checked out as true, all of the above is indicative of one thing only – the decision to not give the order to put up resistance, the decision to surrender Crimea to Russia, was made by the new Ukrainian government absolutely deliberately. The term “rigged war” is often used for the emotional evaluation of such actions, while legally it is “high treason”.
Most likely, a timely neutralization of the terrorist group that seized the Crimean Parliament building in Simferopol on the night before February 27, 2014, would have not only not provoked a full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian troops, but would have instead made such invasion impossible. Therefore, the claim that is often made that assertive actions by the Ukrainian authorities would have provoked a retaliation in the form of a full-scale invasion by the Russian Army, goes against the theoretical concept of hybrid warfare, adopted by the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, as well as the de facto actions of the Russian Army in the well-known post-Soviet conflicts. On the contrary, assertive actions of the Ukrainian authorities and units of the Ukrainian security forces aimed at the immediate elimination of the sources of such destabilization in Crimea and in Eastern Donbas would have very likely eliminated the conditions for the consequent direct invasion by the Russian troops.
It is evident that Nalyvaychenko’s statements contradict the facts about what actually happened in the process of Crimea’s capture. He is distorting facts, or simply lying. By default, it is clear from his words that he considers himself a participant of these events. If that is the case, then why lie? Whom is he trying to protect? Himself? Turchynov? The organizers of Crimea’s surrender close to Turchynov?
Nalyvaychenko: The same applies to the Crimean “Alpha” – they were put on the roof of the Trade Unions Building to shoot activists on Maidan…
Let us keep in mind Nalyvaychenko’s claim (not yet confirmed, nor refuted by anyone) that “the Crimean ‘Alpha’” was placed on the roof of the Trade Unions Buildings to shoot activists on Maidan.
Nalyvaychenko: Here is an example of one traitor who was supposed to defend Ukraine. Petro Zyma, the Head of the Sevastopol SBU Administration, appointed by Yanukovych. To him, in theory, the Head of SBU was supposed to give the order: “Start, we are coming to you.” (Incidentally, we did not have helicopters at the time, neither did the police or the National Guard). Traitor Zyma is now serving in a position of power in the Federal Security Service in Moscow, and has received two or three apartments from the FSB. That is who is to blame …
Then why is Nalyvaychenko not saying anything about the fact that the current Head of the Anti-Terrorist Center at SBU is Vitaliy Malikov, an outspoken separatist who helped surrender Crimea? He does not discuss this fact in any of his interviews. Is it not for the reason that, unlike Petro Zyma, Vitaliy Malikov lives in Kyiv? Or are there other, more important reasons?
What makes the situation even trickier is the fact that Valentyn Nalyvaychenko himself is protecting a wanted criminal, his colleague in the KGB, Vladimir Totskii, who is also one of the developers and managers of Operation Boomerang. Mr. Totskii is suspected of organizing murders on Maidan. He is now living in Kyiv unbothered.
It seems a bit strange to blame only those traitors, who have been compromised to such an extent that they are forced to hide in Moscow, and, at the same time, blindly overlook (and even protect) those, who are in power or living in Kyiv.
Next, a few quotes from the interview published in “Gordon.”
Here is a dialogue where Nalyvaychenko is asked about the upcoming entrance of Mikheil Saakashvili into Ukraine.
“You understand that when Saakashvili attempts to enter the territory of Ukraine, clashes may occur?”
“There will be no clashes…”
“Are you ready to personally defend Saakashvili with your own fists?”
“Here are my fists, here is Nalyvaychenko… Of course…”
Radically corrupt Lyashko had delegated Mosiychuk, apparently, for the purpose of organizing a “scuffle” to meet Saakashvili as he was crossing the Ukrainian border. Also with fists. A “scuffle” is very beneficial to a criminal government. The consequent scenarios of further event development for all of the participants of a “scuffle” can be very different. Up to… A big question remains as to what role Nalyvaychenko’s fists would be able to play in stopping a provocation organized by the government. Is Nalyvaychenko going to bring with him to the meeting Tryzub (Trident), SNA (Social-National Assembly), UNA-UNSO (Ukrainian National Assembly – Ukrainian People’s Self-Defense), and CUN (Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists)? Or he knows the reason why “there will be no clashes”?
Nalyvaychenko has experience in protecting the government. When on November 12, 2016, the authorities were under the threat of a Third Maidan, Nalyvaychenko gathered “titushky” in Kozatsky hotel to defend the usurper Poroshenko. The essence of the provocation „Anti-Shatun“, planned by Nalyvaychenko, was to collide the ATO soldiers on Maidan with the „ATO soldiers” from hotel Kozatsky.
Screenshot of the site from spravedlyvist-ato.org.ua
This page can still be found at spravedlyvist-ato.org.ua
A typical representative of “Not a pseudo-patriot” from Nalivaichenko.
Those who spoke out against the government (including Rustam Tashbaev) were declared agents of D-LPR by Nalyvaychenko (video).
Below is a screen with Rustam Tashbaev’s comments on the statement by Nalyvaychenko.
Screen comment Rustam Tashbaev about the statement Nalivaichenko.
Furthermore, Nalyvaychenko never made any statements about his opinions of the lawlessness of the police orchestrated by Avakov in Kyiv. And not only in Kyiv.
Nalyvaichenko never spoke out against Avakov
The same thing that the Security Forces (let’s call them SF) are planning to do now, was done in 2013-2104 by those, who planned to bring to power the Poroshenko-Klitschko group. Back then they orchestrated a public beating of the students, and, for credibility effect, some bystanders. They showed it all on TV (this is important). And off we go… Then they controlled it.
They continue to do the same thing now. That is, they are trying to exercise complete control over any possible protest and change of power, so that at the right moment they can put their own people in the right place.
Let us try to put together simple facts. Through Nalyvaychenko SBU controlled Trident, some member of which are also SBU employees. And not just Trident. There are more than enough photo and video materials proving this statement. Trident became the base for the Right Sector, an organization of which we heard for the first time on Maidan. Thus, SBU managed to gather in one organization and take control of patriots with radical attitudes, the majority of which were used blindly.
Answer the following question: Did the Right Sector appear on Maidan spontaneously and accidentally? Do you believe in such “accidents”?
Today we know that at the time of Maidan, SBU developed and implemented (together with FSB) an operation called Boomerang, the goal of which was to destabilize the situation in Ukraine. What was the role of the SBU employee Nalyvaychenko in the events on Maidan? Is it not the reason why he is harboring a wanted criminal Vladimir Totskii?
Another fragment of the dialogue:
“What kind of connections between Surkov and Poroshenko’s staff are you talking about?”
“Flights to Crimea (after the annexation!) and conversations about some political projects.”
“Who flew there, can you say?”
“These are materials that need to be examined by the law enforcement. Such information was in the materials of the Ukrainian investigation when I was the Head of SBU. So, how about I do not do a favor for those, who were and still are actual FSB agents within the Ukrainian government, so that they do not go now and clean things up after themselves.”
The fact that Viktor Medvedchuk organized a meeting between Poroshenko and Surkov, which was kept secret, is no longer a secret. We can judge about the essence of their behind-the-scenes agreement by the subsequent actions of Poroshenko. It is likely that the Minsk talks were organized as a result of agreements reached at this meeting, which also brought on Poroshenko’s actions aimed at the destruction of the volunteer movement.
On the Internet, there is a sufficient number of reports about the secret meeting between Poroshenko and Surkov.
Nalyvaychenko’s words can be interpreted as an attempt to present himself as a hero who “uncovered a conspiracy.” But at the same time, our hero did not specify any goals of the conspiracy, or any of its conspirators. Nalyvaychenko himself became very much like Hrytsak, whom he was criticizing with such fervor, and whom he had just (in the same interview) criticized extensively for innuendos and the lack of clarity in regards to special operations that were supposedly “uncovered” by the SBU.
In the video below, Valentyn Nalyvaychenko is trying to explain to journalist Natalia Vlaschenko which SPECIFIC documents he has given to the US Department of Justice.
The primary purpose of Nalyvaychenko’s actions is to gain at least some kind of credibility with the United States.
And lastly, Nalyvaychenko reveals the “mystery” of who interceded with Saakashvili on his behalf to join Movement of New Forces with Joint Action Headquarters. It seems there was no secret. No one had any doubts about the ability of Anatoliy Hrytsenko to “negotiate”.
Nalyvaychenko: “New Security Services officers were taking care of the case (the release of Auto-Maidan activists captured in Crimea) under my supervision. Nobody was surrendering Crimea then. We started to counteract [annexation] with these new people, the groups were travelling to Crimea. Those were my secret orders, but today I am declassifying them.”
“Did you know that Anatoliy Hrytsenko’s son was in this group?”
“I found out as soon as the operation was over and the young Auto-Maidan activist and Ukrainian patriot, Oleksiy Hrytsenko, was on Ukrainian territory. Nalyvaychenko notified Anatoliy Hrytsenko. How? I am passing the ball to him. Let him say, how I did it…”
It is hard to say what “secret order” exactly Nalyvaychenko is talking about here. And what specifically was his “counteraction to the annexation of Crimea”. However, we see the result. We also see the fact that Nalyvaychenko is trying to lay the blame for the surrender of Crimea on the security forces, the army, and the residents of Crimea, in order to acquit of treason the responsible individuals in power.
In addition to things pertaining to Crimea, a group led by Nalyvaychenko did not detain Yanukovych in Crimea, even though there was enough time to do so.
I recall that when the Acting President Oleksandr Turchynov ordered the establishment of headquarters for conducting anti-terrorist operations and liberating buildings in Kharkiv, Donetsk and Luhansk, Nalyvaychenko was the chairman of the committee on Luhansk. Special Forces units of SBU, the Interior Ministry, and the National Guard were sent to these cities.
April 6, 2014. The police on the orders of the authorities in Kyiv is surrendering the SBU building in Luhansk. Officer admits that they were given the command to give up the building to the separatists (video):
It was reported on April 7, 2014 that NSDC Secretary, Andriy Parubiy, and Head of SBU, Valentyn Nalyvaychenko, flew to Luhansk. We all know how things ended. The Special Forces units were ready to storm the administrative buildings, occupied by the separatists, but they never received the command to do so from their superiors. The story of the occupation of Crimea was repeated in Donbass.
Nelia Shtepa has provided an interesting testimony on the role of Nalyvaychenko in the occupation of Donbass.
Clearly, Nalyvaychenko’s statements contradict the facts of what actually happened during the capture of Crimea.
Lastly, we present a few more clips. Please draw your own conclusions.
Here is a video about how the residents of Crimea allegedly “surrendered” Crimea.
Here is a video about how the armed forces allegedly “surrendered” Crimea.
Here is a recording of a conversation with the Russian military in Crimea.
And here is the movie about the people, who were called “Kryschany” (word play on “Crimea residents” and “rats”) by an official at Ministry of Information Policy. Film about the civilian population resisting the Russian occupation of Crimea.
A TOTAL LIE – THIS IS AN OLD, PROVEN BY KGB LOGIC BEHIND ACTION, WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS FOLLOWING IN TRYING TO PROTECT ITSELF. NEVER GIVE THE POWER TO AGENTS OF KGB-FSB-SBU, AND DO NOT SAY THAT YOU WERE NOT WARNED.
Original article is published here >>> https://spark.adobe.com/page/dyrZGz8LZaA4n/