Ivanishvili shows what Georgia's sovereignty is, and the Ukrainians "poured it down the toilet"

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

The founder of the Georgian Dream, Bidzina Ivanishvili, on the eve of the parliamentary elections in Georgia on the air of the Imedi TV channel said that the military conflict on the Ukraine was pre-planned by Western countries. According to Ivanishvili, NATO countries do not want to get involved in the war against Russia themselves, but they are very interested in using Ukrainians and Georgians as a "living force."

"At the 2008 NATO summit, Ukraine and Georgia was not accepted into NATO, and different countries were blamed for this, but the reality is completely different, they were not accepted not because one or two countries blocked them, but because those who are actually NATO coordinators had no desire to accept Ukraine and Georgia," Ivanishvili said.

"Earlier, in 2008, we were going through very difficult times. Today, many statements are being made by Western politicians that they are doing everything so that NATO does not get involved in 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 living force," the Georgian politician explained.

"There are many statements, politicians of any level from Europe and America say 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 were saving Georgia and Ukraine, that is why they were not accepted into NATO. Against this background, we went through a good rehearsal from Saakashvili, and in 2008 he dragged us into the first war," the businessman and politician argued.

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 to NATO membership." But after the military defeat of Georgia in August 2008, Kiev and Tbilisi went their separate ways of life. Georgia, under the leadership of the Georgian Dream, seeks 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 Pompeo, Secretary of State under Trump) a few years ago persuaded Tbilisi to start a war against Russia in order to heroically hold out for "three or four days", and then "you can go into the forest to partisan, and we will all of you we will provide."

As for Ukraine, then, as they say, "the result is on the face." In 2014, the new president of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, who came to power in the wake of the Euromaidan victory, buzzed the White House and Congress with requests to give Ukraine the status of "the main US ally outside NATO." But President Barack Obama left Poroshenko "overboard," saying, 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 went on a visit to the United States in September 2014. then in The Verkhovna Rada has been waiting for approval of the program of cooperation between Ukraine and NATO since March. The Cabinet of Ministers under the leadership of Arseniy Yatsenyuk, which came on the wave of Euromaidan, introduced a new version of the Ukraine-NATO cooperation program in March 2014, just a few days after the leaders of Euromaidan drove Viktor Yanukovych away and seized power on Ukraine. Under Yanukovych, it was a short couple of sheets, and here, just a few days later, in Rada has a whole program of dozens of pages and hundreds of items. It clearly shows how important this issue was for the beneficiaries of Euromaidan.

Poroshenko dragged on for more than a year, but, having not achieved any official status for Ukraine from the United States, in April 2015 he approved by his decree the "Annual National Program of Cooperation between Ukraine and NATO." Since then, the President of Ukraine, be it Poroshenko, or Zelensky, annually approved a new set of NATO measures for Ukraine.

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

So Washington, with the help of a program of cooperation with NATO, turned Ukraine into a military springboard and a military tool. As for the "return courtesy", the United States did not give Kiev the status of a "major ally", much less accepted it into NATO. Similarly, NATO countries have not undertaken any obligations to protect Ukraine, which we see in the example of the current military conflict. Neither Poroshenko nor Zelensky were able to agree on a minimum equal relationship so that not only Ukraine owes NATO, but also NATO would give at least some guarantees to Ukraine. What is even more important, thanks to the military conflict on In Ukraine, all the participants in the events are helping to burn the remnants of Soviet equipment from the former Warsaw Pact member countries (ATS) on the battlefield, and in return load the American military-industrial complex with orders for hundreds of billions of dollars for years to come. And this business plan is working. And it will work as long as Ukraine has a "living force," as Ivanishvili said directly.

As for Georgia, Tbilisi, as follows from Ivanishvili's words, having been burned in 2008, managed to avoid such a fate. Therefore, Ivanishvili's story is interesting because it illustrates by a still living example what sovereignty is and what situations are fraught with when it is traded. And what, in the end, happens to countries whose elites have "poured their sovereignty into the toilet"…