Upon reading comments upon our inter-church men’s breakfast Bible group on the developing peace proposal to close the 3 years-old war, I got ‘nudged’ to check the historian I’ve occasionally re-blogged, Dr Pat Walsh, and found this informative, independent confirmation of his coverage of the Ukraine-Russia war.

This 10-pages long-read gives readers a solid summary of real events from an international monitor’s on-the-ground experience enabling him to confront an official cover-up! 

In Who Is The Aggressor In Ukraine, Dr Pat  writes (emphases mine),

‘The Western narrative is clear about this question: The Ukraine war began with the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Alternatively, it began with the Russian takeover of Crimea in 2014.

It is seldom admitted that the present conflict in Ukraine actually began with the Maidan coup of 2014, organised and supported by elements acting on behalf of the United States, in conjunction with far-right Ukrainian nationalists. That fact is in the public record through Victoria Nuland and WikiLeaks.

Another thing that is seldom mentioned since February 2022 is that Kyiv’s effort to repress or drive out the Russian Ukrainians of Donbass between 2014 and 2022, was the primary driver of the conflict, resulting in the launching of the Russian intervention.

Now Benoit Paré, a French military analyst with the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), who worked for the Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMMU) within the developing conflict in Ukraine between 2015 and 2022, makes it clear where the blame lies. This is contained in a newly translated book, What I Saw in Ukraine, 2015-2022, Diary of an International Monitor.

Paré describes how, having set the course toward conflict within Ukraine as a means of luring Russian forces into the country, Washington put all its efforts into frustrating any attempts at a settlement. This left the Russians with a choice between preventative but costly intervention or accepting a humanitarian disaster of the Russian population of the Donbass and Kyiv gaining NATO Article 5 immunity for its actions.

Paré began his time in Ukraine with the standard Western understanding of the Ukraine conflict.

During the course of the conflict, prior to the Russian SMO, Paré interviewed hundreds of people from all corners of Donbass, and from Odessa and Lviv, “frequenting the opposing camps of an extremely polarized country.” Few people, even among Ukrainians, had been able to learn as much as the foreigner Paré did about “the grey areas of Ukraine.” He had access to many confidential files, denied even to his OSCE colleagues.

Disturbed by the media narrative he was reading, being presented by Western politicians and the media, Paré, who personally observed events on the ground, decided he needed to tell the truth from his accumulated, first-hand knowledge of the situation. He was aware that his revelations would mean he would “probably never again be able to work in my original professional environment.” But he determined, nonetheless, that: “Truth was his only compass” in writing the book.

He was also encouraged by the return of President Trump to the White House and signals that there might be a movement toward ending the conflict. He had become convinced that the conflict had been primarily driven by the Biden administration and Trump had not been as enthusiastic about it. In such circumstances the return of Trump meant that the truth would be more palatable than during the period of war hysteria and lies.

Benoit Paré’s book begins with the beginnings of the conflict, which took place prior to his arrival in the country during 2014 and early 2015. In brief, the Yanukovych Government, had bargained between the EU and Russia about its economic future. It was faced with a dilemma. If it linked itself with Russia, its economic development could continue without basic alteration. If it went to the EU, its industrial economy would be decimated, and it would be deprived of the favourable trading links it had already established with Russia. It put itself on offer to the EU for a sum that would compensate for the loss of industries that would not be viable in the EU and for the loss of subsidised energy from Russia. When the EU would not meet its terms, it turned back to Russia and the EU went frantic with rage over the rejection. Its representatives went to Kiev, made propaganda, and helped to build barricades in the centre of the city, around Maidan…’  Click to continue reading in full

‘..The occupation of the central square in Kiev, Maidan, began immediately. Fortifications were built in it and it became a site of pilgrimage for Western democracy. EU personnel went to Kiev in order to enhance the demonstrations into insurrection. Washington poured money in and took control of the insurrection…’

‘…when Professor Ivan Katchanovski of Ottawa University analysed the 2 hours of video, he found that the angle of fire revealed that the shooting that killed many demonstrators came not from the police but from a hotel occupied by far-Right Ukrainian nationalist snipers. The evidence was revealed to a wider evidence in Oliver Stone’s Ukraine on Fire film…’

Benoit Paré writes:

“The importance of this event must be fully appreciated. Without the Maidan massacre, Yanukovych would probably not have been overthrown. There would have been no anti-maidan movement in the Russian speaking areas of Ukraine. Russia would not have felt the need to appendix Crimea to protect its naval base at Sebastopol. There would have been no uprisings in the Donbass, no anti-terrorist operation by the Ukrainian army, and therefore no special Russian military operation in 2022. It is all linked, and it all starts with the false-banner massacre on Maidan Square, which set Ukraine on fire, sending it into a downward spiral of death.” (p.172)