There are analysts who say the purpose of the war has changed, arguing that this is now not a war to keep Russia, but a war to keep Putin’s Russia. i disagree. Of course Putin says so, but it doesn’t matter. The goal of national restoration within the 1991 borders of this nation, which they call Russia, remains unchanged. It doesn’t matter what they say about it. Putin misses the point. What matters is what he does.
I want to understand: what does “Russia lose the war” mean? I understand that we and Russia may have very different ideas about losing. We know what it meant for Nazi Germany to lose the war. American, Soviet, and British troops in Berlin, Hitler’s suicide, and other events that led to the dissolution of the Nazi state.
Also Read: As long as Putin is in the Kremlin: what awaits Russia and what the West is aiming for
What we think of Russia’s defeat and what this means in the minds of Russians are two very different things. If Russia loses these territories it has occupied and annexed, it will be a clear defeat for you and me. First, this situation still needs to be achieved. I have no idea what the world would look like in the circumstances in which it happened. These are all pretty tough questions.
Secondly, I don’t know if this will be declared a defeat in Russia. Perhaps in Russia this will be declared a victory.
“We defended all our historical territories. Part of the territories where people were supposed to be freed from Nazi slavery is now by the whole West who wanted to occupy Belgorod, Kursk, Tyumen and Yaroslavl provinces. occupied by the Bandera country that helped us, but we didn’t let them, and now we will concentrate all our forces and take our territory, probably by political means Prepare to release But this requires peace And who is the guarantor of peace Vladimir Vladimirovich … Who? even means that Vladimir Vladimirovich cannot afford to worry and leave Russia, otherwise it will be a disaster. Both Belgorod and the Kursk region will be occupied by the enemy, as they have already occupied the . ” please do not worry.
Crimea’s losses can even be sold as a result of Russia, under pressure across the West. What is clearly its territory must be ceded temporarily. Or the fact that Russia faces the threat that either a nuclear attack or a political solution is the correct response to the Crimean question. “The wise Russian leaders decided that everything needed to be resolved politically,” they could easily say.
Also Read: Key Points of the Battle of Crimea in Russia’s War Against Ukraine – General Hodges
I don’t see anything special about how they interpret it. You understand very well: the real defeat of the Kremlin vertical is that the armed forces of several allies (which are now absent in nature, only the Ukrainian army exists) in the hero city of Moscow It only happens when you enter. This regime is based on its power, not on the support of society, so everything else is positional combat.
Now many Ukrainians are making the same mistakes as Belarusians, believed that if all the people took to the streets against Lukashenko, Lukashenko would disappear somewhere and run away. And the Belarusian regime, like the Russian one, is built on the silos of power and the common interests of the elite. If this vertical power is in force, it does not matter which Ukrainian territories the occupiers lose.
They may have their own internal processes, which I don’t dispute at all.
Russia’s second major offensive is a military issue, not a political issueI’m not a military expert, so I don’t know how much this number of mobilized troops (300,000, 500,000) can do now that the military units that were near the border a year ago couldn’t. don’t understand.
The situation is completely different, the military equipment is different, because there were other training opportunities.
That said, a year ago there was an attack that no one expected until the end, and we weren’t quite sure what direction they were going to take. The situation is completely different, the military equipment is different, because there were other training opportunities.
Whether or not this attack will occur, or whether it is merely a threat of attack, or whether there are operations to distract the Russians from operating more effectively in some of the more important regions of Russia. , I can’t say for sure. front. These are military issues.
The fact that Russia continues the war and that Vladimir Putin is betting on a long, multi-year war to exhaust Ukraine is a fact. We need to prepare for this war to last, say, into the 2030s.
At the beginning of the invasion, I said it was very reminiscent of the Syrian conflict and the Yugoslav war.Everyone questioned this at the time, but slowly things are on the trajectory of this long-term confrontation. And what kind of conflict will it be? What kind of constant positional battles begin in a particular direction that do not subside or affect attempts to attack on a large scale? After 2 or 3 years, the answer will come out. But so far very little time has passed.
I don’t think anyone in Russia is telling the military, “Do whatever you want, it doesn’t matter how many resources you have.” They don’t make decisions like that. A year ago, there was no “whatever you do” instruction. Their political decision was based on the idea that the Ukrainian people would be happy to meet the Russian occupiers, and the army of the invaders had to create a formation that was to go to the parade. It was definitely a political mistake, but it was based on this kind of analysis.
Now, as you know, their political decisions are not based on analysis. The military will be questioned what resources it has for the relative occupation of Kyiv with its hostile and dishonest population. This is the question to be asked. No need to call Russians complete idiots. Of course, some decisions are silly based on misjudgment, but I don’t think we make decisions based on the same evaluation every time. This is wrong.
Attack on the small town of Bakhmut, or previous attack on Soledar, or attack on the current city of Vuhledar – Maybe the idea is to deplete Ukrainian forces in certain sectors of the front to facilitate the possibility of future attacks. If you’re constantly raiding a particular city and inflicting heavy losses on yourself, it’s true that your enemies are also taking losses, but you have many times more mobilization resources due to the size of the population.
You can sit back and mathematically find the point at which the enemy has still exhausted their mobilization resources. Such attacks can therefore be organized long enough to reach a point where the enemy does not have sufficient mobilization resources.
You are familiar with World War II practices. The Russians do not care at all how many people are put into achieving their goals.The entire victory in World War II was based on this idea. We will throw in as much as we put in until the Germans run out of mobilization resources.
Remember the Battle of Berlin when schoolchildren and pensioners said they had already fought the Germans? The Germans ran out of mobilization resources. All this was done right, because there were fewer Germans than Soviets. many. But in the Battle of Berlin, as far as I can remember, a million people died. It didn’t make sense. The same goes for Bahmut and Soledar. From a military point of view, this makes no sense.
But if you bet on the enemy’s manpower being destroyed in a given amount of time, it doesn’t matter at all how much your manpower dies in this struggle to destroy the enemy’s manpower. The year and month when the enemy has no one left to resist you. And you can carry out new mobilizations to advance the empty realms.
This is the task Vladimir Putin can impose on his army. It’s a simple calculation. The only thing that has not been considered is Western military equipment, and this long-range equipment often causes armies not to face each other as in World War II.These things make this task impractical. may be targeted. But Putin can order the Russian military command: No action is required. I will inform you that one day there are no Ukrainians there. And that’s what we want. Because we want to rid this territory of unfaithful people. If this cannot be achieved through rocket fire and destruction of energy infrastructure, try to achieve this by constantly drawing them into positional battles. ”
Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov’s statement that Moldova could be the next country on the list This indicates the goal of the Russian leadership: to reach the borders of 1991. Of course, in the future there should be no Moldova, just as there should be no Ukraine. The only thing preventing Russians from operating in Moldova as they are in Ukraine is Ukraine itself, located between Russia and Moldova. Oh, how annoying. However, they are actively fighting the current Moldovan authorities. They destabilize the situation and use agents.
Of course, they gladly used Transnistrian assets, which, fortunately, are now very limited for them. Remember, in the first months of the war they said their tactical goal was to reach the Transnistrian border. One of the Russian generals officially said so at the meeting.
Also Read: Putin about to make a final push: what Gerasimov’s return will change
And what does reaching the border with Transnistria mean? means to be And I think the question of “security” in Moldova will be resolved in a few days. It’s a small country like Georgia. It is clear that the Russian invasion could not be resisted.
If we imagine that southern Ukraine would fall, some NATO members might defend Moldova (meaning Romania), and I don’t think that would actually happen, but Moldova would be occupied after Ukraine, It will disappear from the political map of Ukraine. world. With the exception of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, none of the former Soviet republics are considered to be liquidated by Russia.
Read the original article at Ukraine’s new voice