Military Review

The third strategy of Moscow

26
A number of Russian experts and political scientists make statements that, after the outlined the Varfolomeyevsky religious split in Ukraine, “Russia has lost everything”, the escalation in Ukraine will only increase. Bandera "experts" believe, not without reason, that the SBU and the Nazi armed forces would crush all the protests in the bud, so there will be no "escalation". Both are right in their own way: tension in society will inevitably increase, but the nuts of the SBU and the Nazi formations will tighten further, and if the country’s roof is torn off or not, who knows?




But Russia, as it were, is appointed responsible for such a development: if she had not “lost” and won, then everything would be different now in Ukraine, would go to appeasement. In general, the logic: “How they did it!” And “Pan or disappeared!” It turns out that Russia “disappeared” in Bandera’s Ukraine, because it had neither strategy nor tactics, only “reactive” movements. In real, and not expert policy, so, fortunately, does not happen.

The strategy of Russia in Ukraine has always been and will be, but it is not determined by the desires of experts, but by the real military and political capabilities of the country. After the Bandera coup in Kiev 22 February 2014, Russia had already used two strategies in relation to the neo-Nazi on the "genesis" of the new government in Kiev.

The first strategy of Moscow was expressed in the intention to send troops to Ukraine to protect the Russian-speaking population of the south-eastern regions from neo-Nazis. As part of this strategy, Crimea was reunited and assistance was rendered to the insurgent Donbass. However, unlike the experts, Moscow takes into account that the real organizers of the coup d'etat — the US and its satellites — are behind the Bandera’s back, and Russia is restoring its military-strategic potential only to the beginning of the 2018 of the year, as Vladimir Putin reported in his speech from March 1.

For these and other reasons, including the euro maid euphoria in Ukraine, supported by our European "partners", Moscow did not go to send troops to Ukraine and moved to the second strategy, expressed in the Minsk agreements and the "Norman format." They froze active hostilities in the Donbas and in this sense justified themselves. The second part of the Minsk Agreements, which implied the evolution of the “genesis” of the Bandera regime in the human direction, towards the mutual coexistence of regions with different political and cultural worldviews, collapsed.

The failure of the Minsk agreements as a whole can be viewed as a failure of Moscow. Indeed, Sergei Lavrov shot down the language, calling on Western “Norman guarantors” and the United States “to influence their charges in Kiev,” so that they could begin to fulfill the Minsk agreements. By the way, after the murder of the head of the DPR, Alexander Zakharchenko, our Foreign Ministry in the person of Lavrov already does not call Europe for anything, the “Norman format” does not actually work.

However, how did Moscow assess the chances for the Kiev agreements and the West to implement the Minsk agreements? Officially, the hope was expressed that it would be possible, through dialogue with Europe and the United States, to somehow stop the Ukrainian crisis on mutually acceptable terms. This formal rate of Moscow turned out to be a bit of an escalation of tensions between the US and Russia (allegedly due to “interference with elections” in the United States) and between Britain and Russia (allegedly due to the poisoning of Skripale of the Novice OV). The Norman guarantors of the Minsk agreements withdrew themselves, and the United States, even with the new President Trump, supports the extreme neo-Nazi forces in Ukraine. Actually, Ukraine is overseen by Kurt Walker today from the retinue of the late John McCain. By Volker’s own admission, he didn’t even meet with Trump, but the US president tolerates him.

But what does Moscow think about the Minsk agreements informally? If you look at the Minsk agreements from the informal side, they allowed Russia to adapt to Western sanctions (import substitution) by 2018, gave time to put the latest weapons into the army and turn the war in Syria to their advantage, creating military bases on the Mediterranean Sea, actually in the rear of NATO.

And what was the alternative for Russia “Minsk failure”? Apparently, the recognition of Donetsk and Lugansk and the escalation of tensions in the Donbas and Ukraine. Actually, the very process that started now could start much earlier.

After the assassination of the head of the DPR, A. Zakharchenko, in which, judging by the statement of the new leader of Donetsk, Denis Pushilin, not only Kiev will be blamed, but Washington in the person of its special services, Moscow will clearly demand explanations from the West, which will obviously be ignored. The real answer of Moscow not only to the murder of Zakharchenko, but also to the failure of the “Minsk” by the West, are the elections in Donetsk and Lugansk announced on November 9, 11. Moscow is obviously moving on to some third strategy with respect to Bandera’s Ukraine and the wolders covering it.

At almost the same time, November 6, there will be elections to the US Congress, in which Russia will inevitably “intervene”, this was officially announced in Washington, so that a new bout of anti-Russian hysteria in the US is secured, and Moscow does not lose anything, recognizing November 11 Donetsk and Lugansk. Worse still no place. The military situation in the Donbas is unlikely to change after that, but the economic relations between Russia and Bandera Ukraine will end. And for whom will this end strike?

Obviously, Moscow’s strategy, which pinned hopes on the evolution of the Bandera regime with the support of a “democratic” Europe according to the formulas of the ex-German Foreign Minister Steinmeier, failed. While the US managed to stabilize the Bandera regime on the path of terror to all dissenters, suppressing the centers of anti-fascist resistance. After such an end to the “dialogue” between Russia and Europe and the United States, the question of Moscow’s third strategy in Ukraine, the recognition of the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk, becomes the agenda. With reaffirmation of the commitment to the Minsk Agreement, as is always the case with our Western "partners".

How will the third strategy of Moscow in Ukraine be implemented further? The question is interesting, but unattainable for us. So far, it can be noted that Moscow is ignoring statements by US Special Representative Kurt Volcker about “unreal elections” in the Donbas and that they are violating the Minsk agreements. Whose cow, as they say, was mooing ... Rumors leaked to the press that Kurt Volker flew secretly to Moscow, but his secret mission ended in complete failure, Moscow does not even want to see him as US special representative in Ukraine.
Author:
Photos used:
Depositphotos.com
26 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Terenin
    Terenin 19 September 2018 10: 14
    +6
    There it is, it turns out there were almost three strategies recourse . "... it turned out later, with fright, I played a classic opening ..." V. Vysotsky.
    1. antivirus
      antivirus 19 September 2018 19: 50
      0
      Russia's strategy in Ukraine has always been and will be, however, it is determined not by the wishes of experts, but by the real military-political capabilities of the country.
      THERE WAS A PASSION TO STABILITY AND NOW SO - "IT WOULD NOT BE WORSE." MONEY, MONEY, MONEY ...
      WE RESERVED AT THIS LEVEL (AND DEVELOPMENT AND CONTROL OF OUR INTERESTS)
  2. akunin
    akunin 19 September 2018 10: 14
    -3
    But what does Moscow think about the Minsk agreements informally? If you look at the Minsk agreements from the informal side, they allowed Russia to adapt to Western sanctions (import substitution) by 2018, gave time to put the latest weapons into the army and turn the war in Syria to their advantage, creating military bases on the Mediterranean Sea, actually in the rear of NATO.
    the author, come to Russia already. It feels like they wrote in the Kremlin (wishful thinking)
    How will the third strategy of Moscow in Ukraine be implemented further? The question is interesting, but out of reach for us.



    Is there life on Mars, is there life on Mars, this is unknown to science. Science is not yet up to date ... Ah ha ha ha ha ... Assa!

    minus 100500 article
    1. Loess
      Loess 19 September 2018 10: 39
      +10
      Quote: akunin
      the author, come to Russia already. It feels like they wrote in the Kremlin (wishful thinking)

      Any opinion other than yours comes from the Kremlin? And, by the way, Russia is written with a capital letter.
      1. Mestny
        Mestny 19 September 2018 11: 01
        +4
        Well what are you. They have it the wrong Russia, Putin, the country of the oligarchs.
        Therefore, we need to break it all, and build another 25 years on a new - right, fair Russia
        And our Western "partners" will stand all this time and wait - until they stand up to the new USSR and then show everyone a dummy with poppy seeds.
        Kindergarten
      2. akunin
        akunin 19 September 2018 12: 27
        -3
        Thank you, a connoisseur of the Russian language (Russia is great and without my capital letter), but the essence of the article does not change. You agree
        If you look at the Minsk agreements from an informal side, they allowed Russia to adapt to Western sanctions by 2018
        please for more details, in which place?
        reverse the course of the war in Syria
        the war is over? have we won? I’m probably watching TV less often.
        thus creating military bases on the Mediterranean, actually in the rear of NATO.
        the base in Tartus in case of war will stand idle for half an hour, and if it is blocked from the sea and no need to fight.
        Thank you for the lesson on cheering patriotism.
        1. Loess
          Loess 19 September 2018 12: 54
          +2
          Quote: akunin
          Thank you, a connoisseur of the Russian language (Russia is great and without my capital letter)

          Russia...

          Quote: akunin
          but this doesn’t change the essence of the article. you agree

          I agree with what? With the fact that the meaning of the article has not changed because of your ignorance (which I doubt) or because of your conscious disrespect for, I dare to assume, your native country?

          Quote: akunin
          please for more details, in which place?

          With questions on the article - this is to the author ... Or bring your arguments and then we will talk.
          Quote: akunin
          the war is over? have we won ?.

          Someone announced the end of the Syrian conflict? Or did you just come up with this? At least I have not heard such a statement.
          Quote: akunin
          I’m probably watching TV less often.

          It’s not for me to judge, I last time watched the news release on TV two weeks ago. Family and work leave little time for such "pleasures".
          Quote: akunin
          the base in Tartus in case of war will stand idle for half an hour, and if it is blocked from the sea and no need to fight.

          Once, when asked by a journalist about how long it takes to destroy the United States, the supreme commander answered - half an hour, maybe less.
          Quote: akunin
          Thank you for the lesson on cheering patriotism.

          Please contact again.
          1. akunin
            akunin 19 September 2018 14: 48
            -2
            trolling is good. [quote = Less] [quote = akunin] thank you, a connoisseur of the Russian language (Russia is great and without my capital letter) [/ quote]
            Russia ... repeat
            [quote] With questions on the article - this is to the author ... [/ quote] since you volunteered to educate me (to comment on my writings), it would be nice to give you arguments, and not turn arrows
            [quote] you agree
            If you look at the Minsk agreements from an informal side, they allowed Russia to adapt to Western sanctions by 2018. [/ quote] I meant consent with the author of the article (but I'm not literate, you know that).
            I will put the question differently: did the Minsk agreements allow them to adapt to Western sanctions?
            [quote] Once upon a journalist’s question about how long it takes to destroy the United States, the supreme commander answered - half an hour, maybe less. [/ Quote] If with nuclear weapons, it’s still longer (time of approach), and to the base in a nuclear tartus no weapons needed, enough naval and air blockade (you distort)
            [quote] Family and work leave practically no time for such "pleasures." [/ quote] Well, here you are dissembling, you have found time to educate me and pardon me (work will forgive - there is no family).
            [quote] Please contact again. [/ quote] Thank you, good man. Responsiveness is a rare virtue in our time. hi
            1. Loess
              Loess 19 September 2018 15: 31
              0
              Quote: akunin
              since you volunteered to educate me (to comment on my writings), it would not be bad for you to give arguments, rather than translate arrows

              Educate you? No, thank you. And in my thoughts was not. I respect other people's opinions. According to your "writing" there was a question for you. Regarding your statement about the Kremlin origin of the article. To which you did not deign to answer.
              Quote: akunin
              I meant the agreement with the author of the article

              I have my own opinion, different from the opinion of the author. But my opinion also does not coincide with yours. It happens.
              Quote: akunin
              I will put the question differently: did the Minsk agreements allow them to adapt to Western sanctions?

              Rather, they allowed to buy time, get a break to develop a further line of behavior. Adaptation to the sanctions was in full swing. Politics is a complicated thing.
              Quote: akunin
              , but you don’t need nuclear weapons at the base of the Tartus, a naval and air blockade is enough (you distort)

              The blockade of a military base is nothing but a pretext for war. I just specified in half an hour you can not only destroy someone’s remote base, but the whole state.
              Quote: akunin
              Well, here you are disingenuous, but you found the time to educate and commemorate me (work will forgive me - the family is not).

              Not at all. I am currently in the workplace. There is no TV, there is Internet. And the gaps between workflows.
              In education, I spoke above. By cons - from me you minus only for your first comment. The rest are not mine. I basically do not minus the reasoned comments.
              Quote: akunin
              Thank you, kind man. Responsiveness is a rare virtue in our time.

              Adequate interlocutor with a sense of humor, the phenomenon in the vastness of the network is also not frequent. drinks
              1. akunin
                akunin 19 September 2018 17: 27
                +1
                cause for war
                then how would you rate the last wreck of 20 silt (occasion or not)? and the introduction of NATO ships and submarines into the Mediterranean Sea in large numbers
                (almost a blockade)?
                Vladimir Putin called the crash of Il-20 in Syria a tragic accident and urged not to compare what happened with the Su-24 fighter shot down by Turkish military
                1. Loess
                  Loess 20 September 2018 09: 46
                  +1
                  Quote: akunin
                  then how would you rate the last wreck of 20 silt (occasion or not)? and the introduction of NATO ships and submarines into the Mediterranean Sea in large numbers
                  (almost a blockade)?

                  The reason for the war is not a problem to find. And you understand this no worse than me. The ruler who starts a war is guided by emotions alone. And woe to the state that such a ruler rules.
                  As for the crash of the Il-20 ... Personally, my and only my opinion. If this is not a provocation, but a tragic accident, then such a provocation was still to be expected. Perhaps, there were simply no performers earlier. I'll explain. When Russia came to the aid of Assad, only a small area of ​​the country remained under the control of the Syrian government. Now the situation is just the opposite. The plane shot down by the Turks was probably supposed to lead to the fact that Turkey, under the guise of NATO membership, would block the straits for the Russian fleet and force Russia to leave Syria. (At least, I personally do not see the direct benefit for Turkey from the attack on our plane. I think that someone was just paid or pressured to make it happen). This did not happen. Our group remained. Moreover, we cover the SAA from the massive attacks of our "partners". The war is heading for a denouement. No one needs a direct military conflict between Russia and NATO. Muscle flexing is a nerve game. Once the terrorists are eliminated, the states will have to withdraw from Syria. They cannot directly side with the terrorists. Our VKS prevent them from bombing the SAA. One option remains. One way or another, embroil Russia and Syria. Make Russia stop covering up the SAA. And this requires either a tragic accident or a provocation in which Russian servicemen are killed by the fire of the Syrian government army. It is difficult to organize such a provocation. Very difficult. It is dangerous to use NATO forces directly. Everyone's nerves are on edge. Turkey is unlikely to get into trouble for the second time. And then Israel. Ideal candidate. A relatively strong army armed with modern weapons. Has nothing to do with NATO. And constantly bombing Iranian targets in Syrian territory. A kind of annoying mosquito that sometimes bites, but there is simply no time to waste time to swat it or drive it away. And the flights of Israeli aviation near the borders of the SAR are commonplace. And no serious problems were expected from them for the Russian contingent. I repeat - this is my personal opinion. If the crash of the Il-20 was a tragic accident, then such a provocation was to be expected. And Russia (both the USSR and the Empire) observes agreements too scrupulously and thinks that everyone else treats agreements in the same way.
                  And yet ... Any war needs to be started either with full confidence in victory (confidence based not on emotions, but on the state of the army, industry, economy), or when there is simply no other choice. Declaration of war in response to any provocation stupidity. Thus, a certain state or an alliance of states can easily provoke a war along the entire perimeter of our borders from Japan to Finland, and at the same time remain on the sidelines.
                  Now the question is for you. Should we use this reason?
                  1. akunin
                    akunin 20 September 2018 10: 29
                    +1
                    Well, talked, came to work? Have a nice day good
                    1. Loess
                      Loess 20 September 2018 10: 34
                      0
                      Quote: akunin
                      came to work?

                      Yes, 2,5 hours at work)
                      Quote: akunin
                      have a good day

                      This is mutual) hi
    2. dgonni
      dgonni 19 September 2018 16: 02
      +1
      I have plus. So the author is something smoking smoking. Well then. But if it can, then let it go!
  3. HAM
    HAM 19 September 2018 10: 15
    +2
    For starters, you can declare fake elections to the US Congress, and the reasons for this will be ... the king then they have a fake, they themselves recognize ...
  4. KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 19 September 2018 10: 21
    +9
    And in my opinion no strategy smells. Continuous response to changing circumstances. There was a surge in actions to preempt - Crimea, but with a continuation it stuck due to the lack of this very strategy ...
    1. Bull Terrier
      Bull Terrier 19 September 2018 10: 41
      +2
      Proactive actions are simply proactive actions. Just Crimea is a reaction to changing circumstances.
  5. Yrec
    Yrec 19 September 2018 10: 23
    -1
    I think the strategy is this: we failed to persuade towards good-neighborliness - we are inclined to collapse.
    1. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee 19 September 2018 11: 25
      +1
      "In the old fortress, Abdullah had to be taken through the pipe!" repeat
  6. Sergg
    Sergg 19 September 2018 14: 53
    +4
    I think so: there was no strategy. There was a cowardly position to stay in power and save my money. They profuced the Maidan, profuched the situation in the Donbass, which, with the support of Moscow, could now live pretty well, and not die under the blows of fascist Ukrainians. What a strategist ?! Laughing at the authorities is already sickening. Crimea has been attached, well, finally, something sensible has been done over the past 20 years, however not too little. And even the accession of Crimea was in the US’s favor to finish us off economically.
    1. Akuzenka
      Akuzenka 19 September 2018 15: 22
      +2
      As for the fear for "their" money, I agree. But that there is no strategy, I disagree. Even stealing money and smuggling it overseas requires a strategic plan. A thief always provides for the possibility of "scamming" from the side of his accomplices and partners. Simple logic.
  7. Curious
    Curious 19 September 2018 17: 03
    +2
    If you focus on the ideology of ten Stalinist attacks, then there are at least seven more strategies ahead.
  8. Forestol
    Forestol 19 September 2018 17: 11
    +2
    I repeat, the main thing in every business is the Goal. The trouble is that no one understands the purpose of Russia in this conflict, even, according to his feelings, Putin. Every day, such a state gives rise to regular banderlogs in Ukraine, which under no circumstances will be loyal to Russia. And then the children of these children, etc. Ukrainians are getting easier: protecting “ridge Ukraine” is a sacred cause. Anyone can be zombified for this. And from the side of the LPRP, all the national leaders were eliminated, laundering financial flows and doing dark things. People have been living in basements for three years ... Further that? So it turns out that without a clear goal, without bringing it to the people, the authorities run the risk of getting a repeat of February 1917. Just buy the top of the FSB, as in the 90s with the collapse of the Union ....
  9. Antares
    Antares 19 September 2018 22: 53
    -1
    Kamenev and KhPP.
    Why RF "strategy" if judging by the article, all won? Won in Syria for example laughing
  10. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 21 September 2018 12: 57
    0
    On November 6, elections to the US Congress will be held, in which Russia will inevitably “intervene”, this was officially announced in Washington
    The most correct thing in this case would be not to recognize the results of the American elections, not to deal with the illegitimate US authorities and demand that repeated, "clean" elections be held there under the supervision of international commissions.
    And due to the fact that the current American authorities are clearly not able to ensure a lawful transfer of power in their country, which has large stockpiles of weapons, it is time to introduce external control in this helpless country.
  11. Alex20042004
    Alex20042004 22 September 2018 20: 58
    0
    The failure of the Minsk agreements as a whole can be viewed as a failure of Moscow. Indeed, Sergei Lavrov shot down the language, calling on Western “Norman guarantors” and the United States “to influence their charges in Kiev,” so that they could begin to fulfill the Minsk agreements. By the way, after the murder of the head of the DPR, Alexander Zakharchenko, our Foreign Ministry in the person of Lavrov already does not call Europe for anything, the “Norman format” does not actually work.

    - this quote is Nonsense.
    It is necessary to understand the most important thing that the Minsk Agreement signed by Svinoryly, legally does not oblige Ukraine to comply with it, because does not have the status of a legal document. And the rest is all blah, blah.