Mantras and rhetoric
The Russian political leadership continues to repeat the same mantra that the goals of the special operation will be achieved, and Kyiv is getting closer to crossing the red line.
At the same time, the conduct of the NMD in Ukraine changed qualitatively only after the forced retreat of the allied forces from the Kharkiv region - on the 8th month of the special operation, attacks on the critical infrastructure of Ukraine finally began.
However, this, according to Russian military correspondents, some journalists and ordinary Internet users, is obviously not enough. Zelensky was in Izyum, standing and quite photographed on the central square, which is within reach of Russian MLRS. There was no blow. Ukrainian troops continue to find abandoned equipment and ammunition depots, and then still have time to pathetically record "permissible" videos. All these places are located in the zone of destruction of Russian MLRS and are marked on tactical maps. There were no blows.
Russia continues to regularly pay Ukraine for the transit of gas to Europe, which means that the money from the Russian budget goes straight to the enemy's purchase of weapons, protective equipment, medicines and other tools for combat operations.
At the same time, many publications, including foreign ones (Bloomberg), write that Russia is able to find equal markets for energy resources, which is especially important against the backdrop of the establishment of a price ceiling and an embargo on supplies to the European Union, which are waiting for us already in the winter.
Have we set up supplies to these countries, overturning Europe and Ukraine before they give up on us? Obviously not.
In addition to gas, Ukraine is also involved in the transit of Russian ammonia through its territory to Europe. Here it is no longer that we did not dictate conditions, but they were dictated to us. Zelensky (or not quite him) demanded the release of Ukrainian prisoners, and only then will he consider the possibility of transit. Are they being rude towards us? Yes. Was there a decent response? The question is rhetorical.
With the retreat of the allied forces from the Kharkov region, new destruction came to the Belgorod region (Russia). It's the 8th month of the "special military operation". Civilians are dying on the territory of Russia due to attacks by Ukrainian armed forces using NATO weapons.
Needless to say, the “protection of the citizens of Donbass” is going so well that Ukrainian troops are absolutely free to carry out terrorist attacks in the Donetsk region in the 8th month of the NMD and the 9th year of fighting in the region? Has the government tried to change the people's perception of what is happening? No, “all the goals of the special operation will be fulfilled, everything is going according to plan, Kyiv can cross the line, but we warn it that this cannot be done.”
We hear such official state rhetoric every day, but the majority does not understand why everything is so. Someone blindly believes, someone accuses of stupidity and betrayal, someone just waits and asks not to rush to conclusions.
In this article, I tried to present my vision of the situation and to clarify a little the possible factors that led to it.
First of all, it is necessary to start by recognizing that no special military operation is currently underway in Ukraine. There is a battle going on in Ukraine, perhaps the bloodiest since World War II. However, it does not go with Ukraine. In general, everything that is happening now is not about Ukraine. Ukraine in this case acts as a card table, a chessboard, if you like, on which a game is being played, the result of which in any case will be a profound structural change in world politics.
The clash in Ukraine is an event in which the collective Western elites (often having nothing to do with the presidents, chancellors and prime ministers of the EU countries) are trying to establish a new world order, with greater political, economic and ideological (in terms of loyalty to them) influence, with more resources, with more money. Russia, on the other hand, is literally fighting for its survival - there is no Russia in the structure of the new world order planned by the West. There, the number one enemy will be (remain, in fact) China.
All this is spelled out in the doctrinal documents of the United States and Great Britain, in the documents of the Ministry of Defense, various foreign and domestic intelligence services, and documents of private military corporations (Rand Corporation, USA). This has long been clear and obvious.
At the moment of realizing that now there is a battle for the survival of Russia as such, the Russian military-political leadership will also have a plan of action. In the meantime, there is no understanding of what exactly we are opposed to.
Why did such a situation arise? World politics began to change not now, not in 2014 and not in 2008. Structural changes in the understanding of world politics began after the collapse of the USSR in 1991. Ultimately, this led to a change in the domestic policy of any country.
Any power must have an intellectual justification, a set of norms according to which the population will be able to judge the effectiveness or inefficiency of power. A number of such norms are based on general ideas about the good, about the good life and how to build it - on ideology.
With the beginning of fundamental changes in politics, the approach to the construction of ideology also changed. If we recall the ideologists of the past: Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao - they all themselves believed in the ideas they preached. Their goal has always been to build a certain social order, either in their state or around the world.
Now, no matter what ideology is poured into the ears of the masses, the politicians themselves no longer believe in it, they make a screen out of ideology. Politics used to be perceived as a battlefield for resources and specifically political power and political influence in the territories. At present, the very understanding of politics has changed, people have become more focused on themselves and their immediate circles, and not on the nation, the state. The real politics now is business. The politics that we see in the information space is a show.
Absolutely all decision-makers in modern world politics make them based not on ideas about an ideal society or the well-being of their own nation, but only on the basis of purely personal or collective benefit. Only through the prism of this perception of what is happening can one explain why politicians broadcasting from TV find it difficult to explain to people what is happening. They do not need it, they are dealing with their own issues at the highest, supranational level, which will never be reached or comprehended by ordinary people.
Stephen Mann wrote that politics is a continuation of war, but by linguistic means. This approach was correct in an earlier historical context. Now politics is business, and military conflict is a means of achieving commercial success. The very concept of a state (or a nation-state) no longer possesses the political subjectivity that it had previously.
The examples are obvious:
1. The Russian army is supplied with drones by caring people, not Russia itself. The failure of the state in its obligations.
2. For a long time there has been no talk of some kind of primordially national project. All ongoing projects are international, transnational. The struggle presented by Ukraine for its statehood is a transnational project, which includes the active participation of more than 30 states and is only a separate stage of a more global project. Any state is considered as part of an alliance or bloc.
Ordinary people are already accustomed to thinking in terms of "ally" or "enemy". Depending on the organization. BRICS are friends, NATO is enemies, the CSTO is neither a friend nor an enemy, but just like that.
No one thinks about the fact that Russia, the United States or any other state is doing something on their own. Any line of world politics is always laid jointly by several states.
Now it is no longer possible to talk about the military confrontation of state against state as part of real politics, and one cannot count on the fact that the state and state leaders will play the same role in it as they did 80 years ago.
The world has become completely different compared to the paradigm we are used to. The military operation is a continuation of politics, the very modern politics that is the business of the elites. NWO is not an autonomous process that is separate from purely political decision-making. As long as it is profitable for the supranational elites, it will last, and no one will bother whether a soldier who believes that he is dying for his Motherland is wearing a helmet or not.
Since the middle of the past eight-month period, Russia has been delaying the implementation of the NWO, repeatedly declaring a “slowdown”, extremely flexible and malleable, as it turned out, “red lines” and “warnings”, that “nothing has seriously begun yet”.
Such rhetoric, in my opinion, can only be caused by the constant receipt of personal or collective benefits by absolutely all persons who make decisions, and the inability to act autonomously for those who are forced to obey. However, if it is beneficial for the West in the context of the depletion of Russia itself, which leads to its collapse, it is beneficial for our elites only in the context of their own enrichment, but the prolongation of the NWO is detrimental to the Russian state itself.
The Russian elites, which is typical of our mentality, played too much and forgot what was happening in general and why it all started. After February 24, huge flows of money flowed into their hands, blurring reality and giving the West a head start in advancing its line and its new world order. After the retreat from the Kharkiv region, some of our elites, in particular those who make military decisions, began to remember where they were and how everything could end. As a result, Ukraine is systematically beginning to enter the Middle Ages, thanks to the work of the Russian OTRK.
It is important to remember that the task is not only the victory of our troops in Ukraine, it is about the survival of Russia in the new global world order. You can say as much as you like that there is a split in the West, but neither people in Western countries, nor most of their leaders, have anything to do with real politics. The collective West is still collective. These are not Scholz, Macron, Truss and Biden, these are the heads of the largest and most important organizations associated with the functioning of Western society as such: the heads of academic councils, national geographical societies, intellectual and military intelligence institutions, analytical agencies, the media. The people who set the agenda and the course every day, determine what is important, what is good and what is not, create and promote ideas in society that will benefit these people themselves.
In Russia, power is organized in a completely different way, it is based not on a horizontal structure, but on a vertical one. However, now the main subject of power is the personal and collective benefit of the elites.
Status and strength of Russia
Russia should not drag out the special operation, should not try to appear clean in the eyes of anyone who does not understand, should not take into account the losses of the civilian population. Russia is fighting for its own survival, not just for the survival of the citizens of Donbass. And while the Russian elites have not fully delved into this, but rejoice at the influx of capital, neither the citizens of Donbass, nor Russia itself can talk about a truly successful struggle for their right to life.
Victory in the NMD will not mean a political victory over the collective West, it will not destroy the threat that comes from it. However, victory will show the West our strength, which will lead to an increase in Russia's status in the world.
Status and power are the two keywords that the Anglo-Saxon world understands. First you need to defeat the West on its terms, and then dictate your own to it.
The use of physical violence in its entirety by no means precludes the assistance of the mind; therefore, the one who uses this violence, without embarrassment and without sparing blood, acquires a huge advantage over the enemy who does not do this.
Otto von Clausewitz