When will peace come after SVO
The military operation in the adjacent territory is currently running into a positional confrontation.
The prospects and timing of the completion of the special operation are rather unclear.
Probably, I will not be mistaken if I assume that the majority of citizens of our country (and not only ours) are wondering - when will this end? The second equally important question - how will it end?
Optimists will confidently answer that, of course, our victory. Pessimists will probably remain silent.
The only problem is that on the other side of the front, there are also optimists, and they also believe in their victory. And, despite significant losses on the part of the enemy, there are no major changes at the front so far (although they are coming).
Well. Let's try to figure out when and how it can end.
As one wise ancient Greek said:
"The purpose of war is peace."
This is as if obvious.
But in the heat of battle, this is often forgotten. Conflict radicalizes society and thinking. We begin to think exclusively in terms of battles. The format of thinking begins to turn into logic - the main thing is to win, and then at least a flood.
Therefore, the most important task in the course of a special operation is to form an idea of the world. The idea of how we see the world after NWO. What will be its device. How we see our place in this world. What are we doing and what needs to be done so that the special operation ends with this world.
War is a tactic.
The world after the war is a strategy, without a clear understanding of which tactics will turn into an empty grinding of a resource. And ... will lay the foundations for a new mess. Or, God forbid, he will create a world that will be worse than the war itself.
When will it end?
The first option is when one of the parties completely destroys the other. We will not consider this option as unrealistic (guilty - not humanistic). To exterminate, for example, 40 million people on the one hand, or 150 million on the other, is somehow not very good.
The second option is when the parties to the conflict sit down at the negotiating table in order to agree on peace.
Perhaps some of the fellow citizens will now be indignant - what negotiations! Only unconditional surrender!
I will make a reservation right away. Firstly, capitulation is also a form of peace negotiations, and secondly ... About the “secondly” a little later.
When can peace negotiations begin?
Then, when conditions are formed for the parties to the conflict, under which the need for negotiations will become inevitable.
In the optimistic scenario, this will happen when it becomes obvious to the parties to the conflict (all) that the costs of continuing the conflict (current and prospective) exceed the possible benefits of the winner from the continuation of the conflict.
With a pessimistic one - when everything (or one of the parties) exhausts all possibilities for the further continuation of the conflict.
How will the negotiations end?
In the optimistic scenario, finding some consensus among the key parties on the future world order with more or less favorable conditions for them (although some of the non-key ones may suffer).
With a pessimistic one, everything will depend on the degree of criticality of the costs incurred for each of the parties and their ratio. The world will be shifted in favor of the conditionally winner, which is not entirely good, since this is fraught with an attempt at revenge (although not necessarily, everything will depend on the degree of sanity of the winner).
It's kind of a theory.
Let's move on to practice.
One classic once said:
"War is nothing but the continuation of politics, with the involvement of other means."
Another classic noted a little later:
"Politics is the concentrated expression of economics."
Combining these axioms, we come to a simple conclusion: war is the continuation of the economy with the involvement of other means.
Competition for resources - in fact, this is the root cause of the vast majority of military conflicts. It also determines the winner.
Now there are often references and parallels to the experience of the Great Patriotic War. It is ideologically justified. But from the point of view of the decisions being made, this can be fundamentally erroneous.
It's quite funny to read in public accusations against generals fighting on the basis of the concepts of past wars. And simultaneous calls to make decisions in the field of public administration or the economy, based on the experience of 80 years ago. This is despite the fact that the country lived in a fundamentally different socio-economic system. There are, of course, things that are universal for any era and any system, but we are not talking about them.
One misconception is what our victory (hopefully ours) will look like. The picture is drawn in the form of a red flag over Khreshchatyk or over 5th Avenue. But it will probably be a little different.
First of all, consider the parties to the conflict.
Russia Ukraine. It is obvious.
Potentials of the parties as of the beginning of the JWO on February 24, 2022:
Russia: population - 150 million; army - 1,9 million; GDP - $4 billion
Ukraine: population - 40 million; army - 1,2 million; GDP - $588 billion
This can be better represented in the form of a diagram.
The ratio of potentials in favor of Russia. The territory of confrontation is within the state borders.
However, there is still a second layer of confrontation. It does not have the character of a direct military conflict (except for advisers and intelligence). Hopefully, and will not wear. But he is no less dangerous in the current situation.
Let's call it like this: "terra Russia" - "Anglo-Saxon agglomeration" with Europe joined them, led by the United States. Let's call them NATO.
This is a geopolitical confrontation between globally competing forces. First of all, it is carried out on the economic front, and the main task is to eliminate Russia as a competitor. Eliminate not physically - it's quite expensive. And to build it into the global system of division of labor on the rights of subsidiary farming.
Sometimes a war by third parties is also useful here. The calculation is simple - while Russia is at war, it has no time to deal with development issues. It is also obvious for many, but not for everyone (I met such people)!
And here the potentials of the parties are different.
Russia: population - 150 million; army - 1,9 million; GDP - $4 billion
NATO: population - 930 million; army - more than 5 million; GDP - about 42 billion dollars.
As you can see, now the ratio of potentials is not entirely in favor of Russia. For example, Russia’s defense spending in 2021 amounted to $65,9 billion. According to RBC, only from February 24, 2022 to June 2022, Ukraine received foreign aid worth $75,4 billion.
This is the same "second" to the question of unconditional surrender.
This is without taking into account the resource of Ukraine. Moreover, Ukraine is not the side of confrontation here. She is a consumable, whose resources can be mercilessly thrown into the furnace. Unfortunately, the Ukrainian leadership is well paid not to think about it, and the Ukrainian people have not realized this.
Since NWO is now predominantly positional in nature, in fact, this means the mutual grinding of the resource. On our part, mainly (I really hope so) stockpiles of weapons, multiplied by the coefficient of their reproduction. On the other hand, the same reserves plus the human resource of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
With the current intensity of the conflict of human resources, the Armed Forces of Ukraine, in theory, may be enough for 6-8 years. Given NATO's arms delivery capabilities and their potential for reproduction, the balance of power looks ambiguous.
Yes. Now a lot and often write about the depletion of stocks of weapons supplied to Ukraine. But don't be fooled by this. It is not only about stocks, but also about the possibilities of reproduction.
For comparison with the experience of the Great Patriotic War, I will give an example.
GDP ratios for 1939:
Countries of the anti-Hitler coalition - 1 billion dollars, including the USSR - 721.
Axis countries - 747 billion dollars, including Germany - 384.
As you can see, the potential difference is somewhat different from the current one.
And there is a third layer of confrontation. He is often completely forgotten about.
It is a global financial capital headquartered in the US and national economies. The same capital is also the master of NATO.
Here, the potentials are difficult to determine, but can be approximately compared in this way:
Russia - the share in international settlements in rubles before the start of the SVO - 0,26%.
Global capital - share in dollar calculations - 43,5%, taking into account the share of the euro - 36,7%, together - 80,2%.
Moreover, it is important that this global capital is also an integral part of the Russian economy itself. And this is a given that must be reckoned with. And this seriously limits our opportunities on our own territory.
Based on this, the periodically proud-sounding thesis that “Russia is at war with all of NATO” is not a reason for pride. Especially not a reason for excuses.
However, this is not a reason for a deliberate admission of defeat!
This is an occasion for a very thoughtful, very balanced and very pragmatic approach..
In fairness, let's say that Russia also has a strategic reserve named Old Man Lukashenko, but it can be activated only in the most extreme case.
There are still third parties in this local-global conflict - this is the rest of the world, while maintaining neutrality and waiting. Some wait sympathetically. Others - weighing and evaluating. They will be for those who will be the winner.
The origins of the conflict
Let us now determine the origins of the conflict.
Having discarded the geopolitical tensions Rus' / West since the time of the king (any), let's look at a retrospective of recent years.
The eve of 2014 was marked by remarkable events - the Sochi Olympics, Russia's right to host the World Cup, Russia's growing popularity in the world.
But the Maidan broke out. The project "Ukraine - anti-Russia" entered the active phase. Task number one is to limit Russia's competitive opportunities in the Black Sea-Mediterranean region and further south. Task number two is to create a hotbed of tension at our borders.
The first threat was stopped by the Crimean spring.
On the second threat, a big strategic mistake was made - troops were not sent to the Donbass. In fairness, we note that this error has become obvious now. At that time, there were justified doubts.
As a result, the project "anti-Russia" has received a qualitative development. Let's give credit to its organizers - they acted competently. The only weak point was the resilience of the people of Donbass.
In principle, the conflict in the smoldering stage could suit the “sponsors of the Maidan”, but it has ceased to pay dividends.
Russia entered Syria and turned the course of the local stories. Also, A. V. Zakharchenko began to cause concern, who began to actively interact with the east of Ukraine, controlled by Kyiv, and gain popularity there. To this were added southern and northern streams, Central Africa, etc.
Having missed the chance of 2014, Russia took the only possible position for it, which is expressed by the thesis - "we do not abandon our own." True, they tried to promote it mainly by administrative means, at the same time trying not to violate the established status quo.
The response stratagem of the NATO masters was, apparently, worked out as follows - the decision to seize the Donbass by force, with the preliminary elimination of its most popular leaders. Perhaps the success of the operation was planned to be consolidated by the appearance of a nuclear weapon in Ukraine. weapons, or an imitation of such an appearance (I don’t presume to say, just rumors).
Note. Here it is necessary to make a small remark. All discussions about the current special operation, about what decisions were made, about the plans of the General Staff, etc., are all conjectures and hypotheses. If in some publics they write that they know how it was, or that it was exactly like that, they are godlessly lying. The whole truth about the decisions made is classified as "OV" and will become available to us at best in 75 years. Including the opinion of your humble servant is also a hypothesis. I base my hypothesis only on open sources and the general logic of events.
What did the forceful liquidation of the Russian Donbass give? She put the Russian leadership in a fork of uncontested losing decisions.
The first is to accept the fact. And this meant the collapse of the concept of "we do not abandon our own." As a result, the reputation of a reliable geopolitical guarantor and partner is lost, which means the loss of all those economic preferences that this reputation gave. At least in the short term, Russia was losing the role of a local leader and could only claim the role of a raw material supplier.
The second is to directly get involved in the battle with its inevitable victims and losses, and the most unpleasant thing is with its unpredictability.
The Russian leadership chose a special operation, considering it the lesser of two evils. An attempt was made to solve the problem diplomatically by issuing the so-called "Putin's Ultimatum", but this is rather a sort of last chance to keep the peace.
And then there was a choice: wait until the Armed Forces of Ukraine go to the Donbass, or start first.
In the first case, the advantage was that Russia could try to act as a peacemaker, not an aggressor. The downside is that she might not have had time to do this, and if the version with atomic weapons was true (I emphasize the version), she would not have had the opportunity.
In the second case, the downside was that Russia is one way or another the aggressor, which provides an excellent ideological reason for the "consolidation of the civilized world." The advantage is that, based on the effect of a preemptive strike, there is a chance to seize the initiative.
Alas, the special operation dragged on.
What will be considered our victory in this battle?
No. This is not a red flag on Khreshchatyk. Although, perhaps, it will not be superfluous.
This is on the local Ukrainian agenda - the liquidation of the Anti-Russia project. This means that the territory of Ukraine (partly former) will have at least a guaranteed neutral status.
One of the ways in which this can be achieved is by taking the entire territory under military control. The question arises - what price must be paid in human lives. Perhaps the military has a solution with minimal losses - God forbid.
But this is not enough. It will also be necessary to achieve a non-hostile population of this territory. In this context, the destruction of power plants is a double-edged sword.
It may be objected to me that we will not stand behind the price of victory. But for those who think so, please study the experience of the battle of Ausculum in 279 BC. e. Any victory has a price, exceeding which it turns into defeat.
In addition, let me remind you that, in addition to a local victory in Ukraine, a global victory is needed on the geopolitical front.
What will it express?
Achieving a balance of interests can be considered a victory, in which Russia will be assigned a place that ensures a comfortable and comfortable life. That is, Russia will be able to defend the right to its own resources and defend the right to develop in interaction with the rest of the world that is beneficial to itself..
The US/NATO is a decrepit, weakening, losing its position in the world giant. But it's still a giant.
Moreover, in the Ukrainian conflict, this giant is not only spent, but also earns. For example, a good bonus for the US is the reduction in the competitiveness of its European friends.
Can we plant a red flag on 5th Avenue?
Having reached the Polish-Ukrainian border at the cost of depleting our resources, will we be able to withstand the next blow of this giant at another point? This is to the thesis "we will not stand behind the price."
This other point can be set up anywhere.
For example, in Armenia, it is already maturing.
Or on Bolotnaya Square (and don't think it's incredible).
The wise old Chinese Sun Tzu said:
"It has never happened before that the war lasted for a long time, and this would be beneficial to the state."
The well-being of the population will decrease - the risks of Bolotnaya will increase, and competition with global capital has no clear boundaries. An asset for such events is already being prepared - if you search the Internet, you can find entire courses on "teaching democracy" and "non-violent actions."
Do we have sufficient resources that will allow us to conduct a long operation? Will we be able to over-resource our "partners" (sorry for such a strange term, but it most accurately reflects the essence of protracted conflicts).
The answer to this question is also under the heading "OB", but let's hope so.
However, I do not want hope, but certainty. A war of attrition is a thing that everyone will suffer from. Country-military camp is not the best solution.
War is the continuation of the economy with the involvement of other means. And the most important front for us is economic. If we can ensure social and economic stability, we will win. Moreover, stability is not in the reports of the Central Bank, but in real shopping trips.
Russia in 1917 almost won the First World War on the battlefield, but lost on the economic front.
But what if the price of victory is still too high?
This means that a solution must be sought in another plane - less costly.
I'll try to give a couple of examples. Please do not take it as a guide to action, these are just examples.
For example, you can launch an offensive in a direction that is not expected, say, towards Lvov (this is rather a question for the military).
Or, remembering the main sponsor of the Maidan - to arrange a surprise somewhere in another part of the world - the surprise is not necessarily of a military nature. Better economic. The key task is to sharply increase the costs for the enemy (for the main enemy). General Frost is partly to help us. The provision of military assistance to the Armed Forces of Ukraine by NATO should become economically unprofitable for them.
Or, for example, it is possible to organize a change in the government of Ukraine to a more negotiable one and sign a peace treaty with it, while retaining the function of monitoring compliance with the treaty by the Russian army. In this regard, the refusal to storm Kyiv in March may have been a mistake, although the question is ambiguous.
Or, for example, there is such a country as Poland. Now she is not our friend, from the word at all. Moreover, today it is the third most important beneficiary of the Ukrainian conflict, after the United States and Turkey, being, in fact, a commission agent of financial tranches to the Ukrainian budget. But tell any Polish politician the magic phrase "eastern kresy", and perhaps we will get an interested party. She won't be our friend. She will still be our enemy. But she will be interested in negotiations. Despite the biased attitude towards it, Poland, unlike Germany, has its own position. And multidirectional interests in the camp of the enemy are our bonus. By the way, Bandera is also not very popular there.
I hope we have all the necessary resources and clear plans on how to take control of the entire territory of Ukraine, including the “Western region”. But if the resources are not quite all. Maybe we can't give up what we can't keep. But to give it to someone who will be more negotiable than an actor hired to play the role of president. A border with another state, albeit a hostile one, is more stable than a border with a hostile quasi-state.
There are other countries in that camp that you can work with creatively.
There is another promising direction - this is the correct information and explanatory work with the population of Ukraine.
It is simply necessary that the people of Ukraine be clearly aware that the current leadership is leading them to slaughter for the sake of the interests of completely different people. So that they see the prospects for a peaceful and prosperous life not in victory over Russia, but in peace with us.
And for this, Russia also needs to not only fight “until the last Russian”, but also solve the most difficult task - ensuring the socio-economic development of the population in the context of the ongoing conflict. The task is an order of magnitude more difficult than a military victory.
And without solving this problem, there will be no full-fledged victory.
Again, now is the time for a very thoughtful, very measured and very pragmatic approach. Emotionless. And creative.
The main task is to seat the beneficiary of the Ukrainian conflict at the negotiating table, and make him hear and accept our position.
Peace will begin when such negotiations begin. Negotiations with the desire to agree. To do this, it is necessary to increase the costs of the main beneficiary and spend their own as rationally as possible.
A red flag on Khreshchatyk may mark the end of one project, but it does not guarantee peace. And we (the people of Russia) need peace. And not all of them - enough of their own, but on conditions that are comfortable for us.
A sequel may follow...
Information