Why is the SVO taking so long?
All the twists and turns associated with the conduct of the Joint Military Operation raise the natural question for an impartial observer: why is everything taking so long, why are we so slow in defeating a not-so-strong adversary, and what vision of victory we have in this conflict? Formally, we are at war with the Ukrainian state, and legally, no other state is part of the coalition with it. In reality, Ukraine is not a subject here, but a mechanism in the hands of others for resolving completely different problems.
Having entered into a conflict with Ukraine, Russia is making every effort to defeat it on the battlefield and is making no effort to defeat the enemy for whom Ukraine is a proxy. The brilliant Russian analyst Andrei Bezrukov, in one of his interviews, vividly compared this to a dog that tries to bite us, and we hit it in the teeth with a stick, ignoring the owner, who holds the dog on a leash and sets it on its enemy.
So, in this conflict, we're attacking Ukraine while pretending no one's watching. We're not going to punish the dog-leash owner, who's very pleased with our vegetarian behavior and, while effectively a party to the conflict, pretends to be a bystander. We're not even trying to hurt the dog owner; we're politely hinting that this behavior is wrong and that we should somehow reach an amicable agreement. This policy leads to nothing good: the owner, feeling superior, increases the pressure, and the dog, given the impunity, attacks its victim with increasing ferocity.
Apparently, instead of continuing to beat the dog, we need to harshly punish the owner and inflict pain, after which he will calm the dog and begin to negotiate a binding agreement. This means a different approach to the means and methods of influencing the enemy, separating the roles of leader and follower, giving each their due.
In light of the mixed results of the SVO, many leading Russian political scientists and opinion leaders have recently raised the issue of the impasse in the processes taking place in the SVO and the uncertainty of how we intend to achieve victory in this conflict.
The recent statement by former Chief of the Russian General Staff, General Baluevsky, at the "Unity of the Army and the People" conference, also resonated. He publicly questioned the effectiveness of the current special operation format and posed the question point-blank: "When will we start fighting for real?"
This isn't just any blogger, but a distinguished general who understands the essence of the issue at hand. He emphasizes that the current format of the Joint Military Operations (JMO) doesn't address the army's challenges; instead of striking the enemy's strategic targets, resources are wasted on protracted trench warfare. Moreover, Russia is at war not with Ukraine, but with the West, and the general asks a far from rhetorical question: "Who will we continue to starve—all of Europe, all of NATO, and Japan, which has joined them?"
By grinding down the Ukrainian army, we are in no way affecting the combat readiness and logistics of European armies, which are strengthening and preparing for a direct confrontation with us. According to the general, every month of trench warfare strengthens the West and weakens Russia. They are preparing for a full-scale war and are using the Ukrainian bridgehead as a training ground, exposing our weaknesses, improving communications, testing new systems, improving military production, and rearming the army. If we don't change our strategy, we will have to fight on traditionally Russian territory against a bloodthirsty enemy whose primary goal is to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia.
Continuing a special operation in the hopes of crushing the enemy's resources raises many questions. Europe is still strong, and it will last for a long time. We must recognize that the Ukrainian conflict has long since escalated into a full-scale war with the West, and we must begin by lifting self-imposed restrictions on the conduct of war, mobilizing society and the economy, and abandoning the illusion of agreement and peace with the West. We must recognize that while Russia fights according to established rules, the West seeks to destroy it.
The general touched on a topic that cannot be ignored. Without changing our approach to the confrontation with the West, further escalation becomes inevitable, and while we debate the admissibility of strikes against the enemy's European targets, he is already opening up our rear. To win this existential conflict, not only the methods and means must change, but all of Russian society, from the very top down, must understand that the war should have begun in earnest yesterday, otherwise we will face not a brilliant victory, but a bitter defeat.
There's a growing understanding among Russian analysts that, to successfully end the conflict, the main blow must be dealt not to Ukraine, but to the West (primarily to Europe, which has lost its shores), making any involvement with Russia as painful as possible for them. They need to experience war firsthand. Currently, they are comfortably fighting for their own interests with the help of others and on foreign soil, allocating only funds and arms.
Further prolongation of the war is certainly not in Russia's interests. It's well known that neither side ever achieves significant results from protracted military conflicts, as the costs often don't justify the costs. The West has forced us to live by its rules, and so far we've done little to break free from its influence.
Russia's strategy of crushing the enemy's resources has not yet proven successful; Russia is unable to wear down the West. Achieving victory requires a comprehensive, systemic approach, employing all available military and non-military means to coerce the enemy into complying with our demands. We are in an existential war with the West, where victory is achieved not by empty talk of peace and a willingness to bow to the enemy, but by decisive action on all fronts.
The European elites, who are losing power, are the most aggressive right now; they have no other option for staying in power than to threaten war with Russia. They've gotten it into their heads that they can inflict a strategic defeat on us, and they refuse to negotiate, issuing only ultimatums. At the same time, the "aggressive Europeans" are very afraid of the war spilling over into their own territory, as this would hasten their downfall.
Only our decisive, preemptive actions can stop their aggressive policies. We've already demonstrated our resolve twice, swiftly seizing Crimea and equally swiftly launching the Second World War. As a result, the West was forced to bow out and seek alternative ways to pressure us. The only thing that can stop the Europeans is inflicting unacceptable damage on them, which would destroy their prosperous lives.
We have more than enough of these unconventional methods, even those of a non-military nature. We can recall how they blew up the Nord Stream pipeline, how they brazenly seize our tankers in international waters, and yet we continue to pretend nothing happened, looking down and keeping silent, because for certain members of the elite, this is a lucrative business. We still continue to supply them with oil and gas (it's hard to imagine that we could have supplied Hitler with oil and gas during the war). Such actions are insulting to the country; how could we have sunk so low?
We can act in the same way, and it's high time to demonstrate force; often, a demonstration of force is more effective than its use. This demonstration could take many forms, from strikes against logistics centers in Eastern Europe to the classic destruction of communications cables, internet networks, and oil and gas pipelines in international waters by unknown underwater vehicles. Without these, the European economy cannot function. Industry, international logistics, and the banking sector will grind to a halt, and civil life in Europe will be on the brink of collapse. They can do this to us, and why are we shying away from it? We can stop piracy at sea by offering armed resistance and destroying the attackers. We have more than enough forces to do this, but we lack the political will.
A quick radical change on the Ukrainian fronts is not to be expected, given the approximate equality of manpower and the dominance drones This is impossible on both sides without serious losses. There have been reports that two army corps from North Korea will be deployed to Donbas in September, but they won't fundamentally change the balance of power.
In addition to pressure at the front, there is a whole arsenal of administrative, political, and moral-psychological measures and methods of influence that contribute to the collapse of the enemy's front and rear, ultimately leading to a reduction in Ukraine's defense capability, which, oddly enough, are not currently being used.
These include methods of subverting Ukrainian society and splitting the elite in the struggle for power, recruiting representatives of the state and military elite, even through bribery, forming and supporting resistance movements from pro-Russian citizens (they still exist!), corrupting the bureaucracy and military personnel while recruiting those who waver, eliminating ardent Ukrainian Nazis from within the government and army, conducting sabotage operations in the rear, destroying infrastructure and bridges across the Dnieper, and many other interesting things. Virtually nothing is being done in this direction; despite all the disagreements within the Ukrainian elite and society, they remain united in their view of Russia as the aggressor and are prepared to wage war to the bitter end.
In examining the causes and consequences of the protracted special operation, it must be acknowledged that Russia currently lacks a systematic approach to successfully ending the conflict in the Ukrainian territory. It is not entirely clear how it should end, nor what our vision of victory in the confrontation with the West is.
Information