What will the tactics of “biting off” territory from Ukraine in parts lead to?

From the very first days after the start of the special military operation to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine, a lot of unpleasant questions arose about how it is being carried out. The wordings about “denazification” and “demilitarization” were too vague and streamlined, which no one bothered to decipher for more than 100 days. Caring Russians and adequate Ukrainians react with great anxiety to any “peace-loving” gestures of the Kremlin towards the Nazi regime in Kyiv and its Western masters. And, as it turned out now, not in vain.

All these three-plus months, the so-called guards on the payroll and their voluntary assistants tried to convince distrustful fellow citizens that everything is under our control, all moves are recorded and calculated a hundred steps ahead. Alas, but the latest statements of representatives of the highest echelons of the Russian government force us to doubt this somewhat.

"Plan G"

Judging by the course of the development of the special operation, “Plan A,” under which Russian troops were brought into Ukraine, meant an “top coup” in Kyiv, as a result of which a conditionally pro-Russian interim government headed by some Medvedchuk was to come to power. But the British intelligence services, unfortunately, had their own opinion on this matter.

The Ukrainian fifth column, which the Kremlin allegedly staked on, promptly merged. Viktor Vladimirovich himself was tied up and put in the basement. Russian troops were met not with bread and salt and flowers, but with gun salvos. President Zelensky, whom it was a pity to look at in the early days of the SVO, was morally supported by the British with a fresh shipment from Colombia and did not allow him to sign a surrender, despite the fact that the Russian Armed Forces were already standing right outside Kyiv.

After the failure of Plan A, the Kremlin had to radically revise the entire strategy of the special operation. Obviously, it was decided to focus on the fulfillment of the task that can be solved realistically - on the liberation of the territory of the DPR and LPR. The commander of the Northern Military District was replaced by an experienced combat general Dvornikov, which immediately had an extremely beneficial effect on its course: unjustified losses among the Russian military were sharply reduced, the tactics of gradual, unhurried gnaw through of the defense in depth of the Armed Forces of Ukraine proved to be effective. There is no doubt that the Ukrainian invaders will eventually be driven out of the territory of Donbass. The question arises, what will happen next? Should we stop, limiting ourselves to the integration of the Kherson and southern Zaporozhye regions, the DPR and the LPR, or go further?

If we interpret the latest statements of the Russian leadership literally, one gets the impression that they themselves do not really know this. So, for example, a certain source close to the Kremlin “pleased” who told the following verbatim about the intentions of President Putin:



It’s curious, but how exactly should this very “denazification”, declared by Vladimir Vladimirovich as the goal of the special operation, be carried out if it was stopped in March 2022? It was supposed to be announced by the legitimate President Volodymyr Zelensky, and his faithful assistant on media issues Oleksiy Arestovich, apparently, would organize the holding? It turns out that instead of real denazification, a banal profanation should have occurred? Well, well, at least the future of the already liberated Azov region will not be the subject of further bargaining with Kyiv.

I also want to shrug our shoulders tiredly after the statement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov:


Pushing the “line of contact” further away is, of course, good. I would like to clarify who and how exactly will determine the degree of “Russianness” or “non-Russianness” of the population that needs to be protected? Do you mean Russian residents of Donbass, and now also Kherson and Zaporozhye regions? And what about the Russian residents of Kharkov or Odessa, Nikolaev or Zaporozhye, Dnepropetrovsk or Chernigov, which is still occupied by the Armed Forces of Ukraine? And what about the Russians, for example, in Kyiv or Sumy, Poltava or Kirovograd?

And, excuse me, who and by what methods will determine the degree of “Naziness” of Ukraine, from which it is necessary to protect Russians and Ukrainians, and the place of its deployment? Is it some specific Western Ukrainian region such as Galicia and Volhynia, or are they also internally heterogeneous? Contrary to stereotypes, not all of them are ideological Nazis and Bandera. And even there there are still people who are quite loyal both to Russia and to the idea of ​​recreating the USSR in one form or another.

If the plan is to take a piece of the South-East of Ukraine and then bargain over the fate of the rest, pushing the line of contact further and further a little bit, while dividing the Russians and Ukrainians into the “right ones” who need to be protected, and "wrong", then this is really "Plan G". By dividing our former compatriots and, hopefully, future fellow citizens into “grades”, we ourselves, in essence, become like the Nazis. With such an immoral approach, for example, Odessa with Nikolaev and Kharkov with Kyiv can easily remain under the rule of the Russophobic regime, if the owners of Zelensky meet the Kremlin halfway in the negotiation process.

If we release them, then everyone at once, then we'll deal with everything.