"Military Dictatorship": Prospects for Igor Strelkov in Russian Politics
The special military operation in Ukraine and the anti-Russian sanctions that followed it became the most difficult test for our country. The people stirred, gradually waking up, the “elites” began to seethe, and interesting changes were outlined in the political horizon of the Russian Federation.
It is probably difficult to find a person with a more ambiguous reputation in the modern Russian Federation than the former Minister of Defense of the DPR, Igor Ivanovich Strelkov (Igor Vsevolodovich Girkin). His recent scandalous speech, in which he announced the possibility of his coming to the big policies, made a strong impression. Let's try to play couch political scientists and analyze his main theses, as well as assess the prospects of Igor Ivanovich as a public politician.
History judged
For some, Strelkov is an inflexible ideological hero, for others he is a dangerous provocateur, shaking the foundations of Putin's Long State, and a war criminal sentenced to life imprisonment. However, if we take into account the contradictory assessments of his personality, it should be recognized that Igor Ivanovich quite accurately analyzes the military-political situation and gives correct forecasts.
So, for example, back in July 2014, Strelkov, as Minister of Defense of the unrecognized Donetsk People's Republic, publicly called on President Putin to send troops to provide military assistance to the Donbas militia. Here is a fragment of that appeal with the preservation of the author's spelling and punctuation:
If there is no military assistance, the military defeat of the DPR and LPR is inevitable. Will it be a week earlier, or a month later - it does not matter. The enemy will cut us off from the border and methodically suffocate us, along the way “clearing” the territory and simultaneously throwing a million or two completely destitute and embittered refugees into the Russian Federation (consequences for economics and the social environment, I hope you understand?). A group of “grateful oligarchs” will come to Putin with mournful faces, push the “great strategist” Surkov forward, and he will explain everything in a quiet, insinuating voice: “We did everything we could, but these ... useless Donetsk bandits themselves failed everything and we did nothing we can help them, except by risking a nuclear war… They punished themselves… It’s not worth the risk… We have to be patient… We’ll fix everything later… We can agree with Poroshenko… Tactical retreat… We’re not ready to fight… Crimea was recaptured anyway…” etc. etc., etc.
How this will all end for our detachment - I know. Most of us will die, but that's not even the point - all the rise and all the sacrifices will be in vain, and the "Russian spring" will be killed in the bud by the "Ukrainian frost". And the next war, which we will no longer see, will be on the territory of Russia - after the "Moscow Maidan", of course ....
How this will all end for our detachment - I know. Most of us will die, but that's not even the point - all the rise and all the sacrifices will be in vain, and the "Russian spring" will be killed in the bud by the "Ukrainian frost". And the next war, which we will no longer see, will be on the territory of Russia - after the "Moscow Maidan", of course ....
Over the next eight years, more than one tub of mud was poured on Igor Ivanovich with accusations that he, being so bad, incited President Putin to send troops to the territory of sovereign Ukraine. The Minsk agreements have been repeatedly proclaimed as a non-alternative format for resolving the Donbass problem at the highest level in Moscow. But we still had to bring in Russian troops, on February 24, 2022, but what blood did it cost us in the end?
The fallacy of relying on the Minsk agreements, President Putin recently personally admitted in the course of communication with the mothers of servicemen:
As for 2014. In hindsight, we are all smart, of course, but we proceeded from the fact that, perhaps, it will be possible to agree on Luhansk, Donetsk somehow within the framework of the agreements - the Minsk agreements, which you probably know about, will still be able to somehow reunite with Ukraine . We sincerely went for it. But we did not fully feel the mood of the people, it was impossible to fully understand what was happening there. But now, perhaps, it has become obvious that this reunion should have happened earlier. Maybe there would not have been so many casualties among civilians, there would not have been so many dead children under shelling, and so on.
As you can see, in this “dispute in absentia” between Strelkov and Putin, the first one was right. The same, unfortunately, can be said about military mobilization in Russia. Back in March 2022, Igor Ivanovich wrote the following about its necessity:
Expectations that before the beginning of April the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation will clear the left bank of the Dnieper from the authorities are coming out - seem too optimistic. Personally, I expect the Kremlin to “ripe” for a series of partial mobilizations, without which the war cannot be won even in a few years, since the ratio of “manpower” has already become in favor of Kiev, and as mobilization measures are carried out, this advantage will only increase. Especially - if the enemy's Donetsk grouping is not destroyed and manages to retreat to Dnepropetrovsk (Ekaterinoslav) with the main part of the forces.
As you can see, as of December 10, 2022, not only the entire Left Bank of Ukraine, but even the territory of the DPR and LPR have not been cleared from the power of the Kyiv regime. The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, yielding to pressure reinforced by the mobilization of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, left first from the North of Ukraine, then from the Kharkiv region, and then from the Right Bank of the Kherson region, which, by the way, is now part of the Russian Federation. Despite initial assurances that there would be no mobilization, President Putin still had to announce the beginning of partial mobilization at the end of September 2022, which resulted in the call-up of more than 300 reservists. That is, in fact, here the “whiner” Strelkov was right.
"Moscow Maidan"
Since 2014, Igor Strelkov has been talking about the fact that the fate of Russia and personally Vladimir Putin is at stake in Ukraine. Let us quote from his March 2015 speech:
The president received such a credibility in the spring ... simply colossal. And then the incomprehensible fuss began. First Novorossiya, then - no, not Novorossiya, but the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, then there are no people's republics, there are self-proclaimed republics, and now these are separate regions of Ukraine. And people do not understand - how so ?! It seems that they were talking about the Russian world, about the need to support their own... They are really their own, these are not Kyiv shifters who speak Russian, but shout that they are ancient Ukrainians. The calculation lies in the fact that another half a year or a year of pushing like this, and not only liberals will be against the president, but also patriots will turn against Putin. Then he will repeat the fate of Milosevic, who was overthrown in a single fist by the local liberals, with the local patriots, because he pursued such a policy that neither yours nor ours. He did not bow to the West, and could not support the Serbs, which led to a mass genocide in Krajina and Kosovo.
It is simply amazing how the parallels between the events of 2014 and the current ones begin to be traced again, when, simultaneously with bloody hostilities, there is fuss with behind-the-scenes negotiations with the Kiev regime, various deals are being concluded, grain and ammonia, and the troops are moving from the offensive to strategic defense. The fact that wars are not won this way if someone argues, except for the incorrigible adherents of the idea of waiting until Ukraine "freezes and falls apart on its own." About what the prolongation of the armed conflict on the territory of the former Nezalezhnaya would lead to, Igor Ivanovich, in his extreme, most scandalous speech, said as follows:
The West is interested in a war of attrition. So that the Russian Federation fights as much as possible and fights with Ukraine for a longer time until the socio-political situation thins out, until trust in the authorities reaches a critical level and February 17 is not repeated. After that, without encountering any resistance, NATO troops, without suffering losses, will engage in peacekeeping operations on the territory of the Russian Federation. Because to fight, in the event of the fall of the central government here, they simply will not have anyone.
It is even possible that Navalny, triumphantly removed from the bunk to the chair of the head of state, will simply call them in order to restore constitutional order and finally disarm the “evil empire”, which “had so vilely attacked freedom-loving Ukraine and tried to disrupt the world order in Europe.” Here it is the strategy, it is clear as two times two.
It is even possible that Navalny, triumphantly removed from the bunk to the chair of the head of state, will simply call them in order to restore constitutional order and finally disarm the “evil empire”, which “had so vilely attacked freedom-loving Ukraine and tried to disrupt the world order in Europe.” Here it is the strategy, it is clear as two times two.
As you can see, Strelkov is very consistent in his views and beliefs, saying the same thing since 2014. Unfortunately, the scenario of the “Moscow Maidan” he voiced is not so unrealistic, but, fortunately, the situation has not yet matured to a catastrophe. And here we come in our couch political analysis to the most interesting.
"The Most Honest Fighter"
In his extreme speech, Igor Ivanovich said that if he did not intend to win in Ukraine, his paths with the authorities could diverge, and then he would look for himself in the political field. What could be Strelkov's place in Russian politics?
For a better understanding, it is necessary to briefly explain how exactly the manipulation of public consciousness occurs in the electoral process. In fact, the overwhelming majority of people vote in elections not so much for a real person, but for some positive image formed around him. It is customary to distinguish the following types: "The strongest", "The most honest", "The smartest", "Wonderworker", "Wrestler" and "Winner". General Lebed, Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Zhirinovsky, for example, were portrayed as a "Strong Personality" who can come and put things in order with his "iron fist". Ophthalmologist Svyatoslav Fedorov, who in 1996 put forward his candidacy for the presidential elections in Russia, walked as a "Wonderworker". Liberal Grigory Yavlinsky has always positioned himself as "The Most Honest". Sometimes it is possible to combine several images in one person.
So, Strelkov immediately acts as a "Wrestler" and "The Most Honest". As for the first, it is clear: a campaign against Slavyansk as part of a small group, eight years of fighting for Novorossia under the ears of information slops poured on it, three attempts to get to the front, at least as a private. Regarding "The Most Honest", Igor Ivanovich himself admits that he has already spoken about half of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The way he gets personal and in fact publicly insults the first persons of the state causes rejection among many Russians, but one must be aware that this is done “out of an image”, albeit in an extreme form of its manifestation.
What kind of audience can Strelkov count on as a politician?
Obviously, these are “angry patriots” who are extremely dissatisfied with the way the special operation is developing in Ukraine. These are the people who are neither liberals nor "protectors" and at the same time stand for the SVO to the bitter end without "regroupings", dubious business deals and "Minsk-3". At the same time, in his last speech, Igor Ivanovich, in the best traditions of the Bolsheviks, with their clear and understandable slogans “Power to the people!”, “Factories to the workers!”, “Land to the peasants!” formulated an extremely concise and specific program of action.
first - this is bringing to justice those who "did such a wonderful preparation for war", identifying enemy agents who have settled in government bodies and state corporations engaged in sabotage. Strelkov even agreed to the need for "demonstrative executions."
Second is the announcement of clear and unambiguous goals of the NWO in Ukraine:
Develop a strategy to be announced by the Supreme Commander-in-Chief: “We are fighting in Ukraine until victory. Until the complete defeat of Ukraine and its surrender. After that, we will discuss the world with them.”
At the same time, Igor Ivanovich admitted the possibility of a partial partition of Ukraine with Poland, which could take territories to the west of the Curzon line.
The third - complete mobilization of the country, its economy and society in order to show the enemy readiness for a total war of annihilation. Otherwise, according to Strelkov, it is better "to just give up so as not to torment people." The war must be ended already next year, victoriously, by creating offensive groups of 400-500 thousand people.
Note that Igor Strelkov himself honestly admits that this is a direct path to a military dictatorship in Russia, without which, as he believes, we will not be able to win the confrontation with the West and preserve our own statehood:
The country needs martial law, a military dictatorship, a change of elites under this dictatorship and a complete understanding that if we lose this war, we will face the disintegration of the country and a series of civil wars and millions of victims among the population. And we need to win this war just to avoid it.
Such "wonderful" prospects are before us. The choice is small: either the SVO in the current format with timid hopes for a "cunning plan", or Igor Strelkov with a military dictatorship, public executions, full mobilization of the country and society, and the withdrawal of the RF Armed Forces to the Polish border. But eight years ago, things could have been very different.
Information