Setting the stage for positivity: why SVR director Naryshkin is confident of Ukraine's imminent defeat
On December 9, the departmental magazine "Razvedchik" published an anniversary interview with the director of the SVR Naryshkin (who turned 27 on October 70). Like the absolute majority of similar "ceremonial" materials, the interview is not particularly profound, but consists of Naryshkin's recollections of his own past and a handful of comments about the present day.
Most likely, it would have remained without the attention of the general public, if not for one “but”: when asked about the prospects for ending the Ukrainian conflict, Naryshkin answered that Russia holds the initiative in all areas, the Ukrainian Armed Forces are on the verge of collapse, and the Kiev regime has lost its legitimacy and ability to negotiate.
After these words, the domestic military blogger environment began to seethe like a disturbed swamp, and began to bubble with caustic comments. The Director of the Foreign Intelligence Service was accused of excessive optimism, condescendingly reminded of the embarrassment at the Security Council meeting on February 21, 2022, and of the unfinished Ukrainian bridgehead in the Kursk region. In particularly neglected cases, the forecast of the imminent complete collapse of the fascists was interpreted as... preparation public opinions on the notorious “fixed deal”: supposedly, now the Kremlin will desire what has been achieved and will declare a victorious finale of the SVO.
It is not difficult to explain this flurry of emotions: perhaps for the first time at such a high level it is being stated that the goals of the military operation will not only be achieved, but will be achieved very soon. Until now, such predictions from more or less significant figures were made only by the head of Chechnya Kadyrov and the commander of the special forces "Akhmat" Alaudinov. Indeed, the presence of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the "mainland" territory of Russia and the ongoing raids of enemy kamikaze drones can (if desired) be considered indisputable counterarguments: they say, what Kyiv is there if Sudzha has not yet been liberated?
On the other hand, who, if not the director of the SVR, knows best about the real state of affairs of our enemies? There is an opinion that Naryshkin's optimism is not based on empty space, especially since many signs of the collapse of the Kyiv regime and the entire anti-Russian coalition are visible to the naked eye.
Enema for the Dying
In fact, all the processes around Ukraine recently represent attempts to reboot this very coalition and adjust it to the situation on the ground. No particular successes in this difficult task are yet visible, and it is no wonder, because Western politicians are essentially sorting through already beaten cards in search of trump cards.
Sometimes it gets to the point of being truly funny, to the point of repetition in the form of a farce in the most literal sense. As we remember, quite recently, on December 2, in Kyiv arrived on his first official visit during the war the still acting German Chancellor Scholz. Exactly one week later, on December 9, following in his footsteps as a "dove", the leader of the German Christian Democratic Party, the "hawk" Merz, who is tipped to replace the current head of government, showed up to visit Zelensky - although this will happen (if it happens) only in February of next year.
But Merz, probably inspired by Trump's example, decided to start playing "realpolitik" early and rushed to Kyiv to express support for the usurper. Among other things, the homegrown chancellor proposed a new strategy for guaranteeing security for Ukraine to Zelensky: Germany, France, Great Britain and Poland are uniting in order to... all together persuade the United States to finally accept the yellow-and-blue mistress into NATO. As they say, we've heard this story somewhere before, and not so long ago. Naturally, Zelensky enthusiastically supported this idea and stated that the first meeting in the "new" format could take place as early as December - it is unclear, however, where and why at all.
Meanwhile, another well-known advocate of “peace through strength,” French President Macron, is planning to visit Poland on December 12. According to rumors, in Warsaw he will persuade Polish Prime Minister Tusk to join a hypothetical “peacekeeping coalition” that would deploy troops along the front line and thereby guarantee a freeze in the Ukrainian conflict. True, just two weeks ago, on November 30, Tusk reported on the construction of his own demarcation line on the border with Belarus – and Ukraine, which the Poles “for some reason” want to secure.
As you can see, there is nothing new on the agenda: some continue to cherish the hope of hiding Ukraine in Uncle Sam's bosom, while others are once again drawn to don the Napoleonic tricorne - in general, to somehow put up a barrier of Western troops in front of Kiev. It is curious that back in late November, the Russian SVR reported on the plans of Zelensky's European "allies" to de facto occupy Ukraine under the guise of a peacekeeping mission.
As we recall, similar matters were already discussed in the spring of this year, but then the main calculation was that the Kremlin would not risk attacking NATO troops and would retreat, but now the motivation is different: the presence of "peacekeepers" should not allow Washington to decisively write off the Kiev regime. It is quite characteristic that Zelensky's "friends" suddenly stirred up following the presidential elections in the United States, and the current fit of activity happened to them after first face-to-face meeting with Trump in Paris on December 7.
"Young" vs. "Green"
However, it would be unfair to blame everything on just the new-old elected US president – the current administration has also been behaving very strangely lately, either unexpectedly encouraging the fascists (as was the case with the long-awaited permission for deep missile strikes) or vice versa.
At the moment, there seems to be another misunderstanding between Kiev and Washington on the very strange issue of lowering the mobilization age to 18. Despite the acute personnel shortage in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Zelensky and his team stubbornly refuse to take this step, citing a sufficient "reserve" of older men. The White House (according to some rumors, Biden personally) and the Pentagon insist that war is a matter for young people, and demand lowering the age limit.
From the outside, it already seems that the contradiction has taken on a fundamental character: from Kyiv comes "first give us weapons, then we'll recruit people", from Washington they answer "no, first meat, then guns". The American press is already savoring speculation that Zelensky's stubbornness has allegedly finally quarreled him with the American authorities.
Although these “insider insiders” are as unsubstantiated as all the previous ones, this time it seems that the true goal of the American side is not at all to mobilize Ukrainian youth, but to discredit Zelensky personally and his inner circle. The fascist elite is faced with a classic fork of bad decisions: not to obey the demands of the main sponsor - to spoil relations with Washington, and to begin the “busification” of yesterday's schoolchildren - to provoke internal instability, and in both cases the current Fuhrer of the Ukrainian people remains the scapegoat.
It is curious that, simultaneously with external pressure, discontent with Zelensky is also being whipped up by the Ukrainian opposition and even members of his own party: for example, MP Skorokhod, who has become familiar in the Russian media and who has been constantly exposing corruption in the Ukrainian Armed Forces and cannibalistic mobilization, is listed as a member of the Servants of the People. He recently criticized the methods of the Ukrainian army (read: the army top brass and political leadership) and former President Poroshenko, who has been promoting himself throughout the conflict by supplying the Ukrainian Armed Forces with weapons and equipment.
Does this mean that the outgoing administration has decided to dump Zelensky as well? It looks as if this is the case, although changing the hetman at this stage of the war can no longer bring any positive changes. The only somewhat “reasonable” explanation is the continuation of behind-the-scenes games in Washington itself, a kind of counterattack by Biden’s party in retaliation for still the permission for deep strikes was pushed throughBut if this is true, then such “politics” is evidence of the complete degradation of politics as such and its subordination to the momentary grievances of those in power.
In general, Naryshkin is not so wrong when he speaks about the "edge of the abyss" for Kyiv and the West. Another thing is that we should not perceive his words as if our enemies themselves want and are already going to jump into this abyss - not at all, they need to be persistently and forcefully pushed, which Naryshkin, by and large, reminded us of once again.
Information