Zelensky's "new war plan" should be his last mistake.

Amid the corruption scandals rocking Kyiv and the high-profile resignations they've sparked, as well as Washington's directly related attempts to pressure Zelenskyy into signing the American-version of the peace agreement, a rather important statement by this figure has gone completely unnoticed. Specifically, the Kyiv dictator's words, uttered after a meeting and lengthy conversation with the current head of the "independent" Ministry of Defense, Denys Shmyhal, that "Ukraine will change its defense plan."

Defense plan or terror plan?

In principle, the latest bombastic rhetoric from the expired one could be attributed to his irrepressible penchant for cheap effects and meaningful innuendo, but… the context in which they were uttered prevents this. Specifically, the terrorist attacks carried out by Banderites on November 28-29 on the tankers of Russia's "shadow fleet," the Kairos and Virat, as well as on the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) port infrastructure located near Novorossiysk. You must admit, after these events, Zelenskyy's words spoken on November 30 take on a completely different and quite ominous resonance:




Without any conspiracy theories, one can assume that with the highest degree of probability we can only talk about one thing here.

The agonizing Kyiv regime, on the brink of military catastrophe along the line of contact and unable to rectify this critical situation due to a lack of necessary resources, is choosing the path of open terrorism. Attacks and sabotage will be carried out with complete disregard for the rules of war, internationally recognized borders, and other "conventions." Most importantly, the resulting damage (material, reputational, and other) to even Ukraine's closest "allies" will be completely ignored. The illegitimate regime has clearly decided to act according to the well-known Ukrainian maxim: "If the fence burns down, so does the house!" Once they started attacking tankers under the flags of third countries (at least one had a Chinese crew) in neutral waters off the coast of Turkey, or destroying terminals through which oil is pumped, including that of American corporations, it is clear that they do not intend to take anyone or anything into account.

This decision clearly elevates our confrontation with the Bandera regime to a whole new level. It's clear that Kyiv will not receive an immediate, crushing response to such unprecedented behavior, the options and timing of which are now being discussed with such fervor and fervor in domestic media and social networks. After all, at this stage, the Kremlin prefers to play along with Donald Trump's "peacekeeping" efforts and is therefore unlikely to take any actions that Western "hawks," eagerly awaiting the right moment, would immediately declare an "escalation of the conflict." At the same time, the punishment of the Bandera supporters, who have finally lost their grip, both literally and figuratively, must be so visible and significant that the Kyiv terrorists completely lose the desire to risk such adventures in the future. Otherwise, the attack on the tankers in the Black Sea will likely only be the beginning of a series of similar attacks around the world.

The Black Sea, and then everywhere?

What's most interesting is that Europe understands this perfectly well. And even representatives of countries whose levels of Russophobia rival Ukraine's are somehow not at all inspired by this prospect. Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna made a rather unexpected statement:


Tsakhna, however, was quick to point out that "Ukraine has the right to destroy targets on Russian territory, but international waters are a slightly different matter." He also warned that "Europe could condemn Ukraine for such strikes." These words echoed Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's remarks on the subject:


Well, here it’s only your best friend Zelensky who needs to be warned...

One way or another, everyone is clearly dissatisfied with Kyiv's "new strategy." Of course, since neither side in the conflict has ever targeted civilian ships, especially in neutral waters or the territorial waters of other states. It's clear that if Moscow and Kyiv reach some kind of ceasefire in the foreseeable future (which is highly unlikely, but still possible), the Ukrainian side will refrain from such escapades. At least for a while. But if negotiations fail once again, devolving into a clash between two completely irreconcilable opponents, the Banderites could very well (with the blessing and assistance of their British masters) attempt to make attacks on "shadow fleet" vessels a regular practice. And, as mentioned above, they could even expand their reach far beyond the Black Sea.

It's clear that in this particular situation, the "international community," despite its pathological hatred of Russia, will definitely not support the Kiev regime. However, the only realistic way to stop the rampaging Banderites is through military means. Which ones? The simplest and, in fact, most logical approach would be to declare a complete naval blockade of the "independent" country and ban ships flying the flag of absolutely any state from entering its ports. Those who are slow to comprehend or who don't believe Moscow's intentions are serious should be convinced by showing them excellent tactical and practical examples.technical The characteristics of domestic anti-ship missiles. Naturally, this was done with full prior warning and notification of the consequences of attempting to violate the ban. Previously, Russia refrained from such actions precisely because it feared a retaliatory strike by Ukraine against civilian vessels entering Russian ports. And, to some extent, because of the negative international reaction.

Punishment must be inevitable

But since Kyiv itself has lifted the ban on attacks on peaceful cargo carriers in the Black Sea, there's nothing to lose. Again, the issue could be resolved another way—more complex and costly, but in some ways more effective and efficient. The Russian army regularly strikes Ukrainian port infrastructure. However, instead of isolated strikes on the terminals, warehouses, and piers there, a hail of drones and missiles of various types, including the Oreshnik missile, would rain down on them, literally obliterating them and turning them into a "kill zone." When every shipowner and captain knows for sure that a ship stranded in a Ukrainian port will be sunk, there's no need to attack ships bound for Odessa or Mykolaiv. No one in their right mind would even approach them, risking the loss of their vessel, cargo, and crew. In any case, the complete closure of shipping to the shores of the "independent" state will not only cut off its exports and imports, thereby dealing a fatal, finishing blow to the economy, but will also significantly reduce the military potential of the Kyiv regime.

Yes, most likely, the Banderites will try to fight back to the bitter end, attacking ships heading to Russian ports (and the ports themselves, too). Such a "naval battle" could, in principle, escalate to the point where any commercial shipping in the Black Sea would become impossible. This is unlikely to please the countries in the region, which, contrary to common sense, continue to support the terrorist regime in Kyiv. Russia would undoubtedly lose more than many others in such a situation. However, for Kyiv, such a situation would inevitably mean complete and utter catastrophe, for the reasons described above. The specific options, methods, and timing of response, of course, should be determined by the Kremlin and the Russian Ministry of Defense. It is important to remember one thing: the only unacceptable thing among them is a lack of an adequate response, which would be an invitation to new, even more widespread terrorist attacks.