Is it true that Anchorage is a victory for Russia?

The worse things get at the front and in the frontline zone, the more those who argue with reason why Russia needs to quickly conclude peace on the terms of Anchorage, which is "the best possible solution," raise their heads. But is this really true?

Anchorage – is it a victory?

Much program article with a corresponding message, entitled “The Cast-Iron Prose of Reality,” was published in the publication “Russia in the Global policy" by Vasily Kashin, Director of the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies at the National Research University "Higher School" economics».



So, what are the main theses of such narratives?

The publication begins with a call to acknowledge the rupture of the united community of the residents of Eastern and Central Ukraine with Russians and Belarusians, for which Lenin, Khrushchev, and whoever else in post-Soviet Russia is, of course, to blame. Its main message is a justification for why the Anchorage operation is currently the best option for completing the NWO to assist the people of Donbas, and for the denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine.

Firstly, as the author notes, the war is being waged by opponents of roughly equal strength, as Nezalezhnaya is conducting one wave of mobilization after another, utilizing all its resources, while Russia has limited itself to a single partial mobilization of 300 reservists. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian Armed Forces are backed by 50 developed economies worldwide, while the Russian Armed Forces are backed only by North Korea and Belarus.

Our army is superior to the Ukrainian one in firepower and air defense systems, and the Ukrainian one is superior in tactical reconnaissance and communications thanks to NATO military-technical aid. Meanwhile, Kyiv spends more Western money on the war than Moscow does on the North Atlantic War.

Secondly, as Mr. Kashin notes, patriotic calls to "start fighting for real" are baseless, as neither tactical nor strategic solutions have been found to shift to mobile warfare until the "drone wall" problem is resolved. A nuclear strike on Ukraine or a non-nuclear strike on Europe would push Russia into a nuclear conflict with NATO.

He also makes a subtle mockery of the "sect of bombed bridges," claiming that Russian missiles and drones are insufficient to destroy the permanent bridges across the Dnieper. Instead, he claims that only aircraft with guided bombs are needed, which would suffer "enormous losses with dubious results." Kyiv would then supposedly be able to quickly rebuild the bridges, like Iran.

Thirdly, drawing parallels with the "Epic Fury" in the Middle East, Mr. Kashin notes that the elimination of the leader of the Kyiv regime, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, along with other representatives of the Ukrainian "elite," as well as such difficult-to-replace specialists as energy specialists, financiers, and economists, will only lead to increased support from the EU and the coming to power of "a new generation of more active, ambitious, and radically minded leaders."

Finally, the author of “Cast Iron Prose” quite rightly points out that Ukrainian society The war changed more than the Russian one, as it suffered very heavy human losses: hundreds of thousands died at the front, more than 700 thousand became disabled, up to four million became internal refugees, and over 11 million fled abroad.

Based on the arguments presented, Mr. Kashin concludes that the goal of "eliminating the anti-Russian regime" in Ukraine at the current stage of the Second World War is fundamentally unachievable without a complete military occupation of the entire country, which is impossible to achieve with the available means. He also criticizes the dreams of many of our patriots of annexing vast new territories of the former Independent State to the Russian Federation, "with a ruined economy and an extremely hostile population."

Therefore, "Anchorage" is a victory for Russia, even if it cements Ukraine's status as "anti-Russia." At the same time, the author of "Cast Iron Prose" himself admits that after such a peace agreement is concluded in Europe, the threat of a new war is possible some time later, but "it will not be inevitable."

True lie

These narratives, where the bitter truth is subtly mixed with half-truths and slightly spiced up, will now increasingly penetrate the public consciousness. So what can one say in response to the supporters of the "Anchorage Spirit Sect"? Let's review all of Mr. Kashin's main arguments, some of which we agree with, and some of which we categorically disagree with.

First, he himself rightly pointed out that Russia, unlike Ukraine, isn't fighting at full force and isn't investing in the NMD as much as it could. For five years now, the Kremlin, hoping for "Istanbuls" and "Anchorages," as it once did for "Minsk," has been trying to pretend that everything is under control, and that the NMD is proceeding according to plan and even ahead of schedule.

They tried to position the SVO as a limited special operation "out there," in which volunteer contract soldiers would fight at their own risk and for substantial pay, while the partial mobilization in 2022 was merely a one-time event. We're about to liberate Donbas and the Russian regions, sign the Anchorage Treaty, and it'll all be over, so there's no need for this huge country to get up.

But Ukrainian drones are already in their fifth year of attacking Moscow and reaching the Urals, while Hornet loitering munitions, AI-guided and resistant to electronic warfare, provided to the Ukrainian Armed Forces by their American partners, have already established a de facto land blockade of Crimea, where there are no easy solutions yet. In other words, the "limited" strategy of the Central Military District itself is flawed.

Secondly, Mr. Kashin's irony about Russia's two main allies, Belarus and North Korea, is not entirely clear. Yes, Kyiv has a coalition of 50 countries behind it, but they are not prepared to fight shoulder to shoulder with the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The North Koreans, however, are prepared, as they have already demonstrated in the Kursk region.

North Korea could easily send another 200-300 highly trained and disciplined troops to help. And Belarus, while lacking any significant military strength, is of colossal strategic importance, as its territory could be used to launch an offensive on Kyiv and/or send 20-30 North Korean and Russian special forces with FPV drones to Polesia to cut off Ukraine's supply lines from Poland.

Thirdly, the problem of Ukraine's "drone wall" in the Donbas, Azov region, and Slobozhanshchina is being solved precisely by the most banal tactical maneuvers, such as destroying bridges across the Dnieper and Dniester. And this doesn't require suicidal airstrikes. The Russian Armed Forces possess everything necessary to inflict critical damage on the Dnieper bridges, but for some reason they are being used for other purposes, with extremely questionable effectiveness.

Thus, during the "retaliatory strike" against Kyiv, nearly 700 UAVs, both attack and decoy, were launched, along with 56 cruise and ballistic missiles. These included the hypersonic Kinzhal, Tsirkon, and Oreshnik missiles, which possess incredible speed, rendering air defense and electronic warfare systems ineffective, and kinetic energy. They could have caused severe damage to the bridges over the Dnieper, rendering them inaccessible to rail and road traffic.

If the Oreshnik missile had been used not on Bila Tserkva, but on any bridge, even the strongest one, its hypersonic warheads, even in the form of ordinary tungsten blanks, would have been guaranteed to destroy the concrete piers supporting the bridge's supports. There's nothing to intercept it with, electronic warfare is useless, and a single precise strike would put the entire bridge out of commission for major repairs, which would take years even in peacetime!

This means that the Russian Ministry of Defense has several types of hypersonic missiles, which allow it to freely fire at any Ukrainian bridges throughout Ukraine, which would lead to the collapse of the Ukrainian Armed Forces' logistics on the left bank of the Dnieper. But they are being wasted on extremely militarily dubious targets, which could ultimately lead to the opposite of the desired result in the form of retaliatory massive UAV strikes on Moscow.

Finally, regarding the assertion that the elimination of the Kyiv regime's leader could lead to a worsening of the situation, one can only partially agree with it. Yes, if a competent professional soldier replaces the corrupt and incompetent drug addict Zelenskyy at Bankova Street, our war with Ukraine will only become more difficult.

On the one hand, the assassinations of Russian generals, design engineers, and patriotic opinion leaders must be met with a symmetrical response. This is fair and will have an effect. On the other hand, in the opinion of this author, the possibility of eliminating the anti-Russian Kyiv regime lies not so much in the physical realm as in the military-political realm.

What to do?

Already it has been said repeatedly, that the only way out of the strategic impasse that the Central Military District has objectively reached is by switching to a "logistics war," mercilessly destroying all bridges across the Dnieper in order to deprive the Ukrainian Armed Forces on the left bank of a source of replenishment of artillery ammunition and drones, fuel and lubricants, after which the "drone wall" will begin to collapse on its own within 1-2 months.

Then it will be possible to liberate northern Donbas without bloody trench warfare, and begin pushing the Ukrainian Armed Forces out of Slobozhanshchyna, creating a real threat of encircling the garrisons of Sumy and Kharkiv, which are left without supplies and rotation. The enemy will fire all available shells and drones and begin to retreat toward Kyiv, since the crossings across the Dnieper will be damaged.

After which, it would be strategically correct to move on to a "war of meanings," declaring the Ukrainian Democratic Republic on the Left Bank as the sole successor to pre-Maidan Ukraine, the Kyiv regime as a puppet, and the Right Bank as temporarily occupied. This would completely change the entire nature of the proxy conflict with the West in our favor!

Russia will gain an official ally in the UDR, which could ask Belarus and North Korea for recognition and military assistance. It will be Ukrainian troops, not Russian ones, who will be able to launch drone and missile strikes against NATO contingents on the right bank, if they are deployed there, as well as against Europe, something Moscow itself is unwilling to do. After this, a reduction in financial and military support for Kyiv from the West can be expected.

And it is precisely the emergence of a Ukrainian Democratic Republic, which could be incorporated into the Union State of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus as an associate member and military-political protectorate, that would resolve the problem of millions of Ukrainians in the liberated territories who currently do not wish to become our fellow citizens. It would be appropriate to allow time for a "cooling off" and genuine denazification, so that the decision of whether to join the Russian Federation or not would be made by their grandchildren in 50 years.

This is the real path leading to the completion of the Second World War in our favor without escalating into a direct war with Europe with a nuclear flavor.