General Yakovleff's interview on Air et cosmos

Lieutenant General Michel Yakovleff is a recognised strategist who has worked in various organisations including NATO. During this exchange, he shares with us three hypotheses to the end of the Russia / Ukraine conflict and the global impacts. 

An interview combining strategy, history and geopolitics.

599,531 views 16 Jan 2023

00:00: Could we help Ukrainians better?

04:30: Conditions for a Russian victory

13:15: The Ukrainian victory, the most probable hypothesis

11:45 p.m .: The draw by mutual attrition

25.43: Why not provide more equipment to Ukraine?

28:27: Which Russia for the post-war period?

Analysis and ironic response to General Yakovleff's interview on Air et cosmos

by Remi Mondine

As Sun Tzu said: Who knows the other and knows himself, in a hundred fights will not be defeated; who does not know the other but knows himself, will be victorious half the time; who does not know the other any more than he knows himself will always be undone. (chapter 3)

I will therefore be forgiven for having looked at the propaganda magnificently served by General Yakovleff and Mr. Tytelman of Air and Cosmos1.

Let's give these people the usual congratulations, a remarkable complicity, Mr. Tytelman knew how to showcase his guest with talent and bring the points that allowed the master chef to serve us his dish.

As for General Yakovleff, let us recognise, without prejudging their origin, his qualities as a presenter and rhetorician.

The mission entrusted to him was to convince the listeners of the inevitable victory of Ukraine and the need to support the Ukrainian army. Let's grant him, this talent to have played it on several levels: Operatic explanations, strategic explanations and finally, it does not matter, Russia will collapse.

He begins by setting the scene and provokes a feeling of guilt because he explains that Ukraine was not sufficiently supported between 2014 and 2022. Funny, for those who remember the reports which show that 80,000 Ukrainian soldiers were trained during these years. The general also forgets the regular problems of Ukrainian officers who have gratified various Western military academies with small celebrations embellished with Nazi salutes. Our governments have massively supplied arms to this country. Admittedly, this was insufficient to compensate for the weapons of Soviet origins that the government of this country sold to the four corners of the world. It will also be noted that the Russian artillery is of Soviet origin which they did not sell. Our countries are therefore asked to compensate for the Ukrainian sellout.

Once we've swallowed our dose of guilt, it's time for the excitement of victory. Our brilliant general to be sure to cover all the possibilities offers us three possible scenarios: Russian victory, Ukrainian victory, draw. Congratulations, everything is covered, the seriousness being demonstrated, the time has come to prove to the public that the Russian victory is improbable. Good manoeuvre, the flanks are secure, the time for the offensive in the centre – Ukrainian victory – has come.

Our general proves his cavalry experience and the dragoon charges sabre drawn: The Russians would have serious military weaknesses in all areas, would lack equipment and ammunition. Do not add more, they are dressed for winter, thank you for having made up for the shortcomings of Russian stewardship. However, later he will explain to us that the Russians have an advantage of heavy means over the Ukrainians. The truth is variable geometry like the F14.

Unfortunately, this marvellous machine was replaced by the F18 which renounced this capacity. Maybe because some contortions are difficult to assume! And so the general recognises that without receiving NATO armour Ukraine is unable to attack while the Russians have the initiative. After the Kiev counter-offensives of the summer were so much praised, we will admit the subtlety with which our expert recognises that the Russians have now regained the strategic initiative without ever pronouncing the term. Not having the same excellent education, I would allow myself blasphemy against the ambient popular opinion that you defend. 

So Russia has the initiative and Ukraine apart from taking back some territories, has not obtained strategic gains. The war continues and the situation is the same as before the offensives, a fine example of advantage, dare I use the term? Wasted. Thank you Gentlemen for having the honesty to prove it to us when we read your hollow speech.

Your skill in propaganda no longer needs to be demonstrated, although the Russian army lacks everything, and is idiotic, it has managed to regain the initiative as it went on a new set of nifty manoeuvres.

Do I dare, as a civilian, to question your great wisdom? But if, as you say, the Russians are organising another set of nifty manoeuvres, and are at parity in numbers with the Ukrainians overall. So, mathematics would say that on the front the Russians are in numerical inferiority. How, then, can this third class army take Soledar and attack to the north while still preparing its new set of manoeuvres?

General, I'm going to end up imagining that you missed out on your career. You should not have served in the regiments of dragoons, but of hussars which corresponds more to what I perceive of your less adventurous soul.

But let's know how to slide mortals, the Russians will have the initiative, but fortunately they will only make mistakes. Because, for political reasons, they will have to attack and fail at kyiv. They failed once, they will fail twice because they are bad. To support this scenario, you are reserving for us that of the Battle of the Ardennes, which of course will happen again in the same way, because as everyone knows, Putin's Russians are Hitler.

You suddenly become very shy yet, with what means will our friends or rather, your friends because I do not want to be associated with these people, will they break the Russian? In the Ardennes, let me remind you, the Germans attacked with heavy tanks, equipment unsuited to the terrain, and in the South Patton led several divisions to support the defence.

We are no longer in 1944, but in 2022. Where will the Ukrainians find a Patton and the air superiority that the allies enjoyed? In March, the Russians engaged a few tens of thousands of men, out of a battle corps of barely a hundred thousand men. This time, the numbers have increased substantially, it is likely that on both sides they are three or four times those of spring. You certainly have better numbers than mine. Opposite, the metropolis of kyiv, formidable obstacle by the simple figure of its population had to, you will allow me the hypothesis, to lose inhabitants. The obstacle has therefore lost its relative value.

Still, you will allow me to have the wickedness not to share your scenario on the epic towards the Ukrainian capital. It would certainly be aesthetically beautiful, but I would have two objections:

The first policy, contrary to what you lead us to believe, conquer kyiv, a decisive manoeuvre in Spring 2022, would it still be a year later? I would dare to say no, the command centres had to be dispersed, I doubt that the officers who help the Ukrainian army are in this metropolis. Above all, Ukrainian communication has centred the conflict around Mr Zelensky and it is unlikely that the Russians will capture him in an action against the capital.

The Russians are therefore, you will forgive me for having an opinion, even if it is the essence of a democratic debate, forced to go there the old way. The brilliant officer that you are certainly knows the Napoleonic campaigns. So you know that the only capital taken by main force, Moscow, did not bring him the hoped-for victory. If he won it was because the battles destroyed the opposing army. The decisive battle is the one that destroys the enemy's military tool.

So, if we echo your opinion, the Russians must do something decisive. They can pursue the political option, but a commando tasked with killing President Zelensky would give them the same advantage. Or, they can target the opposing army! I know that Putin, when he is not busy dying of his multiple illnesses, is the devil and the reincarnation of Hitler. But, despite his poor health when he speaks, he produces a speech in which those who listen to him can distinguish a certain meaning. What's he saying ? Denazification and destruction of Ukrainian military potential.

I know, General, that on your proud steed, the clanking of armour makes it impossible to listen to the enemy, but allow those who are with their feet in the mud and pay the bill to relay this speech to you. Denazification, destruction of Ukrainian military potential and weapons provided by NATO. It sounds like: The objective is the Ukrainian army, and once destroyed it will have achieved two objectives: To impose on the Ukrainians to give in to its demands and to gain the prestige of the one who will have defeated what is today for the world opinion the main body of battle of NATO. A victory in Kiev will not grant him this second benefit.

And that leads me to my second objection. I'm going to have to be mean and hurt your feelings, please forgive me for this lack of benevolence. The horseman that you were before being in staff cannot be unaware that the machine gun destroyed the troops mounted on horseback. Let me remind you of this sad memory for your weapon. Your Polish friends you meet at NATO HQ will certainly be able to remind you of what happens when troops, admittedly brave, load machine guns. A real harvest effect! They also have a burning memory, since it is their last war. Yes, I know, it is mean of me to recall that our accomplices refused to ally with the Russians against the Germans. They pushed Molotov into the arms of Ribbentrop and thus succeeded in annihilating their independence for fifty years. Fortunately, today they can influence our foreign policy and European institutions.

The Russians are much more pragmatic people and they knew how to win their war and destroy the Germans. The NATO countries could not have liberated Western Europe without the Nazi defeats in the east. In this painful ordeal they were able to learn and have since maintained this quality. It is therefore likely that they have analysed the situation between the cuirass and the sword and since the spring operations they seem to have understood that the missiles now stand in front of the tanks as the machine guns once stood in front of the cavalry. As I told you, I beg your pardon for evoking what is for a mounted soldier a traumatic memory. (The cavalry almost disappeared). Perhaps this is the reason that prevents you from understanding this new deal. You prefer to attribute the slowness of operations to the incompetence of the Russian army. It suits you to sell us your thesis: The Russians do not carry out a great offensive and therefore that means that they are not capable of it. Understood, look at the breakthroughs of WWII, they're not even at that level. But the standard meter seems wrong to me, and it seems to me that the Russians have also understood it. Faced with missiles the only solution becomes to eliminate the enemy by fire before occupying his trenches. This is also the nibbling we are witnessing.

It will not have escaped you that the Russians after the capture of Soledar did not attempt to initiate a breakthrough. This can be attributed to incompetence, but perhaps to a more accurate vision of the tremendous lethality of fire at the start of this century. The hypothesis deserves to be examined, after all against Hezbollah in 2014 the Israelis encountered the same difficulties despite their Merkava. Modern ammunition, Javelin, Kornet… seem capable of offering a very good impact rate and piercing all known armour. Whether they will maintain their advantage, no one knows, but producing a generation of defences against these weapons will take longer than the likely duration of the conflict. We are talking about five to ten years of development so that the means that will be tested this year are reviewed and corrected.

However, you do not even approach this option, the only plan that you propose for our consideration is that of a strike on the head on the model of the Americans who left to occupy Baghdad. I understand this evokes glorious memories for you and you will not be the first officer to relive his youth as he plans the new war. Japanese admirals often relived Tshuchima when planning the battles of World War II. This does not imply that this is the correct method.

Since we are talking about history, allow me to remind you of a general who was also called a butcher in his day and whom President Lincoln's wife strongly criticised. General Grant who carried out the anaconda plan that broke the Southerners during the Civil War. It was he who, by dint of method and fire, forced a certain General Lee to lay down his arms.

You use history to give credibility to your assumptions, you will allow me to return the favour. I allow myself to note that the operations on this date validate this model. The Russians have parity in men, you tell us, very well. You recognise that they have the material superiority and therefore the firepower advantage. The deluge of shells suffered by the Ukrainians seems to give credibility to an exchange of losses very unfavourable to the Ukrainian side. It is therefore likely that parity will soon become Russian numerical superiority and then the front under considerable pressure may collapse as the German front did in 1918. You will forgive this collection of inglorious military experiences, but what do you want? you, I'm just a poor number-focused industrialist.

However, the strategy seems credible to me, the Russians can multiply the axes of threats and force the Ukrainians to disperse their forces. Especially given that the destruction of the electricity network weakens the strategic mobility of the defenders and reduces the means reaching the front from the west.

If we see that the Ukrainians had to organise the rotation of their units in Bakhmout/Soledar, how many trouble spots will they still be able to accept?

As you can see, other scenarios are possible and correspond to a simple extrapolation of current operations. The Russians would then have a chance of winning probably greater than your assessment.

But, forgive me, I forgot that legendary epics always end well. So you assured us that the most likely scenario was a Ukrainian victory. Obviously we will not dare to contradict the public sentiment, it is obvious that the camp that you honour with your benevolence will win after all, they have already conquered your heart. However, if you have the eyes of Chimene I would wish you the eloquence of Cyrano.

To my great disappointment you assure us that the Ukrainian victory will come from a Russian error. What a lack of breath, you had started so well. I know that the Russian nullity is an obvious fact for yours. We experienced better control of his destiny. But since you have showered us with historical examples let me remind you that World War II was won by an alliance of Slavic under-men and Negro power, that is how Hitler portrayed the Americans. Racism is rarely a good tool for military analysis, but I grant you that for propaganda it is a much better argument. Those who are convinced by this, however, risk being a little disappointed if these despised Russians win the conflict. Let's bet that by then, your colleagues in Mons will be able to slip you an argument to prove that it is a victory despite everything.

So, while waiting, the brave Ukrainian is reduced to waiting for the Russian offensive, which he will counter because the mujik is a bad soldier. Then, once this miracle has been accomplished, he will be able to receive tanks that will allow him to take the offensive and win.

Unless the West, stingy, does not provide the means and the conflict ends in a draw. In this case you assure us that it will only be the prelude to the next war.

But then, General, why do you then spend your time explaining to us that Russia is going to collapse? If the war is to resume in a few years, Russia will still be there, but we are no longer close to a contradiction.

Because, I must recognise myself in admiration of your competence, my general. You missed your career if you allow me. You would have made such a good guesser! Announce nothing less than the collapse of Russia and its partition into weaker entities. Thank you for publishing NATO's war aims, I assure you the documents on the subject are known to those who want to know. But what a talented actor, to make Volodymyr Zelensky pale. One might think that you were regretting what was about to happen and that you were revealing information denied to ordinary mortals. What a pity that the temple of Delphi is now destroyed, you could have relocated there.

But I'm mean, unlike the augurs, you give us some motives that we can analyse. I grant you that I prefer, I am not good at recognising the flights of birds. You develop three main reasons on which I will allow myself to cross your swords.

The first reason is that Russia is a state in demographic decline. Your concern for this population honours you. But if it's going to collapse for that reason, what do we do with the other twenty-one states that are also experiencing population reduction?2 ? Who will collapse the first of Russia which falls by 0,1% per year (in a thousand years it will remain a third of their population) or of our neighbours and nevertheless friends the Germans with 0,2% of fall. But let's be nice, let's take a more relevant case, like Ukraine, which lost 0,5% of its population per year before the war.

I would therefore like to tell you that this decline in population, however worrying it may be, and the Muscovite government is sensitive to it, is quite limited in terms of importance. We live in a modern world with a new demographic regime characterised by low mortality and a low birth rate. It would be enough for the Russian population to regain faith in the future for it to start having many families again. And we will certainly experience long, mild population declines followed by rapid spikes in population growth.

You will of course explain to us that the factors are cumulative and that precisely the Russians will not regain their confidence in the future because they are experiencing deindustrialisation. Coming from a Frenchman, the remark deserves applause. Are you sure that you criticise Russian power or were you leading a charge against Macronian power? Given the Russian investments in recent years and their resistance to sanctions, it would seem, however, that the industrial recovery is underway. It is moreover probable that soon our industrialists will protest against the Russian competition which we ourselves have forced to exist. 

To dispel all illusions, you add an additional factor which is the mafia, it is clear that between Russia and Ukraine the competition is fierce, but let's not insist. Yet then why did Russian pork production go from deficit to export after the sanctions following the annexation of Crimea? Did the Mafia invest directly in pigs or did the stench of pig farms trouble the gangsters?

You are left with the last argument, the incredible flexibility of the forms of Russian government which would weaken Russian power. Beware, the opposite is possible, Russian society accepts a certain mortality contrary to what you affirm and the forms of power, closer to their citizens than for example our government, can allow the Russian power to assume the pressure . Especially if the war ends with a Russian victory that transforms western Ukraine into a no man's land.

I allow myself at this stage to take leave, would I dare to offer you a little advice all the same? I know you have to beg for the bowl in Mons, sorry, we say consultant. It's a difficult job that requires regular chasing of contracts. Germany is looking for a Minister of Defense, Macronist France could also benefit from your skills. You have all the required qualities:

The ability to play the narrative for us with a look that would make a cocker spaniel pale, the closeness to the Anglo-Saxons. In short if you need a witness of "character", do not hesitate to ask me I would recommend you you will not mismatch within one of these two governments.

READ MORE:

https://www.agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/reponse-au-general-yakovleff-246124

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

By Dmitry Plotnikov

Russia’s offensive in Ukraine has been ongoing for almost a year, and during that time many have come to see it as a war of liberation. People have headed to the front as volunteers, often without combat experience, leaving comfortable lives and career prospects behind. One such volunteer is Nikita Vlasenko-Irsetsky, a native Muscovite. Just a year ago, he was a successful product manager at an IT company, writing plays in his spare time and staging them in his home theater with friends.

In an interview with RT, Nikita told what encourages young Russian men to fight in the conflict, explained how the Donbass militia differs from the regular Russian Army and private military companies (PMCs). He also told how the current struggle resembles ancient wars, and speculated on how he and his comrades-in-arms could change Russia for the better after their victorious return home.

RT: Workers in the IT field are often viewed as progressives, with anti-war views. Why did you go to war?

Nikita Vlasenko-Irsetsky: I seriously considered going to Donbass eight years ago, when the conflict had just begun. At that point, I’d been discharged from the Russian Air Force after military service and had entered university, but I still seriously considered joining the Donbass militia. At that time, I decided I was still too young and had too many family obligations, and therefore needed to get a higher education first. Over the years, the conflict faded and it became clear to me that they could do without me. I was an ordinary Moscow IT specialist, and there were enough experienced military personnel already there.

On February 24, 2022, a new round of this conflict began. At first, I was eager to go to the front as a war correspondent. I assessed my capabilities and the benefits I could bring: I can write; I’m not afraid of going to the front; I have some kind of military experience; and I empathize with the Russians of Ukraine, who have been fighting for their independence and the right to be Russian for eight years now. I made a rather impulsive trip but couldn’t cross the border between Russia and the DPR [Donetsk People’s Republic] due to coronavirus restrictions. The impulse passed and I eventually decided it was better to prepare myself and make a more rational decision about my role in this conflict. At the end of June, I realized it was necessary to volunteer for the army.

– But in 2014, you felt that you didn’t need to fight in this conflict. Why did your opinion change?

– The situation is different now. In February, it seemed that the Russian leadership had finally come to the conclusion that the Ukrainian issue needed to be resolved abruptly and definitively. It was impossible for me to stay away. Well, there was also a personal factor: when I’m making important decisions, I like to project myself into the future and imagine how I’d feel then, in light of what I’ve done now. And I realized that if I didn’t join this ‘Reconquista’, I’d have little respect for myself in the future, to put it mildly. And the rest was just details.

– And you didn’t see any other role for yourself other than a serviceman?

– Starting in June, no. Before that, I still had thoughts of becoming a war correspondent or humanitarian aid worker. And then somehow, I warmed to this idea of becoming a soldier and began to prepare.

My friend and I bought a drone and started traveling to Moscow Region. We drove to some remote station and then walked into the woods. We invented combat missions for ourselves: reconnaissance and so forth. We flew the drone over neighboring villages and marked them on a map. When I had more or less learned how to control a drone, I went to Donetsk for a while and asked to join some local volunteer organizations, explaining that I planned to volunteer as a UAV operator and needed to get some practical experience. Along with them, I delivered all sorts of useful things to the combat units.

Then I lucked out: I managed to go to the front near Ugledar for three days and work with a drone there. I got a taste for the job and realized that I liked it and wanted to do it. Moreover, I became confident that I could do it very well because I’m sufficiently versed in IT, drones, and firmware, and am in good physical shape. So, I needed to collect my equipment and volunteer. Especially then, it seemed to me that the conflict would end soon, and I needed to hurry, but at the same time, I wasn’t in a rush. Assault troops could recruit people with skills that I don’t have, but operating UAVs looked like a specialization where my skills would be valuable.

– Why did you decide to volunteer for the People’s Militia of the DPR, and not the Russian Armed Forces?

– Until last year, the Russian Armed Forces weren’t taking part in the conflict in Donbass. Up until February of 2022, it was a peacetime army. And in many ways, the Russian Armed Forces are still a peacetime army, even after several months of hostilities. Yes, the people’s militias of the republics of Donbass have their disadvantages. There are problems with technical equipment and supplies, but they have extensive combat experience. All the personnel – from privates to officers – understand that there’s a war going on.

Looking back on my experience serving in the Russian Army, I realized that during combat it’s better to have a bad commander of a wartime army than a good commander of a peacetime army. And, of course, vice versa if there’s no fighting.

In short, I realized it’s better to serve with those who have fewer weapons but a sounder understanding of the situation. Moreover, with the limited resources available to the people’s militias, these resources are used more judiciously. The people’s militias cannot physically afford to undertake rash maneuvers. Commanders who made decisions like that perished long ago.

– And why didn’t you consider serving in a PMC, for example, the Wagner Group?

– I thought about it, but then a certain ideological issue arose. Personally, I wanted some continuity with the centuries-old history of the Russian Army. Wagner is a new model. In addition, I wouldn’t really like to serve in a PMC from an epistemic, aesthetic, or ethical point of view (even though they are top-class professionals). Though this option held significant advantages, I still didn’t want to go to the ‘condottieri’. I joined the army, among other things, to gain some kind of honor, and this can only be done as part of the regular corps, even if it’s in the people’s militias. They have genuine prospects of coming under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defense. Wagner will always remain in the shadows, relatively speaking.

– How did you choose a specific unit within the People’s Militia of the DNR?

– A summer trip and a connection with the OPSB foundation [a volunteer organization that helps supply military personnel in Donbass] helped. During my visit in July, I worked with Vladimir Grubnik, helping him with humanitarian aid. Working with the OPSB in Donetsk, you get to know a lot of people from different units. I made a lot of useful contacts and acquaintances, carefully observed people, and gained an understanding of what conditions you’d find in which units. There’s no uniformity here.

Several options appeared quite quickly that later became specific proposals. So, I became an unofficial UAV instructor with one of the regiments of the People’s Militia of the DNR. I just trained fighters and taught them what I knew for about a month and a half. At that time, I was not even close to being a combat veteran and had no experience in the wider deployment of drones. All my experience boiled down to performing a number of reconnaissance tasks. I was more of a civilian in uniform who was well versed in drones and could explain how they worked to others so that they wouldn’t break them. And my students received combat experience on their own.

It all went well, so I was offered a position and signed a contract. I explained to the commanders that, in order to improve my skills as an instructor, I needed a combat job that would allow me to gain more experience to pass on to recruits. They fully approved, so now I alternate between teaching and fighting.

– Lately, states have been moving away from the idea of large armies making war a job for professionals. This conflict, however, is different. Many people without a military background (yourself included) volunteered right from the start, and a mobilization campaign followed. Given your experience, do you think war is a matter for professionals or every citizen’s duty?

– I like to say that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is very similar to ancient wars. Only helots [poor peasants heavily dependent on the state] and those who can sell a hundred cows to buy personal weapons and armor (if you want to be an effective fighter, of course) can afford to take part in this war. I think we’re moving back to a more classical concept of war. A warrior is really an essential profession, and it would make much more sense if fighting is left to those who are inclined towards it, not mobilized guys aged 18 or 20. Warriors should be mature men who’ve come to realize that it is their calling.

Right now, however, we’re at an inflection point where different ages are coming together. All at once, we’re seeing mobilized civilians, ‘condottieri’ from private military companies, ancient Spartans, who sold all their possessions to buy a hoplon (shield), a spear, and a xiphos (shortsword), and regular army formations. It’s a transitional period, rather eclectic in terms of military thinking. I believe the 21st century will witness a transition towards a different format that won’t rely on such large armies. Metaphorically speaking, the armed forces will have a lower proportion of protein and a larger proportion of nonferrous metals. This time is yet to come though, and right now, we’re seeing what we’re seeing given the current level of technology and demographic situation.

I personally think that the eclectic nature of the ongoing conflict makes it more fun. I like to observe things from two angles, as it were – as myself and as an onlooker, and this latter point of view gives me grounds for a bit of irony. We’re finding ourselves amid temporal and ideological chaos, but you have a gut feeling that our victory is inevitable and that what we’re doing is right. When I say “we,” I mean soldiers because political decisions are sometimes hard to explain, and it’s not up to me to comment on them anyway. But the people I meet here, in this war, don’t care much about these issues. Our people’s militias have an inexhaustible supply of fighting spirit, these guys just can’t retreat. They’re not fighting for some overseas colonies, it’s not a matter of playing an exciting military game. Everyone knows that, if they back down today, their families will be killed or abused. Nobody harbors any illusions.

– Many of your colleagues in IT left the country after the military operation began. Why do you think they did that?

– This is a very complex question. What you need to understand about IT is that it’s actually a highly specialized and inward-looking community. You don’t see the big picture or at least don’t make an effort to see it. Information technology is about improving efficiency, so people in this line of work prefer ideology to be served to them on a plate. Lots of my peers (and younger people, too) are rather susceptible and naive, they’re easy to convince.

Over the last hundred years, our state has enjoyed a monopoly on narratives, so its methods of conveying information have grown crude and primitive no matter what political regime is in power at any given time. Our domestic media are very low-tech and can be challenged even by individuals, let alone foreign states employing channels of soft power.

It’s true that a large amount of my colleagues have fled and scattered around the world, and it’s not clear what they are going to do. The status of an immigrant is by default a lowly one. You’re a stranger who has given up his culture for an alien one. Those who fled (and that’s where their naivety shows) voluntarily abandoned their country at a dangerous and trying time and ran to foreign states, mostly poorer ones and with cultures that are not complementary to their own culture. I feel really sorry for them. I think my future in my home country is much brighter than theirs. I wake up in the morning these days feeling that I know what I live for and being fully aware of doing a noble deed, protecting my people, and it gives me strength. It doesn’t matter what inconveniences I may have to put up with at the moment or what challenges and dangers I’m facing. At the end of the day, I know why I’m here and what I’m fighting for. Which is more than I can say about the guys who left.

I keep in touch with colleagues who fled Russia even though I feel alienated from them. We chose very different and to a certain degree opposing paths. People make their own choices, and I’m entitled to my subjective opinion about their departure. That said, there are nuances to consider. Some left because they were afraid of mobilization, and the reason they were afraid is that they are not warriors. I can understand these people. But still, they ran away.

It's a different story when people all of a sudden begin to badmouth their own motherland. I think it shows them as people who were fooled and indoctrinated by other centers of power. I’m not pretending to be “above the fray” here, I’m fighting in a war and I’m a target of propaganda too, but let it be my propaganda. After all, I’m an educated big-city guy who can analyze information and figure out on his own what’s worth fighting for in this war and against whom. And I’m not talking about the war that started in February 2022, I’m talking about the one that started on May 2, 2014, when Ukrainians were burning people alive in Odessa.

I prefer to be with my own kind as we make mistakes and celebrate triumphs. That’s better than being some kind of dandelion scattered around the world, living in some strange, confusing cultures, and struggling to make at least some sense of one’s status and future prospects.

– Have you changed your attitude to the enemy during your time here?

– What I’ve noticed is that the farther away you get from the frontlines, the more bloodthirsty everyone is. Let me explain. I’ve been following the developments since the very start of the SMO [Special Military Operation]. I looked at German-speaking, English-speaking, Ukrainian, and Russian outlets, I monitored Telegram channels, trying to get as much information as possible. Understandably, it does skew your perception, which is what happened to me during the first few weeks.

But now that I’m here, I no longer need to emphasize my hatred of the enemy, call him names, or engage in other kinds of fist-shaking. This is what people do out of helplessness as an attempt to justify their inaction. You’re living your life away from the frontlines but, every night, you like to switch gears for half an hour and chat online about how you hate those “Ukrainian pigs,” “Ukronazis,” etc. When you’re on the battlefield, you don’t have time for petty ambition. You’re here, you’re at war, you’re doing everything that’s in your power. You don’t have to convince yourself that you’re involved because it’s obvious. And you don’t need any verbal outbursts to anchor your involvement. You just know that, yes, there’s an enemy out there. As a rule, no one insults the enemy, sometimes people use expletives, but these are not ideology-driven.

Once, we were supporting an attack by dropping grenades from UAVs. It was morning, the enemy didn’t expect drones at all. One of our guys hit three people with a fragmentation round [a 30×29 grenade used as ammo for the AGS-17 Plamya automatic grenade launcher], they fell like dominoes and started writhing on the ground. Our guy was happy, but only because it was a job well done. Here, no one’s trying to humiliate the enemy verbally because there are other means. If you know how to use them – use them.

– What would constitute victory in this conflict for you?

– Personally, I decided that I would go on fighting until the Armed Forces of Ukraine and all those who took up arms and have been fighting Russians for almost nine years are no longer a threat. Routing this army will be the foundation of our victory.

– When this war is over, many veterans will return home. How will they change Russia?

– There are two ways this word is understood in Russia. Historically, a veteran is a guy in his 50s who’s close to retirement but is still in the army. He has experience, which he shares with younger people. We’ll have quite a few veterans like that after this conflict. The inevitable growth of the number of veterans is just one of the fundamental changes we can expect in the future.

There’s also our civil society, which has been helping the army. I used to think that all those volunteer organizations collecting their meager donations were just a drop in the ocean as opposed to what one signature in a high place can accomplish. I didn’t take them seriously. But last July, when I had a chance to work with the OPSB in Donetsk, I realized what a huge financial stream those individual donations formed together and what a long way capable volunteers could make it go. Smart financial management on the ground and motivated people like Vladimir Grubnik are a formidable force.

Civil society right now is much more efficient at equipping soldiers than the Defense Ministry. People have learned to resolve issues where the government is stalled. A huge number of horizontal links have emerged during the conflict. This is a positive development which may not be obvious at first sight, but is more important than all the captured cities. So, talking about change in Russia, I’d focus not just on veterans but also on this nascent civil society, which was all but destroyed during Soviet times.

By Dmitry Plotnikov, a political journalist exploring the history and current events of ex-Soviet states

READ MORE:

https://www.rt.com/russia/570705-if-we-back-down-today/

READ FROM TOP.

SOME PEOPLE WOULD CALL THIS "RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA" AND SO BE IT. AS PROPAGANDA IS CONCERNED THIS ONE IS CLOSER TO THE TRUTH THAN THE AMERICAN BULLSHIT THAT THE WESTERN MEDIA IS FORCED TO SWALLOW AND REGURGITATE.

UKRAINE'S DESTINY IS TO LOOSE THIS CONFLICT THAT IT (UNDER AMERICAN INFLUENCE AND ORDERS) FULLY STARTED IN 20I4. UKRAINE WILL HAVE TO MAKE A DEAL SOON, WHETHER THE LITTLE CLOWN IN KIEV LIKES IT OR NOT.

CONSIDER THAT THE TRUTH IS STILL IN AN ANGLO/SAXON PRISON: 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....