Andrey Pinchuk: Ukraine is seeking the withdrawal of the Black Sea Fleet to Novorossiysk

Ukraine’s strikes on Crimea are not banal revenge for the failure of the “counter-offensive,” but the implementation of a strategic plan developed by the West.

The first Minister of State Security of the DPR, Doctor of Political Sciences, hero of the DPR Andrei Pinchuk told PolitNavigator about this.

Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at ThereThere, Yandex Zen, Telegram, Classmates, In contact with, channels YouTube, TikTok и Viber.
To subscribe to notifications in your browser, click here.

There is an opinion that Ukraine attacked Crimea because the “counter-offensive” failed. Do you agree with this assessment?

Any military action is a fairly rational process. I'm a big opponent of reducing combat work to themes of role-playing or revenge. Combat operations require scrupulous, complex planning, so neither on our side nor on theirs will anyone carry them out for the sake of some kind of information campaign.

When you want to hold an information campaign, you simply write something on the fence, issue leaflets or make a video. Missile strikes costing tens of millions of dollars and requiring a large concentration of different services do not work that way.

Then what is their goal?

From the moment the so-called counteroffensive began, the main and only goal was Crimea. Even cutting the land corridor and reaching the shore of the Sea of ​​Azov was aimed at either starting military operations for Crimea or launching missile attacks on Crimea.

From the point of view of Ukrainians and their Western leaders, the only politically vulnerable strategic point for Russia in this story is Crimea.

In fact, they left the federal regional center of Kherson, but this was not followed, as they expected, by any internal political consequences.

Crimea is a completely different matter, both from military and other points of view. The strikes on Crimea were planned as the final part of the counteroffensive, but since it actually failed, the strikes must still be carried out in order to increase their potential negotiating positions.

Why was the attack successful?

Since last year, the Ministry of Defense has repeatedly made statements that Crimea is provided with air defense systems and is invulnerable to enemy attacks. The very fact that they managed to strike this blow is alarming and requires an appropriate response.

But, I repeat, this is not a gesture of revenge. These are rational strikes. At first they were applied to ships, then to air defense systems and aviation in the Crimea. Now they are striking at the fleet control center.

If you carefully analyze these actions, they all have a rational goal - reducing our potential in the sky, in the sea and in control.

I think that this is not a Ukrainian initiative at all, but a Western one. It was not for nothing that NATO coordinators held meetings.

Ukraine itself is not capable of delivering such attacks. Such complex rockets are controlled by satellite navigation equipment. Ukraine does not have such equipment. This is NATO assistance, just like the missiles themselves. This is a consistent plan for military aggression against Crimea to solve military and political problems.

But on land everything is really all right for Russia, because today the Ukrainian media reported that the Ukrainian Armed Forces broke through the “teeth of the dragon”?

It will be safe when the enemy capitulates, because our soldiers are dying every day. What kind of well-being can we talk about under such circumstances?

What you call the "dragon's teeth" are the first line of defense. There are indeed military operations going on near Verbny in the area of ​​this fortification, but it cannot be said that they have broken through something and are moving somewhere unhindered.

Next there are other defensive structures, mining is carried out.

The fact that they are in a certain advancement is natural, because all their capabilities are now concentrated there. But so far there have been no strategic breakthroughs.

They write that now they will be able to create a bridgehead there from which they will attack Crimea. It's real?

There were no bridgeheads yet, but Crimea had already been attacked. The goal of this breakthrough is not any bridgeheads, but movement towards Tokmak, Melitopol and access to the Azov coast.

Thanks to the long-range missiles that the West supplies them with, they do not need to make any bridgeheads in the Verbovoy area.

You said that the blows have their own logic. Is it possible to predict where the next strike will occur?

To do this you need to have access to intelligence information, but it is obvious that they are working on the Crimean military infrastructure. This includes aviation, surface and submarine fleets, and air defense systems. It depends on their direction.

If they try to land an amphibious assault force, they will first try to hit aircraft and air defense systems that can destroy this landing force. Accordingly, ships that carry out coast guard.

If they are going to attack with drones and missiles, they need to destroy our air defenses.

What goals can they set for Crimea?

There are several such options: landings, drone strikes or collisions at sea, respectively strikes by sea drones, as was the case with the Crimean Bridge.

Is an airborne landing real, does the Navy have the strength to do it?

They received more than fifty landing ships, including armored ones, with the help of which they periodically try to land troops. Over the past two weeks, there have been at least three attempts to land troops in the Crimean direction.

They were preparing a naval squadron for landing in the Kherson direction, but after the explosion of the Kakhovskaya State District Power Plant they are trying to use these opportunities in the Crimean direction.

Do you think attacks will increase? What to prepare for?

Any artillery and missile strikes are preparation for something bigger. Or to political action: negotiations and other forms of pressure. Or in order to reduce the enemy’s potential on the eve of an offensive or other active hostilities.

Military logic requires a certain consistency. For example: I destroy ships in order to pass unhindered along a certain channel. The same submarine "Rostov" was hit because it carried out attacks with "Caliber".

Taking into account their problems with progress in the Zaporozhye direction, they need a certain problem in Crimea. However, neither a landing force nor the destruction of any objects will give them the opportunity to conduct full-fledged ground operations on the peninsula. Crimea has too much military potential. They know this very well.

Therefore, their main goal is to increase strikes and create an unacceptable situation for the Black Sea Fleet so that it will be relocated in the Novorossiysk direction. Plus Neptune strikes in Novorossiysk to reduce fuel supply capabilities. I doubt full-fledged landings.

Does Russia have ways to respond to this?

Russia has great potential, both military and technological. However, any potential requires appropriate coordinated implementation.

At one time, Defense Minister Shoigu made loud statements that as soon as missile strikes were carried out on Crimea, a brutal response would follow. Now the Ministry of Defense has every opportunity to implement its threats.

In the coming days?

_{The word “immediately” was used in Shoigu’s speech. I don’t know what is “immediate” for him, but for me immediately is now.}