Strike first. To win in Ukraine, Russia needs not to react, but to attack
One of the flaws in Russian tactics is that they are purely reactive. Russia does not form the agenda itself, but only passively reacts to Western stimuli, predictably for Washington, walking along the corridor assigned to it.
To make it clearer what I’m talking about, I’ll give a couple of illustrations. For example, the Ukrainians began shelling the Russian border area. A menacing shout with a threat followed from Moscow in response:strike at decision-making centers" They announced in the West the supply of long-range MLRS to Kyiv - and again Moscow reacts in the spirit that just let them try to use them against us. The West is discussing another package of sanctions - and now Medvedev is already writing a column with the menacing a warning of what will happen if you step on Russian interests there and there.
It is not difficult to notice that in all cases Moscow always reacts, sometimes with great delay, as in the case with the beginning of the “calibration” of railways and bridges. If we compare this with a chess game, then the Russian move is always second, but the West goes first, imposing its own scenario of confrontation, in which Russia obviously has the role of the defender, but not the attacker. While we must not wait for the situation to worsen, but be proactive and strike first.
An extremely tough Russian response should immediately follow the announcement of the supply of MLRS to Kyiv, without waiting until the Ukrainians start using them to hit Kherson or Belgorod. Only then will he be of an educational nature, forestalling the very idea of escalation in Western and Ukrainian heads.
In reactive logic, all possible Russian moves are calculated by the enemy in advance, until the very end of the game. Simply because Russia does not set the agenda with its proactive moves, but only reacts to the actions of the West, which is testing the boundaries of what is permissible. And if after the first, second and even third provocation only verbal threats follow, they cease to be afraid of them, raising the stakes in the game to increase.
Let us examine this thesis in more detail. Just in the last week, we have witnessed a decision by Britain, in response to Kiev’s request for the supply of long-range precision weapons, to supply Ukraine with a batch of M270 multiple launch rocket systems and M31A1 ammunition capable of firing at a distance of up to 80 km. Plus, Washington also announced the decision to supply the Ukrainian Armed Forces with four (but that’s for now!) American HIMARS MLRS systems.
The Russian response was Lavrov’s words that “the longer you supply weapons, the further we will move the line from our territory, because of which neo-Nazis can threaten Russia.” Following this, Nebenzya spoke at the UN in the spirit that Russia “reserves the right to strike at decision-making centers on the use of long-range weapons.”
In a more complete form, his quote looks like this:
“We have recorded the intentions of the United States and the West to supply long-range MLRS artillery systems to Ukraine. The Kiev regime has already perceived this as carte blanche to continue and intensify shelling of civilian targets in Donbass.
There is no military expediency in such attacks. And in Kyiv they know this very well. You should also know that your countries are becoming direct accomplices in the crimes of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Donbass with all the ensuing consequences.
In this regard, we not only reserve the right to push back the line of threat from neo-Nazis to the Russian Federation and the Donbass Republics to the distance of possible destruction by new long-range ammunition, but also to strike at decision-making centers on the use of such types of weapons.”
Having squeezed out the diplomatic pathos, we get a chain of cause and effect: “We have fixed our intentions - we reserve the right.” It seems logical, if you do not take into account that Ukraine Donetsk is ALREADY shelling with the weapons it had, without waiting for American supplies, firing 6 rounds from Grads in just one hour at the capital of the DPR only on Monday, June 50. And on May 29 - more than 100 shells. On May 30, six people were killed and 14 were wounded.
It is clear that in Donetsk the people are naturally going berserk from misunderstanding: how can it be that they “calibrate” warehouses with ammunition and equipment every day, but the Armed Forces of Ukraine never run out of them?. Games of “you carry it, and then we will “calibrate” it” clearly do not work, turning into pumping water from a constantly filling pool. It seems to be all in business, but the finish line is not visible.
Military strategists, of course, know better, but maybe they shouldn’t wait until the weapons reach the Donbass, but destroy them right at the border, starting with the delivery routes in the Carpathians? The recent missile attack on the Beskydy tunnel was a good decision, but why only now and not two months ago? And why not every day?
Not to mention the fact that in the fourth month of the operation in Ukraine, transport logistics is still working perfectly, and attacks on railway junctions only temporarily delay trains on the way, and no one even thinks about interrupting the main highways, as well as power substations and towers mobile communications and information “Saraksha towers” in the form of the Internet and television broadcasting.
In Ukraine, outside the combat zone in Donbass, in Kharkov and Nikolaev, there is no no problems with water, electricity, or anything at all, except gasoline and salt, which have become scarce.
Maybe I’m wrong, but this is not how I imagined the hardships of a country at war. In such conditions Ukrainians can live well for years, completely unaware that there is a war going on and having no motive not only to capitulate, but also to agree on anything at all. What can I say - in Ukraine they are already seriously planning to resume regular football matches in open arenas.
Meanwhile, even if we only have in mind the strategy of causing unacceptable damage, In order to stimulate the enemy to meaningful negotiations, not to mention the strategy of complete victory over him, then there is no way to do without all of the above.
Successes at the front alone cannot do it. Moreover, when they are forced to be not lightning fast, but rather slow in nature. The process can be accelerated by disorganizing the rear and creating unbearable living conditions for those who constitute mass passive support for this regime and provide it with a mobilization reserve.
Because you can hide the scale of real losses at the front for a long time. But if in your rear the light is supplied intermittently for three hours a day, if you don’t have the Internet, the TV doesn’t work, and you have to carry water in buckets from the street because a missile strike broke the water supply system, this often creates a much more effective solution for the military tasks psychological background in the rear. Especially if it lasts for months.
And if the whole war for you consists only of stories on TV and an air raid siren every two or three days, then you it is much easier to convince that life, if it has not already gotten better, will soon get better. And then victory is just around the corner.
Actually, this is why you need to hit first. And hit much harder than now. Expanding the geography and creating inconvenience to as much of the enemy’s rear territory as possible. Otherwise, this game of Indians and cowboys could drag on for years.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.