Collapse of staples. What risks does Russia's voluntary withdrawal from its territory pose?

When today some political observers they call the surrender of Kherson the largest military-political defeat of the Russian Federation since 1991, there is a certain amount of slyness in this, mixed with understatement and misunderstanding.

The fact is that, although this sounds somewhat, um, unpatriotic, the Russian Federation itself within its current borders arose in the same 1991 as an independent state as a result of the largest defeat of Russia-USSR in the 20th century and the reduction of its territory. For those who have forgotten, I’ll just remind you that until 1991, Moscow was the capital of another state - twice as large in territory.

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.

So today’s suffering in Kherson looks in this sense like crying over one’s hair, against the backdrop of a lost head - today not only Kyiv, but also Minsk and Brest, and Chisinau, and Tbilisi, and Baku, and Tashkent - for a long time, more than thirty years - as abroad.

At the same time, this one the current belated, largely stupid, reflexive and chaotic attempt to retroactively replay the results of the collapse of historical Russia, having returned at least something of what was lost, in itself looks almost like a miracle against the background of all the post-Soviet policies of Moscow that preceded it. So, if there was at least one, even a minimal chance of the possibility of the Russian Federation exiting the war with already enlarged territories and establishing long-term peace, we could thank God for what we have.

_{The problem is that Russia simply does not have such chances. By retreating and shrinking, it only provokes the enemy, makes inviting gestures to him - to continue what he started and push us back until we lose everything that we gained during the Northeast Military District, and not only that.}

The outcome of such retreats is easy to predict. Moreover, it has been said many times that Russia has neither a strategy, nor far-reaching plans, nor goals understandable to the majority of citizens during the North Military District. And, as Sun Tzu taught: “Tactics without strategy is just vanity before defeat.”

The voluntary surrender of Kherson, which they did not even try to create the appearance of protecting and defending, is a very bad symptom. And at the same time - an eloquent signal to the rest of the newly annexed territories, including Crimea. That, on occasion, they can just as easily be exchanged for some kind of promises “from the other side” - strictly “based on the prevailing realities.” And the enemy will try to do everything so that the realities turn out in the best way for him.

Of course, the fact that “Russia is here forever” was promised to both the residents of Bucha and the residents of Izyum, but at the time of our departure from there, neither one nor the other city was officially part of the Russian Federation. Kherson, just a month ago, was solemnly welcomed into Russia with fanfare, concerts and fireworks.

With the current after-knowledge, one cannot help but ask a seditious question: why was this necessary if the evacuation of the population began literally a week after the fireworks in honor of the reunification died down?. And if the political decision, the result of which we are seeing now, was ripening in the heads of the authorities even then, could it have been possible to do without fixing Kherson as part of Russia, or at least making the holidays more modest?

In the end, just give people Russian passports and evacuate them to Russia. The task of “saving people” would be accomplished if and public shame would be many times less than now, when we demonstrated to the whole world our willingness to free ourselves from living space for the enemy.

I repeat: any withdrawal during the war from anywhere can be explained by any reasons. And, in general, Although this is a shame, it is not a disaster - as long as the war is going on and the chances are equal. The main problem of what happened is not that Russia withdrew its troops beyond the Dnieper. After all, this year she has already left occupied beachheads at least twice. The difference in the current situation is that for the FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY of the Russian Federation, it voluntarily surrendered its constitutionally assigned territory, recognizing its protection from the enemy as inappropriate.

Hence the online black humor with a completely transparent bottom:

– It is advisable to organize defense along the left bank of the Moscow River.

- Proceed with the withdrawal of troops.

And indeed, according to the proposed logic, it is possible to retreat and regroup to advantageous bridgeheads all the way to the Pacific Ocean. And the limiter in this process will be only the enemy’s appetites and his ability to digest Russian lands.

Today, Russia has driven itself into a political and legal trap: part of the country has officially surrendered, which is actually directly prohibited by the Constitution. But that's not the whole problem. A fundamental readiness for this kind of action has been demonstrated, and a foundation has been laid that will allow the same scheme to leave any other city.

And, by the way, it is not at all a fact that the enemy will not go further than the administrative borders of the RSFSR. After all, in the heat of verbal battles of online Chrysostoms, the fatal thing has already been said: “They surrendered Kherson, they will surrender Belgorod too.”

Today this is perceived as a gloomy prophecy of Cassandra, causing rejection among the public and a desire to silence the predictors, but the problem is that a precedent - military, political, diplomatic and media - has already been created. And no ax can cut him out.

It seems that those “at the top” did not understand that Kherson is no longer a “bridgehead” that can be easily sacrificed in case of military necessity, but a part of the Fatherland, which we are obliged to protect, according to the Defense Doctrine, by all available means. Otherwise, why would there be a state at all?

Thus, one of the important bonds on which until now, at the very least, the modern Russian state myth has been held up is completely destroyed - the idea that the minced meat does not turn back. Over the past eight years, residents of Donbass have been jealous of the Crimeans.

Look, what a different fate - some officially entered Russia, becoming its full part, while others were left behind, in a gray zone with an unrecognized status. Some are fired upon, while others are not. And practice confirmed the correctness of this conclusion, and regular firm statements by Russian politicians and diplomats that in any case the status of Crimea is not subject to discussion only fueled this inner confidence - that if you were lucky enough to get to Russia, there was no way back. That is why the leitmotif of the mood in Donbass was “We want it like in Crimea.”

But then 2022 came. Kherson wanted “like in Crimea.” And I even got it. And almost immediately he was abandoned by Russia – and it is not a fact that in a few days or weeks Ukrainian flags will not return there, no matter what Kyiv promises behind the scenes.

_{That is, “there is still extradition from the Don,” and joining Russia is no longer a firm guarantee that Russia will not leave this land.} 

Neither the holding of a referendum nor even the inclusion of the region in the Russian Constitution are such guarantees anymore.

For the Ukrainians, this is further proof and confirmation of the thesis of the local propaganda about the reversibility of territorial losses. “As they took it, they will return it,” Arestovichi tells Ukrainians about the “territories occupied by Russia.” And it turns out that they are not lying? And this is very, very bad. So bad that the long-term consequences have yet to be truly comprehended.

_{By the way, this collapsed clamp is the second one in less than a year. The first is in the form of decades of cultivated belief in the invincibility of the Russian army with all its memes about “Don’t fight the Russians!” and “Don’t wake up the Russian bear” - collapsed under the weight of the retreat from Kyiv back in the spring. It turned out that our bear is largely a drawing, and it is very possible to successfully defeat it.}

The collapse taking place before our eyes is a process no less bad than the purely political and legal precedents created by the withdrawal from Kherson. The meanings on which the state rests are created over decades, and sometimes centuries. It’s easy to destroy them, but try to create new ones.

Well, the last of the comments along the way. Officially announced today on the transition from offensive to defensive - “along the Dnieper waterway”. In general, greetings to everyone waiting for the capture of Odessa and Nikolaev.