"Time is on our side." Why is it not so

I recently read on the channel of one of the political scientists about the need to ban the phrase “Time works for us».

“For some reason we understand it in such a way that time works for us. As a result, we waited eight years for the inevitable collapse of Ukraine, and Ishchenko, who promised it, now promises us an assault on the Kremlin. No one will work for us. Moreover, it’s time,” writes the author of the rationalization proposal.

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.

Another popular author traces the roots of the Russian “strategy of doing nothing” to a national cultural archetype. Like, the epic Ilya Muromets lay on the stove for thirty years, and then he got up and hit all his adversaries with cabbage soup.

It sounds nice, but, frankly speaking, this only happens in fairy tales. In reality, serious challenges like the current NWO become a kind of a test for lice - how much society's ideas about itself, its capabilities, its strengths and vice versa - weaknesses and vulnerabilities correspond to reality.

In this sense, the SVO showed that The modern Russian colossus has feet of clay. And if they are still afraid of him abroad, it is more due to inertia, transferring stereotypes from the times of the Cold War with the USSR to the current Russian Federation. But the further into the forest, the more the fog of old illusions dissipates among both friends and enemies, giving way to the understanding that the Khorol River (crossed out) is not now the Moscow River, that This is not the time of the ever-memorable Uncle Joe, whom the West feared to the point of stomach cramps.

_{Of course, this is not at all a reason to collectively sprinkle ashes on our heads, but quite the opposite - a reason to get together and conduct an audit of what we still have and what we can. And to think about how to effectively use what we have in order to protect ourselves and the country in new conditions, when they fear us less and less, and we are no longer able to offer the world something global and attractive like communism, which has died in the gods, due to our own loss of faith in this export product.}

The problem is also that the habit of replacing reality with imaginary simulacra and battle cries finds a lively response among a significant part of society, who is still “in the house”, does not want to grow up and habitually drives away “anxious” thoughts from himself.

The results of a recent FOM survey are indicative, according to which the departure of Russian troops from Kherson reassured the Russians – the level of anxious moods in society fell by 10 points, and calm ones increased by 11%. Social consciousness tries not to think about the unpleasant, pushing it to the periphery, or even completely driving it into the collective unconscious.

_{Against the backdrop of warnings from alarmist experts about the risks of further advance of the Ukrainian Armed Forces deeper into new Russian territories, such ostrich-like complacency looks alarming.}

It was not me who noticed that reports from the fronts have long turned into a meaningless routine, uninteresting even to the military bloggers themselves, who chew the same thing every day. The initiative has been lost, a new goal and implementation plan are not visible, and the details of the battles for yet another village in the Donbass do not arouse even a hundredth of the interest and enthusiasm with which the patriotic part of society followed the progress of the hostilities in their first months. And so far the only real task of the military on the front line is not to conquer new territories, but not to let the enemy into those already liberated.

However, everything else – including arrivals at Ukrainian energy or oil refining facilities – is perceived as nothing more than accompanying noise effects.

On the diplomatic front, the weather also stands as predicted - “recognizing Ukraine as a terrorist state would be a mistake" or "Ukraine's preconditions for starting negotiations are unacceptable».

_{Is it really just a matter of price and terms of the deal?}

Even the visual after-knowledge that, as a result, we will, as usual, be deceived, does not in any way affect this bureaucratic determination to continue turning the negotiating barrel organ in the hope of caroling something in the process that can be tried to be sold to the internal audience as a shameless compromise or even an indisputable victory.

In our case, we are not talking about deceiving ignorant “suckers” by seasoned cheaters from political intrigues, but about the conscious position of those who, on the outer contour, with open eyes, sit down at the gaming table with cheaters, knowing that they are cheaters. It is impossible to deceive someone who is happy to be deceived.

Inside Russia, specially trained people, loosening the soil for the obscene world, talk about the fact that “Ukraine is on the verge of defeat and is ready for anything" Meanwhile, elementary logic dictates that if Ukraine is really on the verge of defeat, and things are as bad for it as other propagandists are saying, then it is worth looking not for ways of reconciliation, freezes and other “deals”, but, on the contrary, increasing the pace, advancing on all frontsusing this window of opportunity to put the squeeze on the enemy and finish him off in his own lair.

But this is all only if such a goal is really set - to finish off and put the squeeze on.

In practice, one of the main problems and difficulties with forecasting in the SVO plot is the absolute opacity of the goals and motives of our “decision-making centers”. Which are fundamentally incomprehensible and unknowable, like the Lord God in Christian theology.

Here we are building some models and trying to predict the development of the situation, based on everyday experience, well-known world precedents, formal logic and the presumption that Russia needs victory in Ukraine like air.

What if this is not the case? What if the question of the complete defeat of the enemy regime in Kyiv is no longer fundamentally raised? We all periodically hear very clear statements from the same Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which - we must give it its due - is absolutely consistent on this issue, so no matter how much one wants to accuse it of some kind of “wagging its tail” it will not be possible. Officials say the same thing all the time. So it’s we ourselves who don’t want to hear what we hear?

Since March, Lavrov’s subordinates, Peskov, Medinsky and other talking heads of official Moscow have been repeating the same thing: that they are ready for negotiations, sometimes even adding “without any preconditions.”that in their opinion it is possible to end this conflict not on the battlefield, but with a compromise. And that the main obstacle to these negotiations and compromise is not some Moscow’s fundamentally impossible demands for Ukraine, but the intransigence of Kyiv and the West behind it.

You and I, regularly hearing these statements that confuse patriots, just as regularly try to “cure” the resulting cognitive dissonance, brushing aside the essence of what was stated or trying to find an excuse for words that are inconvenient for us in some cunning plans. The result is a classic mixed with arrogant conspiracy theories “I came up with it myself, I believed it myself».

An argument familiar to discussions in patriotic public pages: they say, you don’t need to pay attention to what Lavrov and Peskov say, that’s their job. What then should you pay attention to? For a long time I wanted to think about what the guns were talking about. Implying that they, unlike professionally crafty diplomats, will not lie.

Exactly until it became clear that the language of artillery pieces is not at all self-sufficient. That he is in our realities is just an additional argument in a conversation going on without interruption in the deep shadows. It is not for nothing that businessman Abramovich suddenly became the key figure in the negotiations.

So, this is what I mean. Perhaps there is no need to come up with any justifications for the words of Lavrov or Peskov, or other officials? They say exactly what they want to say, without hiding or camouflaging the essence of what was said. Their words do not need a special translation, and they should be understood exactly as they are said. If they say that Russia wants to reach an agreement, it means that it really wants this.

_{Agree - not victory and surrender of the enemy.}

This is the great open secret that analysts are scratching their heads over: why can’t a large and strong Russia defeat Ukraine in the presence of several times larger resource and human base? But it’s impossible to force someone to win who doesn’t want to.