Viktor Orban stressed that his government insists on settling the Ukrainian conflict by peaceful means and called on lawmakers to advocate this position
If you examine their winning tactic of attrition as witnessed by the hell hole of Bakhmut, what they are achieving is the slow, peace meal evisceration of the cream and core of what is in reality the 3rd - and final - Ukrainian army they have thus far faced.
"peace meal" is like a play on piecemeal, probably opposite a "war meal" and strangely enough, no matter how one spells it, does it matter much here which option one uses?
"peace meal" is like a play on piecemeal, probably opposite a "war meal" and strangely enough, no matter how one spells it, does it matter much here which option one uses?
Well, last time Khmielnicky, by the means of his 6 years (or 9, depending on which historian you ask) long uprising, filled with mass atrocities, against civilian population included, brought to Ukraine The Ruin period and eventually, the partition of Transnistrian Ukraine between the Republic of Poland and the Russian Empire. Is history going to repeat itself?
Regarding the partition of Ukraine, my opinion is that this is exactly what is happening now. In a nutshell, in what I see an analogy with the times of Khmelnitsky.
The basis of the Khmelnytsky uprising was the exorbitant oppression of the Ukrainian people by the Polish Gentry, i.e. the Polish nobility as representatives of the Polish kingdom (by the way, you have a Polish Republic, which of course is not the case. I think it's just inattention) and a religious factor (let's not forget that Khmelnitsky was Orthodox and clearly not he alone), i.e. the influence of external forces for Ukraine, or more correctly for Ukrainian society. This may be evidenced by the fact that the Khmelnytsky uprising was not the only one in those days. There was a whole series of uprisings, which were brutally suppressed by the Polish authorities with varying degrees of "bloodiness". It's just that Khmelnitsky turned out to be the most successful.
In the current situation, the same thing is happening, only external forces have changed. If in the old days Poland in the form of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth seems to have been a subject of politics, now Poland, like the rest of Europe, has largely lost its subjectivity and become objects of the policy of the Anglo-Saxons. Just like last time, they tried to impose something on the Ukrainian society from the outside, which eventually degenerated into outright Nazism. Part of the society did not accept this and began to fight against it. In the last paragraph I mentioned the bloody suppression of uprisings by Poland in the past. In the current situation, we have direct analogies in the form of the Odessa House of Trade Unions, where more than a hundred people "burned themselves", the shooting of the Mariupol city police Department and the Mariupol "library", where an unspecified number of people were tortured and destroyed, as well as the Kharkiv and Dnepropetrovsk events, where there were no fewer victims, they just did not become such famous.
Now about Russia's participation in these processes. During the time of Khmelnitsky, the territories under his control entered the Roossian Empire after far from the first appeal of Khmelnitsky to the Russian Tsar. In the current situation, an objectively looking person cannot say that Russia organized the uprising. Yes, Russia supported the rebels, in my opinion, not in a sufficient way, i.e. in both cases, Russia entered into the processes already taking place at certain stages. Again an analogy.
Now what all this can lead to. Of course, I do not know whether there will be a division of Ukraine or not. We can only say definitely that there is a split in Ukrainian society. There is an objective need for Russia to completely destroy the political regime of the current Ukraine as a constant threat. Russia will obviously try to achieve its goals and in what form Ukraine will remain after at least a few options.
I would like to touch on some more points.
You write about "mass atrocities against peaceful people", the period of devastation and division of the country as if Khmelnitsky is personally responsible for it. I look at it a little differently. As I mentioned above, "mass atrocities against peaceful people" were the basis of the Khmelnytsky uprising and the success of this uprising may indirectly indicate that his "mass atrocities" were less terrible than the "mass atrocities" of his opponents.
Next, about "peaceful people". The Cossacks are in themselves a paramilitary organization of society. The Poles, by the way, establishing their power, very systematically fought against this and tried to make the Cossacks ordinary peasants.
Further, as for the devastation and division, this is a consequence of any conflicts and in the case of Khmelnitsky, his uprising was more or less an objective realization of the needs of society at that time, bearing in mind the many uprisings in Ukraine before him at that time. Separation is one of the options for resolving the conflict, which is implemented in specific conditions.
It would be interesting to me, if i have C's capabilities, to look at many processes. With regard to Ukraine and looking from the "Cassiopeian heights", I would not be surprised if I saw the same source of external force influencing events in Ukraine during the time of Khmelnitsky and now.
In conclusion, I would like to say why Bogdan Khmelnitsky was taken as the name of that battalion. This character in our Soviet and Russian tradition is perceived as a symbol of the unification of the peoples of Russia in general, regardless of specifically to Ukraine, but to it, of course, first of all.
These are the "two words" I got.
По поводу раздела Украины, мое мнение, что именно это сейчас и происходит. В двух словах, в чем я вижу аналогию с временами Хмельницкого.
Основой восстания Хмельницкого явился запредельный гнет украинского народа со стороны польской Шляхты, т.е. польского дворянства как представителей Польского королевства (кстати у вас Польская республика, что конечно же не так. Я думаю, что это просто невнимательность) и религиозный фактор (не забудем, что Хмельницкий был православным и явно не он один), т.е. влияние внешних для Украины, или правильней сказать для украинского общества, сил. Об этом может говорить то, что восстание Хмельницкого было не единственным в те времена. Там была целая серия восстаний, которые жестоко, с разной степенью "кровавости" подавлялись Польскими властями. Просто Хмельницкий оказался наиболее успешным.
В текущей ситуации происходит тоже самое, только внешние силы изменились. Если в прежние времена Польша в виде Речи Посполитой похоже, что была субъектом политики, то теперь Польша, как и остальные страны Европы во многом потеряли свою субъектность и стали объектами политики анлго-саксов. Так же как и в прошлый раз Украинскому обществу извне попытались навязать нечто, в итоге выродившееся в откровенный нацизм. Часть общества это не приняла и стала бороться против этого. В прошлом абзаце я упомянул о кровавых подавлениях восстаний Польшей в прошлом. В нынешней ситуации мы имеем прямые аналогии в виде Одесского Дома Профсоюзов, где более сотни людей "сами себя сожгли", расстрела Мариупольского горотдела полиции и Мариупольской же "библиотеки", где замучено и уничтожено неустановленное количество людей а так же Харьковские и Днепропетровские события, где жертв было не меньше, просто они не стали такими известными.
Теперь об участии России в этих процессах. Во времена Хмельницкого территории, находящиеся под его контролем вошли в Рооссийскую Империю после далеко не первого обращения Хмельницкого к Русскому Царю. В нынешней ситуации объективно смотрящий человек не может сказать, что Россия организовала восстание. Да, Россия поддержала восставших, на мой взгляд не достаточным образом, т.е. и в том и в другом случае Россия вступала в уже происходящие процессы на определенных этапах. Опять аналогия.
Теперь к чему все это может привести. Будет или нет разделение Украины я естественно не знаю. Можно сказать определенно только то, что раскол в украинском обществе существует. Существует объективная необходимость для России полностью уничтожить политический режим нынешней украины, как постоянную угрозу. Россия очевидно будет добиваться своих целей и в какой форме останется украина после пока вариантов как минимум несколько.
Я бы хотел коснуться еще некоторых моментов.
Вы пишете о "массовых зверствах над мирными людьми", периоде разрухи и разделения страны так, как будто Хмельницкий лично за это ответственен. Я несколько по другому смотрю на это. Как я уже упоминал выше, "массовые зверства над мирными людьми" явились основой восстания Хмельницкого и успешность этого восстания косвенно может говорить о том, что его "массовые зверства" были менее страшными нежели "массовые зверства" его противников.
Далее о "мирных людях". Казачество это само по себе полувоенная организация общества. Поляки, кстати, устанавливая свою власть, очень планомерно с этим боролись и пытались сделать казаков обычными крестьянами.
Далее, что касается разрухи и разделения, это следствие любых конфликтов и в случае с Хмельницким, его восстание было более или менее объективной реализацией потребности общества на тот момент, имея ввиду множество восстаний на украине до него в те времена. Разделение один из вариантов решения конфликта, который реализуется в конкретных условиях.
Мне было бы интересно имея возможности C's, посмотреть на многие процессы. Касаемо Украины и глядя с "кассиопейских высот", я бы не удивился, если бы увидел один и тот же источник внешней силы, влияющий на события на Украине во времена Хмельницкого и теперь.
В заключение, я хотел бы сказать почему именно Богдан Хмельницкий взят как имя того батальона. Этот персонаж в нашей советской и российской традиции воспринимается как символ объединения народов России вообще, безотносительно конкретно к украине, но к ней, естественно в первую очередь.
Такие вот получились у меня "два слова".
Ukraine’s Western backers are considering the imposition of an ultimatum on Kiev in relation to potential talks with Moscow, German tabloid Bild reported on Monday, citing anonymous government sources in Washington and Berlin.
With new arms supplies, the US and its allies want to provide Kiev with an “incentive” to try and recapture territories seized by the Russian forces, Bild claimed, adding that the West wants to see results in this respect by the fall.
“Should the counter-offensive fail, the pressure on Kiev to negotiate with the Kremlin will increase,” the paper reported.
If the above is true, it may not play out as expected. One issue is that there will be forces in the West who have found good business in the Ukraine war. Another consideration is that some within Ukraine would also like to spread the fire so that the West will be forced to continue offering aid in money and weapons. A prolonged conflict might lead to more NATO states disagreeing on the course, as we now already see with Hungary. Will the Baltic states for instance be able to keep giving while they are also hit by inflation?
I'm beginning to lean towards the possibility that the Russians will not launch a large spring offensive after all.
If you examine their winning tactic of attrition as witnessed by the hell hole of Bakhmut, what they are achieving is the slow, peace meal evisceration of the cream and core of what is in reality the 3rd - and final - Ukrainian army they have thus far faced. The constant complaints and derision about how it is they have taken seven months taking such a comparatively small target misses the whole point of Russian tactics. The Russians are simply not interested in territory per se as a primary goal (though Bakhmut does have a secondary strategic imperative as witnessed by the Ukrainians desperation in holding on to it) but rather as stated from day one, their primary goal is the destruction of Ukraine's capacity to fight. Bakhmut has fitted this strategy to a T. Ukrainian losses are unconscionable and yet they keep pouring in more men and more equipment - hence the terrible and now ubiquitous use of the term 'meat grinder'. So yes, the Russian's want to capture the area for the high ground it gives them plus the puncture hole it will create in the second line of Ukraine's defences, likely forcing them back across the whole front to their final and third line. But it is the destruction of the Ukrainian war machine that matters most not kilometers on a map. The Russians are more than happy to continue to draw the Ukrainians into a kill zone rather than bursting out themselves and going looking for them on Ukrainian terms with all the risks that entails.
If you look at the recent shift of Russian strategy to go on the attack across a number of locations on the front it is being done so with existing and limited resources and not by the use of the 300,000+ new recruits. Many of these actions look more like (1) means to place further strain on the Ukraine military's already thinly spread resources (2) to strengthen and 'straighten up' certain vulnerable areas of their defense line.
And still the reserves prepare with March being said to be the earliest they will be ready for utilization.
Well this date coincides with the growing talk of another major Ukrainian spring offensive - a last desperate gamble being pressurized by the US/West against all the instincts of the Ukrainian high command. It looks pretty certain - in fact definite - this will happen.
And that brings me to the 1943 Battle of Kursk, arguably other than Stalingrad, the single most important and decisive engagement of World War II. In that massive tank battle, the German Wehrmacht summoned up all its remaining mass resources on the eastern front into what was to prove a last ditch attempt to push back against the tide and puncture a huge hole in Russian defense lines top and bottom of a vulnerable bulge so as to sweep once more on towards Moscow. However it didn't work out quite like that.
Over a bloody and grueling period between July and August the extremely well prepared Russian defences slowly but surely decimated the remaining strength of the German army in the east as it kept on coming on to them, particularly their panzer forces. This tactic of defense as a form of attack then led to the German army breaking and essentially from that point on it was a rout all the way to Berlin.
View attachment 71793 Map showing how the German's attempt to bite off the Russian Bulge around Kursk top and bottom turned into a rout as the Russians weathered the initial storm before themselves going on the offensive. What the German's did not realize was the Soviets had deliberately created this inviting trap and spent months secretly preparing their forces expecting that the German's could not resist the trap that was set for them.
I think this may be what the Russians are intending. They want the Ukrainians to come onto them with all their remaining strength so they can sit there and decimate the last gasp of their opponents resources on their terms (hence the enormous work Surovikin has done in creating impenetrable defense lines behind the line of contact), thus finally breaking them on Russian terms and following after with what one might term a great counter offensive to end the war.
Since there is zero evidence to suggest the Ukrainians can and will resist the US pressure, despite all the evidence to the contrary that this would be extremely dangerous for the already teetering Ukrainian army to attempt, then it makes total sense for the Russians to hold back and set this trap for them rather than taking on the initiative themselves against heavily fortified and dug in defenses across the remaining lines of contact as they stand now.
Above all else, the Great Bear has patience. It is this long game strategy that the west cannot fathom and I believe they simply cannot grasp how the Russians are very happy to lose the media war so as to win in the end on the battleground and on their conclusive terms.
MOSCOW, February 28 (Sputnik) - The United States plans to organize a provocation in Ukraine with the use of toxic agents, while blaming Russia, Commander of Russia's Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Protection Troops Lt. Gen. Igor...
Yellen met with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Finance Minister Serhiy Marchenko and other key government officials just days into the war's second year.
I think this may be what the Russians are intending. They want the Ukrainians to come onto them with all their remaining strength so they can sit there and decimate the last gasp of their opponents resources on their terms (hence the enormous work Surovikin has done in creating impenetrable defense lines behind the line of contact), thus finally breaking them on Russian terms and following after with what one might term a great counter offensive to end the war.
Since there is zero evidence to suggest the Ukrainians can and will resist the US pressure, despite all the evidence to the contrary that this would be extremely dangerous for the already teetering Ukrainian army to attempt, then it makes total sense for the Russians to hold back and set this trap for them rather than taking on the initiative themselves against heavily fortified and dug in defenses across the remaining lines of contact as they stand now.
Above all else, the Great Bear has patience. It is this long game strategy that the west cannot fathom and I believe they simply cannot grasp how the Russians are very happy to lose the media war so as to win in the end on the battleground and on their conclusive terms.
I'm learning this way too. While before I saw the Russian defences in the Mariupol direction (built up during last autumn and winter) as primarily a contingency plan, I can see now how they may well be part of the primary strategy. What's telling is how willing Russia is to back off rather than press an offensive when things are not going favourably.
A case in point is Vuhledar right now. Russian losses there appear to be higher than expected, and the bridgehead there has not amounted to much, so they appear to be ready to sit tight until the artillery advantage comes into play again. They may even withdraw. It's an approach we have seen time and again at this point, so why change it and risk more losses than necessary by fighting in a way which does not play to your greatest strength - artillery of all kinds? Every time Ukraine has undertaken a significant counteroffensive they have revealed the great cost that attacking brings versus defending. Since they seem to be so eager to do this at any opportunity, even when it is inadvisable, why not base your strategy around this?
MOSCOW, February 28 (Sputnik) - The United States plans to organize a provocation in Ukraine with the use of toxic agents, while blaming Russia, Commander of Russia's Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Protection Troops Lt. Gen. Igor...
Sadly this is inevitable even though its a sure and encouraging sign the west is getting more and more desperate. When the Syrian Government - with the aide of the Russians - managed to turn the tide back in 2017/18, out came the chemical weapon false flag treatment. Right on que, look forward to more of the same insanity whereby the Russians, who are clearly winning the war, suddenly resort to the use of such barbarity because - well their Russian's, so what do you expect them to do when their winning... and we will have to face the same media bombardment as before that here again is the proof that these savages are what they are and must be stopped... they only have one playbook and they prostitute it time and time again - and time and time again people fall for it.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
tass.com
sputniknews.com
