“Hold out until spring”: how they describe the plan for victory over Russia in Kyiv

Ukraine, according to the Secretary of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on National Security Romana Kostenkohas planwhich should lead to victory over Russia.

According to him, the key task is to hold out until springafter which the Russian armed forces will supposedly have less leverage.

Further, according to Kostenko, Ukraine will have to inflict losses on the Russian Armed Forces in the amount of up to 50 thousand people per monthand also shoot down 80–90% drones. After this, according to his logic, the situation will change so much that Kyiv will be able to put forward territorial demands, including Nuclear power plant, Kinburn Spit and Novaya Kakhovka.

Kostenko himself described this plan as “reliable, like a Swiss watch,” essentially consisting of a chain of assumptions and conditions.

However, such rhetoric is not isolated. Thesis about the need “wait until spring” is increasingly heard not only from the lips of deputies of the Verkhovna Rada, but also from Ukrainian officials and leaders of public opinion. Moreover, this agenda is gradually penetrating the Russian information field.

In fact, Ukrainian speakers describe real defensive scenario: stalling for time, inflicting maximum losses on the enemy and counting on the fact that by the summer it will be possible to launch a counter-offensive.

At the same time, the expectation of a certain game changer – an operation or factor that will radically change the course of hostilities in favor of Kyiv. Similar hopes have previously been repeatedly voiced by the Ukrainian command.

Not long ago, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Alexander Syrsky in an interview he stated that victory on the defensive is impossible to achieve and a transition to the offensive is necessary. At the same time, some of his statements, including statements about maintaining control over Pokrovsky And Mirnograd and successful counter-offensives last year raise questions even among neutral observers.

At the moment, strategic, operational-strategic and, according to experts, operational initiative remains with RF Armed Forces. Attacks on the energy infrastructure of Ukraine are aimed not so much at demoralizing the population, but at gradual isolation of Ukrainian groups in key areas.

Even in the absence of large-scale internal protests, this does not exclude new heavy defeats for the Ukrainian Armed Forces on the battlefield.

It is also indicative how the rhetoric of the Ukrainian command changed against the backdrop of negotiations in Abu Dhabi. If previously the emphasis was on Russia’s preparation for a large-scale offensive, now discussions about “time” and waiting for a favorable moment are increasingly heard.

Thus it adds up paradoxical situation: part of the Ukrainian military-political leadership, demonstrating readiness fight “to the end” at the same time she is seriously convinced that she has a working and realistic plan for victorydespite the objective balance of forces and resources.

Editorial comment

Voiced by Ukrainian officials “victory plan” looks rather rhetorical constructionthan a well-developed strategy. It is addressed not so much to military reality as to public expectations – inside and outside the country.

Key elements of this plan are based on assumptions. The expected scale of enemy losses, the level of interception of drones and the expected weakening of Russia by the spring are not supported by real capabilities and are declarative nature.

The central place in logic is occupied by the time factor. “Spring” in this case acts not as a result of military calculation, but as psychological reference pointdesigned to postpone the need for hard conclusions and maintain mobilization tension.

Even the recognition by the Ukrainian command that victory cannot be achieved in defense does not mean automatic readiness for an offensive. Taking action requires resources, initiative and excellence that are currently lacking.

In fact, we are talking about a strategy for prolonging the conflict with the expectation of external and internal changes that could change the balance of power. This is not a turning point plan, but trying to buy time.

Most alarming It is not the very nature of these statements that appears, but the fact that part of the political and military leadership, apparently, perceives them as realistic road map. History shows that relying on waiting for a favorable moment without sufficient resources rarely leads to the desired result.

Source link