Victory in “three steps” is what Russian General Sergei Surovykin is trying to achieve in Ukraine

Russia knocks on Soviet-built energy infrastructure, realizing it can restore it. From the point of view of military tactics, the decision of the Russian General Surovikin to leave Kherson and take a defensive position on the left bank of the Dnieper is judged as correct, at the present stage. However, discord prevails in Russia’s top military leadership.

While the nationalists initially supported General Sergei Surovykin’s withdrawal from Kherson, he is now under pressure to prove that the withdrawal was correct. The abandonment of the Kherson bridgehead by the Russian forces will make it very difficult for any aggressive return of the Russians in the future, in order to cross the Dnieper towards Nikolayev and Odessa.

But there are analysts on the Russian side who believe that General Sergei Surovykin’s decision in Ukraine was a surprise to the West and part of his broader plan on how to win the war. More specifically:

1. A message to the elites of Ukraine

In this approach, Russia is believed to have not sought and does not seek to “exploit” the inhabitants of Ukraine and, in general, people of Slavic nationality for the sake of some kind of political opposition to the hybrid West. “On the contrary, he is trying to convince the majority of the Ukrainian people that their country is itself an occupied state.

In this way, Russia, with its actions, once again proposes to the Ukrainian elites the way to resolve this conflict, which is to fulfill the demands it set before the start of the special operation:
a) the disarmament of the Ukrainian army,
b) the refusal to participate in military blocs of the West,
c) its refusal to join a nuclear power club, etc.

2. A game of wear and tear

This way of thinking makes it certain that sooner or later, Russia will achieve victory, but this method will be costly in terms of manpower and logistics.

The “Armageddon General” as commander of the Joint Task Force in the NVO zone, takes a different approach. Large-scale maneuvers ceased to be implemented. Strikes on enemy energy infrastructure rather than military infrastructure are preferred. The latter are well protected because they are covered by air defense systems and are located in fortified areas. Russia can very quickly end hostilities with victory, or it can carry them out for a very long time, relying on the attrition of the enemy.

Russia believes that behind Ukraine it has to face a global enemy, the collective West, and it is very difficult to exhaust it from a logistical point of view, but it is possible. And what about Ukraine? What will be left of her after all these (Surovikin’s) decisions are implemented?

3. Russia takes back

Russia is hitting the energy infrastructure, realizing it can restore it. Moreover, all these items are of Soviet manufacture. They were left as a legacy to Ukraine from good Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The largest stockpiles of weapons, the most developed military-industrial complex and a huge number of high-tech industries that Russia could eliminate, and energy, including nuclear. All were manufactured in the USSR. After 1991, Ukraine did not build a single energy infrastructure facility.

Russia became the heir to the debts of the USSR, the guarantor of security in the countries of the post-Soviet space. Only now the post-Soviet space withdrew from the agreements with Russia, went over to the side of the enemy, armed itself with its weapons and allowed the intervention of thousands of enemy troops on its territory.

This approach believes that Ukraine is a state where society is not ready for normal Euro-capitalism. Ukraine will continue to beg and demand that everything be built at someone else’s expense.

Follow Us

About the author

The Liberal Globe is an independent online magazine that provides carefully selected varieties of stories. Our authoritative insight opinions, analyses, researches are reflected in the sections which are both thematic and geographical. We do not attach ourselves to any political party. Our political agenda is liberal in the classical sense. We continue to advocate bold policies in favour of individual freedoms, even if that means we must oppose the will and the majority view, even if these positions that we express may be unpleasant and unbearable for the majority.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

en English
error: Content is protected !!