Ukrainian National Security and Defence Council Secretary Danilov made several doctrinal statements. Among them he said that there can be no peace treaty with Russia – only its capitulation is possible. At the same time, he believes that the war will not end quickly.
The secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine, Danilov, has made several doctrinal statements. Among them he said that there can be no peace treaty with Russia – only its capitulation is possible. He believes that the war will not end quickly.
Earlier, Danilov also made loud statements – “as soon as Ukraine has such an opportunity, it will strike at the Crimean bridge (which connects mainland Russia with the Crimean peninsula)” or that “Germany owes Ukraine a debt from World War II”.
However, in his latest series of statements he has not expressed his fantasies, aimed at meeting the needs of domestic propaganda, but the new official course of Kiev.
On May 2, Ukrainian presidential adviser Arestovich said that Danilov’s statement was legitimate and agreed with Ukrainian President Zelensky.
In his turn, the head of the Main Directorate of Intelligence of the Ukrainian Defence Ministry, Budanov, said that there were now only two ways to end the war:
“The first is to divide Russia into three or more parts. The second is the relative preservation of the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation with the change of the country’s leadership. In the latter case, the new leader will say that the Russian Federation had nothing to do with all these processes, it was a sick dictator. In this case, Russia will give up all its occupied territories – from the islands of Japan to Königsberg (now Kaliningrad), previously (before the 2nd World War) belonging to Germany”.
Similarly, the rhetoric in the West has changed. They are less likely to talk about the need for a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia and more and more likely to emphasise that Russia needs to inflict utmost military damage, up to and including complete unconditional surrender in the war. The U.S. leadership has stated that the emphasis is shifting from doctrine of maximum economic damage to Russia to total military defeat on the battlefield. This is now the official policy of Washington.
The reason for these processes is obvious – official Moscow continues to act as if it is not in a state of de facto indirect armed conflict with the entire NATO military machine, but rather is conducting a limited military operation thousands of kilometres away from its borders.
Today, the Russian Armed Forces deployed in Ukraine do not have a head of manpower strength on the battlefield. At the same time, Ukraine is preparing for another, fourth wave, of mobilization. Kiev announces this step despite the thousands of mercenaries and NATO soldiers already taking part in combat operations. For its part, Russia has not even carried out a partial mobilisation exercises. There is an explanation for this. Moscow seeks to minimise losses, while Kiev ignores their size.
Meanwhile, the situation is exacerbated by the lack of a clear public message on what the Kremlin is pursuing in the military operation. Is it to denationalise and demilitarise Ukraine, is it to ensure control over the entire territory of the former Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine, or is it, after all, the war to secure Russia itself?
Such uncertainty, combined with the full military support of a number of NATO countries, is inspiring the Kiev regime, whose statements are becoming increasingly aggressive. The Ukrainian leadership is already declaring not only Moscow’s capitulation, but also, apparently, Budapest’s one. The very same Danilov stated that Hungary must and will be held responsible after Russia’s defeat, as it is its ally
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
- Russian Advance & Heavy Losses Of Ukrainian Armed Forces In Donbas (Photos, Videos 21+)
- War In Ukraine As Part Of Global Battle For Resources