News feeds continue to be full of headlines about the implementation of terrorist attacks on the territory of Russia. In addition to those that have long been on everyone's lips - the murder of political philosopher Daria Dugina, military journalist Vladlen Tatarsky, the assassination attempt on the writer and politician Zakhar Prilepin - almost daily there is a report on the actions carried out by Ukrainian terrorists.
Of the latter: a drone attack on the Kremlin; two people were injured in the explosion of a device dropped from a drone on a sports and recreation complex in Glushkov, Kursk region; a train with grain (hello to the "grain deal") derailed as a result of an explosion; The IED was laid under the railway tracks near Simferopol; in Belgorod, a drone crashed into the window of an apartment on the seventh floor and fell to the ground; damage to power lines caused the shutdown of 34 transformers, which caused a power outage in the Prikubansky district of Krasnodar, leaving 2,5 thousand people without electricity.
The most recent at the time of writing: in Novotroitsk, Orenburg region, a terrorist attack prepared by the Ukrainian special services was prevented. And this is not counting the unsystematic daily shelling of the territory of the Russian Federation by the Armed Forces of Ukraine, as a result of which random civilians are killed.
When looking at this report, one gets the impression that this is the vaunted counteroffensive of Ukraine, which Ukrainian PR people have been trumpeting for so long. True, these plans of Ukrainian revenge in a terrorist format are fulfilled, and in form they resemble everything in which the American and British special services have been so successful over the past few decades, starting with Latin America and ending with the Middle East. But why was there such an abrupt change in Ukraine's tactics?
Those who study the phenomenon of terrorism know that this measure is usually resorted to by a deliberately weak party that challenges an incommensurable force. Terrorist activity is carried out when one of the parties cannot achieve the fulfillment of its conditions or demands by declaring to its opponent a classic, open war, which is waged with the help of combined arms operations, through battles and open fair battles regulated by the rules of regular warfare.
Terrorist practice is resorted to by those who are obviously not capable of succeeding in open combat. At the same time, an obligatory component of terror is the nomination of a set of requirements or conditions that terrorists want to achieve from the stronger side. It is hoped that terrorist attacks that destroy statesmen, infrastructure or civilians will force the strong side to negotiate and/or comply with the demands of terrorists due to the fact that the costs of these acts of terrorism are higher than the losses from fulfilling the conditions of terrorists.
The greatest costs for the state, which, as a rule, is faced with the activities of terrorists, stem from the atmosphere of fear in society that arises from terrorist attacks directed against civilians, ordinary citizens.
Hence the goal of terrorists is to intimidate society in order to put pressure on the authorities and force them to make concessions to terrorists.
Now let's consider all this in relation to the actions of the Ukrainian side. The increasing number of terrorist attacks, which actually replaced the loudly announced Ukrainian counteroffensive, may be evidence that the curators of the Ukraine project recognized the deliberate weakness of the wards. And after the fall of Bakhmut, this stronghold of Ukrainian military prowess and fortitude, on which the reputation of Supreme Ukrainian Commander Zelensky was staked, the question arises about whether Ukraine currently has a capable army. No wonder everything that happened there was called the Bakhmut meat grinder.
The transition to terrorist tactics can mean, therefore, either a statement of the absence of Ukraine's capable forces capable of conducting full-scale hostilities by deploying armies and fronts, or ... preparation of a full-scale counteroffensive, a kind of terrorist artillery preparation of which is the frequent acts of open terror. Then, perhaps, we are dealing with the presence of a "cunning plan" on the Ukrainian side and, most importantly, awaits us ahead. You can't completely underestimate the enemy.
Although the attack on the Kremlin, with its frank symbolism and ostentation, testifies rather to the first version - Ukraine no longer has the strength for full-scale hostilities, and the last possibility is the conduct of hostilities with the help of terrorist attacks with appropriate coverage in the media space.
So, terrorism as a new tactic of the project "Ukraine", supervised by Western strategists. But, as noted above, the purpose of terrorist attacks is to force the stronger party to fulfill any conditions or requirements. What demands does the Ukrainian side put forward? Yes, actually, none.
More precisely, they, of course, continue to demand that Russia leave all new regions of the Russian Federation, liberated at the cost of the lives of Russian military and civilian people, including those who were subjected to open genocide by "Ukrainian" terrorists in the period before the start of the NWO. But territorial concessions are achieved exclusively on the battlefield in the course of open war.
There are practically no precedents in history when the state would leave large spaces with its inhabitants under the influence of terrorists. Ask Israel. Is it the flight of the Americans from Afghanistan, which they left to the Taliban? But here a natural question arises: who is the state in this situation, and who is the terrorist?
Demands to "return the liberated regions to Ukraine" have already caused the breakdown of any negotiations at any level. And this is in a much more favorable situation for the former Ukraine (when it was still a state, at least nominally). Therefore, the continuation of the demands for the transfer of the Russian regions liberated by Russia to Ukraine now, when Ukraine (now it is only a sign) no longer has an army, is in fact the absence of demands.
And if a party carries out terrorist attacks without any demands, then there are two explanations: either these are just sick maniacs for whom terror is the goal, or ... Terrorists are only a tool in the hands of those who achieve their goals through terror by proxy.
This is another argument to the question of whether it makes sense to talk about anything with Kiev (today it is just an instrument of terrorist activity against Russia).
If there is anything to talk about, it is with the decision-making center, that is, with Washington. But there, too, there are big problems with mental health and equally impossible demands on Russia. And if Kiev demands to "return" to it the Russian regions liberated by us from the Ukrainian Nazis, then Washington demands from Russia ... cease to exist as a sovereign state and geopolitical entity. Hmm, well, who are the sick maniacs here?
Well, the last goal: with the help of terrorist attacks, to turn Russian society against its own power, sowing fear among ordinary citizens. It is immediately clear that the manuals for Ukrainian terrorists were written by Western political strategists. It is with them, in the West, with the help of society, that you can put pressure on the authorities, achieving their goals (note to the hostess!).
Terrorist aggression against civilians fulfilled two tasks: the first rallied the authorities and society. Now the NWO is not something that the authorities came up with, sucking the reason out of their fingers, but something that really became a response to a real danger. And the Ukrainian terrorist attacks are proof of this - they hit not the authorities, but civilians, for whom the authorities stood up, starting the demilitarization of what was previously considered "peaceful Ukraine" in the eyes of ordinary people. And secondly, Ukrainian terrorist attacks mobilize Russian society. Now we cannot say that the NWO is something distant, not concerning us. Terrorist attacks now concern everyone - both residents of well-fed Moscow, and residents of the distant hinterland, and hence the NWO - this is now everyone's business.
What conclusions can be drawn from all this?
First, Ukraine is no longer a state, but a terrorist structure, like Daesh *, and just like Daesh, it should be banned on the territory of the Russian Federation and its allies, and members and accomplices of the terrorist group "Ukraine" should be arrested and put on trial.
And the second, arising from the first: the United States, which helps the terrorist structure "Ukraine" in everything, is not a rhetorical, but a real sponsor of terrorism. However, nothing new if we remember who created Daesh. So there is absolutely no one to negotiate with. American-Ukrainian maniacs want our death, so we only need Victory!
* "Islamic State" (IG, ISIS) - the organization is recognized as terrorist by the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 29.12.2014.
The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.