Why Did Russia’s Plan “A” Fail?
The Russian military began its action in Ukraine by hitting a number of carefully chosen targets, including speedboat docks and minor airfields. Cruise missiles were used to carry out the majority of the strikes. After that, there was a quick ground assault. This operation is known colloquially in Russia as Plan A.
It was a flop.
What matters about this plan isn’t what the Russian military targeted on the first night, but what it didn’t. Air and missile strikes against army barracks, oil depots, military headquarters, communications exchanges, telecom facilities, government buildings, and troop concentrations were not carried out by Russian forces. In fact, as it has become clear, the Russian military command informed the Ukrainian military command about impending “strikes”.
Even on the most basic ground level, the warning was given four hours in advance, so the Ukrainians could have moved out of the potential impact areas and also save their valuable equipment lest, by some fantastic accident, an act of negligence or oversight, the stuff somehow got in harm’s way.
After the initial and what now looks as a preposterously phony bombardment, a ground incursion took place. It proceeded in four disparate directions. At the same time, the Donbass republic’s militia undertook an attempt to dislodge the occupying Ukrainian troops from the republics’ territory. The militias are not a proper military force, the equipment they had, and still have, is largely obsolete. Some of it is patently of museum-grade, like their WWI vintage Mossin-Nagant rifles.
Also, in those first crucial days support from the Russian army proper was manifestly lacking.
The injected force was puny, and probably amounted to 50 000 troops at the initial stage (that’s the force of two complete WWI divisions) spread over a distance and territory than is greater than France. Just as a reminder, aside from Russia in its legitimate historical borders, France is the largest continental nation in Europe. These 50 000 Russian troops had to fight against a Ukrainian NATO-trained and armed force of 600 000.
As this was not bad enough, Russian personnel and Donbass militia were ordered not to cause any harm to civilians even if the Ukrainian government forces used civilians and their infrastructure as their own fortifications, and that’s precisely what happened. They were also ordered not to fire at the enemy first. Rumors have it that soldiers were given very little instructions about the nature of the enemy they were to encounter.
On the surface, this plan makes no sense. And it doesn’t make sense, not just on the surface, because it just doesn’t make sense no matter from what crooked angle you look at it.
Except that it was designed deliberately and forced through with the singular intent of making Russia get into the so-called Ukraine and then get stuck. But that’s a conspiracy theory and let’s not talk about conspiracies for the time being.
Assumingly this ill-fated plan, or the plan-A, was based on the preposterous premise that there’ll be no resistance.
And that gives me the proof of why the plan was an act of sabotage, possibly an attempt of a backdoor regime change in the Russian Federation.
Military operations which were successful even though conducted by often inferior forces against a numerically superior enemy are not entirely unknown in history. There are even a few cases when an entrenched and better-equipped army did not resist the invader but just surrendered to it. In the case of the so-called Ukraine, the initial invading Russian force of about 50 000 was stretched over an enormous distance of thousands of kilometers and had to not merely to hold its ground but overwhelm the Kiev regime’s NATO-trained and equipped army of some 600 000 troops.
From one standpoint that is an impossibility, and that’s why this plan makes no sense, but from the other viewpoint, operations of this nature, some spectacularly successful ones, in fact, had taken place. Armies gave up and fortresses surrendered with no compelling reason to. We can go back to the antiquity or the alleged surrender of Edinburgh Castle in 1650, or to the fall of the citadel of Sveaborg, as well as to quite a few episodes in the course of the twentieth century (never mind the second Iraq war, where bribery was the real weapon of mass destruction employed by the transatlantic Fourth Reich), and all of them would two prerequisites.
- It’s been prearranged.
- It wasn’t worth it.
Let’s take the first scenario for Plan “A” or it’s been prearranged. Usually, that would mean that a large amount of cash had been distributed among the people in charge. Cash doesn’t have to be literal, a mule laden with gold will open any city gates (or as an Armenian proverb has it: A mule laden with gold is welcome at every castle).
This “It’s been prearranged scenario” was plausible or at least believable. When the special operation began on February 24, I heard of it with incredulity, with a sense of utter shock and disbelief. Everything Russian forces did, made no sense. But they did it despite of appearing outright foolish and endangering themselves.
And so, as it became apparent, there must have been some secret.
So how could it have been possibly “ prearranged?”
Today’s Ukraine is a territory that is notoriously corrupt even by the standards of Sub-Saharan Africa. I am not calling the Ukraine a country because it’s not. Hence I am using the definite article “the” as it has always been the norm in English since the Ukraine is not a country, Ukraine, but a geographical appellation. It is a part of Russia, it has always been a part of Russia, and what we are witnessing here now is a civil war.
It’s a Russian-Russian war with the US and NATO backing one side against the Russian people. Because this topic deserves a separate treatment I’d reserve it for a later occasion but for now, I’d stick to the “being prearranged” part.
Because the Ukraine is corrupt and controlled by the oligarchs, or by appointed dollar billionaires who have derived their wealth not from entrepreneurial activities or inheritance but from political allocation of the former Soviet Union’s industrial assets, one can easily envision a plan or a scheme involving billions of dollars (euros, gold shekels, roubles, you pick the currency) in which heads of urban administrations, city halls, town councils, military commanders, generals all got paid up in exchange for surrendering whatever they were in charge of looking after or at least keeping a low profile. Knowing the Ukraine I’d say that this scenario was quite possible even if the scale of the task itself had been cumbersome.
That’s a difficult task but with enough verve, cash and brilliant organization behind one could pull it off.
From the first hours of the advance, it became clear that this was not the case. Nobody paid anyone anything or if someone had then money has never reached its recipients.
Then we arrive at the second option which I’d call “It wasn’t worth it” or “it isn’t worth it”.
Examples of this sort of successful operation are not that plentiful but they are not extraordinarily rare either.
They are, for example,
Germany’s march into Austria on March 12, 1938, that led to Austria’s annexation by the Third Reich.
Germany’s and Poland’s invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1939 (lest we forget that it was Poland, the Hyena of Europe, which participated in Hitlerite’s partition and destruction of Czechslovakia, only to assume its traditional role of crybaby a year later. How hugely ironic).
The Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact’s incursion in Czechoslovakia in 1969
Russia’s Liberation of its own territory of Crimea from the Ukrainian occupation in 2014
The latter one, the liberation of Crimea scenario, falls partially under the “it’s been prearranged” category. The local municipal administrators and bureaucracy hated and despised the regime in Kiev and had organized everything on their own. Moscow’s involvement was minimal.
However, the other scenarios – Austria of 1938, Czechoslovakia of 1939, and 1968 share one important characteristic today’s Ukraine manifestly lacks. It is the physical kinship between the leadership and the nation on one hand and the lack of existential threat on the other.
Let me explain. In 1938 the Chancellor of Austria Kurt von Schuschnigg (1897-1977) had faced a dilemma of either ordering Austrian troops to resist the invading Wehrmacht or telling everything to give up and surrender to his former countryman Adolf Hitler.
Kurt Schuschnigg was no fan of Hitler but he was a pragmatic politician who, unlike the criminals who now run the Ukraine on the orders from Washington, DC, actually loved his country and was of the same kin as both Hitler and people in the trenches. Maybe it’s not so clear with Hitler as his grandmother was supposedly a Moravian Jewess, not a purebred Austrian, but all the ideological differences between von Schuschnigg and Hitler aside, racial animosity was manifestly lacking. Secondly, no existential conflict was at stake either. Hitler had no plans to exterminate the inhabitants of Austria or to force them to learn some other language.
In fact, they spoke the same language as he did. He could even converse in both Upper Austrian and Viennese dialects. The issue at stake was not national survival but a plebiscite, a referendum (which the Nazis won anyway).
Had Schuschnigg ordered resistance, it is possible that the Austrian military would even have fought back, probably even bravely, but why would he have done that? The way we make decisions (as great Nicolas Taleb pointed out in his great book A Skin in the Game) is much influenced by how close we are personally to the consequences of these decisions. It’s one thing to order an infantry charge by individuals, tribesmen, whom you barely consider to be human (and I’ll get down to that in instant) and it’s quite a different story if you order your own kinsmen, your children, to sacrifice themselves.
Or let’s take Czechoslovakia in 1968. Czechoslovakia has been a failed state. It was a hideous stillborn monstrosity, a freak of a state, created by the enemies of Peace, in Washington among all places. The abomination of Czechoslovakia was put sloppily together by alien powers, and it neither had merit nor justification for its own existence. Always a geopolitical irritant, it had been propped by foreign powers. Whenever foreign protection was withdrawn, as happened in the years 1938 or 1991-1993, the ugly thing fell apart on its own. Like the European Commission, it’s the sort of entity nobody would sacrifice his blood for.
The Soviet Union and its allies had to invade Czechoslovakia to prevent a fascist coup. In my opinion, the Soviet Union’s participation was a mistake. The Soviet Union should have just provided some aircover and let the Germans (of the German Democratic Republic, the Good Germany) and the Hungarians do the job. Afterwards, the Soviet Union had to partition it, divide the pieces among its neighbors, and wipe the abomination off the map. It’s done nothing of the sort but instead saved Czechoslovakia. Why? The top Soviet nomenklatura, the Bolshevist heirs, were also Russophobic as they feared a united Russian state and were fans of artificial ethnocracies, of which they created quite a few, the Ukraine or Soviet Ukraine is being just one. Slaughtering Czechoslovakia was not a kosher option, and neither was its sacrifice to the willing and vengeful neighbors.
Nonetheless, Dubček, a Czechoslovak politician was perfectly aware that the Warsaw Pact had no intention of committing genocide in Czechoslovakia. On the contrary, the Soviet-led invasion is likely to save Czechoslovakia from breaking at least into two parts (as it eventually happened, once the Soviet protection had been withdrawn). The issue was political and no sensible head of state with his kin on the frontline would have risked bloodshed and deaths of people he or she considers his own. This is “was it forth it” or “is it worth” denominator, the one so well answered by Madeleine Albright, we’ll get to her later on. By the way, it’s very possible that though Czechoslovakia-born, Madeleine Albright would have ordered bloodshed for the simple reason that the Czechs and Slovaks are not her people. And she answered that question when asked about Iraqi children.
In the late February of 2022, as Russian Federation attempted to neutralize the NATO aggressor preemptively in the so-called Ukraine, as I’ve shown the “It’s been all prearranged” element was lacking, But the “it’s not worth it” part was not present either.
The Ukraine today is a dictatorship controlled by the USA and its UK puppet.
Opposition political parties are banned. Media are unfree and there is no strict censorship of both printed and electronic media. People disappear. Men and women and murdered for their opinions and death squads operate. The Ukraine today is arguably the most unfree state in history.
For the fairness’ or historical accuracy sake, I must add that in the collective Fourth Reich – both the EU and the US the censorship and political oppression have reached unprecedented levels. In fact, the censorship is extraordinarily intense even by the standards of the Third Reich, never mind the old Soviet Union where access to information in other languages or radio broadcasts has never been restricted. The USSR of the 1980s is much freer than the UK or Germany or Scandinavian countries are today. Never mind Eastern European satrapies and artificial states like the Czech Republic or the ethnofascist statelet of Estonia, where the censorship and overall oppression of the human spirit far exceed anything that was in evidence in the darkest hours of the Third Reich.
Today’s Russia is really facing up the Ultimate Evil.
But let’s keep on, In the so-called Ukraine Russian language, which is the language of the majority of the population is outlawed. The fact that Russian is the language of the majority is just what it is, a fact that anyone can verify on its own just by checking out the language choice in the statistical section of Google or, for that matter, of any other search engine.
Today’s Ukraine is under a direct military administration.
But even these factors alone do not invalidate the “it’s not worth it” factor.
What matters in this equation is the fact that the Ukraine is run by people who are neither Ukrainian nor Russian, They are alien, by upbringing, blood, culture, and faith. They are alien element to the population of the captive territory.
The Ukraine is an artificial state construct created by the Bolsheviks who were internationalists in character, genocidal in nature, and primarily Jewish in ethnicity, in that way they are very much like the American neocons, Nuland and Blinken’s kin and ilk. Or at least at the top of the Bolshevist leadership was Jewish, Internationalist and, as we now know, genocidal. They, with a genetic grudge against Russia, had to break Russia from within and create what became the Soviet Union in its stead.
The Ukraine, not Ukraine but the Ukraine, – and I’ll address the oddities of its creation in a different post – as it used to stand until recently in its Soviet incarnation incorporated several dissimilar parts, the fully Russian Crimea (now liberated from the Ukrainian yoke), the South, staunchly Russophone and also pro-Russian, it stretches along the coast and includes the Russian cities of Nikolaev (named so after St. Nicholas and His Majesty Emperor Nicholas I of Russia) and Odessa, the Donbass region (which is as Russian as is Moscow), then the Ukraine itself which in Russian means merely Frontier and consists of four old imperial governorates of Kiev, Poltava, Kharkov and Podolia, then the Center, the Transcarpathian region which belonged to the Kingdom of Hungary (which itself was a part of the Habsburg Empire) and Galicia, with the capital of Lemberg or Lvov in Russian. That part belonged to Austria though its cities had a largely Polish, German, and Jewish population. So far, I had counted seven parts which could roughly be split into three regions – the Russian part (this is the Crimea, Donbass, the South, and the Ukraine itself), the neutral part (the Center and the Transcarpathian region), and finally the anti-Russian part (Galicia).
No unity is in evidence among those areas and no love is lost among its inhabitants. But there is some commonality among them as well. They speak a closely related language. Even the so-called Ukrainian of Galicia, though spoken by a tiny minority is still closely related to and is mutually intelligible by great Russians. The linguistic distance is smaller than between the Austrian dialect spoken in Vorarlberg and the Austrian dialect spoken in Salzburg or Lower Austria.
No matter how you’d look it, all those folks are relatives to some extent.
But not the people who rule over them.
The situation in today’s Ukraine is quite similar to what happened in Russia in 1917. For the sake of fairness, I consider the United States to be a captive nation as well. The people who now rule America are not “really” Americans. Otherwise, statues of historical statesmen and generals would not be thrown out of public buildings. You don’t mistreat and rape your own history like that. Never. Unless it’s not your history. You do that sort of thing only to subjugated captive nations, of which America is one.
But let’s get back to our patient, the Ukraine. It too is under an alien yoke.
Its’ “President” Zelensky is a Jew. He is a Russophone Jew with no affinity for the Ukraine or any of its regions. He doesn’t even speak the “language”. Even when he is not drugged or intoxicated, he struggles for words in what to him is a strange dialect.
He is an appointee of Kolomoisky, a Jewish murderer, an oligarch, a dollar billionaire, a plutocrat, a major contributor to Israel and to the Hasidim cause. He is a contributing member of the sect.
The spokesman for Zelensky is a fellow named Arestovich (pronounced as Arrestovitch, the name sounds as outlandishly funny in Russian as it is in English). He is a Russian Jew (or Belorussian but Russians and Belorussians are the same people, they are far closer together that are, let’s say, the English from the South and the English from Midlands. And we don’t even bring the Welsh and the Scotts into the picture).
Arestovich is a transvestite with fancy for underage boys, all generously supplied and documented on film, though that is not as remarkable as the fact that he worked closely with the Russian government’s ideological policy outfit in the 2000s and used to be pronouncedly “anti-Ukrainian”. He was born in Georgia and his native language is Russian.
Reznik which means Butcher is the Kiev regime’s minister of Defense (though that’s a misnomer). Reznik is a Jew and a passionate Russophobe. Like many Jews of the Bolshevist stock, he carries hatred for the Russian people and for Christianity in his genes.
Podolak (or Podolyak) which sounds like the Lowly or the Mean one to the Russian ear is the man responsible for the Ukraine’s negotiations with Russia. He is of unknown provenance or origin. We know that he lived in Belorussia (Belarus) and that he is a Russian speaker. Perhaps the vile creature had been created in a test tube in one of those America’s bioweapons labs, yes, in the Ukraine.
Finally, there is David Arakhamia, a Russian-born character, half a Jew, half a Georgian, who obtained his Ukrainian citizenship in 2015. He doesn’t speak Ukrainian.
So much for the political “leadership”.
And where are the Nazis?
The Nazis are not members of NSDAP, they are white supremacists, fascists, murderous thugs, grandkids, and great-grandchildren of the real Nazis from Galicia (Western Ukraine), the Baltics, Canada, the United States. The latter two became the greatest place of refuge for the Nazis. According to the long-standing American doctrine as long as a Nazi was anti-Russian he was a good guy.
And there is the so-called Azov unit, a terrorist Nazi outfit. Together they are the foundation on which the terror state of the Ukraine is based. Today’s Ukraine is indeed the fusion of Jewish Bolshevism and Nazism. Here, the two parts of the Evil have merged and united in an unwholesome whole.
In the Ukraine today we witness the symbiosis of Jewish-Neocon and American interests, which had harnessed the Nazi cause for its use.
As far as the American role in the Ukraine’s outside management is concerned, it is also one-sided.
Though a captive nation itself, America remains a multifaced diverse society. America that is involved in the Ukraine is not Hispanic America or Christian America but a fusion of moneyed Jewish, Neocon, Globalist, Democratic Party, Military Industrial Complex, and the Deep State interests.
None of the key figures at the scene of this crime – Vladmir Zelensky, who is Jewish, Victoria Nuland, who is Jewish, Anthony Blinken, who is Jewish – all coincidences? that’s up to you to decide – none of them have any kin in the Ukraine armed forces or any relatives in the cities which are now being liberated from the Ukraine and NATO slavery.
So, the question looms, is it worth it? And that’s the second part of the Plan A puzzle.
Remember Madeleine Albright, real name Korbelova, the Bohemian Jewish Secretary of State and her answer to the question “is it worth it?”
She’d answered it.
Even though Russia did not threaten the existence of the Ukraine’s state (though it should have had) and even though Russia has no plans to exterminate the population of the Ukraine (because for Russians these people are, well, Russians. These are their kin), the question looks very differently from Zelensky’s standpoint.
He is an actor. He works for the United States and NATO. When he orders his forces to resist or attack or to use civilians as a human shield, he’s got no qualms about it. None whatsoever. After all, he’s got no children in the front line. He’s got no relatives there. He hates those people and every dead “Ukrainian” is a score for him. He despises those people. They are creatures of the second or even third sort. To him they are like the Iraqi children to Madeline Albright. Subhuman material, combustible stuff used to ignite a different sort of fire.
So, what is now apparent. For plan A to work either the first element (that is “it’s all been prearranged”) or the second one (it’s not worth it) must be in place. It is equally apparent that neither one was.
If Russia has intelligent services they would have known that nothing was prearranged, as in fact, nothing can be prearranged unless enormous amounts of money are spent upfront.
The second option could not even be considered. Russian intelligence services and the public in general also know that the Ukraine is controlled by the US, it’s a proxy state and the people in charge of it are not Ukrainians or Russians. They are an alien element, performers of foreign stock, culture, faith, and blood, with the sort of morals that would make cannibals squirm.
And here is the puzzle with this being so, why did Russia, even when faced with an imminent attack (the Ukraine was supposed to attack border regions with chemical and biological weapons in March. Russia got ahead of the aggressor only by a few days, weeks at most), why the did Russia go ahead with the Plan A when a far more suitable “real” type of a military “hard” or full-blown response had been warranted.
No matter how much I think about it I cannot just figure it out.
- Who is behind the terror attack on the Crimea Bridge? - October 9, 2022
- Why is it the Ukraine and not just Ukraine? - October 9, 2022
- Putin’s speech and the reunification of Russian lands with Russia - October 1, 2022