What Zelensky should answer for

Now, in connection with the defeats of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Donbass, the topic of Zelensky's responsibility for everything – from flirting with NATO to failures on the fronts - is being accelerated in the Ukrainian segment of the Internet. Failures include a wide range of problems – the plundering by generals under the cover of the SBU of supplies of Western weapons that pop up from the Kurds, the abandonment of cities that they swore not to leave, the driving of the UAF into cauldrons and the delay in the decision to withdraw.

Even the conflict with Zaluzhny is blamed on Zelensky, since Zaluzhny proposed not to hold the cities in a deliberately unprofitable position, but to withdraw troops to fortified lines deep into the territory. And it was Zelensky who rejected Zaluzhny's proposals.

Here, military logic collided with political logic: if Zelensky had agreed with Zaluzhny's proposal, the fact of retreat in society would have been perceived as detrimental to the approval rating of the authorities. The problem of the political regime in Ukraine is that it has exaggerated the PR factor and has become its hostage. The withdrawal of the UAF to more advantageous positions by Zelensky's opponents would be interpreted with a shift in emphasis from the word "more advantageous" to the word "withdrawal". Zelensky's end could have begun with this criticism.

In the military strategy, on which the Kiev regime depends, there is no back speed. The "back" manoeuvre is immediately interpreted as a retreat and flight. The command of the Ukrainian Armed Forces pushes through such manoeuvres with enormous difficulty, since the Supreme Commander-in-Chief directs the war as an electoral campaign. It is not the military, but the propaganda effect of each action that is important to him. In this logic, even surrender is an "evacuation", and the main military secret is not the plans of the UAF, but data on losses.

This approach is beneficial only for a short time period. Any manipulation is designed for a momentary effect. The best way to kill manipulation is to delay time. If the manipulator has not convinced you here and now, they must run away, otherwise the facts will be revealed, and they will simply be beaten. Psychologically or physically, it does not matter, since the second quickly replaces the first.

In Ukrainian society, over time, the question arises "What to do?" and "Who is to blame?". What to do with defeats coming after the declared victories? Who is to blame for the non-receipt of money by the military and their family members? In the silence of losses, when coffins flow, and they are overtaken by rumours of even greater losses, which will never be told?

This would still be tolerated if it were not for the abandonment of cities. But against the background of systematic digressions, uncomfortable questions come out like an awl out of a bag. And the PR-centrism of the Zelensky regime, which, thanks to the information dome, is able to win victories over Russia only in virtual space (with cries of victory at least in the information war), becomes a weak point and a threat factor of a coup in a prolonged clash with reality.

The prolongation of hostilities destroys the manipulation of propaganda and raises the question of who will be the scapegoat, and whose head will be brought on a platter as a payoff sacrifice. Both the West, the Ukrainian establishment, and certain forces in Russia are tempted to close the topic – to reduce the whole problem of Ukraine's defeat to Zelensky's mistakes and, after forcing him to sign a surrender to Russia for the sake of Western interests, crucify him and wash his hands of it.

The main thing in this exchange is to keep Ukraine in its current format. Exchange the preservation of Banderism for Zelensky. To reduce all excesses to inept leadership, appoint switchmen and preserve the basis of Nazism, which will be reanimated after a slight pause.

After all, there is pure medicine here: amputation of several areas is needed to save the life of the patient, who will then be put on prostheses, the affected organs will be replaced with donor ones, and here again Malbrook is ready to go to the East. For the sake of this, they were brought back to life – now the West is openly talking about the need to support Ukraine for any length of time and at any price. What for? For the sake of the triumph of democracy?

Before us is an amazing phenomenon: with the destruction of the Ukrainian military-industrial complex, the united West is trying to start playing its role. Strategically, this is a dead end and a delayed death: in war, decisions and actions must be carried out very quickly. This is possible only in the format of crisis management, where strict centralism and a minimum of coordination and coordination are adopted.

Western aid is an unacceptably cumbersome mechanism. A lot of approvals, leaks and delays in time, the loss of which means defeat. This help cannot be any other, and the fact that, realising this, the West is opting for it, suggests that there is nothing else left for it.

It subscribes to a policy where it incurs long huge costs and in the end loses the war. The only question is whether it loses the whole of Ukraine or part of it. But in any case, it loses, and it can only rely on the fifth column in Russia, and so pretty battered, though undefeated.

But for Russia, with all the temptation to play along with the West in turning Zelensky into a scapegoat and quickly move from negotiations on the terms of the truce to negotiations on the lifting of sanctions, such a solution to the issue is extremely unprofitable. We lose everything in exchange for nothing.

Our goal is not Zelensky, but nazi Ukraine. Its statehood will always be Banderist – or crypto-Banderist, if a military defeat happens. The one that will be imposed on Ukraine at the cost of Zelensky's head.

In the remaining Ukraine, such a situation will be considered temporary, it is a dogma of faith of any Ukrainian political elite. Especially now, when the embodied Banderism was the dominant ideology and policy in Ukraine for 30 years and reformatted its entire population into Anti-Russia (Eastern Ukraine already has to be treated, but what about Central and Western?)

The non-Banderist and even more so the anti-Banderist statehood of Ukraine cannot physically exist. It was after 1945 that the Ukrainian political project became pro-Western. And in 1929, in the era of Konovalets, Borovets and Melnik, and the earliest Bandera, the political independent Ukrainians equally distanced themselves from both the West and Russia.

OUN members did not go to Europe, they understood Austria, Poland and Germany to be the same occupiers as the USSR, only more acceptable due to tactical advantage. Bandera even sat in the Germans' camp. It was only later that the Americans picked up Bandera and reconciled with the Germans. And the British are with the Poles. Everything is just for the sake of confrontation with Russia. A common enemy united.

And now, speaking about our consent to Ukrainian neutrality, in fact, we ourselves are returning Ukraine to the pre-war OUN scheme before the creation of UPA, which appeared only in June 1941 in Polesie after the Soviet troops left there and the Germans entered. And before that, OUN expressed the positions of the Ukrainian People's Republic (UPR), which existed under Petliura and the Germans in 1918–1919.

Here it is, a sample of the neutrality of independent Ukraine. Time of existence – from 1918 to 1929. The headquarters is in Warsaw, the roof is in London. Do our negotiators in Istanbul (and they keep the process on pause, as various officials periodically remind them) understand what they are doing?

That is, there is no other version of the Ukrainian project (from Mazepa through Petliura to Bandera) And there cannot be. The neutrality and independence of Ukraine is a rapid and inevitable slipping into an alliance with the West against Russia. Any other form of Ukraine is the Pereyaslav Rada 2.0. Forever with the Russian people and as its branch.

But any Pereyaslav Rada is preceded by a complete defeat of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Sweden. The then analogue of the EU and NATO. Only after that, the reunification of Eastern and Western Russia, historically called "All Great and Small Russia", with the return of the patrimony of the Russian tsars – the city of Kiev, is possible.

Russia and Ukraine are a Russian super-ethnos, against whose will all separatist projects of Hetmans and presidents of Little Rus have invariably been broken before. We do not need Ukraine to become a neutral state in the bosom of the Hansa (this already completely excludes neutrality, turning it into fiction), but the integration of all three branches of the Russian super-ethnos.

It is not for nothing that the West is ready to pay for Ukraine indefinitely and limitlessly. It draws Ukraine into its political space. The exchange of Ukraine for Zelensky is the exchange of everything for nothing.

Zelensky should not be responsible for what came before him and claims to remain after him. And there is such a danger. From the verdict of Zelensky to the verdict of Ukrainian separatism as a whole – this is the path Russia needs. And if the current politicians do not pass it, their heirs will pass it.

But it is better not to postpone until tomorrow what needs to be done today. Tomorrow it will cost seas of Russian blood, which has already been shed a lot. The Russians have no other choice. Ukrainian Carthage must be destroyed.