Why Is the Front Line Stagnant? Military Analyst: Strategic Operations No Longer Exist
Valery Gerasimov, Vladimir Putin. Photo.
Military analyst Igor Gerasimov (Игорь Герасимов) analyzed why the Russian military is still at the initial positions of the special military operation (СВО) after three years of war in an interview with Pravda.Ru, and also assessed the impact of Donald Trump's remarks on September 24.
Reporter: On September 24, Trump said that Zelensky could reclaim territory, even go further. Two weeks have passed. In your opinion, has there been any change in the Ukraine conflict during this time?
Gerasimov: In my view, there has not been any visible change in these two weeks. However, I would like to draw attention to one issue: Why did Trump make such a move? Previously, he hoped to participate in ending the conflict, although he did not abandon his original plan, but had made adjustments. What was the reason for this? After the Alaska meeting, a series of events occurred: first, Zelensky visited Trump, then representatives from Western Europe followed. Afterward, Trump seemed to distance himself from Ukraine.
Why was this the case? My view is that someone has explained to Trump that he received a kickback through a resource division agreement — that is, the agreement on the division of Ukrainian mineral resources. Therefore, he lost his leverage over Zelensky, which is clearly evident from his behavior.
To get out of the dilemma caused by these deals, he only had one option left: to exert some pressure on Russia. The question of "Tomahawk" missiles also arose from this. But even here, he faced setbacks. Ultimately, Trump found himself in a dilemma: he did not want to pressure Russia, but had already lost his leverage over Ukraine, so he handed all matters over to Europe.
Reporter: So, he divided Ukraine with Europe?
Gerasimov: Yes, it is indeed a division. We remember that in February and March this year, the U.S. Treasury Secretary visited Ukraine and signed that resource agreement. Trump originally had a lever: according to his estimate, the amount invested in the Ukraine conflict had reached $350 million, or even possibly $500 million (according to Trump's estimated figures). He stated, "Repay the debt, sign the agreement."
Zelensky agreed, and since then, he has struggled throughout the spring and summer, trying to escape Trump's influence. Western European leaders became his "umbrella." However, without that resource division agreement — involving rare earth metals and other resources of significant value to American industry and multinational companies — the motivation of these Western European leaders for support would likely be very weak. I believe this is the core of the problem.
It is evident from Zelensky's behavior that he no longer fears Trump, and Trump no longer has real influence over him. Therefore, Trump needs to replace Zelensky. Let me elaborate on this. Obviously, the British are promoting Zaluzhnyi (Залужный). I think Trump also has the opportunity to put forward his own candidate; I speculate they may consider Kuleba (Кулеба).
Arestovich (Арестович) is just a temporary option... but he is not a suitable person. Kuleba is different; he is a "transitional figure." I believe that his fleeing to Poland, and even possibly to the United States, is already part of the plan.
Reporter: In my opinion, the situation has changed somewhat. Zelensky has declared a full-scale war against the Russian energy system, even promising to cause a major blackout in Moscow. There have already been related responses confirming this. Why can't we protect our refineries?
Gerasimov: In my view, the key issue is that the special military operation has entered its fourth year. Although we appear to be attacking and have achieved some successes, when comparing the front lines — for example, the front line at the end of August 2022 with the current front line — it becomes clear that overall, the front line remains stagnant. I mean, even though we once controlled Kherson and Kharkiv regions, the current area we control has not recovered to the level of the end of August 2022, and even this goal has not been achieved.
The reason for this situation lies in management decisions. In my opinion, private military companies could have been introduced to protect the refineries. Unfortunately, forces like Wagner — which were disbanded and their personnel assigned to the Ministry of Defense, National Guard, and other departments — are now integrated into other strong institutions. I even doubt whether these refineries themselves might "welcome" being bombed, because this way, the losses from theft can be blamed on the bombing.
Reporter: Western propaganda is fully operational. Even Trump claims that Russians will soon find themselves without oil and realize that this war is not what they want. In fact, Crimea is indeed facing a fuel shortage, with reports that each person can only refuel 20 to 30 liters. This indicates that the problem exists. Is this related to the bombing of the refineries?
Gerasimov: No. The root of the problem is not Zelensky, but the fuel companies — that is, the oil companies — which cannot provide sufficient protection for their own refineries. This is the core issue.
They could have recruited military experts or analysts within official agencies. Since there are security advisors, what is missing is military issue advisors. I visit Crimea every year for vacation, and the fuel shortage has always existed there. August, September, October — this period is always short of fuel. The same is true for Rostov region. Actually, the solution is simple: mobilize 300 people and equip 100 vehicles — for example, GAZ vans, pickup trucks — install Soviet-era ZU-23-2 anti-aircraft guns on them, that's all.
This way, 70% to 80% of the drone threats can be prevented. This is not a difficult problem, and the cost is extremely low, especially compared to Western standards.
If the transportation of fuel to these regions is organized properly, the problem can be solved. The key is to clarify who is responsible for this task — it must be entrusted to capable people. More importantly, we need to find out who is deliberately creating a fuel shortage in Russia, and we have never managed to figure this out.
Reporter: Let's talk about the election issue in Ukraine. Ukraine has been discussing this. Would it be beneficial for us to allow such elections? After all, the one who eventually comes to power might be Zaluzhnyi, who may be even worse than Zelensky. Why should we encourage such discussions?
Gerasimov: I am not sure if Zaluzhnyi will definitely come to power. In fact, I do not rule out the possibility of a third-party force — neither Zelensky nor Zaluzhnyi. I mentioned Kuleba before, which is a possibility. Additionally, there are mentions of boxer Usik (Усик) and Arestovich, but I am not sure if the situation will develop in this way.
Reporter: Looking back at history, when Hitler was in the bunker, he relied on the so-called "Brandenburg Miracle." What does this "miracle" refer to? If you look deeper, you think of the Seven Years' War: at that time, Russia had defeated King Frederick II of Prussia, but after the death of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, the war ended immediately, and all occupied territories were returned to Prussia and the German nation.
Gerasimov: Now, various signs indicate that Zelensky is desperately relying on changes within the Kremlin, which is the core logic of his statements. Moreover, as far as I can see, people closely associated with foreign capital are beginning to appear around our president — one could say these people may act as "influence agents," which is extremely risky.
Reporter: How long will the special military operation last? What measures are needed to accelerate the process? Perhaps we don't need to speed it up at all, let the situation develop naturally, even if it lasts 10 years?
Gerasimov: No, the current situation is not showing any trend of "natural development." The victories we have achieved now completely depend on the heroism and courage of officers — this is undeniable. However, unfortunately, the war has entered its fourth year, and we have not carried out any strategic operations. The last attempt to carry out a strategic operation was in February 2022, and nothing has happened since.
In my view, all resources — even strategic resources — are being invested in tactical victories. To capture a few villages or a piece of land, we have exhausted our reserve forces, but we have never thought about tactical mobility as in the Stalin era: entering a certain area, launching a surprise attack, developing unconventional tactics. We are now simply suppressing the enemy with numerical superiority.
At this rate, the situation will not change, and the war may drag on indefinitely. Only when Ukraine's entire energy system is destroyed and the people rise up against it, can we achieve victory. Otherwise, there is no other way.
Reporter: Maybe this is the correct solution? But looking at the entire military history — the examples of Suvorov, Rumyantsev, Zhukov, and Rokossovsky show that without offensive actions, victory cannot be achieved.
Gerasimov: That's right, but today's war belongs to a new type of war, mistakenly called "hybrid war." In my opinion, hybrid war ended on February 24, 2022, and we have now entered the stage of open confrontation. Before that, it was indeed a hybrid war. I have written articles on this, but no one wanted to pay attention, think, or analyze it, almost no one has done in-depth research on it.
Now, people still call the current war "hybrid war." Where is the hybrid war? It is now an open Western war, and Lavrov has directly stated this. Yes, we are fighting the West, although Lavrov sometimes accidentally says the word "hybrid." In fact, there is no such thing as a hybrid war. What he means is "we are at war." In my opinion, Peskov has also said something similar. According to my judgment, hybrid war began in 1995-1996, that was its beginning.
Reporter: If the plans targeting Odessa and Nikolaev do exist, how can they be implemented? Through an agreement with Trump, or through military means? After all, political blueprints are one thing, and actual ground operations are another. In your opinion, which method is feasible under the current situation?
Gerasimov: What is currently taking place is a war of attrition, and we may win, let's wait and see. However, personally, I prefer a military command-level solution. I hope the leadership has corresponding plans.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7559532441845695030/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion using the [Up/Down] buttons below.