Refer to the news network on February 6**On February 3, the Russian newspaper Gazeta published an article entitled "Why Zaluzhny Praises the Russian Army", written by Russian military expert Alexander Artamonov. The full text is excerpted below:
It seems to me that the new article of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Zaluzhny is a kind of "smokescreen". The reason is simple, Zaluzhny and Budanov, the head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, said that the Russian army is better trained, better equipped and better organized, and this hymn sounds very unnatural. It is strange to hear such words, at least from the lips of the commander-in-chief, who is personally in charge of the army. He is not trying to completely change his position, but he is responsible for the worse of his army in the face of the Kyiv regime in which he lives. He believes that this is due to some objective reasons, but there are several interesting facts here.
The article begins with the loud and shocking headline "Ukraine must adapt to the reduction in Western military aid", and it is published on the mainstream *** in English-speaking countries. What's more, almost all of what we see is in written form. It should be interesting to hear Zaluzhny's oral speech. After all, there are several questions involved: Does he have the ability to express all of this? Does the article convey Zaluzhny's thoughts? Could it be the idea of the American masters standing behind it?
It has to do with who is passing that information on to us and why. Interpreted, I think this means one thing: convince Ukrainian society of the need for rapprochement with Russia, and this should not be confused with real peace.
So, let's see how credible this article is. For example, Zaluzhny said that he lacks resources for mobilization, while Russia has more. There is no dispute about this, a big country is always stronger than a small one. But Zaluzhny himself promised more than a month ago to train 14 brigades, saying they would be able to deploy to the front in the spring. He also spoke about the pace of training of the Ukrainian army.
And now he is grief-stricken: "You see, I am short of manpower. "*Lack of people? Is it impossible to assemble an army of 50,000 to 60,000 men? I don't believe it. Even in a sparsely populated country like Ukraine, there are people to recruit. Zaluzhny himself spoke about the duration of the training and how many people will be trained each month. In short, the caliber is inconsistent.
Next, let's take a look at his assessment of the ammunition. Zaluzhny complained that Russia had sufficient supplies. Budanov also repeated his point of view in the interview. Doesn't it become clear to Zaluzhny that his pilots are now being trained in the UK, the Netherlands and France? Soon he will have 50-60 fighters flying to the front, which is very unpleasant news for us.
They repeatedly told us stories about the Leopard tanks, saying that they were poor in both driving and shooting. But they avoided mentioning the fact that they had already placed an order for the South Korean K2 "Panther" tank, which was in no way inferior to the T-90 "Breakthrough" main battle tank and was almost equal to the "Armata".
Reading the article to the end gave me the feeling that this was an insidious ** created by the British experts who created the 72nd Ukrainian Information and Psychological Operations Center, aimed at making Ukrainian society accept the idea of temporary reconciliation. Yes, just to deceive us.
At the moment, Ukraine (and not only Ukraine) is building a line of defense, and if they are given time, this will definitely be done. If they are given time to equip the Taurus cruise missiles, Moscow will become a target.
All of their ** is in the air, at sea. The storm in the Black Sea is coming to an end, and unmanned boats made in the name of Ukraine will attack Sevastopol. I have not forgotten that NATO has created a new naval base in Bulgaria. In addition, Batumi and Poti in Georgia are now NATO ports, from where it is possible to monitor the entire Black Sea waters.
Remembering these and many other facts, I read Zaluzhny's article in another way. The article echoes closely with the arguments of CIA Director William Burns, who favors a transition to ceasefire and peace negotiations with the aim of prolonging the conflict. One sentence in particular struck me: Russia will win the "protracted war" against NATO. Russia can certainly win any war, but the word "durable" is used very cunningly. Because that's exactly what NATO is doing – prolonging the war, expanding the front line, and at the same time waging more destructive wars. Therefore, the claim that they cannot win a "protracted war" against Russia is completely a **, a decoy, and a trap.