Interesting in the last turn of the war. One other gibridnye. A truce is even more hybrid than war. But gibridnye all – the choice of opponents, allies and war.
See for yourself:
In Syria, the war in the Donbass do not fight.
Why?
Because in Syria, we beat the terrorists overseas so they were not on the territory of Russia. Right? We said that?
But from this it follows that in the Donbass, which is located on the borders of Russia, the terrorist threat for us. And how then to be with the Right sector, which is recognized as a terrorist organization?
Oops…
That is, the Arabs who formed ISIS, which is to be Russia’s borders, we must first take a Turkey that is unlikely to succeed, and not the fact that they need it is for Russia a serious threat.
And Bandera, which have bred in the Ukraine, in the historic Russian soil, including in Odessa – the city founded by the Russian Empire – it is not a threat.
The Arabs, who speak a different language and whipped somewhere in the wilderness with each other and which in Russia, by and large, and to do nothing is a threat.
Bandera, who speak Russian, kill Russian and openly Express the wish that Russia was destroyed, divided and disappeared as a state is not a threat.
Why?
Probably because Bandera close, and the Arabs far.
Now, if Bandera go away, somewhere in the desert, begins to speak Arabic, and chopped each other, in pravosekov levoseki – then we will fight them on the distant approaches, and yet…
We probably inconvenient to fight on its borders…
Or not in this case?
Maybe then the fact that we help the brotherly Syrian people and bring peace in suffering land of Syria? Protect those whom no one else to protect? Fighting for peace and justice?
Then it turns out that in the Donbass no one does not need to protect. Or need, but the people of Syria, brotherly, and the people of Donbass – is a not very brotherly.
Some apparently wrong in the Donbass, the people, referendums are wrong conducts.
Here are the people in Syria no referendum holds is the right people.
Or the reason in something else?
Rumor has it that the residents of Donbas want Russian wages, but to fight for them, didn’t want and sat on the sofas.
But the Arabs, who wanted the European salaries and allowances and yanked them to the EU instead of in unison to take up arms and destroy ISIS – that they need help.
That is, the Arabs, wishing to European salaries and benefits, is dearer to us than the Russian, wishing Russian salaries. Apparently the Arabs are more in need of our help. And indeed, the inhabitants of Donbass, wishing to obtain a Russian salary, is much easier – get on the bus and arrived in Rostov, but the Arabs difficult…
Or again not that?
It may be the case that Bashar al-Assad we were asked to help, and from Donbass nobody asked?
Yes, like I asked…
Not asked for? Not the same?
Or a country like the Donbass and Syria is, therefore, Syria to help fight back against terrorists and the Donbass?
But in the Donbass also announced the establishment of the Republic. And the people in the referendum voted for them. Or it was the wrong referendum, which carried out the wrong people?
In Crimea proper, and in the Donbass is incorrect?
But it’s discrimination on a territorial basis, in its pure form, if one referendum we recognize, and the other held in the same circumstances, do not recognize.
Why?
Because one referendum is in our plans, and the other is not responding?
That is, we provide military aid to, not because we were asked or not asked, but because it is in our plans?
Means to deal with Arab terrorists overseas is in our plans, but to fight with Bandera in the middle – not responding?
Arab terrorists, who knows whether he could get to Russia and not the fact that Russia is included in their plans is a threat to us, and berezovsy, which has already reached historic part of Russia and kill Russian is not a threat?
Seem to be going into the second round…
It is necessary to look for logic in something else.
It’s probably the fact that Mr. Burkhalter asked us not to fight in the Donbass, otherwise it will be ay-ay-ay.
By itself, Mr. Burkhalter we, of course, is not terrible, but he spoke on behalf of the West, whose opinion we have to consider, because our entire economy depends on Western partners not to mention the capital elite – right?
But here again there is a discrepancy – to help Bashar Assad in the West we have too, no one asked, on the contrary – the United States is very dissatisfied with Russia’s participation in the Syrian war.
That is to fight in the Donbass, we can’t, because the West will not allow it, and Syria can, despite the fact that the same West again will not allow it?
Again, something doesn’t add up.
Maybe we can’t fight in Donbass because Poroshenko our partner?
Why is he our partner?
We also announced the coup in Kiev illegal and even took on this occasion the Crimea, there was the fact that now in the Donbass.
Why are we even recognized Poroshenko?
Because the West of us asked for this?
A war in Syria, the West has asked us to?
Now, again go to the second round…
Maybe we are fighting in Syria because they want to preserve its influence in the middle East? And Ukraine their influence we keep not want? How can I affect the middle East, if we can not seriously affect Ukraine?
However…
Wrong I probably write that in Syria we are fighting, and in the Donbass do not fight.
In Donbass we also did some fighting. Really informally. Officially we weren’t there, and unofficially, we have destroyed large units of the APU in a few pots, took debaltseve and achieved the signing of the Minsk agreements.
Though Donetsk is still under fire and the Minsk agreements are not exactly like the fact that the Donbass would like to receive as a result of our help.
So why are we left to fight on that APU continues to shell Donetsk, and the Minsk agreements require Donbass back to Ukraine?
Because Poroshenko our partner, the West asked us, and Bandera at our borders do not pose a threat to Russia because they speak Russian language and not in Arabic and are on the approaches, not in the far, which greatly hinders the fight?
I’m afraid again go to a new circle…
And Syria get interesting – then the terrorists, then the moderate opposition, then we agree with the United States, we do not agree with US, then bomb, then not bomb, then fly, then do not fly, here we have Western partners, we have s-300…
Here we triumphantly finished the main part of the operation and completed all the tasks, and then war of the end-edge in sight…
In short, a hybrid war, more a hybrid of the truce, but the hybrid of the target.
There fighting, then not fighting, then a truce signed.
There are partners, there are not partners…
Then the brothers, then Nebrat…
Then correct the referendum’s wrong with a referendum…
And win even more hybrid.
Previously, it was the concept of a Pyrrhic victory, and in our time it’s time to introduce the concept of victory hybrid.
Then won, then won, then how would have won, but it would not win, and then lost all but said he won because the winner is even worse.
There was a knife in the back, there is not quite back and not quite a knife but that was yesterday, and today a friend of Erdogan, our partner in the fight against terrorists, yesterday, he is our version financed, buying oil from them.
Something like that will.
Hybrid war and hybrid peace.
There fighting, then not fighting.
