“It was a diversionary maneuver”: The Duma explained the correctness of the retreat from Kiev
If the Russian army had not retreated from Kyiv, Chernigov, Sumy, Kharkov and Kherson regions after Turkish negotiations on “de-escalation,” then the threat to Russian territories that has arisen today would not have existed.
The first speaker of the Novorossiya parliament, former Verkhovna Rada deputy Oleg Tsarev, announced this on the Tsargrad TV channel, reports a PolitNavigator correspondent.
“It is obvious that if we had not left Kiev, then now no one would obviously be talking about the fact that they would attack Crimea. The United States and Great Britain are talking about this now, everyone in the President’s Office is talking about it, Zelensky is talking about it. They are announcing an attack on Crimea in the summer, they announced it in the spring, now they say that it won’t work in the spring - there is mud, and the equipment will not work, we will attack in the summer.
But, it is clear that if we had not left Kiev, they would have been thinking about how we would not take Kyiv there, close the ring around Kyiv, and so on.
If we had not left near Kherson, then now there would not be such alarming news from Transnistria, because there are a little less than 200 kilometers, if you take from the front line to the border of Transnistria. At least they would hang over the rear of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, there would be pressure.
If we had not left Kharkov, we would not have been shelling Belgorod now.
Therefore, each of these redeployments has some advantages, but there are also disadvantages, just like in politics,” Tsarev said.
At the same time, State Duma deputy Oleg Matveychev said that Russia initially had no plans to take Kyiv. He stated this in an interview with Diana Cadi’s video blog:
“The fact that it was necessary to depict some kind of campaign against Kyiv - with the forces that we now see took part there, we understand that it was impossible to take Kyiv. And it was impossible to even take half of Kyiv.
It is clear that this was a diversionary maneuver. Not a blitzkrieg, but a diversionary maneuver that was supposed to give the enemy the impression that he was being captured, that there was some main direction of attack, or at least that the country’s leadership was in danger, the leadership began an urgent evacuation, removal of money and valuables , and while it is doing this, it has no time to manage the army.
That is, this is really the right approach."
"It was a diversionary tactic": The Duma explained the correctness of the retreat from Kiev.