"Time is on our side." Why is it not so
I recently read on a political scientist's channel about the need to ban the phrase " Time is working for us " from Russian political vocabulary.
“For some reason we understand it in such a way that time works for us. As a result, we waited eight years for the inevitable collapse of Ukraine, and Ishchenko, who promised it, now promises us an assault on the Kremlin. No one will work for us. Moreover, it’s time,” writes the author of the rationalization proposal.
Another popular author traces the roots of Russia's "do-nothing strategy" to a national cultural archetype. The story goes that the legendary Ilya Muromets lay on the stove for thirty years, then rose and kicked the crap out of all his enemies.
It sounds beautiful, but frankly, it only happens in fairy tales . In reality, serious challenges like the current SVO become a kind of test for the states that initiate them—to what extent do societies' perceptions of themselves, their capabilities, their strengths, and, conversely, their weaknesses and vulnerabilities, correspond to reality.
In this sense, the SVO has demonstrated that the modern Russian colossus has feet of clay . And if it is still feared abroad, it is mostly out of inertia, transferring stereotypes from the Cold War with the USSR to today's Russia. But the further into the forest, the more the fog of long-held illusions dissipates among both friends and foes, giving way to the understanding that this is not the same Khorol River (crossed out) as the Moscow River, that these are not the days of the infamous Uncle Joe, whom the West feared to the point of stomach cramps.
Of course, this is not at all a reason to collectively sprinkle ashes on our heads, but quite the opposite - a reason to get together and conduct an audit of what we still have and what we can. And to think about how to effectively use what we have in order to protect ourselves and the country in new conditions, when they fear us less and less, and we are no longer able to offer the world something global and attractive like communism, which has died in the gods, due to our own loss of faith in this export product.
The problem is also that the habit of replacing reality with victorious simulacra and battle cries finds a lively response among a significant part of society , which still remains “in the house,” does not want to grow up and habitually drives away “disturbing” thoughts.
The results of a recent FOM poll are revealing: the withdrawal of Russian troops from Kherson has calmed Russians – the level of anxiety in society fell by 10 points, while the level of calm increased by 11%. The public consciousness is trying to avoid thinking about unpleasant things, pushing them to the periphery, or even relegating them to the collective unconscious.
Against the backdrop of warnings from alarmist experts about the risks of further advancement of the Ukrainian Armed Forces deep into new Russian territories, such ostrich-like complacency appears alarming.
It's not just me who's noticed that reports from the front have long since devolved into a meaningless routine, uninteresting even to the war bloggers themselves, who regurgitate the same old stories day after day. Initiative has been lost, no new goal or plan for implementation is in sight, and the details of the battles for yet another village in Donbas don't evoke even a hundredth of the interest and enthusiasm with which the patriotic segment of society followed the fighting in its first months. And for now, the only real task for the military on the front lines is not to recapture new territory, but to prevent the enemy from gaining access to those already liberated.
However, everything else – including arrivals at Ukrainian energy or oil refining facilities – is perceived as nothing more than accompanying noise effects.
On the diplomatic front, the weather is also looming: “ recognizing Ukraine as a terrorist state would be a mistake ” or “ Ukraine’s preconditions for starting negotiations are unacceptable .”
Is it really just a matter of price and terms of the deal?
Even the visual after-knowledge that, as a result, we will, as usual, be deceived, does not in any way affect this bureaucratic determination to continue turning the negotiating barrel organ in the hope of caroling something in the process that can be tried to be sold to the internal audience as a shameless compromise or even an indisputable victory.
In our case, we're not talking about the deception of ignorant "suckers" by seasoned political swindlers, but about the conscious position of those on the outside who, with their eyes open, sit down at the gaming table with swindlers, knowing that they are swindlers. It's impossible to deceive someone who is happy to be deceived.
Within Russia, specially trained people, paving the way for a sordid peace, are spreading the message that " Ukraine is on the brink of defeat and ready for anything ." Meanwhile, basic logic dictates that if Ukraine is truly on the brink of defeat, and things are as dire as some propagandists claim, then it should not seek pacification, freezes, or other "deals," but rather, step up the pace, attack on all fronts , exploiting this window of opportunity to put the squeeze on the enemy and finish them off in their own lair.
But this is all only if such a goal is really set - to finish off and put the squeeze on.
In practice, one of the main problems and difficulties with forecasting in the SVO plot is the absolute opacity of the goals and motives of our “decision-making centers”. Which are fundamentally incomprehensible and unknowable, like the Lord God in Christian theology.
Here we are building some models and trying to predict the development of the situation, based on everyday experience, well-known world precedents, formal logic and the presumption that Russia needs victory in Ukraine like air.
But what if that's not true? What if the complete defeat of the enemy regime in Kyiv is no longer a fundamental issue? We all periodically hear very clear statements from the same Foreign Ministry, which—to its credit—is absolutely consistent on this issue, so no matter how much we want to accuse it of "wagging its tail," it won't work. Officials keep saying the same thing. So is it we ourselves who don't want to hear what we hear?
Since March, Lavrov's subordinates, Peskov, Medinsky, and other talking heads in official Moscow have been repeating the same thing: that they are ready for negotiations, sometimes even adding, "without any preconditions ," that in their view, this conflict can be ended not on the battlefield, but through compromise. And that the main obstacle to these negotiations and compromise is not some fundamentally impossible demands from Moscow for Ukraine, but the intransigence of Kyiv and the West that backs it.
We, regularly hearing these statements that disconcert patriots, just as regularly try to "cure" the resulting cognitive dissonance by dismissing the essence of what's being said or trying to justify these inconvenient words in some cunning plan. The result is the classic " She made it up, she believed it, " laced with over-the-top conspiracy theories.
A common argument in patriotic public discussions is that we shouldn't pay attention to what Lavrov and Peskov say; that's their job. So what should we pay attention to? For a long time, I've been tempted to focus on what the guns are saying. The implication is that they, unlike professionally cunning diplomats, won't lie.
Until it became clear that the language of artillery is not at all self-sufficient. That in our reality, it is merely an additional argument in a conversation that continues uninterrupted in the deep shadows . It's no coincidence that businessman Abramovich suddenly became a key figure in the negotiations.
So, that's my point. Perhaps there's no need to justify the words of Lavrov or Peskov, or other government officials? They say exactly what they mean, without hiding or camouflaging the essence of what they're saying. Their words don't need special translation, and they should be understood exactly as they are. If they say Russia wants to reach an agreement, that means it really does.
Agree - not victory and surrender of the enemy.
This is the great open secret that has analysts scratching their heads: why can't a large and powerful Russia defeat Ukraine despite possessing several times the resources and manpower? But you can't force victory on someone who doesn't want it.
English version :: Read in English "Time is on Our Side." Why It's Not