By starting this war, Russia has brought itself to the brink beyond which there is inevitable defeat. And mobilization will not change this. Russia has already lost the war. The question is what will be left after Russia. The plan is already in place. This opinion was expressed by Gleb Parfyonov, coordinator of the security direction of the Doctrine Center for Political Studies.
One of the scenarios is its disintegration. Many people talk about it, but what does this trend mean? It’s lying in my desk drawer as a working option. Otherwise it would not have been talked about in Congress, such a subject would not have been brought up by General Hodges.
The disintegration will be not only along ethnic lines, but also along economic ones. The longer the war is, the stronger the impact of sanctions becomes – and whoever gets out of Russia first will profit more. Zeroing.
Let’s take the Far North, for example. This is Arkhangelsk, Karelia, etc. They tend to Scandinavia because of both the similarity of nature and the way of life which is different from what they have now.
What will they get? They will be able to easily supply energy resources to Europe. They will have a much higher standard of living than they have now.
Of course, the disintegration will not be peaceful. A bloody and merciless process awaits us, with both conditionally left-wing and conditionally right-wing reactionaries. And it’s all sprinkled with zeks (convicts) from the PMCs.
It is logical that this will result in refugee flows. Where to? The geography itself shows that most will go to Ukraine.
Do Ukrainians need these refugees? In my opinion, not all of them. But people who were behind enemy lines and helped the Armed Forces of Ukraine are needed. They have already deserved the right to Ukrainian citizenship. But we have to do something with the rest without breaking the convention.
After all, deep in the state’s interior they do not sleep either. They have roughly estimated the number of refugees – at least 3 million people, a tremendous figure. Something should be done to cope with this. Allowing them in is the same as voluntarily allowing ethnic conflicts and internal instability.
Turkish practice is the only fair option. Creation of a buffer zone in the border area. After all, Ankara went into Syria not only for geopolitical purposes: the issue of refugees played an important role as well. There were more than a million of them in Turkey.
And in the territory under Turkish control, Syria has everything. University branches, lira in circulation, the Turkish and Ottoman version of history. And, in principle, the standard of living is fairly good. There is room to grow, yet there are investments.
In our case we can do something similar. A safety zone of 80-150 km into Russia. First, it is not only our ethnic territories, but also an important agro-industrial region. This area is enough for filtering and settling refugees under Kyiv’s control.
Hryvnias will circulate there, the Ukrainian and Polish-Ukrainian version of history will be taught. And the agro-industrial complex will not only give jobs to people, but also feed the regions and reduce the subsidy burden.
It may all look fabulous to those reading this. I partly agree with them. But each authority must have different action sets for different scenarios. And this is one of them.