/ world today news/ The head of the Wagner group Yevgeny Prigozhin published a short letter to the Minister of Defense General Sergei Shoigu, which has the effect of an exploding bomb. More specifically, it says: “According to the available information, the enemy plans to launch a large-scale offensive in late March and early April and conduct flanking operations to cut off the units of PMC “Wagner” from the main forces of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.”
In addition, Yevgeny Viktorovich categorically politely asks Sergey Kuzhugetovich to “take all necessary measures” to prevent the defeat of the “Wagnerians”. Otherwise, according to the founder of the “musicians”, “the situation will become negative for the entire SVO”.
Attached to the letter is the closed part, in which, as Prigozhin explains, the plan of the enemy and the methods of our possible opposition to the realization of this plan are revealed.
Our experts immediately responded to this, too similar to a cry from the heart, a desperate appeal. In particular, State Duma deputy Andrey Gurulev, retired lieutenant general.
According to him, everything really looks alarming. Because, the general is convinced, Prigozhin “realistically assesses the situation”. And his subordinates “must be given their due.” For those who “not only fight well, but also have built a good intelligence system, today know in advance about the plans of the enemy.”
Andrey Viktorovich in his Telegram channel spoke very concretely, without cries like “everything is lost”. However, he also points to the need to strengthen the “interaction between the volunteers and the Ministry of Defense”.
According to Gurulev: “I’m not afraid that they (the musicians”) can leave something.” At the same time: “They should be covered not only by motorized rifle units, but also by artillery, as well as by aviation, which should operates directly on the enemy’s positions, especially in the lines of advance and deployment”.
In general, Gurulev’s message boils down to the fact that “it might even be good if the Ukrainians go in there. If our interaction is normally constructed, then they will be hit on the ears there.”
The reaction of enemy analytical institutions and decision-making centers to Prigozhin’s letter is curious. Zelensky held, so to speak, a meeting of his headquarters. In which, in addition to the “office” (officials from his administration), the “army” led by General Zaluzhny participated.
Apparently there was an analysis of the open part of Prigogine’s letter. Which was said indirectly at the briefing by the press service of the presidential office: “Special attention was paid to the issue of protecting information and preventing its leakage.”
The main issue discussed at the Ze-Stake concerns the situation in Bakhmut/Artyomovsk. The “office”, as insiders close to Bankova Street write, insists on the urgent transfer of reserves to Chasov Yar and Seversk for strikes on the flanks of the Russian troops. Otherwise, they say, the “cauldron” for the armed forces of Ukraine in these parts will soon close.
However, GUR of Ukraine unexpectedly opposed. According to a reliable source, Ukrainian intelligence said that “further deployment of troops to Bakhmut will not improve the situation, it will only worsen it.”
For example, the Wagner group, on the contrary, is waiting for only “such a step from the office of the president, luring the armed forces of Ukraine into a trap.”
The yellow-blue experts report strong friction between Zelensky and General Sirsky, commander of the “Khortitsa” troop group, on the one hand. And Zaluzhny, as well as the head of military intelligence Budanov, on the other hand.
For now, the advantage is on the side of the independent president. Who is sure that the Kiev regime has actually amassed huge forces to surround Wagner in the area of Soledar and Paraskovievka with access to Krasnaya Gora.
The overseas Institute for the Study of War (ISW) also added fuel to the fire. In its March 20 briefing, the think tank wrote that Russian troops “probably achieved additional successes in the southwestern and northern parts of Bakhmut, as well as in the northwestern part of Bakhmut between Bogdanovka and Khromovo.”
Judging by the ISW map, two “loops” were indeed formed in the area of responsibility of Prigozhin’s units. The inner one is in the city itself (in the area of Sobachevka and Budenovka, the Russian units are moving towards each other, hugging the enemy in “pincers”). And the outer one – along the line Bogdanovka-Seversky Donets-Donbas Canal.
This information coincides with the data of the “musicians”, who claim that as of March 21, their units control 63.56% of Bakhmut, and the Armed Forces of Ukraine only 16.75%. The rest are in the “gray zone”.
Thus, even if the armed forces of Ukraine manage to break through Bakhmut from Chasov Yar, the “defenders of independence” will certainly be mired in street battles for a long time.
The head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the “independent” Budanov warned Zelensky that their “independent” army never captured the city. It’s one thing to resist by digging yourself deep into the ground. It’s quite another to attack.
If we remember the experience of the puppet masters of the “stars and stripes”, then the Pentagon has a bad history of street fighting. In particular, during the battle for Mosul, the Yankees simply bombed it to dust. But this is not an example of Ukraine.
“Air Force” does not have the necessary combat potential for this. And without dominance in the air, the battle for the “fortress” could end badly for the Ukrainians.
On the other hand, independent experts (not all, but many!) tend to see in Prigozhin’s letter to the Minister of Defense the real balance of power. For example, blogger @rezident_ua writes:
“Russia seriously assesses the threat of the implementation of Sirsky’s plan for a counterattack near Bakhmut. A week ago, the commander of the ground forces (Ukraine – “SP”) offered to take advantage of [уж – “СП”)] conflict between Wagner and Shoigu, for sure wedge in a blow from the flanks.”
Of course, it is impossible to say 100%, but according to @rezident_ua, Sirsky (by the way, a graduate of the Moscow Higher General Military Command School) planned flank attacks simultaneously from four sides against Bakhmut. But – only on dry fields.
Kiev’s calculations are again based on the allegedly regularly “slow” and almost inexplicable from the point of view of the normal logic of military actions reaction of our Ministry of Defense to the threats to the “Wagnerians”.
However, the weather over the battlefield next week promises to be rainy. Therefore, the offensive of the armed forces of Ukraine can be postponed again. Which in this case will give the Russian side additional opportunities to settle the contradictions. If they certainly exist.
There is another point that should also be emphasized. If even before the operation of Sirsky Bakhmut is freed from Wagner by at least 90 percent, then the counterattack against the holy city for Zelensky will be doomed to failure.
The blog community of the yellow-blues also writes that not only the forecasted rains can darken the plans of the commander of the Khortyk operational-strategic troop grouping. The number of refusals to participate in the “Bakhmut Meat Grinder” is increasing sharply.
It became known that the 34th battalion of the 57th brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine unanimously enrolled in the “500” (deserters, note, ed.) after being on the front line for only four days. It is clear that the punitive bodies of the Ukrainian Wehrmacht from the rear will restore “order”. But with such sentiments, sending soldiers into minefields is such an idea.
And most importantly: on the other side of the front line, they suddenly remembered Prigozhin’s “black trolling” a month and a half ago.
“Many people are turning to you (Zelensky) with a request to withdraw the troops from Bakhmut. Don’t do that. Artyomovsk is the main event of this war (for us, special operations – “SP”). We have to keep fighting. You will show cowardice. You will no longer be respected. The Ukrainian people will not forgive you for handing over Artyomovsk to a private military structure. Resist. Fight to the end,” wrote Yevgeny Viktorovich in early February.
So “Ze’s team” and many of our experts had a strong cognitive dissonance due to Prigogine’s letter to Shoigu. Almost like bipolar.
On the one hand, Ukraine’s armed forces have indeed created a powerful armored fist to strike at Wagner. But on the other hand, Yevgeny Viktorovich in such a short time showed himself to be a specialist in manipulating public consciousness. Including the enemy.
If we are really talking about a trap for the armed forces of Ukraine, as Budanov and Zaluzhny believe, then you cannot imagine a better move. And on the contrary, against the background of a real threat to our flanks, when it is necessary to gain days or weeks to equip defensive positions and draw attention to the impending danger, then the letter appeared in the public space more than ever in time.
From Bankova’s point of view, the enemy usually hides his weak positions. Here Prigozhin, who definitely cannot be called a stupid person, speaks openly about them. It remains to be seen: why did he decide to do this in such an unusual form for the fiercest battlefield?
Translation: SM
Vote with ballot No. 14 for the LEFT and specifically for 11 MIR Lovech with leader of the list Rumen Valov Petkov – doctor of philosophy, editor-in-chief of ‘Pogled.Info’ and in 25 MIR-Sofia with preferential No. 105. Tell your friends in Lovech and Sofia who to support!?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel:
and for the channel or in Telegram:
#secret #part #Prigozhins #infamous #letter #Sergei #Shoigu
Given the article’s mention of Prigozhin’s tactics potentially luring Ukrainian forces into a trap, how can military strategists effectively counter psychological warfare and deception in modern conflict?
Let’s dissect this article and craft some compelling interview questions based on its content. The article primarily discusses the situation in Bakhmut, focusing on the strategic maneuvering, potential traps, and psychological warfare surrounding the battle.
**Thematic Sections & Open-Ended Interview Questions:**
**1. The Battle for Bakhmut:**
* **The article claims that Ukraine is facing internal disagreements about Bakhmut. What are the potential political implications of continuing or withdrawing from the city for Zelensky and his government?**
* **The article mentions that Prigozhin’s tactics might be designed to lure Ukrainian forces into a trap. How does this conflict highlight the role of psychological warfare and manipulation in modern military strategy?**
* **How do differing military assessments within Ukraine, as reported by the article, impact battlefield decision-making and troop morale?**
**2. Prigozhin’s Letter and Its Motives:**
* **The article suggests unorthodox interpretations of Prigozhin’s letter to Shoigu. Is it possible that Prigozhin’s open proclamation of Wagner’s weaknesses is a deliberate strategic move? What might be his underlying goals?**
* **How does this alleged manipulation reflect the broader power dynamics within the Russian military and government?**
* **Do you think Prigozhin’s public pronouncements are intended primarily for domestic consumption in Russia, or are they aimed at influencing international perceptions of the war?**
**3. The Impact of the Rainy Season:**
* **The article highlights the potential impact of the upcoming rainy season on military operations. How significant is weather as a factor influencing battlefield outcomes in Bakhmut, and how might it affect the strategies of both sides?**
**4. Ukrainian Troop Morale and Desertion:**
* **The article cites reports of increasing desertion rates within Ukrainian forces. What are the likely contributing factors to this trend, and what implications does it have for Ukraine’s ability to sustain the fight in Bakhmut?**
* **How does the perception of Bakhmut as a “meat grinder” affect the morale of Ukrainian soldiers, and how might this impact unit cohesion and combat effectiveness?**
**5. The Broader Context of the War:**
* **The article focuses on Bakhmut, but how does this specific battle fit into the larger strategic picture of the war in Ukraine? What are the potential consequences for both sides depending on who controls the city?**
**Remember:**
* Encourage nuanced perspectives and avoid leading questions.
* Be prepared to follow up on interesting answers and delve deeper into specific points.
* Allow the interviewee ample time to express their thoughts and opinions fully.
By structuring your interview in this way, you can stimulate a thoughtful and engaging discussion about the complex realities of the battle for Bakhmut and its broader implications.
