Kurginyan explains what happened at Kharkov

02.10.2022, Aleksandrovskoye.

The failure at Kharkov raises serious questions, the answers to which have nothing to do with a top-level treason or the “extraordinary power” of the Ukrainian army, said philosopher, political scientist and the leader of the Essence of Time movement Sergey Kurginyan on September 27 in a new issue of the Destiny program published on the movement’s YouTube channel.

According to Kurginyan, misinformation from various instigators and hysterics interpreting the Russian army’s leaving the previously liberated part of Kharkov region as a top-level treason or as an achievement of the “brilliant” Ukrainian army as well as the concept of invincibility of the Russian army that needs neither mobilization nor any help from the public have proven to be inadequate, and they are “filthy lies.”

“Something else took place. It was a segmented, incipient degradation of certain factions inside the overall military contingent,” the political scientist explained.

He stressed that when such a segmented degradation takes place, even adjacent units that remain strong and unaffected by the degradation  annot stand and continue to fight for an extended period of time.

The leader of the movement suggested that one should imagine a situation when a combat-effective unit has something “rotten” at its flanks, i.e. troops that affected by degradation, which are no longer able to fight the enemy “due to partial collusion based sometimes on ethnic and sometimes on criminal grounds.” The situation endangers the “non-rotten troops” as the threat of encirclement and cutting off munitions supplies in the necessary amounts will result in a situation when “even the best unit can either die or be captured,” Kurginyan noted.

He explained that in such a situation the combat-effective units breaking open a corridor to escape, as certain units of the National Guard and other Russian servicemen did who “fought valiantly, destroyed huge enemy manpower, but had to retreat in this kind of a situation.”

“What kind of reactions did this entail? First, the reactions were too late, because they were afraid to say what happened. Second, claims appeared that it was just a sort of a maneuver to move to the other bank of the Oskol river to take up a brilliant defense there,” the leader of the movement explained.

According to Kurginyan, they were “simply afraid” to tell the truth to the public, but the explanations that were given sounded like “a blatant overdue lie.”

“Later, certain members of the wise pragmatic military community started to talk about the coming winter and the need to leave the other bank of the Dnepr River for the sake of optimization and to cede a large territory in order to take up defense behind the water barrier. This was stopped, terminated, and as far as I understand, reactions followed from the top level. The situation changed again,” he concluded.

Source: Rossa Primavera News Agency

Leave a Reply