Valeriy Viktorovich Pyakin’s comments on special military operation at “QUESTION-ANSWER” OF 05.23.2022
„Question-Answer“ of 05.23.2022
Presenter: The main question is: Valeriy Viktorovich, can you comment on the special military operation that is currently underway in Ukraine?
Valeriy Pyakin: In general, I went through all of the questions we’d received. This is the reason for the recent development of a certain delivery style. As a result, my comment on the special military operation became a monologue. We received some very interesting questions, but in order to keep everything together, I’ll make a general comment.
The main issue of this week and the one that resonated the most was, of course, the surrender of fighters from the punitive Azov sub-unit1. Oh, how they showed off their determination to never surrender, how tough they are, how they condemned others who surrendered, and now – phew! – they have surrendered. Praise and honour to the officers who were able to persuade them to surrender. There is no alternative attitude to negotiators here.
[1. The Special Operations Detachment “Azov” is an auxiliary police sub-unit of regiment size, formally incorporated into the National Guard of Ukraine. The Azov Regiment is a far-right group with neo-Nazi ideology, known for the systematic extermination of the people in Donbass.]
However, there are several factors that cause them to surrender. It should be emphasized that they were not given the same kind of a corridor as was provided to the international terrorists during the First Chechen War. In that Chechen War terrorists were always given a corridor as soon as they were taken by the throat; instantly a corridor was opened for them, they were released, and then they were to be chased, fought and cornered again. Those terrorist groups — international criminals who had congregated in Chechnya’s territory — were difficult to destroy because traitors in the Kremlin and the top military leadership used to obstruct it. Therefore, the Chechen War is named after the location of the special operation, not the Chechen people. The “Azov“ punitive troops waited for the corridor, but their expectations failed. Furthermore, there was another case in point: Nadya Savchenko, who had previously been convicted of crimes, was released in the end. That is what they hope for. They have grounds to hope so, to be fair.
But, before we go to these grounds, we must first understand: what are they fighting for? Do they have a clear understanding of the cause they are fighting for? They certainly do. So there was a slew of appeals from Ukrainian, so to say, military personnel — the country’s armed rag-tag and bobtail herde — to their would-be-Hetman, President Zelenskiy. They were saying: “We lack heavy weaponry, reinforcements and cover, and we are dissatisfied with the command; so we will not fight. We do not, however, refuse to defend our Motherland. Just give us all we require.” Really? Is that how people defend their Motherland? Is this how a patriotic war is waged?
Let us recall the Great Patriotic War and the 1941 defeat of the Brest Fortress, for example. The Brest Fortress defenders had no food or water — nothing — but they resisted anyway. The gunmen from “Azov” have surrendered. They had food, supplies, and a large arsenal of weaponry. But they surrendered because they have no spirit and understand that they are fighting for their pretence, not for any Motherland, and that is why they chose to stay alive in prison rather than die in freedom. They lack the values for which they would be willing to lay down their lives. Therefore, comparing them with the Israeli Masada fortress, where the last defenders slaughtered each other before the fortress fell, is pointless. “How is that? It can’t be.”
What are the implications of their help appeals? They demonstrate that they have no Motherland, no cause to fight for.
During the Great Patriotic War, many units lost their commanders. And the first commander to arrive assumed command and kept it: communicated with superior organizations, contacted adjacent units, co-organized resistance, fighting at the front and in partisan detachments. Was there a lack of weapons? If no weapons were available, the enemy’s weapons had to be taken and the battle waged using captured weapons. It was widespread in 1941 and 1942, and it lasted until the war’s end. Captured weapons, in general, were nearly the only source of resupply for partisan detachments. Was there a lack of heavy weapons? Was it ever in abundance? In 1941, tanks and aviation (air cover) were not available. Did anyone refuse to fight for their Motherland under these circumstances? Yes. Future Vlasovites and Benderites refused. “Hitler has strength; we will serve on his side,” they rushed to the Nazis. They were out of their way to assimilate with Hitler’s Army, so that afterward they searched for a way to escape from the Nazis and surrender to someone like the Americans. T
Download PDF to read the full article…
Foundation for Conceptual Technologies