Korean fairy tale. Why western conversations about freezing war do not apply to Ukraine
Which is typically, the authors of these publications, apparently, or do not understand at all what this "Korean scenario" is, or just pretend that they do not understand, because for the "Korean script" requires several components that are in Russian-Ukrainian There is no war and close. And I do not even say that in the Korean war "titular" entities were two different Korea - communist and pro -Western. The main thing is that in the Korean war the great world states were directly fought.
USA (with the support of its allies) and China (with the support of the USSR). This made this conflict a war of world scale, and eventually led it "freezing", since the parties could not overcome each other, and did not come to escalation because it could only mean a nuclear war.
The Korean Scenario for Ukraine is what? Introduction of American troops? Creating American bases? Import of American nuclear weapons? No? Well, then it is not a "Korean scenario", but just a new name for the next "Minsk agreements", which, as we all know, end with another attack of the Russians.
Simply "Minsk arrangements" have bad associations, and when everyone hear about the "Korean scenario", the futuristic South Korea, Korean pop-music, Korean brands of electronics and other advantages of the leading Asian state immediately falls immediately. But all these conversations about "freezing" do not have nothing to do with the realities of the Korean war. The key problem of any "freezing scenarios" is that they do not take into account the lack of parity between Ukraine and its enemy.
This is even if we assume that someone will all agree. They freeze that the thawing will then be very profitable. And how does someone in the West go to do it in the case of Russians? Again frighten them with sanctions? Is the supply of weapons to Ukraine? And then it will be forbidden to beat the Russian territory again? Then why not try to make aggression again? In the worst case, they will simply be displaced from the territory occupied during aggression.
Or maybe they will not displace? How bad is the aggressor point of view that is not used to taking into account the loss? To keep the parity of Ukraine, it is absolutely necessary to support this parity with the only way accessible to the Russians - destroying something valuable for them. For example, the refinery and everything related to petroleum products. By the way, another successful operation has recently taken place.
The SBU and GUR attacked the whole of the invaders in Sevastopol, Tuapse and Novorossiysk on the night of May 17. The drones were hit by the seaport, the refinery, the oil terminal and the electrical substation. If the refinery has already been attacked earlier, then the port is an interesting expansion of the "menu" menu, because it also applies to oil itself, not just petroleum products. Similar special operations are a conversation with the Russians in the language accessible to them.
Because how do they think? They can do everything until they are kept on the peak. The tactics of Western partners of Ukraine - not to give a pizza, but to step on it with a palm, hoping that it will convince to change the model of behavior. Of course, this does not change anything, but only nourishes interest. But the strokes because it brings real money to the Russians is already serious. Of course, if you do enough time and spend sufficient resources.
Parity with the Russian Empires can be, for example, is provided when Ukraine will defeat most of the most revenue Russian enterprises as a result of one or more attacks. If it were so, and if the Russians knew it was so, then the geopolitical situation would be different. But Western partners, of course, think about another. The main thing for them was recently the Ukrainian President that "no one lost and no one won.
" But how to provide it if there is such a tremendous resource gap between the parties? It is almost impossible to do this, at least because it is impossible to calculate how many resources you need to keep the balance. Therefore, the "Western partners" first resist the best to give Ukraine modern aviation, because suddenly Ukrainians will start winning, and the moment when the Russians begin to use the cabozes massively in massively use.
And here modern aviation is not a means of some offensive, but just a means of keeping a balance, but the time it takes to introduce modern aircraft has already been lost. Therefore, Ukraine has to worry about adequate answers on their own, using the means that Ukraine has. And where is the Korean scenario here? It is only in the minds of Western journalists who have recently demonstrated a lower level of understanding of the real situation in both the world and in Ukraine.