"Announcement of successes is madness." Why it is not necessary to rejoice in the Armed Forces in the south of Ukraine in advance - a weighted assessment of Yuri Butusov

I wrote in general, because we have people who are involved in making decisions that, I do not know for what reasons, sometimes it is even logically difficult to understand, try to create a completely unjustified situation during hostilities. I saw in Severodonetsk and Lisichansk, what it led to. People who launch some political signals, then do not quite realize how this is further reflected in decision -making during hostilities.

In order to warn some executives from the spread of absolutely unjustified settings of optimism that can be damaged, I wrote a post. But it does not concern any particular situation, it generally concerns what is happening in the information space. You know, we really need optimism, we need to see good, we need to see success, to see the results. But all this should happen. And after it happened, it is necessary to talk about it.

I also like to write about victories, but I try to show what is real, what you can say. Otherwise, especially when politicians and executives do it, they create the effect of inflated expectations, which then the burden rests with the performers. And this is absolutely wrong. The course of hostilities does not require announcements. This is absolutely false solution.

Now, as long as we have a tense situation, I cannot speak more specifically, but announcing some successes is full of madness, from my point of view. Successes should be achieved and then demonstrated their results. Otherwise, those people who do life -threatening work are too much at different levels. It is absolutely unjustified, they do not work in the war. Not all actions in the war should lead to any clear success. Not all promotions should end with this promotion.

You need to wait for certain results first, and then lift really deserved waves of joy. - Your reader has been perceived, of course, this publication as a cold shower. What do you think is the limit, what can you be reported? Is it good that we know that the Armed Forces of Ukraine are beating on the Antonov Bridge or on this railway bridge that connects the right and left shores of Kherson region? - There are results - strokes on specific objects - it is absolutely necessary to talk about.

But no more. Any offensive operation requires attracting attention only after certain steps have already been obtained. Any information transmitted (especially when it is widely replicated) is quite valuable [for the enemy] because it shows certain priorities. The greatest influence on consciousness, people have the results of hostilities that can be shown, not announced.

Therefore, honestly, sometimes, in many cases, there is a desire, as we saw it in Severodonetsk, to give the desired for the true really shock. And those consequences, as it then reflects on military planning, just even many things can still be told. This is very wrong when the information field begins to influence how troops should act. - Does I understand: when the head of the Presidential Office Andriy Ermak writes that “Kherson is Ukraine.

Our Kherson, ”is not necessary to do this? - I am generally surprised that sometimes Andrei Yermak throws about the war. Initially, he wrote absolutely inappropriate information about the plane, now for some reason this tweet about Kherson. If Mr. Yermak was a simple blogger, no one would pay attention to it. But his tweets form an information picture.

And when his tweets and messages distort the information picture, it seems to me that this is a very false understanding of the president's office how information policy should be formed. They should ask the General Staff that they do as leaders of the state, not play in these information wars. This is a deeply false solution and I hope that Mr. Yermak will at least once go out to the front and see how such optimism is treated by people who are truly fighting.

I think after that he will change his position and will consult with the military before some joyful messages are placed on his social networks again. - You are really a consistent critic of power. You have just said that we all need optimism, we all want positive news. Does what happens in the Kherson region, optimism in you? - I have an optimism that Ukraine continues to be a difficult battle with the Russian Federation. This is an absolutely incredible heroism.

We achieve great success in this, have achieved. The fact that we have active fighting, we do not give the enemy the initiative, we try to capture it in different sections of the front - it is very good and it is proper to do it. But I believe that given the losses we carry, given the very difficult economic situation, occupation by an opponent of more than 20% of our country, we still need to be more realistic.

And it is necessary to recognize the presence of problems, to talk more about them to solve them more. To be honest, I am very surprising when people sometimes begin to treat a show that goes far away from them. Each strip on the map is achieved by a very difficult scary price. The situation is still intense, the enemy has a great advantage in combat equipment, aviation, artillery, tanks, a huge advantage in ammunition.

There is absolutely no reason to be in advance, before something happened, to treat such a lively look. Now that the war became positional, the enemy began to use the tactics of artillery, aviation offensive, a lot of things need to be changed systematically - strategy, security, organization. And yet things that save life - this should be the main theme of news. And how the results, successes, victories will be somewhere, it should be covered after they have taken place.

This is normal and it must be maintained. I am constantly writing about it. - Our public colleagues filmed reports in the south of Ukraine. Speaking to the military who are there, you can only confirm your words. First, we need to understand that it is a steppe, a plain. Could you tell us more about why this is a very difficult bridgehead to get it to be devoured? - Ukraine is now in this situation. The Russian army dictates the initiative in many areas, sets it out, squeezes.

They try to capture the Donbas first. While active actions in the Donbass, they try to become entrenched on the Right Bank, to strengthen the defense in the Kharkiv region. The situation is extremely dangerous for us. Such a configuration of the front line (if the enemy secures it, strengthen the troops, increase their density) is absolutely unprofitable for us.

Of course, we need to improve our strategic situation - to reflect the enemy in many areas in the Donbass, in the Izium direction of Kharkiv region, and of course, on the Right Bank [Dnipro]. On the Right Bank (this is obvious to anyone on the map) in the rear of the enemy of the Dnieper River. For the enemy, it is a serious obstacle if you destroy the main stationary bridges and crossings. Of course, we have good strategic opportunities, preconditions for effective fighting.

Of course, the implementation of these plans requires active action on the whole front - creating certain arms, systemic actions, concentration, and training of troops. Many or many organizational things. For us, this south now, behind the Dnieper, this large area, which controls the enemy on the approaches to Nikolaev, threatening Nikolaev and Kryvyi Rih - is a great danger.

If Russia is entrenched there, focus troops, resumes its arms reserves, there is a great danger that in this long war we will wage for many years, the enemy will use it as a bridgehead to blow to the south of Ukraine to cut off Ukraine from the Black Sea. Therefore, for us [it] now has, of course, strategic importance - in order not to give the enemy there to fix, and to do everything possible to discard them by the Dnieper.

- Many may say that Russia can make some "gesture of goodwill", that they have only two options - either surrender, or their group will be destroyed. How do you assess the chances that the Russians will take and give Kherson? - There is no prerequisite yet. On the contrary: the Russian command concentrates additional forces there. The enemy has the opportunity, in addition to the bridges, on which we strike, also to give pontoon crossings, to use various cross -law.

Therefore, we will not be able to completely block [ways of supply] solely on bridges. The great combat work must be ahead. And there are very cruel battles. And the enemy understands this, focuses on his strength, tries to take the initiative. They also have attacks there, strikes, so there is a heavy fight. Now I do not see such an opportunity that the enemy just goes away. But we really need to look at the experience of our successful operations.

For example, on a snake, May attack near Kharkov, where preconditions were really created to defeat the enemy. It should be understood that this difficult battle can take a long time. This does not mean that we are not effective. This means that we overcome the enemy, who still retains a very great advantage in combat equipment and ammunition. This is a very difficult direction for the offensive. This open terrain is very contributing to the work of armored vehicles, enemy aviation.

I think it may be a battle field for a long time. Of course, our army is doing everything possible to knock out the enemy as soon as possible. Let's look. The struggle is now position in the modern war. Even if the positions do not change, it does not mean that there is no struggle, that it is not cruel, that it is not effective. Strikes, hobbies, the retreat of the enemy - always precedes this very serious work.

Creating a fire advantage of lesions of management centers, bases, warehouses, fire positions - this is now the fight. - As you evaluate the information provided by Natalia Humeniuk, a spokeswoman for the south. She said that it was not necessary to exaggerate the number of their equipment. The Russians use such tactics when they move, carry their equipment, for example, to some other village.

This means that more Russian technology has become more in this village, but it does not mean that it has become more in this direction. Is this a true characteristic of what is happening? - I do not think. This is a small moment that has no influence on the general situation. I don't think it is worth commenting. The struggle in this direction is really strategic, since it is the bridgehead from which Russia seeks to attack Nikolaev and Odessa.

And for them, this may be one of the most important areas to force Ukraine to completely weaken and destroy our economic system, cut us from the sea. And, of course, it is important to us. Therefore, it is important for us to act as economically as possible in this direction, to do everything possible to destroy the "nervous system" of management, the enemy firing system. I think our Armed Forces do what they can do in the direction.