You know, there is something inadequate and hypocritical in this. Terror is, according to our ideas, something else.
I recall the novel 'Night. Dawn. Day' by the Nobel laureate, Israeli writer Elie Wiesel. In particular, it depicts Jewish terrorists from the Irgun organization, who fought against the British on the territory of Palestine (there was no Israel then - Author). I still cannot forget the doubts of five Jews when they had to execute a captured enemy officer. Terrorism in the memory of my generation has always been associated with the struggle of the enslaved (deprived of their homeland) against invaders.
And against whom is Russia's terrorism directed? At whom did the educated missile officers target yesterday, I suspect, when they cold-bloodedly calculated the trajectory of the Caliber flight to Vinnytsia? This is not terrorism, this is cannibalism, dressed in modern uniforms of the Russian army, trained in military academies, equipped with the most modern weapons.
Then I ask: who wants to deceive whom with such a change of concepts? I understand that for a Westerner, the word 'terror' is already a horror. But again: in his view, these are individual acts of religious fanatics, sectarians or half-crazies who plant bombs in shopping centers, shoot innocent youth, like Breivik from Norway, drive stolen cars into crowds, or, in the most extreme: hijacking planes in order to send them, like martyrs, into the towers of the World Trade Center in New York. These are far from rocket attacks on civilians, set in motion by the state.
Russia has distorted the concept of terrorism beyond recognition, turned it into a tool of hybrid war, which contains not only warheads with TNT equivalent, but also powerful psychological explosives. Vinnytsia is a deliberate example of how Putin wants to justify his recent "and we haven't even started yet."
Therefore, in my opinion, the strategies and tactics of the Western military, which mostly operate with the concepts of conventional conventional war, should be thrown into the trash. And the endless 'dances' of politicians who ponder over whether or not to allow Ukraine to strike retaliatory strikes against Russia are seen as revisionism of the foundations of democracy, among which safety and the special value of human life prevail.
Meanwhile, some experts explain the attack on Vinnytsia by the fact that, they say, Putin was 'broke' into the so-called 'bread truce'. Firstly, Putin himself willingly went after him in order to make the impression of a 'humane gentleman' who did not let millions die of hunger. Secondly, in my opinion, Ukraine should not have sat down at the negotiating table with cannibals in Turkey: if the world is threatened with hunger, then let it resolve these issues with Moscow. In a word, with weapons, as you like. Thirdly, won't the activity of certain characters drive away from Bankova in pushing the ideas of a 'bread truce' with the infamous 'blood trade'? I'm not imposing such an opinion on anyone, I am only speaking about my own impression.
And one more note. After Lugano, everyone suddenly rushed to talk about funds for the reconstruction of post-war Ukraine. How much will be directed where, what will be spent on. That's great, of course. But during Putin's cannibalistic war, which takes dozens and hundreds of lives every day - both military and civilian - on the desks of politicians in the offices of Western capitals (not to mention Kyiv), on the operational maps of the general staffs of NATO armies and not only, there should be one single plan. The plan for the destruction of Russia, its deconstruction, demilitarization and denazification. A detailed plan with defined stages and a prescribed arsenal of tools. And not prudent considerations: to destroy Russia or to leave it as it is; to leave Ukraine at the borders of 1991, or maybe stop at the borders of 2014.
For Ukraine, this problem should not be the focus of public discourse at all. Here the question is clear: we cannot survive with such a neighbor without war. Therefore, it should be destroyed as a subject, as a potential source of constant threat to Ukraine.
We can drive Western politicians to the Buchi cemetery or the ruins of Vinnytsia as much as we want. World media, which willingly publish photos from such visits, are already telling their leaders the real plan. Foreign Policy recently published an article with the telling headline: "Vladimir Putin often backs down." It dismantles the myth about the "stubbornness" of the Kremlin dwarf. "In 2018, an American airstrike destroyed several dozen Wagnerites in the north of the country (Syria - Author), later the American military engaged in a direct confrontation with the Russians in the battle for Khasham in February 2018. Putin was completely silent then, although usually the Russian dictator likes to threaten the USA", reminds Foreign Policy.
The rat, which, according to Putin himself, attacks when cornered, should be killed. For this, it is only necessary to mention two sayings. The first: about the fact that politics (especially war politics) is not done in 'white gloves'. The second is from Stanislav Jerzy Lec: "If a cannibal uses a fork and a knife, is that progress?".
About the author. Ihor Hulyk is a journalist, editor-in-chief of the Espreso.West website.