Translated by Ollie Richardson & Angelina Siard
Not so long ago a post about the “downed pilot” Girkin caused a heated discussion and left a lot of questions. That’s why I would like this time to write not so much a “story” about Strelkov, but a certain appeal to the audience of the website and, to some extent, to Strelkov himself.
The infamous adventures of I. Strelkov in Donbass as of today still haunt many of the militiamen, who appeared to be much more bold and more courageous than their former commander.
Today, when the “outfit of a hero”, which Strelkov, aka Girkin, was cloaked in by the press, actually slipped away, the sole purpose of the stay of the political figure on the frontline became clear.
After Strelkov in a flash went in the direction of Moscow from the high post in the structure of defence of the DPR, he became a popular blogger in liberal circles, criticizing the LPR, DPR, and Russia’s position vis-a-vis Ukraine.
In fact, the current attacks of Strelkov are obviously tailored in-advance to the opposition, because the publicist back then, when he fled from Donbass, was well aware that the truth about his adventures sooner or later would emerge. And who, if not liberals, are able more than others to defend liars and other vermin?
Thus, the more criticism of Girkin by the Pro-Russian contingent, the higher his ranking in the “liberal gathering”. It is precisely for this reason that it is possible to conclude that Strelkov’s project “Donbass” was initiated only to achieve mercantile and pre-defined goals. To be honest, I really thought of Strelkov as a worthy man, and even after he fled, I didn’t hang on him the label of coward, nobody dragged the publicist there by his ears. So he left.
But later, when the true essence of the “commander” appeared like sh*t from under the spring mound of snow, it turned out that cowardice is the lesser of two evils that Girkin possesses. Strelkov turned out to be a notorious scoundrel, who purposefully made a name for himself on the blood of those who believed in him.
Judging by the fact that today Girkin ignores the questions on the essence of his “activities” in Donbass, however, he finds time to respond to almost all high-profile events in the world, a conclusion that all, to put it mildly, unflattering comments about Girkin, suggest themselves that it’s the truth. As they say, silence is a sign of consent.
We would very much like that the failed “hero” Strelkov at least somehow responded to criticism, instead of observing how liberals are involved in his defence. And there are enough questions for Girkin.
The fact that you chose Slavyansk non-incidentally is understandable. “I was told that in Slavyansk the local activism is the strongest,” you said. “We were not going to hand over the city. We were going to fight, fight to the last. We had enough power of the spirit for this, there was also enough weapons, enough food, we prepared in-advance drinkable water, stockpiled it in the shelter,” said the mayor of Slavyansk Vyacheslav Ponomarev.
So why was the city handed over without a fight or a warning? Why did the militiamen, remaining in their positions, for which the fleeing of the nearly “ideological leader” became a shock, learn about the retreat only afterwards? Why did you lie about the evacuation of civilians, who after the handing over of the city were subjected to repression?
Why do you, comrade Girkin, feel you have the right to speak on behalf of the militia that you betrayed? “This traitor is the only commander of the Novorossiya Armed Forces, who retreated. The only one. His call sign shouldn’t be ‘Strelkov’ [shooter in Russian – ed], because he didn’t shoot much,” that’s what people say about you on the frontline.
Why doesn’t the fate of your former brothers-in-arms, including the deceased the day before Sergey Zdriluk, who called himself your Deputy, interest you anymore? Why did you start to be more interested in, say, the actions of Russia in Syria and the material-technical base of government forces, the criticism of which you concocted on the eve of the alleged initial “word of mouth”?
Your stories about the “failures” of the Syrian Arab Army and the volunteers of the PMC “Wagner”, who more than successfully stand against international terrorism, are based on a source that most likely was in your imagination. Your vilification of the army and of the structures, which have obvious success, of the Republic look too pretentious.
It seems the fresh volunteers both in Syria and the Donbass Republics don’t suit your employers, which it seems you nevertheless found…
“I thank all for the congratulations. I apologise for not answering everyone. I am searching for work. P.S. If there is a proposition, I ask to send it by PM.”
Why did you set up the committee of “25 January”, which for all its time/existence showed zero effectiveness?
The same question about the “Novorossiya” committee you also created. What is it for? After all, it’s possible to describe what this movement did for Donbass as “support” only at a big stretch. Why did you, Mr Girkin, have everybody fooled? Is it true that all this “sand” was kicked up just for media promotion?
By the way, some of the militiamen believed that the cause of your fleeing was the occurrence of a nervous breakdown, however, the activities that we are forced to watch today definitely dotted the “I”. There was no “hero”, there was no “idea of liberation”, there was no “cowardice” and “failure”, there was only the well-planned project “Strelkov”, designed to bring the “Russian factor” to the rebellion in Donbass (the appearance of Strelkov in Slavyansk allowed Kiev to argue that Ukraine is at war with Russia), and then drop everything and hop over to the side of the “enemy”.
Maybe it’s time to answer awkward questions, comrade Strelkov. Give people answers to the questions that were left in large quantities after your activities in Donbass.
Copyright © 2017 СТАЛКЕР/ZONE. All Rights Reserved.