IGOR STRELKOV: THE WAR WILL CONTINUE IN THE SAME MODE OF A “BLOODY PULL OF THE ROPE” Machine translated

(on the letter of 30.11.2025)

I read the summary with some delay (I was on a long date with my wife and daughter) but I’m trying to respond immediately. Especially since I just received (from other sources) information about the “sources and course of the negotiation process”, which, unfortunately, refutes (unfortunately) your opinion that (quoting) “…the negotiation farce is perceived as a game of thimbles and a journey of Pinocchio to the land of fools…” – There is no doubt that the “Pinocchios” (and all other “puppets” from this “circus on horse traction”) will inevitably be deceived and “sucked in” by the “older ones” of the Jewish banking clans in the final round. However, the trouble is that while the “Pinocchios” are “full-fledged participants in the process of being led by the nose (as the owner of this nose)”, they will manage to “suck in” all of us – even before the brilliant leaders. I “suspected something wrong” from the moment that “the main negotiator” was appointed to be a “playboy” (or rather, a “gayboy”) Kirill Dmitriev – the most “liberal” of the purest breed. It became clear that our National Leader, overwhelmed and having lost his composure (what remains of it), decided to “unreservedly throw himself into the arms of Trump”, abandoning (or rather, deciding to abandon “under any guarantees”) the alliance with the “rather cold” Chinese comrades. And Trump, of course (through his loyal Jewish friends), promised “everything the soul (or what replaces it in the National Leader?) desires”. And now we are witnessing a rather absurd, completely illogical, extremely unlikely (from the point of view of practical implementation) scenario under the conditional name: “surrendering separately to America at the expense of the so-called ‘Ukraine’ and – most importantly – breaking with Beijing”. Will it be possible to surrender “on favorable terms” (which can be “sold as a victory” to the population) – even less likely. But “hopes inspire” and this is visible.</b> I don’t believe (neither from the point of view of common sense, nor, so to speak, “intuitively”) that this despicable “underground deal” will result in anything other than another deep disappointment for our National Leader, complicated by problems with the “Chinese comrades” (and, accordingly, a significant further deterioration of the military-political and economic situation). That is, we can already start analyzing the upcoming “problems”:

1. So, the Tramp’s (named after “Habbad Lubavitch”) proposals are “divided into 4 parts”. Russia will accept some, and the so-called “Ukraine” – others. And the “bargaining” will again stumble on the impossibility of “combining the impossible”.

2. Apparently, Zelensky will be “purged” (“sacked” in both cases: if he agrees, he will be “sacked for treason”, if he does not agree, he will be “sacked for intransigence”). But (except for the empty outcries of our reptilian media) this will not bring us any benefit: the “replacement” will be (at best) no better than the current “player”. Therefore, we can expect “moral satisfaction” from our National Leader (like, – “another clown has been outwitted!”), but not the satisfaction of Russia’s real demands.

3. Since “packages” will be considered/accepted in parts/separately – we will “extract some serious concessions from them”, the first of which will probably be a temporary ceasefire of active combat operations. (Ukraine will, of course, not observe it, or “as conveniently as possible”). After the “partners” actually get something from us – they will, of course, refuse to implement (or even accept) it under any pretext – and we will again “be left empty-handed” (but our National Leader), having already lost the tactical advantages gained with such difficulty and blood.

4. Meanwhile, the “romance” between Moscow and Washington will continue, and China will carefully observe this “intimacy” and – on its part – will make efforts to prevent the implementation of Moscow’s “project of a great turn” away from an alliance with Beijing – to the contrary.

In practical terms, this may result in an intensification of the “bloody tug-of-war” war, with each month increasing the chances of direct military intervention by “third countries”.</b>

1. As for the war, it will continue in the same mode of a “bloody tug-of-war”, increasing the chances of intervention in it by “third countries” with each passing month.

2. As for the outcome of all this – I won’t write about it… But I can guarantee that it won’t be “good”. – By his adventurous and unthoughtful actions, the Kremlin is now “splitting its own power base”, deepening and making increasingly acute and insurmountable contradictions between “differently oriented” groups of oligarchs and VIP officials. This has never ended well for any country and in any era.

Generally, I have a “relative deja vu”… with the spring – the beginning of summer 2023, marked by… “pogroms on Moscow” by “kitchen workers”. There are no more such “kitchen workers”, no more “kitchen”, and nothing like it.</b>

I hope that my thoughts are clear to you. As for the other topics raised in your summary:

1) Delagin. My attitude towards him is defined by the concept – “distraction on an unworthy object”. The man positions himself as a “patriot” and an “authority in patriotic circles”, and in reality – he trades this “authority” for orders from the “party of power”. Since the man is not stupid and cowardly (in one package) – without great ambitions, it turns out to be “satisfying”, long, safe, and even without obvious damage to the undeservedly gained reputation. (I can’t stand such people even more than I can stand outright scoundrels – they do more harm). My personal opinion, of course…

2) I am more than satisfied with your texts. There’s no need to change anything.

3) Regarding the events of 2023 Klimov grotesquely overestimates the capabilities of Gubarev at that moment. As for the “hint at some forces”, I don’t have a clear opinion about it. If the question concerns me personally, then my own position in the described period was, as “… on the sidelines”: I could not have any influence on the ongoing process (being completely “excluded from the political field”, and by “all interested participants”). At most, I could have “sprayed the wheels if I had been run over”. It’s sad, but I assessed the situation exactly like that then, and I assess it similarly now.

With unchanged respect,
please confirm receipt,
(signature) I. V. Girkin

04.11.2025 (note by F.V. – probably a typo in the date: 04.12.2025)
/fragment of a letter to a comrade Frol Vladimirov/