“third force”

The “third force” is an unidentified armed presence invoked by Petro to explain attacks that neither side can confidently attribute to its opponents. In his account, the same unseen fighters are claimed as allies by one side and condemned as enemies by the other, leaving their actual allegiance unresolved.

The Phrase and Its Context

The expression arises when Sergey Sergeyich tells Petro that a dead soldier is said not to belong to either of the forces facing one another. Sergeyich immediately regrets repeating what he has heard, and Petro responds with a cold, hostile look before asking where the information came from. Sergeyich explains that Pashka, his neighbour on Shevchenko Street, had been asked about the soldier by visitors.

Petro then draws an inference from the disputed claim: if the dead man belonged to neither side, he might have been part of the “third force.” The phrase is not presented as an established organization or a confirmed identity. Sergey Sergeyich asks what it means, and Petro’s answer makes clear that the label names a suspicion rather than knowledge.

Competing Accounts of Allegiance

Petro describes the “third force” as fighters without insignia, whose allegiance cannot be read from a uniform or reliably established from the attacks attributed to them. One side imagines they are fighting alongside it; the other believes they are fighting against it. Petro also allows for a further possibility: that the fighters come from somewhere else and oppose both sides.

This uncertainty makes the phrase a small map of the conflict’s confusion. The same act of violence can be interpreted as help or betrayal depending on who is speaking. Petro illustrates the reversal with opposing reactions to attacks: one side celebrates when someone on the other side is knocked out, while the other becomes excited when a grenade is fired at one of its infantry fighting vehicles. The words identify no culprit and settle no question; they show how partisan expectation fills the gap left by missing insignia and uncertain responsibility.

Narrative Significance

The phrase emerges in a tense exchange rather than as detached military explanation. Sergey Sergeyich’s regret and Petro’s hostile response show that even repeating information about the dead can become politically charged. The expression turns that friction into a question of classification: if the soldier is neither theirs nor ours, an unknown force must be imagined to account for him.

Yet Petro’s explanation preserves the uncertainty instead of resolving it. The “third force” remains a contested possibility, defined by incompatible claims and the opposing sides’ reactions to violence. Its narrative function is therefore less to identify another combatant than to reveal a battlefield where allegiance is opaque and interpretation itself follows the lines of conflict.