- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/30140601
Oleksandr deserted from the front line in eastern Ukraine after watching his fellow servicemen being pulverised by Russian bombardments for six months. Then, those remaining were ordered to counterattack.
It was the final straw for Oleksandr, 45, who had been holding the line in the embattled Lugansk region in the early months of the war. Even his commanding officer was reluctant to send his men back toward what looked like certain death. So when Oleksandr saw an opening to save his life, he did.
“We wanted to live. We had no combat experience. We were just ordinary working people from villages,” the soft-spoken serviceman, who declined to give his last name, told AFP.
His decision is just one of many cases plaguing the Ukrainian military, which has already suffered at least 43,000 losses in nearly three years of fighting, President Volodymyr Zelensky revealed this month. The government is also struggling to recruit new troops. Together, these manpower problems present a critical hurdle for Ukraine, which is losing territory to Russia at the fastest rate since the early days of the February 2022 invasion.
The issue was put under the spotlight in September when 24-year-old serviceman Sergiy Gnezdilov announced in a scathing social media post that he was leaving his unit in protest over indefinite service. “From today, I am going AWOL with five years of impeccable soldiering behind me, until clear terms of service are established or until my 25th birthday,” he wrote.
Figures published by the Ukrainian general prosecutor’s office show that more than 90,000 cases have been opened into instances of soldiers going absent without leave or deserting since Russia invaded in 2022, with a sharp increase over the past year.
Oleksandr said that after leaving the frontline, he remembered little from the year he spent at home in the Lviv region owing to concussions he suffered while deployed. He recounted “mostly drinking” to process the horrors he witnessed but his guilt was mounting at the same time. He ultimately decided to return after seeing young Ukrainians enlist or wounded troops return to battle – despite pleas from his family.
His brother was beaten during the historic Maidan protests in 2013 that toppled Ukraine’s pro-Kremlin leader, and later died. His sister was desperate. “They’re going to kill you. I would rather bring you food to prison than flowers to your grave,” he recounted his sister telling him during a visit from Poland.
It was guilt, too, that motivated Buch, who identified himself by a military nickname, to return to battle. The 29-year-old deserted after being wounded in fierce fighting in southern Ukraine in late 2022 during the liberation of Kherson city. “Just staying under constant shelling gradually damages your mental state. You go crazy step by step. You are all the time under stress, huge stress,” he said of his initial decision to abscond.
In an effort to address manpower shortages, Ukrainian lawmakers in August approved an amnesty for first-time offenders who voluntarily returned to their units.
Both the 47th and 53rd brigades in December announced they would welcome back servicemen who had left the front without permission, saying: “We all make mistakes.” Prosecutors said in early December that 8,000 servicemen that went absent without leave or deserted had returned in November alone.
Still, Siver, commander of the 1st Separate Assault Battalion, known as Da Vinci, who also identified himself by his military nickname, said the number of Ukrainian troops fleeing the fighting without permission was growing. That is partly because many of the most motivated fighters have already been killed or wounded.
“Not many people are made for war,” said Siver, describing how his perceptions of bravery had been reshaped by seeing those who stood their ground, and those who fled. “There are more and more people who are forced to go,” he told AFP, referring to a large-scale and divisive army mobilisation campaign.
But other servicemen interviewed by AFP suggested that systemic changes in military culture – and leadership – could help deter desertions.
Buch said his military and medical training as well as the attitudes of his superiors had improved compared to his first deployment, when some officers “didn’t treat us like people”. Siver suggested that better psychological support could help troops prepare for the hardships and stress of battle.
“Some people think it’s going to be like in a movie. Everything will be great, I’ll shoot, I’ll run,” he said. “But it’s different. You sit in a trench for weeks. Some of them are knee-deep in mud, cold and hungry.” He said there was no easy solution to discouraging desertion, and predicted the trend would worsen. “How do you reduce the numbers? I don’t even know how. We just have to end the war,” he said.
It’s rough being on the smaller side. Rotating soldiers off the line is a huge part of not having people go AWOL. But a smaller force can’t afford rotation. The next best thing is amnesties, building camaraderie (so they want to fight for their friends), and visibly trying to reduce casualties as much as possible.
At the end of the day if they can’t get it under control they will lose.
There is another aspect which the article doesn’t mention, so I better mention it.
Sometimes units have ****head commanders, but you can’t get rid of them. Only anarchist armies (which haven’t proven very effective) have elected their commanders, and even then, typically not in battle.
If a commander is stupid or careless (and sometimes tries covering up those qualities), it can take a while until someone of their peers or higher-ups notices. You can request a transfer away from such a unit, but the commander can deny the transfer.
In Ukraine, if you go absent without leave, you don’t have to return to the same unit. So it’s one method of getting away from stupid or careless commanders, or units which have been neglected due to organizational problems. So in a way, many people running from a unit indicates that it needs attention: something is wrong there.
Not knowing what it’s like to be under hostile fire, I can’t blame those people. As much reading tells, not everybody can take it. It is said that you can train everyone to perfection (the article tells that some get sent to combat with inappropriate training, which is obviously worse), but still, some people’s nervous system cannot handle continued risk of death. They break down, and should be employed in other than frontline roles. And some people’s health fails in other ways. A smart commander notices them and sends then back to the rear. Maybe they are good at logistics? Maybe they can build drones and do quality checking? Maybe they can treat the wounded? Etc.
I was interested in maybe joining the foreign legion but my research illuminated that the commander at the time was a dummy that would routinely endanger his soldiers unnecessarily. He might’ve improved but there’s no way I’d risk it now.
“We wanted to live. We had no combat experience. We were just ordinary working people from villages”
This is the cost of war. Everyday people going about their lives with friends and family having their time on this world upended and cut short, all at the whim of some asshole putting their own ambition before the livelihood of others.
I’d have gone AWOL a long time ago. Both the Ukrainians and the Russians have repeatedly had moments where they showed very little regard for human life.
They are not the same, not remotely.
Soldiers are all the same unfortunately.
Making people do horrible things makes them horrible people.
From the perspective of the foot soldier, the ethical or moral difference hardly makes any difference. Whether you’re defending hopelessly lost positions as a Ukrainian or a Russian being recklessly thrown into a meat grinder - you’re dead either way.
As far as I’ve read, starting from a known and equal condition (e.g. “you have a bullet wound in your arm”) or even no condition (“you are in a frontline trench”), levels of ending up dead differ quite radically. Ukrainians seem to be evacuating their wounded and don’t seem to practise suicidal attacks. I’ve seen fundraisers for remote-operated evacuation vehicles (stretcher on tracks), DIY ambulances and a long list of medical equipment.
On the Russian side, it doesn’t seem to go like that. I’ve read of the wounded remaining on the front for weeks, and being pressed to attack again.
Also, Ukrainians have infrastructure behind their back. Russians, not so much, because their attack has destroyed it.
Numbers aren’t public, but I’d estimate a fourfold difference in survival of the same type of wound. Historians will figure out the exact rate later.
Russia’s casualties are probably in the 3x range as is typical for attacking armies.
But the point isn’t the total number of casualties but the possibility of being thrown in situations where leadership essentially throws your life away. There are plenty of examples on both sides of this happening.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/19/europe/ukrainian-avdiivka-soldiers-messages-intl/index.html
example, the withdrawal from Adviivka. They knew they were going to be overrun and there was plenty of time to get away. But the political apparatus wants to maintain a strong image, they want to hold land as long as possible instead of retreating and saving manpower.
So instead of just losing it now, you lose it a week later and you throw away 300 lives for virtually no tactical benefit.
politics > strategy > real breathing human beings
I will never be willing to die for a politician. I don’t care how nice their cause sounds. I’m not a nationalist, I’m not a patriot. They can find some other koolaid drinker who wants to sacrifice themselves for the greater good
So instead of just losing it now, you lose it a week later and you throw away 300 lives for virtually no tactical benefit.
As long as the k/d ratio is beneficial to the Ukrainian side it’s still strategically beneficial to stay. It’s a war of attrition, not a tactical manoeuvre, Avdiivka itself was never strategically relevant Ukraine has plenty of land to fall back to, what matters is tiring out the Russians.
Strategic command might very well have misjudged the situation, including not factoring in morale effects properly, but that doesn’t make “hold and take losses as long as the other side takes more losses” strategically invalid.
Sorry, reality isn’t allowed in this echo chamber.
Sure. Sometimes you have to think about other people, though.
deleted by creator
That’s how they try to sell you a violent death. Some sort of altruistic idealism. Defend your country. Valor and honor. Bla bla bla
Reality is much more brutal and cynical. There are no winners in war.
The alternative is russia winning and Ukraine losing.
Totally detached from reality.
These days either the war is won right from the start, or it becomes a stalemate. Long-term there is no winners and losers, war is not profitable if someone stops it. What do you think politicians would choose?
Why do you think russia invaded? Detached from reality is thinking that no one wins long term.
What difference does it make to me and my family? I am ruled by one oligarchic society versus another?
Is it worth me dying and my family violently and traumatically losing their main breadwinner? Wife having to struggle to make ends meet, kids growing up without a father?
What if Ukraine loses anyway? I valiantly risk my death, permanently damage my family, and there is absolutely zero benefit.
Seriously, there is no scenario where this is a good decision. I would have gotten out the moment it looked like a war was potentially gonna happen. If you wait too long, now you can’t leave the country and they’re kidnapping people off the street and throwing them in vans to force them into serving.
I can only speculate, since I’m not from there. To my understanding you aren’t either.
If war came here, I would probably stay. Maybe because I’m an aeromodelist that flew drones already in 2004. I would probably think “it’s bad stuff, but I have trained for this job for 20 years”. But if someone didn’t give me a correct job to do, I’d politely refuse. Jail is better then stupidity.
If someone thinks that jail is better than any participation in war, I understand.
If someone thinks that emigration or hiding is better than jail, I understand. If my home country wanted my building or flying skills to invade or conquer, I’d disappear or resist.
But there is something you need to understand, which I feel from reading your post that you don’t.
In Ukraine, the president changes, in Russia, the same guy rules since Yeltsin picked and propped him up 25 years ago (after so much stealing that Putin’s first decree was to give Yeltsin and his family immunity, and of course, after Yeltsin had started enlarging presidential power during the constitutional crisis and the Supreme Soviet (parliament) had been fired upon). Putin continued that path, but the word “autocracy” seemed appropriate until recently. In the last decade, only the term “dictatorship” seems appropriate. Full totalitarianism hasn’t been achieved yet, but is approaching fast.
In Ukraine, you can campaign and demonstrate against the government and my anarchist comrades operate above ground. Some of them have voluntarily joined the army, and some have died. Some have gone there from Russia, joined the Ukraininan army, and some of them have died too. They weren’t patriots. They just knew the difference and knew the cost of Putin’s regime to society. Officially, they fought for Ukraine. In their own mind, they fought to stop Putin’s conquest and help break his regime (which had imprisoned and killed people who mattered to them).
In Russia, they operate underground. Saying the wrong stuff gets 5 years. Army has a habit of torturing and shooting its members. Police has a habit of torturing people. Courts take direct commands from the prosecutor and security apparatus. Opposition politicians die of poisoning or get railroaded to prison.
If one has any interest in politics, the difference between Ukraine and Russia is massive. Only for a person who wants to eat in the morning, work during day and eat in the evening - with no interest in society whatsoever - only for that kind of a person is the difference limited. Yes, it’s possible to live in both countries. Sun still rises and wind still blows.
Indeed, war has a flip side of selection. Ukraine will lose some percentage of its society and Russia will lose some percentage. The social profiles of the people who are lost - can be understood. Both societies are burning through their groups most willing to fight, but the way of mobilizing people differs considerably, so the groups that lose most members will differ by country.
I will tell as much as I know about the profiles.
- professional military -> very big losses on both sides
- national guard and interior troops -> medium to big losses on both sides
- volunteers (trained, well motivated) -> medium to big losses on both sides, they fight better than others, but also get sent to more dangerous misssions
- conscripts (untrained, young) -> big losses only on Russian side, almost no losses on Ukrainian side (they don’t send folks under 25 to the front unless they volunteer)
- reservists (trained, old) -> big losses only on Russian side, since they practise meat attacks (Ukrainians aren’t willing to attack under such conditions)
- convicts (training varies, age varies) -> big losses on Russian side, since they practise meat attacks (Ukrainians only recently allowed convicts to join the war, and I have no idea about how they train or fight)
- a Russian special seems to be burning through ethnic minorities from remote places
Whatever no point in wasting my breath on you.