OT: Putin's War in Ukraine

[Raellus]

I don't know how they're doing it. I wonder if they really are going to "fight to the end". What end? Will they surrender when their ammo runs out? When their food and water and medical supplies are exhausted?

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ed-steel-plant

They must realize that there will be no rescue. I suppose their main objective now is to tie down as many Russian forces as possible for as long as possible. Perhaps they're hoping for the kind of immortality won by Sparta's 300 at Thermopylae but, really, how many people are actually willing to go that far and fight to the death?

Whatever happens from this point on, I really admire their bravery and resolve. The Azov Battalion's (now regiment?) political origins and alignment are troubling, to be sure (those, I don't admire), but maybe this ordeal will somehow be redemptive, in that regard.

Do they fight to the death, or surrender with honor? What do you think?

-

[swaghauler]

Those tags showing the "Wolverines" is the tag being used by an American "foreign legion" unit in Ukraine. Operator Starsky (whose video on the dismantling of that Russian drone with the Canon digital camera I posted on this forum) actually mentions them in his video. They are even called that now by the Ukrainian forces. There are actually a fair number of US and Canadian Veterans serving in Ukraine. Most went there saying that they didn't like bullies and some went because they missed war. Some other YouTubers posting Ukraine footage other than Operator Starsky (an actual Ukrainian) are Civ Div and the Funker group.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I don't know how they're doing it. I wonder if they really are going to "fight to the end". What end? Will they surrender when their ammo runs out? When their food and water and medical supplies are exhausted?

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ed-steel-plant

They must realize that there will be no rescue. I suppose their main objective now is to tie down as many Russian forces as possible for as long as possible. Perhaps they're hoping for the kind of immortality won by Sparta's 300 at Thermopylae but, really, how many people are actually willing to go that far and fight to the death?

Whatever happens from this point on, I really admire their bravery and resolve. The Azov Battalion's (now regiment?) political origins and alignment are troubling, to be sure (those, I don't admire), but maybe this ordeal will somehow be redemptive, in that regard.

Do they fight to the death, or surrender with honor? What do you think?

-

What choice do they have? Putin and the Russian Military leaders have been VERY CLEAR about what they are going to do to those fighters. Look at what happened in BUCHA Ukraine when Putin was pushed back from Kyiv.

If your only choice is between being tortured to death and fighting to the death, which would you choose?

Ukraine is CLEARLY winning the STRATEGIC WAR here. When they capture Russian soldiers, the Ukrainians do not torture or abuse them. The prisoners are fed and treated medically. Ukraine then allows them to call family or friends to tell them that the soldier is ok. Also, when the Ukrainian fighters engage the Russian conscripts in battle, if a pause occurs, the Ukrainians will tell the conscripts if they drop their weapons and flee, they will NOT be fired upon. Many Russian conscripts are doing just that.

This allows three things to happen. FIRST (and most importantly) it gives the low-morale Russian conscripts an "out" in a fight. They KNOW they can just flee and the Ukrainians won't shoot them in the back. Every time this happens, those surviving troops tell other Russian conscripts what happened. This causes THAT RESPONSE to spread through the Russian Army like an infection.
SECOND, it allows Ukraine to take possession of desperately needed resources they might have otherwise had to destroy.
THIRD, It shows that despite everything Putin and Russia have done to Ukraine that she retains her civility and dignity. This puts her on the "right side of history" once the war crimes trials begin.

There are outliers but I can understand (if not justify) the motives behind those actions. There are videos showing certain Ukrainian units (mostly in the Donbas) shooting surrendering Russian soldiers in the lower legs. From what I have gathered on the internet (and not from the most reliable sources), this was done in retaliation for Russian abuse of Ukrainian POWs who were returned with broken legs and injuries consistent with beatings. There is also a practical (if barbaric) reason for this... the now-wounded Russian conscript cannot be returned to the lines. It does violate the Geneva and Hague conventions but so does shooting civilians in the head.

[swaghauler]

Here is Operator Starsky explaining the concept of Russian Peace.

https://youtu.be/h4WEBwsuQf0


Swag

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

What choice do they have? Putin and the Russian Military leaders have been VERY CLEAR about what they are going to do to those fighters. Look at what happened in BUCHA Ukraine when Putin was pushed back from Kyiv.

If your only choice is between being tortured to death and fighting to the death, which would you choose?

I see your point, but you've presented a false dichotomy (die fighting, or surrender and die anyway). Of course, surrender isn't without risk- it's one of the riskiest things a soldier at war can do. However, in this war, there have been documented surrenders of Ukrainian troops without summary executions, and prisoner exchanges. Bucha was very bad, but it was mostly civilians that were killed, not surrendered soldiers. That's not to say that Russian troops can't or won't take their frustrations out on surrendering troops, but such an outcome isn't a given.

That said, for many, "perception is reality", and if the defenders believe they'll be tortured and killed if they surrender, it makes sense that they've decided not to.

-

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I see your point, but you've presented a false dichotomy (die fighting, or surrender and die anyway). Of course, surrender isn't without risk- it's one of the riskiest things a soldier at war can do. However, in this war, there have been documented surrenders of Ukrainian troops without summary executions, and prisoner exchanges. Bucha was very bad, but it was mostly civilians that were killed, not surrendered soldiers. That's not to say that Russian troops can't or won't take their frustrations out on surrendering troops, but such an outcome isn't a given.

That said, for many, "perception is reality", and if the defenders believe they'll be tortured and killed if they surrender, it makes sense that they've decided not to.

-

Not quite a "false dichotomy." Are you not listening to Putin's speeches? Did you not see what has already happened to the AZOV Battalion fighters who were captured? Putin swore on national TV in December that he would try and convict everyone in the AZOV Batallion as a Nazi. The images are gone from GOOGLE now but did you see what the Russians did to those 8 members of the battalion in the first week of the war? Crucified right in Maripol then lit on fire and burned.

[swaghauler]

Here's a video from Operator Starsky. Take what you see here with a grain of salt. It is a Ukrainian war video.

https://youtu.be/c1gs2cQ9lhg

Swag

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

Are you not listening to Putin's speeches?

I am not. I don't trust anything he says, so I tend to ignore him.

Originally Posted by swaghauler

Did you not see what has already happened to the AZOV Battalion fighters who were captured? The images are gone from GOOGLE now but did you see what the Russians did to those 8 members of the battalion in the first week of the war? Crucified right in Maripol then lit on fire and burned.

I did not and, from your description, I'm glad that I didn't. That's awful.

-

[Targan]

It's exactly the sort of conflict that turns really, really ugly in terms of the behaviour of the troops on the ground. Exacerbated by the well-understood Russian doctrine of using brutality against the civilian populace to break the will of the opposing side to fight on. Except in many cases it makes the opposition fight even harder, and engage in brutal tactics as well.

[Fallenkezef]

Originally Posted by Targan

It's exactly the sort of conflict that turns really, really ugly in terms of the behaviour of the troops on the ground. Exacerbated by the well-understood Russian doctrine of using brutality against the civilian populace to break the will of the opposing side to fight on. Except in many cases it makes the opposition fight even harder, and engage in brutal tactics as well.

I never understand why people think this crap works. Germany pounded London and we never broke. The RAF flattened every German city and the German people did not break. The nazis tried this with Ukraine in WW2 (look up the bastards of the Dirlewanger brigade) and the Ukrainians did not break back then.

Russian tactics did not break the Afghans back in the 80's.

All it does is make every person a potential enemy combatant and none of your troops are safe, anywhere in theatre.