Uh so has Debaltseve fallen?

[DreDay]

Wouldn`t a local commander be subject to a martial court or at least sacked for retreating from such a position without, at least, tacit approval from the higher levels of the chain of command?

 

I understand that politics can obscure the subject, and the local officer may be punished anyway to save face, but any consequence to the lower officer would be, in principle, and indication of the higher officers intents and orders

In theory, that would certainly be the case; but things get much less "black and white" when you don't have a clear command structure and your communications are disrupted. At that point every commander is out for himself (and his men)...

[Battlefront.com]

Wouldn`t a local commander be subject to a martial court or at least sacked for retreating from such a position without, at least, tacit approval from the higher levels of the chain of command?

Usually. Sometimes even someone following direct orders is sacked when things don't go wrong. But when someone disobeys orders and it is perceived the result was better because of it... the officer is sometimes given an award and then a promotion to somewhere he can't embarrass his superiors again.

 

As I said, it's quite possible that there is some truth to what the 25th Battalion leader says, but it could be that he has the details wrong.

Steve

[Pablius]

Well, in the absence of a huge political fallout (of which I know nothing one way or the other, since I don´t follow this issue as close as others here), I would infer that the retreat was either planned and/or executed in good enough order

 

Either way the Ukranian government/army, while not happy might have already come to terms with the reality on the ground and move on to other things

 

Of course, is a highly speculative exercise

[DreDay]

Well, in the absence of a huge political fallout (of which I know nothing one way or the other, since I don´t follow this issue as close as others here), I would infer that the retreat was either planned and/or executed in good enough order

 

Either way the Ukranian government/army, while not happy might have already come to terms with the reality on the ground and move on to other things

 

Of course, is a highly speculative exercise

 

Well, as you don't follow the Ukrainian political scene (which is perfectly understandable), you are simply not  aware of  how a "Political Fallout" works in Ukraine... let me just say that it is very different from what we would expect in our country (I am assuming that you are an American, please forgive me if I am wrong).  But yeah, their government and military is going to move on to other things (as will the rebels) and the war will unfortunately go on for even longer... Many local experts on both sides predict the next spike up in violence to happen in late March or early April.

[Pablius]

Well, as you don't follow the Ukrainian political scene (which is perfectly understandable), you are simply not  aware of  how a "Political Fallout" works in Ukraine... let me just say that it is very different from what we would expect in our country (I am assuming that you are an American, please forgive me if I am wrong).  But yeah, their government and military is going to move on to other things (as will the rebels) and the war will unfortunately go on for even longer... Many local experts on both sides predict the next spike up in violence to happen in late March or early April.

 

 

I´m not from the US but it´s ok, don´t worry, I´m from Argentina

 

And no, I´m not familiar with politics in Ukraine so it was just speculation

[DreDay]

I´m not from the US but it´s ok, don´t worry, I´m from Argentina

 

And no, I´m not familiar with politics in Ukraine so it was just speculation

 

My bad. I do happen to love Argentina, it was actually our honeymoon destination and (for all my other travels) it was still an experience of a lifetime. To keep it on topic - one of the many things that had impressed me about the Argentinians was how politically savvy and worldly they are... Just out of curiosity - I know that your political establishment and especially your president are not exactly pro-American (to put it mildly). I also know that the Russians (including Putin himself) have made many overtures to them lately that seemed to be well received... so what is your local coverage of Ukraine like?

Edited March 2, 2015 by DreDay

[Pablius]

My bad. I do happen to love Argentina, it was actually our honeymoon destination and (for all my other travels) it was still an experience of a lifetime. To keep it on topic - one of the many things that had impressed me about the Argentinians was how politically savvy and worldly they are... Just out of curiosity - I know that your political establishment and especially your president are not exactly pro-American (to put it mildly). I also know that the Russians (including Putin himself) have made many overtures to them lately that seemed to be well received... so what is your local coverage of Ukraine like?

 

Well, good to know you had a great time here, it`s a big country with some great places to visit

 

And yes, to put it mildly the our current president is not exactly pro-american (she´s leaving office in December, still is not clear who will win the elections in October), not to Venezuelan levels of rhetoric but close enough, and a big chunk of the political establishment and population aren´t either, the reasons for this are many and complex, but it´s a common occurrence  in Latin America in general, politicians play on this all the time

 

As to the overtures of Russia and China in the region, the thing is that with the level of confrontation with the US and to a lesser extent the EU coupled with economic mismanagement, the options for foreign financing and investment are few, so some governments play again the anti american card and look for money in those countries, whom sometimes are happy to oblige to further their own geopolitical interest.

 

To what level our politicians truly believe that the Chinese and Russian governments are "Good" and the US government is "Evil", it`s a matter of opinions, personally I think a good measure of cynicism on their part should be assumed. But again, a big part of the electorate it´s happy believing we don´t deal with the US as much, some see through it as a political ploy to get some cash covered in nationalistic rhetoric, some don´t

 

Sort of back on topic:

 

Regarding coverage of Ukraine, sadly international news don´t sell that much, so, there are few local journalist dedicated to it, and big news services have very poor coverage that most of the time is limited to translate articles from foreign news services, so you end up with a poor translation of what was originally a poor article written by someone that can't tell a tank from and IFV

 

While I think most people would have a hard time pointing to Ukraine or Crimea on a map, articles do appear and people who follow the news are aware of it, pro government news services will probably reproduce articles that put Russia and Putin in a better light, while news services more critical of our government will tend to reproduce articles more favorable to Ukraine´s point of view, but it is a far cry from being a hot topic

[DreDay]

Well, good to know you had a great time here, it`s a big country with some great places to visit

 

And yes, to put it mildly the our current president is not exactly pro-american (she´s leaving office in December, still is not clear who will win the elections in October), not to Venezuelan levels of rhetoric but close enough, and a big chunk of the political establishment and population aren´t either, the reasons for this are many and complex, but it´s a common occurrence  in Latin America in general, politicians play on this all the time

 

As to the overtures of Russia and China in the region, the thing is that with the level of confrontation with the US and to a lesser extent the EU coupled with economic mismanagement, the options for foreign financing and investment are few, so some governments play again the anti american card and look for money in those countries, whom sometimes are happy to oblige to further their own geopolitical interest.

 

To what level our politicians truly believe that the Chinese and Russian governments are "Good" and the US government is "Evil", it`s a matter of opinions, personally I think a good measure of cynicism on their part should be assumed. But again, a big part of the electorate it´s happy believing we don´t deal with the US as much, some see through it as a political ploy to get some cash covered in nationalistic rhetoric, some don´t

 

Sort of back on topic:

 

Regarding coverage of Ukraine, sadly international news don´t sell that much, so, there are few local journalist dedicated to it, and big news services have very poor coverage that most of the time is limited to translate articles from foreign news services, so you end up with a poor translation of what was originally a poor article written by someone that can't tell a tank from and IFV

 

While I think most people would have a hard time pointing to Ukraine or Crimea on a map, articles do appear and people who follow the news are aware of it, pro government news services will probably reproduce articles that put Russia and Putin in a better light, while news services more critical of our government will tend to reproduce articles more favorable to Ukraine´s point of view, but it is a far cry from being a hot topic

 

Thank you for your reply sir. I find it very informative and your analysis is very prudent and rational. BTW, (and I don't want to turn this into a love-fest) but your mastery of English language is terrific as well! But back on topic - it is very interesting to see how other major “non-aligned” countries approach the issue of US/EU/Russia/China relations. Unfortunately we get very little exposure or even acknowledgement of such dynamics over here. I love my country but I don't particularly care for our eagerness to speak of the "free world" that we supposedly represent.

[Pablius]

Thank you for your reply sir. I find it very informative and your analysis is very prudent and rational. BTW, (and I don't want to turn this into a love-fest) but your mastery of English language is terrific as well! But back on topic - it is very interesting to see how other major “non-aligned” countries approach the issue of US/EU/Russia/China relations. Unfortunately we get very little exposure or even acknowledgement of such dynamics over here. I love my country but I don't particularly care for our eagerness to speak of the "free world" that we supposedly represent.

 

 

Thanks, it´s kind of funny that much of my early "education" in english came from reading war-games and simulators manuals as a kid in the 80s

[Battlefront.com]

Steve, I think that we can both agree that there is no single information sources on either side that can be relied on for comprehensive and truthful coverage of the military actions in East Ukraine. In the absence of such, the best thing that analysts like you and I can do is to aggregate multiple information streams and mediums, rate them for their accuracy and relevance and look for common trends. With such methodology one absolutely cannot discard the interviews with actual battle participants; they certainly cannot be taken as a primary source of information; but they are quite relevant and important nonetheless…

They are indeed, but frontline reports from soldiers are only valid as their personal experience. A unit that escaped Debaltseve with 100% of its personnel and 100% of its significant equipment will interview very differently than one that suffered 50% casualties and had to walk out on foot. Both are valid, but neither tell us more than what they experienced first hand. Other sources must be incorporated and that is, of course, a tricky business in any war. In fact, people still have major debates about famous battles in WW2 because even the most well documented battles in modern history are incomplete or contain conflicting information.

 

Guilty as charged sir. I would love to go back and re-read some of your earlier posts when my time allows for it. I certainly don’t claim to have any better sources than you do (or any better analytical skills for that matter); with one notable exception – I am lucky enough to have reading comprehension of both Russaian and Ukranian, which allows me to get a lot of the information streams that are simply not available in English.

No need to call me "sir". I am just some guy

For sure it sucks to not have the language skills you have. Fortunately, Google translator does a decent job, many articles are at least partially translated into English, I have many people suggesting articles for me to read, and I have friends who do speak Ukrainian and Russian who help me at times. So not as good as you, but better than most. I am also fortunate (or stupid enough?) to dedicate a few hours every day since February 2014 to research.

As for my assessment of losses, here is the link to the primary post:

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118430-uh-so-has-debaltseve-fallen/?p=1587600

Note that I revised the numbers a little in later posts as more information became available.

Still, the main problem with a fair assessment is that the separatists don't publish reliable or complete numbers and Russia, of course, is not even admitting they are involved. So official Russian sources say their casualties are 0, which is obviously not true.

 

 

Of course, every country operates on the similar propaganda principlez at the war time. Ukraine is not unique in it by any way. Yet, when this propaganda is completely invalidated by the actual events on the ground that tends to be a major failure on both militarily and political scale. That is what I saw happening in Debaltseve and that’s why I had made my points about it.

I don't see it this way at all. The Ukrainian government never said Debaltseve would hold for all time. They said, at the time, it was held. That was always true when they said it. They were also telling the truth when they said that their forces were not surrounded (see comment below). Did they "sugar coat" the reality of how well they were holding? Sure, but that is what all governments do in time of war. I do not see this as a major problem and so far I do not think the Ukrainian people do either. At least on the whole. Obviously millions of people never speak with the same voice.

 

With all due respect sir, you are really fishing here and letting your basses get the best of you (in my humble opinion). The Ukrainian units in Debaltseve could not get any relief force into the area, nor could they supply their garrison there with enough ammo and supplies to survive the rebel onslaught.

Absolutely true. However, the term "surrounded" is a technical term that has specific conditions. The Ukrainian forces were not "surrounded". What they were was "cut off", or more specifically "effectively cut off". The difference sometimes means very little, but in this case it meant a lot. What is the difference? You no doubt know this, but I want to be clear.

When a unit is surrounded it means it can only return to friendly lines by first forcing an opening through the surrounding enemy force. If sufficient force is not available, the path is not opened and fleeing forces can not retreat.

When a unit is cut off it usually means its lines of communication are under effective enemy fire more than not and there is no sustainable route for resupply and reinforcement. This does not mean nothing can get in or out, rather it means not enough can get in or out to sustain the unit's mission. That mission could be offensive or defensive.

In the case of the Debaltseve units, they were cut off. Supplies and reinforcements were able to move to and from Debaltseve, but not with enough quantity and certainty to keep the force supplied for fighting back. When the orders were given to withdraw, the vast majority made it back to friendly lines. They did not have to fight through the enemy, they had to evade the enemy's fire. Some units got out with very little shooting involved, others got decimated. If they had been surrounded the entire nature of the withdrawal would have been quite different and probably far worse for Ukraine.

 

They had ended up fleeing. Some units did it in a skilled organized way, while others had to run for their lives with no support or command while taking huge losses and abandoning their equipment. You are welcomed to call it whatever you want, but it does not make the plight of those misfortunate units look any better….

The rearguards always pay the price for the safety of others. Very, very rarely in warfare does a force disengage from the enemy under such a situation without suffering significant losses. Often times the losses are catastrophic. Ilovaisk is an example of how bad it can be. Debaltseve doesn't look anything like Ilovaisk, so I feel it is very important to keep that in mind.

BTW, the Ukrainians are generally reporting that their old equipment is difficult to maintain and is requiring too many repairs. This is not surprising. Reports came out from Debaltseve that much of their equipment was not operational because they did not have parts, mechanics, or safe places to repair the vehicles. Obviously they had to be "spiked" and left behind in most cases. However, I did see numerous AFVs being towed back to friendly lines. One BMP came back without it's tracks, for example. So it is not true that Ukraine abandoned everything, however their orders did say to take only what could be easily removed.

 

I generally agree with most of what you say here. There rebels did fail in their efforts to close the pocket at its bottleneck despite their original intention to do it. I have no idea how “badly” they were beaten as I have not seen any remotely credible numbers on that, but the fact stands – they had failed in their original operational objective. Luckily for the rebels, and unfortunately for the Ukrainians, the DNR/LNR forces (most likely under Russian operational command) kept probing the defensive perimeter until that had found the weak spots (like Uglegorsk) that had allowed them to block the Debalseve garrison and to establish fire control over the pass ways to it. Ukranians had tried to counterattack those areas, but were stopped. At which point Debalseve absolutely had to be evacuated to avoid a complete a complete surrender.

Mostly agree. Ukraine did have the option of launching a more widespread counter offensive, but that would be in violation of the Minsk 2 ceasefire and Ukraine was very anxious to make sure Russia had that spotlight all to itself. Remember, there is a very important political dimension to this. Which ties into...

 

Supposedly that was Putin’s proposal to Petroshenko at Minsk-2. At the time Petroshenko had insisted that his forces have enough strength to hold Debalseve and to clear any blockade of it. I am in position to blame him, but in hindsight he was wrong and his actions had cost a few hundred Ukranian soldiers their lives.

This is of course possible. However, there is an alternative theory. Poroshenko was forced by France and Germany to agree to the ceasefire under Putin's conditions (no specification of Debaltseve and 3 day delay of the ceasefire). Poroshenko knew the separatists/Russian would fight like crazy for the next 3 days and figured his forces could hold out that long. And they did! After that point he figured one of two things would happen:

1. The separatists/Russians would either cease their attacks or at least revert to a more manageable level of combat.

2. The separatists/Russians would continue fighting full strength after the ceasefire went into effect, which would show that Merkel and Hollande have no credibility to ask anybody to trust Russia's word.

Either way, #1 didn't happen but #2 did. The value of this is still to be determined.

By some accounts the plan to evacuate Debaltseve was developed in the time before the ceasefire and was implemented perhaps 2 days before the pullout was complete. Clearly Ukraine knew they had to pull out.

 

I am guessing that their objective was to clear a major strategic area that was used to shell Gorlovka (which took a horrific toll on local population btw) and could be used as a staging point for attacks to cut off Gorlovka and even Donetsk. It was also to “liberate” a major city that they consider to be theirs and to cause as much destruction of Ukrainian hardware as possible. In the end all of those objectives were met, but probably at a higher cost than the rebels had expected. For the record - I am not claiming it to be so much of a great victory for the rebels (except for their actions in Uglegorsk where I have been very impressed with their planning tactical opps there); but rather yet another embarrassing defeat for the Kiev government (which in theory should have had all the means to fight off the rebel offensive)

I think you underestimate the degree they wanted to repeat Ilovaisk. But certainly, as long as they don't care about the physical and political costs of the capture of Debaltseve, then it is indeed a victory for the separatists/Russians. If they do care about the costs, then the victory still exists but it is not as "sweet".

 

C’mon Steve, I really respect you intellectual, analytical, and information processing skills; but if I may – your biases tend to get the best of you on some occasions (perhaps I am guilty of that as well, but I do try to be mindful of it)… First of all, I am 100% certain that you have no credible idea of how many Russian units (if any) were involved in fighting there.. Neither do I for that matter... Second, I am even more certain that you have no credible information on how many Ukrainian units and how much of their equipment was able to escape, and how many of them as still lying on the roads leading out of Debaltseve ; again neither do I, but based on a the video evidence that I’ve seen we are talking hundreds (especially if you include POWs). Finally you seem to be completely ignoring the fact that the Debaltseve garrison was offered a safe passage as long as they destroyed/gave up their heavy weapons; so clearly the rebels were not obsessed with killing as many ZSU soldiers as possible, but rather accomplishing their strategic objectives.

So if you want to see it as a Ukranian victory and “Russian” defeat, be my guest; but please don’t expect me to take you seriously on that particular point.

You have it wrong. I do not see this as anything other than a Ukrainian defeat and a separatist/Russian victory. What I am arguing about is the degree of defeat and the degree of victory. In Combat Mission terms I would classify this as a Marginal Victory.

As for Russian forces being directly involved... the US and other governments have taken the unusual steps to directly state that they have evidence they were involved. No details, unfortunately, but it is something new in the political language coming from the West.

Better evidence comes from the battlefield. A company of Russian tanks, including T-72B3, was defeated earlier in the month during the failed attempt to close the neck on the west side. The Ukrainians say they have evidence, but I'll have to dig it up. There were also communication intercepts, including battle loss reports. Ukrainian soldiers also stated times when they found themselves facing a competent foe today, but the day before it was an incompetent foe. In their opinion, based on months of fighting, this change only happens when Russian units are involved.

I also offer the evidence of the very quick prisoner exchange (a couple of days after the battle was finished). Despite the DPR's insistence that prisoners be exchanged 1:1, the exchange was more like 3:1 in Ukraine's favor. This is unprecedented in the war as far as I know. My theory is the quick and unbalanced exchange was made because Ukraine had secured a fair number of Russian military prisoners and Russia wanted them back FAST. Ukraine struck a hard bargain of a very favorable exchange rate, and Russia gave in.

I also remind you that the leading theory about why Russian prisoners are not paraded in front of the cameras any more is because Russia told Ukraine that if they continued then future prisoner swaps would not happen. Ukraine has enough evidence of Russia being directly involved so it makes sense to play by Russia's rules in this case.

Steve

[DreDay]

They are indeed, but frontline reports from soldiers are only valid as their personal experience. A unit that escaped Debaltseve with 100% of its personnel and 100% of its significant equipment will interview very differently than one that suffered 50% casualties and had to walk out on foot. Both are valid, but neither tell us more than what they experienced first hand. Other sources must be incorporated and that is, of course, a tricky business in any war. In fact, people still have major debates about famous battles in WW2 because even the most well documented battles in modern history are incomplete or contain conflicting information.

Of course, any first-person accounts are highly slanted and cannot be used as a sole (or even primary source of evidence). Yet they are still very relevant (especially in this case where we have no independent reporting from either side)… and many of those reports tell a story of a bloody and disorganized retreat. There are also quite a few videos of roads lined with destroyed Ukrainian (and some rebel) hardware and dead Ukrainian soldiers (it’s quite possible that there were dead rebels there as well, but their bodies would have been retrieved before the filming) which seem to indicate that ZSU escape was far from well-executed. That kind of evidence simply can not be ignored.

No need to call me "sir". I am just some guy

Sorry Steve, old habits die hard… I only mean it as a sign of respect.

Still, the main problem with a fair assessment is that the separatists don't publish reliable or complete numbers and Russia, of course, is not even admitting they are involved. So official Russian sources say their casualties are 0, which is obviously not true.

Yeah, no doubt about it. There is no easy way to gauge rebel losses and Russian losses (however few) are almost impossible to confirm.

I don't see it this way at all. The Ukrainian government never said Debaltseve would hold for all time. They said, at the time, it was held. That was always true when they said it. They were also telling the truth when they said that their forces were not surrounded (see comment below). Did they "sugar coat" the reality of how well they were holding? Sure, but that is what all governments do in time of war. I do not see this as a major problem and so far I do not think the Ukrainian people do either. At least on the whole. Obviously millions of people never speak with the same voice.

I’ll have to go back and to re-examine Porshenko’s statements and Ukrainian news coverage post Minsk-2. My recollection is that he had claimed that Debalseve would remain under Ukranian control, but I might very well be mistaken.

[DreDay]

Absolutely true. However, the term "surrounded" is a technical term that has specific conditions. The Ukrainian forces were not "surrounded". What they were was "cut off", or more specifically "effectively cut off". The difference sometimes means very little, but in this case it meant a lot. What is the difference? You no doubt know this, but I want to be clear.

When a unit is surrounded it means it can only return to friendly lines by first forcing an opening through the surrounding enemy force. If sufficient force is not available, the path is not opened and fleeing forces can not retreat.

When a unit is cut off it usually means its lines of communication are under effective enemy fire more than not and there is no sustainable route for resupply and reinforcement. This does not mean nothing can get in or out, rather it means not enough can get in or out to sustain the unit's mission. That mission could be offensive or defensive.

In the case of the Debaltseve units, they were cut off. Supplies and reinforcements were able to move to and from Debaltseve, but not with enough quantity and certainty to keep the force supplied for fighting back. When the orders were given to withdraw, the vast majority made it back to friendly lines. They did not have to fight through the enemy, they had to evade the enemy's fire. Some units got out with very little shooting involved, others got decimated. If they had been surrounded the entire nature of the withdrawal would have been quite different and probably far worse for Ukraine.

You are absolutely correct, but those are subtle difference that might mean a lot to you and I based on our exposure to operational lingo; but I am not so sure that most laymen would understand or appreciate the difference. Either way it does not look good for the Ukranian government and General Staff if you ask me…

The rearguards always pay the price for the safety of others. Very, very rarely in warfare does a force disengage from the enemy under such a situation without suffering significant losses. Often times the losses are catastrophic. Ilovaisk is an example of how bad it can be. Debaltseve doesn't look anything like Ilovaisk, so I feel it is very important to keep that in mind.

Again, I generally agree; even though we still don’t know the actual numbers of ZSU losses in their retreat from Debaltseve (or their efforts to break through to it), they do not appear to be as bad as what they had suffered at Ilovaisk… But I hope that ZSU command does not use that as a measuring point. Ilovaisk was a complete disaster, so not suffering quite is much as not necessarily something to be particularly proud of.

This is of course possible. However, there is an alternative theory. Poroshenko was forced by France and Germany to agree to the ceasefire under Putin's conditions (no specification of Debaltseve and 3 day delay of the ceasefire). Poroshenko knew the separatists/Russian would fight like crazy for the next 3 days and figured his forces could hold out that long. And they did! After that point he figured one of two things would happen:

1. The separatists/Russians would either cease their attacks or at least revert to a more manageable level of combat.

2. The separatists/Russians would continue fighting full strength after the ceasefire went into effect, which would show that Merkel and Hollande have no credibility to ask anybody to trust Russia's word.

Either way, #1 didn't happen but #2 did. The value of this is still to be determined.

So far we have seen minimum repercussions for Russia that can be tied to the capture of Derebalseve; yet the cost to the Ukrainian side both in human lives, morale, and prestige is quite sizable as we have been discussing it for a past couple of days. My personal take is that Poroshenko had actually trusted his troops to be able to hold Derebaltseve, at least until the Russian regulars had shown up (a-la Illovaisk); but his hopes were in vain. Again, that is my personal guess and I might very well be mistaken.

[DreDay]

By some accounts the plan to evacuate Debaltseve was developed in the time before the ceasefire and was implemented perhaps 2 days before the pullout was complete. Clearly Ukraine knew they had to pull out.

[\quote]

That is correct; some of the Ukrainian units (mainly National Guard) had left it way before the communications were cut-off. The main problem seems to lie with poor communication and coordination that had led to some units withdrawing in good condition (as you correctly state), while others were left on their own with no clear orders and had either surrendered or fought a bloody retreat.

Edited March 2, 2015 by DreDay

[Battlefront.com]

Of course, any first-person accounts are highly slanted and cannot be used as a sole (or even primary source of evidence). Yet they are still very relevant (especially in this case where we have no independent reporting from either side)… and many of those reports tell a story of a bloody and disorganized retreat. There are also quite a few videos of roads lined with destroyed Ukrainian (and some rebel) hardware and dead Ukrainian soldiers (it’s quite possible that there were dead rebels there as well, but their bodies would have been retrieved before the filming) which seem to indicate that ZSU escape was far from well-executed. That kind of evidence simply can not be ignored.

No, not ignored. Neither can all the videos of Ukrainian vehicles loaded with troops coming back to friendly lines without any visible signs of damage. Both are equally valid, but without context neither are very useful.

The total fighting force in Debaltseve appears to have been around 3000. All casualties, including wounded that were returned to friendly lines and POWs, appears to be around 500-600. That is around 20% in total. For sure this would leave a lot of destroyed/abandoned equipment. But it still means that somewhere around 85%-90% of the force was withdrawan while under very strong direct attacks and observed fire. Militarily speaking, I think that is a pretty good result for Ukraine and a huge lost opportunity for the separatists/Russians.

Sorry Steve, old habits die hard… I only mean it as a sign of respect.

Yeah, no doubt about it. There is no easy way to gauge rebel losses and Russian losses (however few) are almost impossible to confirm.

Yes. We are left with mostly anecdotal evidence. Two videos I saw had their commanders saying they lost 12 KIA and 9 KIA that day alone. Western journalists interviewed wounded after a failed attack and the amount was very large. The survivors said their battalion sized force was decimated by artillery fire. These, and other, examples give the Ukrainian accounts credibility because they are consistent. Still, it is only anecdotal and that's not the best tool to evaluate casualties.

I’ll have to go back and to re-examine Porshenko’s statements and Ukrainian news coverage post Minsk-2. My recollection is that he had claimed that Debalseve would remain under Ukranian control, but I might very well be mistaken.

 

Oh, for sure he said that Debaltseve was supposed to be retained after the casefire was implemented. What I said is the Ukrainian government did not say "we will never surrender Debaltseve in combat". The government claims were, therefore, factually accurate at the time they were said.

Anyway, I do not know why this matters. The Ukrainian people concerned about the fighting knew the bad position the Debaltseve forces were in and even protested to have them withdrawn. I'm not seeing any significant political fallout over the loss of Debaltseve.

However, it is true that many sources within the military say "we can not afford to keep fighting battles like this". I think that is true, but I also think the separatists/Russians can not afford it either. Again, very different from Ilovaisk and the Southern Cauldron.

 

You are absolutely correct, but those are subtle difference that might mean a lot to you and I based on our exposure to operational lingo; but I am not so sure that most laymen would understand or appreciate the difference. Either way it does not look good for the Ukranian government and General Staff if you ask me…

See above. From what I can tell it isn't going to have an impact on Ukrainian politics. Now, had the Debaltseve forces had suffered 80% casualties instead of 20%, I definitely think things would be very, very, very bad for Poroshenko and the military. Which is why, again, I state that the separatist/Russian goal was for annihilation of the force and they did not achieve that.

Again, I generally agree; even though we still don’t know the actual numbers of ZSU losses in their retreat from Debaltseve (or their efforts to break through to it), they do not appear to be as bad as what they had suffered at Ilovaisk… But I hope that ZSU command does not use that as a measuring point. Ilovaisk was a complete disaster, so not suffering quite is much as not necessarily something to be particularly proud of.

Having a military that in 5-6 months went from completely incapable of a fighting withdrawal to one that militaria historians will view positively even 20 years from now... yeah, I think that is something to be proud of. Again, I am a relativist. If we start talking about the Great Patriotic War you will find me saying many flattering things about Soviet fighting capabilities even in early fighting, despite losing millions of men and thousands of pieces of equipment. Likewise, you will find me being highly critical of the German command from the very first days of planning Barbarossa. Specific actions in wars must be kept in context or even small tactical losses can be blown out of proportion as easily as small tactical victories.

So far we have seen minimum repercussions for Russia that can be tied to the capture of Derebalseve; yet the cost to the Ukrainian side both in human lives, morale, and prestige is quite sizable as we have been discussing it for a past couple of days.

I think the Ukrainians do not generally believe this to be a humiliating defeat and I do not see signs that this is having a significant negative impact on morale. I could be wrong, but so far I haven't seen evidence of it. And let us not forget, the same things were said after the unquestionable disasters from the Southern Cauldron and Ilovaisk. Yet only a fool would denny that Ukrainian fighting capacity has improved significantly since then.

As for the affect on the separatist/Russian side, that is unknown. We do know that a number of militias were decimated and are in the process of being reorganized.

We also know that Russia is seen by the West as having willfully violated Minsk 2's ceasefire. What we don't know yet is what that means. By the looks of it the Minsk 2 ceasefire was a final test for Russia's ability to negotiate in good faith and stick to its word. Russia failed. It's long held position of "we can't control the separatists" is also (finally!) discarded because Russian forces were directly involved in the attack.

Again, what this all means in terms of action in support or Ukraine and against Russia is still playing out. At a minimum we are already seeing:

1. More financial aid to Ukraine

2. The first signs of lethal aid deals

3. A definite hardening of the US led faction of EU countries who think Merkel and Hollande are weak and ineffective leaders

4. No chance, at all, of reducing sanctions against Russia. In fact, some additional sanctions have been added

5. No sign that Minsk 2 is going to be implemented

6. A formal request by Ukraine for peacekeepers on its soil

Again, where this goes is not yet determined. But Ukraine's stand at Debaltseve forced these things to start happening.

My personal take is that Poroshenko had actually trusted his troops to be able to hold Derebaltseve, at least until the Russian regulars had shown up (a-la Illovaisk); but his hopes were in vain. Again, that is my personal guess and I might very well be mistaken.

We might never know, but I suspect at some point we will at least have more solid information to go by.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Is that anything new? Could have fooled me…

I'd have to comb through way too many statements to see, but I do not believe that the heads of state have said that Russian ground forces were directly involved in a specific battle before. General involvement? Yes, but even then the statements have been kept deliberately vague. The statements recently have been very direct.

 

With all due respect Steve, everything that you have listed would be classified as heresy, but not “better evidence”. I would be curious to see if you can find any evidence of the destroyed T-72B3 company. I have seen nothing of that kind. Although I did see the infamous footage of a platoon of them headed for Debaltseve. There is definitely some Russian presence there, no question about it; but it is extremely difficult to measure the scale of it as their OPSEC seems to be quite good.

I checked and the information is as follows:

The battle was in the final days of January (27th??) and it took took place in Vuhlehirsk from forces in the Horlivka area. The attack consisted of at least 2 battalions of infantry and at least one tank company. Reports stated a company of 104th VDV regiment (76th Pskov) and tanks from 13th Guard tank regiment (4th Guards) took part. 14 tanks were said to have been destroyed in total, though it is unclear how many came from 13th Guards and how many came from other units. An earlier report I saw said 9 were from the 13th.

http://nv.ua/ukraine/pod-debalcevo-sily-ato-unichtozhili-14-vrazheskih-tankov-is-32797.html

Hearsay? Yes and no. For sure the battle took place and there is photographic evidence to back up at least some of the claims that a significant number of tanks were destroyed. Unfortunately, Russia won't confirm anything so it is all we have.

 

I’ll have to check the sources on that prisoner exchange; I have not heard anything about it till you’ve mentioned it.

Odd. This was even covered in the poor quality Western media.

 

Rebels had always insisted on all-for-all exchange formula and have always blamed the Ukrainians for giving them random civilians that were grabbed at the rear areas in place of actual fighters.

At least 100 Ukrainian POWs were taken around Debaltseve (as indicated by video footage and interviews with these POWs) and I have heard nothing about ZSU/SBU capturing anywhere close to 300 rebels recently (even by their own accounts).

Even the Ukrainians state their losses in POWs was in excess of the 100. See my earlier post that I linked to on the previous page..

 

As for you theory that some POWs were actually Russians (as in Russian servicemen) that is pure hearsay (and dare I say - wishful thinking) that is even not worth discussing without any relevant evidence.

It is a theory only, admittedly. But with this war, there is a lot going on that is not reported. When I see an unusual event (and this qualifies) I look for the most logical explanation. That some of the prisoners Ukraine exchanged were Russian service personnel makes a lot of sense.

 

That is just silly. The leading theory about why Russian (again we are talking about Russian servicemen, not some random volunteers here) POWs are not paraded is that there no Russian prisoners to parade.

And the same people say that is because they are not in Ukraine. Which we both know is a 100% lie. So credibility matters. The people that recount one lie as truth, despite all the evidence to the contrary, are not reliable.

 

When the Ukrainians had them (i.e. paras from 98th VDV division and 31st VDV brigade that were captured in late August), they were all too happy to parade them (as they very much should have).

Yes, and that is why this alleged deal was struck. Russia knew two things after this embarrassment:

1. That Ukraine was going to capture Russian soldiers again and would be able to repeat the performance.

2. That Putin couldn't continue to say "they were lost" each time this happened.

So it is quite logical for Russia to do something to prevent this from happening in the future. The only two ways it could do this is to either withdraw all Russian forces from Ukraine so none of them could be captured *or* strike a deal with Ukraine so they wouldn't parade them in front of the cameras again. The best and most logical leverage Russia has to make this deal stick is Ukrainian prisoners.

This is very rational and very logical. It also isn't something I invented. Many months ago I read this explanation coming from within the ATO command. Allegedly. Of course it is all speculation, but it definitely passes the "sniff test".

 

Right now, the best they seem to have are half a dozen of Russian passports, an expired Russian Military ID, and a Russian Tax Police (that was disbanded in 2003) Badge that Poroshenko flashes around as his best proof of Russian invasion… So let’s be real here... There Russians are almost certainly (I would personally say definitely) involved in some of the fighting there. But there is very little that we know with any degree of certainty about their actions or the scale of their involvement.

If a force is involved in combat they will lose soldiers as prisoners. It is absolutely inevitable. It is in Ukraine's best interests to make sure the world knows this. Yet it isn't happening beyond, as you say, displays of passports. It isn't even exercising it's rights within the Geneva Convention, which restricts the use of prisoner exploitation. Again, why is that? Because Russia has not suffered even ONE captured or dead service member since August? My theory is a lot more realistic than this theory. If you have a better theory, I would love to hear it

Steve

[Rokko]

Interesting pictures. I cant quite tell but they dont have Sosna-U, so they arent T-72B3s right?

That is also no Kontakt-5 ERA I think

Edited March 2, 2015 by Rokko

[akd]

Those are regular T-72Bs.

[Battlefront.com]

Correct. T-72B was the identification of those tanks by others who can make a better ID than I can. I'm crap at it!

These are of an apparent T-72B3 seen during a report by the infamous Graham Philips:

And this one near Lohvynove:

T-72s, none of which could come from Ukraine's side, have been showing up for months. It seems Russia ran out of mothball T-64s to put into Ukraine and/or they just don't care any more since nobody believes Russia isn't supplying the separatists except for those whose opinion doesn't have much weight (i.e. not world leaders).

Steve

[Rokko]

Weeeell, that or maybe the Ukrainians repaired some of their junk T-72s, equipped them with Sosna-U and export Kontakt-5 from Belarus and let those fall into the Separatist's hands to make it look like Russia supplied high end T-72s to the coal miners.

 

On a more serious note: Does Russia have a lot of old T-72 around in garages and warehouses and such which aren't getting upgraded? Or aren't they actually upgrading but rather producing new ones (given the newer models have new engines for instance),

 

I remember having read an interview with some poor sod who was arrested for DUI in Rostov and then offered to go to Donezk to repair and maintain tanks (cause he was a mechanic) for two weeks in exchange for dropped charges. The end of the song was he got captured by the Ukrainians after a column of tanks, one of which he drove, getting driven near the frontlines was ambushed. Doubt it was the same incident though, since these guys weren't supposed to fight and the crewmember didn't even know each other and weren't trained either.

 

Do you know how many AFVs were lost in that incident? From the pictures I'd say at least 3 T-72s and 1 BMP. I'd also really like to know how they were engaged. For me this is part of a bigger issue since I have real difficulties imagning what typical combat and engagements in that conflict look like, given that there is more or less parity in numbers and equipment for the most part (not like OIF for instance which was more the type of fighting CMSF tried to portray).

[akd]

 

 

On a more serious note: Does Russia have a lot of old T-72 around in garages and warehouses and such which aren't getting upgraded? Or aren't they actually upgrading but rather producing new ones (given the newer models have new engines for instance),

 

 

Russia still has large numbers of older T-72s in service, plus many more in reserve/storage.

[Kraft]

Weeeell, that or maybe the Ukrainians repaired some of their junk T-72s, equipped them with Sosna-U and export Kontakt-5 from Belarus and let those fall into the Separatist's hands to make it look like Russia supplied high end T-72s to the coal miners.

poes law just hit you, didn't read the "on a more serious note" until after I already clicked.. how do I undownrep?

[Sgt Joch]

poes law just hit you, didn't read the "on a more serious note" until after I already clicked.. how do I undownrep?

 

 I added one to compensate.

[Battlefront.com]

Me too

And this just in. A Russian language interview with a *conscript* Russian soldier who was fighting in Ukraine back in June. Including Lohvynove.

http://www.novayagazeta.ru/society/67490.html

I have not had a chance to read it yet.

Steve

[Rokko]

Very interesting, thanks for posting, So appearently from what I can gather, from the 5th Tank Brigade's four batallions one batallion was formed to be sent into Ukraine. That seems to be in line what has been said earlier here about the way the Russians organize their combat forces.

 

BTW, that "explaination" on how T-72B3 could get into Ukraine was sadly something I have read on liveleak where it was brought forth as a serious argument, not a joke.

[Battlefront.com]

From the start this is the way Russia has organized the official Russian military units in Ukraine (besides special forces). For the most part Russia did not just point to an organic company or battalion and say "this unit is going into Ukraine as a whole piece". That would run into serious problems within the Russian military bureaucracy because conscripts are not allowed to be sent into a combat zone without direct approval from the Duma (or something like that). However, if a soldier is excused from military service ("vacation") then there are no such restrictions. So they offer the soldiers incentives to go on "vacation" and then organize them into whatever force they wish to move into Ukraine.

However, over time the word got out that fighting in Ukraine wasn't the pushover that they were told it would be. Soldiers returning spoke of the chaos on their side, the unreliability of the forces they are fighting side by side with, and of course the murderous Ukrainian artillery fire. This reduced the genuine "volunteers" considerably. Especially conscripts. There is also some rumors (and at present that is what I call them) that bodies are not being returned to Russia in order to avoid repeats of the 76th Pskov funerals back in August.

More recently there have been a significant increase in reports of Russian contract and conscripts who are refusing to fight. Some are being forced to sign papers, a few times physical violence was used. In one case a conscript soldier was murdered after refusing to join. His family was told he committed suicide, despite the fact that he was talking with his mother (and begging for help) when the call was suddenly cut off with a scream. In another case a bunch of Marines in Murmansk refused to fight and someone recorded and uploaded their colonel screaming at them about being cowards and unpatriotic for refusing to fight in Ukraine.

And yes, there are sources to cite for all of these accusations. I am also sure that not all accounts are accurate in detail, or perhaps at all. But over time more and more of these things are slipping into the public sphere, which is to be expected. The more people that are involved in a conspiracy, the more time that goes by, and the more stress that surrounds it... the more information will leak out.

Steve