How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

The video of the dead Russian POWs is, unfortunately, gaining traction here.  It's on the front page of several large Western publications.  The ones I've skimmed mention that it appears one of the Russians decided to go out in a blaze of glory, but there's questions as to why all the guys on the ground were apparently killed.  I have the same questions.  I can see some really bad fire discipline killing a few of them by mistake, but I'm reluctantly leaning towards some of them being executed.  I know lots of this stuff has happened on both sides, vastly more Russian of course, so it isn't surprising.  Just disappointing to see.

Steve

[billbindc]

 

Theiner's thread is an interesting take. Personally, I'll wait until expert opinion (vs the NY Times showing a picture to some rando epidemiologist somewhere) weighs in.

[Battlefront.com]

In happier news, seems there's at least some evidence that a power struggle with Putin is well underway.

https://www.newsweek.com/leaked-fsb-letters-civial-war-putin-allies-prigozhin-kadyrov-1760455

This comes from the same source that was widely quoted at the beginning of the war.  Many of us thought it seemed like some good creative writing, however Christo Grozev (Bellingcat) vouches for this one (and others) being written by someone who is or was FSB.

The big fight, coming soon, is between FSB and Prigozhin.  Read the article to see the details of this, but it boils down to Prigozhin coming to the point where he believes he can grab at least regional power for himself.

Now here is something very timely for this thread.  The source stated:

Quote

In a more urgent email dated on November 8, the FSB whistleblower warned Osechkin that Prigozhin is preparing brigades for "domestic terror" in Russia, amid a surge of protests and riots in several regions of Russia over reports that more than 1,000 Russians were killed in the space of three days during intense fighting in Ukraine.

Note only a few posts ago sburke posted a new story of terrorist bombings in Moscow:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-in-flames-at-least-five-dead-as-moscow-rocked-by-explosion-by-major-train-stations/ar-AA14memb?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a3b4701c62f5485884b4a8d341c3c69d

Coincidence?  I'm guessing not.

Then there is Kadyrov.  I think the FSB guy is suggesting that Kadyrov, and others, might not be the first to make a move, but if Prigozhin moves they will likely try to carve out something for themselves.  Kadyrov is pretty much assured of taking Chechnya for his own at any time IMHO.

Steve

 

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, billbindc said:

 

Theiner's thread is an interesting take. Personally, I'll wait until expert opinion (vs the NY Times showing a picture to some rando epidemiologist somewhere) weighs in.

I'm all for dismissing crappy reporting, but I don't think it's so easily dismissed.

As Theiner pointed out, the PKM was the primary weapon that we can see trained on the point where the Russians were emerging from.  Distance was close... under 10m, probably more like 8m.  As I said before, he was very poorly placed to interdict anybody coming out of the building, but most of the guys on the ground were in the direct line of fire of the PKM.

In the prone position, on a bipod, the gun will rip a pretty tight grouping with a burst.  More than a burst would result in muzzle climb.  Manually adjusting to fire the gun into the ground ahead of him is possible, but it would take some effort and would have been after the target fell.  The 2-3 guys directly of him, in that case, would likely be hit.  But I find it difficult to think that bullets from the PKM could go through a dozen soldiers and still result in fatal wounds on the guys furthest away.  Perhaps the combined poor fire discipline of the PKM and several standing soldiers with AKs could have done this, but I'm not thinking that's the most likely explanation.

I'm not saying definitively that they were murdered, I'm just saying that I see no reason to be dismissive that they were like Theiner is.  Just because NYT did a crap article doesn't mean they're wrong, even if they had no good reason to conclude what they concluded.

Steve

[kevinkin]

2 hours ago, JonS said:

So, no. Moving defence spending up is not a good thing. Not generally.

But the 2% is a magic number to enter NATO I believe.  So Sweden should maintain their spending, get their act together and then say hey guys are we in? Given they are an independent nation, I am not sure much how influence NATO will have on their procurement process. Pretty sure if Sweden has a systemic problem with procurement (even the US has to some degree), it will not be solved in two years. Again, the announcement was more for the public and not meant for professionals in their or NATOs defense industries. I don't think the guy was trying to pull the wool over NATO's eyes.

[paxromana]

44 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The video of the dead Russian POWs is, unfortunately, gaining traction here.  It's on the front page of several large Western publications.  The ones I've skimmed mention that it appears one of the Russians decided to go out in a blaze of glory, but there's questions as to why all the guys on the ground were apparently killed.  I have the same questions.  I can see some really bad fire discipline killing a few of them by mistake, but I'm reluctantly leaning towards some of them being executed.  I know lots of this stuff has happened on both sides, vastly more Russian of course, so it isn't surprising.  Just disappointing to see.

Steve

I;m asuming the dead guys on the ground were killed by the machinegunner shown in the video -- who is on the ground -- surely from what I remember of my infantry training 50 years ago that would, even if he was aiming slighly up at the idiot openiing fire, put them within the cone of fire you expect from an automatic weapon?

As for claims that (some? all?) were killed by head shots ... well, their heads were facing the machinegunner ... so, of course, that's one very likely area to be hit ... and claims they were shot in the back of the head, a 7.62 54R round leaves a big hole going in and a bigger one coming out so, even if there were evidence of head shots (and the video seems far too grainy to be definitive) there's no evidence of them being shot in the back of the head.

Textbook case of perfidy by the Russians, if the ones on the ground weren't in on it, well, it's unfortunate, but not a war crime that they were killed and if they were, well it is a war crime ... a Russian war crime.

[evilcommie]

38 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

In happier news, seems there's at least some evidence that a power struggle with Putin is well underway.

https://www.newsweek.com/leaked-fsb-letters-civial-war-putin-allies-prigozhin-kadyrov-1760455

This comes from the same source that was widely quoted at the beginning of the war.  Many of us thought it seemed like some good creative writing, however Christo Grozev (Bellingcat) vouches for this one (and others) being written by someone who is or was FSB.

The big fight, coming soon, is between FSB and Prigozhin.  Read the article to see the details of this, but it boils down to Prigozhin coming to the point where he believes he can grab at least regional power for himself.

Now here is something very timely for this thread.  The source stated:

Note only a few posts ago sburke posted a new story of terrorist bombings in Moscow:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-in-flames-at-least-five-dead-as-moscow-rocked-by-explosion-by-major-train-stations/ar-AA14memb?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a3b4701c62f5485884b4a8d341c3c69d

Coincidence?  I'm guessing not.

Then there is Kadyrov.  I think the FSB guy is suggesting that Kadyrov, and others, might not be the first to make a move, but if Prigozhin moves they will likely try to carve out something for themselves.  Kadyrov is pretty much assured of taking Chechnya for his own at any time IMHO.

Steve

 

I guess all the internal players in Russia must be preserving their own forces and equipment for a civil war rather than send them to Ukraine. 

[Beleg85]

Some more info regarding Poland incident:

-https://twitter.com/RealCynicalFox/status/1594871567057670144   Journalist from AP who spread unverified information about Russian missile has just been fired.

-PM Morawiecki told yestarday they have mostly solid proofs. One of them is reportedly camera on border that shows the AA rocket "but does not give 100% certainty where it came from, so we need to wait for further investigation".

-There are tasty (or rather sad) claims from behind the courtains by one Polish journalist,who usually have good sources in administration. Reportedly Ukrainian officer responsible for this sector called PL counterparts immediatelly after rockets fall, admitting it was theirs (I suppose they had special military Hotline for such cases). However, after an hour or so most top Ukrainian politicians started to officially peddle this theory of Russian missile. We don't know who initiated entire narration, it was perhaps somebody from President's Office or high military. Details were not given, but it reportedly took a lot of phone calls from both Americans (Sullivan) and Polish at diffeent levels to amend the situation during first hours, to no avail initially. Ukrainian populace is now pretty distrustfull of NATO as a consequence.

-It is very unfortunate incident, as it has its repercussions- 2 days later Zelensky for whatever domestic/external reason appointed controversial Andriey Melnyk to  high position of vice-Foreign Minister, in what Polish gov. read as clear provocation; reportedly, even Americans engaged in talks before his appointment, trying to calm down this crisis. In turn our diplomacy retaliated with refusal to continue as Ukraine's advocate at levels as before at various international insitutuions and during talks (lately, they used Poland's so-so diplomatic contacts with Tehran and some unnamed Middle East countries to figure out if anything could be done to stop Iranian weapons flowing).

-Officially everything is ok, we are politically definitelly stll in full support of Ukraine and officials constantly remind it is Russians to blame. Behind the courtains however, enthusiasm in administation and among population slightly evaporated. Also I have confimation from my collegue who fundraise winter equipment for soldiers at the front that since incident donations fell by about 30% and some volunteers left (could also have different reasons, though). Well, definitelly the honeymoon is over.

 

On other nore,  regarding Caucasus: Said "Maloy"("Little") Zakaiev, who famously ridiculed Ukrainian civilians and POW's in 2014, is reported to be dead:

https://odessa-journal.com/in-ukraine-a-chechen-executioner-from-the-peacemaker-base-was-liquidated/

This photo of him humiliating Ukrianian female activist Iryna Dovgan was one of symbols of Russian occupation of Donbas.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Beleg85

[Battlefront.com]

17 minutes ago, paxromana said:

I;m asuming the dead guys on the ground were killed by the machinegunner shown in the video -- who is on the ground -- surely from what I remember of my infantry training 50 years ago that would, even if he was aiming slighly up at the idiot openiing fire, put them within the cone of fire you expect from an automatic weapon?

Muzzles rise when fired, they rise a LOT and quickly when fired full automatic.  He was aiming up at the time the video showed him, which means he'd have shredded the "hero" and, if he was an excellent gunner, kept the grouping above ground.  If he wasn't an excellent gunner the barrel would naturally go up, not down.  If he followed the target, which was slightly to the left of the guys on the ground, he could possibly have hit the legs and maybe torsos of the first couple of guys.  But bullets tend to stop or change trajectory when they hit things like body armor, bones, and the ton of hard rubble that you can clearly see in the images.  No, I do not see how it is possible that he shot a few bursts at the target and wound up killing a dozen guys in a row like that.  Now, if he emptied 100 rounds and was spraying all over the ground, maybe.  But that takes some pretty good gunnery to maintain that sort of fire, which clearly wouldn't have been warranted if only one vertical target showed himself to be a threat.

17 minutes ago, paxromana said:

Textbook case of perfidy by the Russians, if the ones on the ground weren't in on it, well, it's unfortunate, but not a war crime that they were killed and if they were, well it is a war crime ... a Russian war crime.

Depends on how the guys on the ground were killed.  If any of the Ukrainians deliberately fired at the guys on the ground, at best they are in a very gray area in terms of war crime.  They'd argue they got spooked and assumed someone else was going to light them up, but they came out and laid down without resisting and without obvious weapons, so there's certainly a case to be made that this was a war crime.

It's not the only one from this week, BTW.  There's some footage of Ukrainian soldiers videoing a Russian bound and gagged in a wooden coffin and making fun of him by dumping him out for the camera.  That is against the Geneva Convention. 

Look, I'm not saying that Ukraine should be hauled to the Hague and prosecuted for things like this, but it is REALLY bad PR.  I think people were more willing to overlook incidents like this earlier in the war when they were the underdogs, but now that they are on the attack and Russia is losing there's an expectation that Ukraine can more easily take the high road.  Which, of course, it does for the most part while Russia, by contrast, continues to demonstrate it is a Terrorist State.  I'd rather have people focused on Russia, but crap like these videos gets in the way of that.

Steve

[kevinkin]

Yes it does. I wonder if Ukraine will get out ahead of these images with the old "while we are investigating" our troops are expected to adhere to the Geneva Convention etc.. A really long shot, but maybe this would help round up potential deserters with the understanding of humane treatment once captured. If the door is closed to the rear, keep one open the other way.

 

[dan/california]

36 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Muzzles rise when fired, they rise a LOT and quickly when fired full automatic.  He was aiming up at the time the video showed him, which means he'd have shredded the "hero" and, if he was an excellent gunner, kept the grouping above ground.  If he wasn't an excellent gunner the barrel would naturally go up, not down.  If he followed the target, which was slightly to the left of the guys on the ground, he could possibly have hit the legs and maybe torsos of the first couple of guys.  But bullets tend to stop or change trajectory when they hit things like body armor, bones, and the ton of hard rubble that you can clearly see in the images.  No, I do not see how it is possible that he shot a few bursts at the target and wound up killing a dozen guys in a row like that.  Now, if he emptied 100 rounds and was spraying all over the ground, maybe.  But that takes some pretty good gunnery to maintain that sort of fire, which clearly wouldn't have been warranted if only one vertical target showed himself to be a threat.

Depends on how the guys on the ground were killed.  If any of the Ukrainians deliberately fired at the guys on the ground, at best they are in a very gray area in terms of war crime.  They'd argue they got spooked and assumed someone else was going to light them up, but they came out and laid down without resisting and without obvious weapons, so there's certainly a case to be made that this was a war crime.

It's not the only one from this week, BTW.  There's some footage of Ukrainian soldiers videoing a Russian bound and gagged in a wooden coffin and making fun of him by dumping him out for the camera.  That is against the Geneva Convention. 

Look, I'm not saying that Ukraine should be hauled to the Hague and prosecuted for things like this, but it is REALLY bad PR.  I think people were more willing to overlook incidents like this earlier in the war when they were the underdogs, but now that they are on the attack and Russia is losing there's an expectation that Ukraine can more easily take the high road.  Which, of course, it does for the most part while Russia, by contrast, continues to demonstrate it is a Terrorist State.  I'd rather have people focused on Russia, but crap like these videos gets in the way of that.

Steve

Both the mishandling of the Polish incident, and the fact the videos of this screwed up surrender are out in public are signs of stress cracks in the Ukrainian system. Nine months of an existential war is a long time. Furthermore while they freely acknowledge they are getting a great deal of support, they aren't getting all the support they could be, ATACAMS being exhibit A. Zelensky got some bad advice that the Polish incident could be used to pry the taps open wider, and was much too slow to change course. The number of families of fallen soldiers the man consoles every week, on top of everything else, is just wearing him out. Both the prisoner incident itself, and even more so the fact the videos got out are evidence of at least a mild breakdown in command authority. Most of the Ukrainian army weren't soldiers nine months ago, and they just don't have the deep reserve of command authority and military common sense that come from a decade in service among senior NCOs.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/21/russians-accused-of-burning-bodies-at-kherson-landfill

This might be the best evidence I have seen of just how bad the Russian casualties might be. 

Edited November 22, 2022 by dan/california

[danfrodo]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

In happier news, seems there's at least some evidence that a power struggle with Putin is well underway.

https://www.newsweek.com/leaked-fsb-letters-civial-war-putin-allies-prigozhin-kadyrov-1760455

This comes from the same source that was widely quoted at the beginning of the war.  Many of us thought it seemed like some good creative writing, however Christo Grozev (Bellingcat) vouches for this one (and others) being written by someone who is or was FSB.

The big fight, coming soon, is between FSB and Prigozhin.  Read the article to see the details of this, but it boils down to Prigozhin coming to the point where he believes he can grab at least regional power for himself.

Now here is something very timely for this thread.  The source stated:

Note only a few posts ago sburke posted a new story of terrorist bombings in Moscow:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-in-flames-at-least-five-dead-as-moscow-rocked-by-explosion-by-major-train-stations/ar-AA14memb?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a3b4701c62f5485884b4a8d341c3c69d

Coincidence?  I'm guessing not.

Then there is Kadyrov.  I think the FSB guy is suggesting that Kadyrov, and others, might not be the first to make a move, but if Prigozhin moves they will likely try to carve out something for themselves.  Kadyrov is pretty much assured of taking Chechnya for his own at any time IMHO.

Steve

 

Option B is that Putin is planting all this to frame these guys.  Whichever way it really is, it is certainly some very high stakes poker for all involved.  If only all three could end up assassinated by each other's hit squads, that would be hilarious.

[JonS]

3 hours ago, kevinkin said:

But the 2% is a magic number to enter NATO I believe.

They were already in NATO. It was when Hair Furore was trying his damnedest to prove the US an unreliable ally.

[JonS]

3 hours ago, paxromana said:

a war crime

If you want to be seen as The Good Guy(tm), you have to do The Good Things. You can't really go around executing POWs while claiming the mantle of truth and justice.

Edit: Before the whataboutism kicks in, it's not a relative competition. You can't say "well the Russians are worse, so that makes us the good guys!" No, that just makes you the better - but not necessarily good - guys and the Russians the worse guys.

Edited November 22, 2022 by JonS

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, danfrodo said:

Option B is that Putin is planting all this to frame these guys.  Whichever way it really is, it is certainly some very high stakes poker for all involved.  If only all three could end up assassinated by each other's hit squads, that would be hilarious.

Right, but if Putin is planting this information in the West then it still indicates that things aren't all happy fuzzy bunnies within Russia.  Remember, Putin doesn't need to frame anybody, he can just pick up the phone and make someone have a horrible accident or heart attack.  So if Putin put this stuff out into the open he's risking getting people within Russia thinking that Putin's got problems.  I don't see that as good.

However, I can easily see the FSB putting this information, true or not, out there to get rid of a perceived threat they can't seem to neutralize some other way.  For example, if Putin keeps insisting that Prigozhin and Kadyrov are his buddies, something like this could maybe help sway him.  However, they should be able to present this information directly to him if that were the case.

Well, if the info really is from a FSB whistleblower, I think all scenarios point to there being problems at home for Putin.  Not that we don't already know this, but this particular report seems to make it clear that Prigozhin is the most likely direct threat to Putin's grip on power.  For months now we've been waiting for someone like this to appear, and now that seems to have happened.

Steve

[dan/california]

35 minutes ago, JonS said:

If you want to be seen as The Good Guy(tm), you have to do The Good Things. You can't really go around executing POWs while claiming the mantle of truth and justice.

Edit: Before the whataboutism kicks in, it's not a relative competition. You can't say "well the Russians are worse, so that makes us the good guys!" No, that just makes you the better - but not necessarily good - guys and the Russians the worse guys.

It is worse than a crime, it is a mistake...

 

Edit: Of course considering some the people/countries the U.S. has backed in the last ~80 years the really are saints. Hopefully they can get their heads back together focus on the prize.

Second edit: It doesn't help that both sides dehumanize the other completely, in terms of rhetoric and propaganda. 

Third edit: Eight years of the Russians ACTING like something out of Tolkien or maybe Lovecraft figures in there somewhere. And it is STILL  a mistake for the Ukrainians to act out but...

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by dan/california

[Zeleban]

6 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

They'd argue they got spooked and assumed someone else was going to light them up, but they came out and laid down without resisting and without obvious weapons, so there's certainly a case to be made that this was a war crime.

 

These statements are true if you spent some time watching the video of the incident, including using slow motion and zoom. The guys in the video didn't have that time. At first glance, unarmed people go out of their buildings and lie down on the ground, suddenly shooting starts, your wounded comrade screams. The distance to the enemy is no more than 10 meters. You don’t even have a couple of seconds to orient yourself in the situation and you simply start shooting towards the enemy (I’m sure that 70% of close contacts happen exactly according to this scenario).

In addition, the tweet above on this page indicates that the position of some of the killed Russians does not correspond to the original. This suggests that after the shooting started, some of them tried to hide and began to move, violating the demand of the Ukrainian fighters to surrender, which gives every reason to shoot at them.

The statement that if a person raised his hands, then he does not have a weapon is false. (there were several videos of a surrendering Russian trying to throw a grenade) The Geneva Convention says that the enemy's lack of weapons does not mean that the enemy is no longer a threat to you. For example, he can easily attack you with his bare hands and this is a sufficient reason to use weapons against him.

My legal conclusion is that in the case where your group takes prisoner twice the size of the enemy group. In the event of resistance by at least one enemy, it gives all legal and moral grounds to destroy the entire enemy group without specifying whether they have weapons or not and without waiting for one of them to throw a grenade hidden under your clothes at you (of course, if this this happens in the heat of battle and not after the incident, when the threat is eliminated)

[LongLeftFlank]

Too late, chum!

This is a problem with a televised war, as the Americans found in Vietnam. So the UA really needs to get its troops to shut their damn Gopros off.

As for the moral panic, as most of the grogs on here know well, surrendering to guys whose comrades you and your army have previously been killing and maiming is *always* a chancy thing, whatever the treaty may say or which army you are surrendering to. There's only so much forgiveness one can expect of human beings in that moment.

...ISTR it became standard GI practice to deliver German prisoners a swift kick in the arse as they passed, basically 'kicking them out of the war'.  Gives an outlet for the hatred, but also lets the kid go home intact, eventually. 

The duct-taping and blindfolding is the UA equivalent here. Message is basically: at this particular moment you are just baggage not a human, so just STFU and we will take due care of you in our own good time. If not, you are gonna get hit, or worse.

....Deliberate execution following capture is of course a war crime.

[The_Capt]

40 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

My legal conclusion is that in the case where your group takes prisoner twice the size of the enemy group. In the event of resistance by at least one enemy, it gives all legal and moral grounds to destroy the entire enemy group without specifying whether they have weapons or not and without waiting for one of them to throw a grenade hidden under your clothes at you (of course, if this this happens in the heat of battle and not after the incident, when the threat is eliminated)

So my guess is you practice real estate law?  Uh, no.  Not even close in legal terms but it is complicated.

So let’s be crazy and post some refs:

https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/prisoners-of-war/

So this outlines all of the protections and definitions of what is and is not a POW etc.  

The legal term we are talking about with respect to a Russian POW tossing a grenade is perfidy - https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule65. This is a warcrime in itself but does not immediately remove POW protections of the perpetrator- legally but practically there is a solid case that the individual still able to employ lethal force is no longer a POW.

Here we get into the LOAC and the right to self defence - https://lieber.westpoint.edu/understanding-self-defense-law-armed-conflict/

And not a bad opener on the whole subject here- https://www.genevacall.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2013/11/The-Law-of-Armed-Conflict.pdf

So what?  Well if a POW exercises perfidy during capture then technically they could be deemed as forfeiting their status is a POW, IF it can be proven that they intended to fight.  So whoever tossed that grenade was likely a legitimate target under both LOAC and the right to self defence.

Blanket wiping out that persons whole unit because one person exercised perfidy is well outside LOAC and it will be a challenge to sell self-defence.  In LOAC the principles of distinction and proportionality are likely the ones that are going to bite here.  Originally designed to protect civilians, they also protect POWs and a massive GPMG response on the whole unit likely violates both. Unless the UA troops can prove that the entire unit was exercising perfidy and a collective lethal force response was required then they are on very shaky legal ground.  In short the legal principal of “Shoot first, last and let God sort them out” does not stand under LOAC.

Now that all said - this is war and this stuff, on the line stuff, happens all the time.  You basically have a lot of emotions and ammunition in the same place so over-reaction is very understandable and happens. This one, from the photos and video may have crossed the line to an unrighteous shoot but there will need to be a full investigation to establish that and then a military legal process to prosecute any offenders etc, allowing them full protection of the law.  The Hague and international court will not be getting involved as this is 1) too small/not systemic and 2) Ukraine as a signatory of the Geneva conventions is more than capable of prosecution under national law. 

So to summarize - mass shooting of POWs is almost never warranted or legally supported even if one of their members exercises perfidy.  If a crime was committed by UA troops there is a process to establish this and deal with it. Until Ukraine demonstrates that it is not going to follow that process or the LOAC, which we have seen no real evidence of particularly considering the actions of the RA, then any international criminal process is off the table.

It does not help the Ukrainian cause in the least to have these sorts of things happen but these things do happen.  Why?  Because all war is personal. A Russia POW got sh#tty and UA troops took it personally…whether it was a crime or not is for the investigation to decide.

[billbindc]

9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

In happier news, seems there's at least some evidence that a power struggle with Putin is well underway.

https://www.newsweek.com/leaked-fsb-letters-civial-war-putin-allies-prigozhin-kadyrov-1760455

This comes from the same source that was widely quoted at the beginning of the war.  Many of us thought it seemed like some good creative writing, however Christo Grozev (Bellingcat) vouches for this one (and others) being written by someone who is or was FSB.

The big fight, coming soon, is between FSB and Prigozhin.  Read the article to see the details of this, but it boils down to Prigozhin coming to the point where he believes he can grab at least regional power for himself.

Now here is something very timely for this thread.  The source stated:

Note only a few posts ago sburke posted a new story of terrorist bombings in Moscow:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-in-flames-at-least-five-dead-as-moscow-rocked-by-explosion-by-major-train-stations/ar-AA14memb?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a3b4701c62f5485884b4a8d341c3c69d

Coincidence?  I'm guessing not.

Then there is Kadyrov.  I think the FSB guy is suggesting that Kadyrov, and others, might not be the first to make a move, but if Prigozhin moves they will likely try to carve out something for themselves.  Kadyrov is pretty much assured of taking Chechnya for his own at any time IMHO.

Steve

 

Is that the "winds of change" chap? Meh. Plausibly written with an eye towards what people in the west want to believe. Grozev or not, I doubt the provenance, the intent or the usefulness. 

[Huba]

19 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Well the first problem - that this is not solving - is that the lowest tier UAS/loitering munitions can see out to 2+ kms and feed that back to a targeting system.  They are too small for MANPAD or VSHORADs.  Hell they even have commercially available thermal/IR versions - https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/buying-guides/best-thermal-drone  These are class I drones that will be able to see ground based 30mm chain guns blasting away at the clouds from kms away.

Attacking an opponents recon assets is the first basic step in what should be a systemic attacking system, but thinking it is the solution is draining the ocean with a spoon.  Off the top 'o' the old noggin, for an initial start:

- Effective hunter-killer UAS designed to go out and kill other UAS.  This is the beginning of re-establishing symmetry within the unmanned aerial space.  Here we can scratch that recon asset elimination itch but it is a far bigger problem than this. 

- That first one up there needs to be linked into a ground based system to do the same on surface/sub-surface.  This will in effect shift the calculus of warfare to where the comparative knife edge unmanned systems envelop will be as critical to warfare as airpower ever was.

- Then you need a c-space system to deny and disrupt your opponents space based capability and resources (data/GPS) while preserving your own.

- Add to this a healthy offensive cyber capability able to attack and degrade an opponents field C4ISR systems.  This is more than hitting their networks, this is gen 2 information/data warfare where you are able to essentially hijack an opponents C4ISR central nervous system and feed it the wrong data.  This will require physical infiltration/exploitation in addition to the standard cyber-at-range effects.  Nano will likely start within this space about mid-century and expand outward from there - e.g. you physically re-wire an opponents C4ISR.  This will also extend from the frontline all the way back to strategic industry.

- C4ISR overmatch - you need an integrated system that is able to learn faster and better than an opponents...while in motion.  This goes beyond a different technological approach and platforms, it hits at the heart of "how we think  and make decisions about fighting" and operational planning processes.  This is the AI/ML integration space and how we pair these new technologies with people based warfighting systems to develop new theories of cause and effect over an opponent.

- Integrated Precision Deep Strike - land battles are likely to occur more and more decisively over the horizon where the side that can see, fix and strike with long range precision fires will gain advantage.  This will mean unconventional targeting and munitions able to hit an opponents C4ISR system - so long range EM/EW systems, long range unmanned sub-munition swarms able to hit an opponents nerve centers (nodes), networks (connectors) and cognitive centers of gravity (processors).

- People.  We will likely re-think how we select, train and employ people dramatically to gain advantage within this environment.  The internal military cultural issues aside (and they are legion) - occupations and trades, leadership skillsets and decision making within human dimensions will all need an overhaul as we are all working on 20th century models.  Western governments are going to insist on keeping humans in the loop, and if we think we can stick the same humans we have been using for decades into that loop it will very likely cause serious problems. 

Advantage will go to the side that can collect, process and weaponize data faster, better and at greater overall scales - just as we have seen repeatedly in this war.

So, no, I am sorry but NG does not get a participant medal for bilking the military contracting and acquisition process for billions cause "at least they are trying something".  Lord we have been here before with IEDs back in the '00s.  We got sold a lot of "up armored Mad Max vehicles" that we are dumping now and a bunch of c-IED robots/ detection systems.  The reality is that C-IED was a counter system requirement that spanned from finance/logistics-planning/targeting-production-employment-exploitation, all looped within COIN.

In war it is almost never simply countering the thing. It is about countering the things that made the thing, a thing, in the first place.

All right, but aren't we getting too far ahead here? You are talking of change and adaptation on the doctrinal level and developing a range of systems to ensure dominance. The gun from the original tweet is hardly a solution to that, it is just a gun for shooting at small drones. A tool that arguably is missing from typical army's quiver. Not a systemic solution to the changing battlefield realities, perhaps just one of the bricks.

Also, let me nitpick at some other statements here:

- Small CUAS is an obvious direction, but there isn't anything even remotely approaching a ready solution. Counting this solving your drone problem now, or even in 5 years time is like counting on laser weapons - not realistic at this point. Also, the technical problem of building anything that could operate in a way a small fighter aircraft would might really be not feasible at all - at the moment when you created a platform big enough to carry necessary sensors (radar?) you end up with size and cost that will make it a prime target for classical AD. Unless we are thinking of some drone swarm solution, vertically integrated with higher echelon sensors etc - this sounds promising, but wasn't even demonstrated as a prototype yet (at least openly). You can't just advise an armed forces to buy it to prepare for a conflict in 2026.

- at the moment, in UA setting there's still a huge problem of small "bombodrons", commercial quadcopters operating in very close vicinity to the soldiers, and of loitering munitions. Terrain itself forces the drones to close in - built up areas, hills, ravines, forests etc make them fly directly above the heads of the troops, that fire at them with small arms. Barring the above mentioned swarm (or being US Army level superior and just not letting your opponent even blink before you trash him), what other way to actively combat this threat is there? Concealment and EW are of course factors here too, but hardly suffice by itself I'd say.

To narrow this down, I'm obviously looking at all of this from the perspective of Polish Armed Forces modernization. We know who the potential enemy is, what are his capabilities (give or take of course) and observe how he's developing them. Idea is to be "ready" say in 2028. A lot of what you described is being incorporated into this program (as far as the general public can see at least). But if we talk specifically about the lowest level air-defence, PL is more or less following the path of being able to physically swat the drones from the sky, I don't see why anybody would argument against it.

Another edit sorry: guy who runs the originally linked profile made a follow-on thread about that, expressing the idea a tad cleared this time:

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by Huba

[kevinkin]

One guys opinion that is shared by others:

Simply put – again in cold, geopolitical terms – the war is destroying Russia so that it really can’t be described as a “near-peer” adversary, apart from its nuclear capabilities. 

Russia is isolated, broke, and relying on antiquated equipment. This war has destroyed the Kremlin in a way that even President Ronald Reagan’s spending in the 1980s failed to beat down the Soviet Union. At best, Moscow will be the capital of another Hermit Kingdom – one that was created due to a failed effort to restore former glory.

It is just too bad that Ukraine’s people had to pay to ensure that America won’t need to fear the Russian bear for at least another generation.

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/11/could-the-ukraine-war-turn-russia-into-north-korea/

 

[Zeleban]

29 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So my guess is you practice real estate law?  Uh, no.  Not even close in legal terms but it is complicated.

So let’s be crazy and post some refs:

https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/prisoners-of-war/

So this outlines all of the protections and definitions of what is and is not a POW etc.  

The legal term we are talking about with respect to a Russian POW tossing a grenade is perfidy - https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule65. This is a warcrime in itself but does not immediately remove POW protections of the perpetrator- legally but practically there is a solid case that the individual still able to employ lethal force is no longer a POW.

Here we get into the LOAC and the right to self defence - https://lieber.westpoint.edu/understanding-self-defense-law-armed-conflict/

And not a bad opener on the whole subject here- https://www.genevacall.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2013/11/The-Law-of-Armed-Conflict.pdf

So what?  Well if a POW exercises perfidy during capture then technically they could be deemed as forfeiting their status is a POW, IF it can be proven that they intended to fight.  So whoever tossed that grenade was likely a legitimate target under both LOAC and the right to self defence.

Blanket wiping out that persons whole unit because one person exercised perfidy is well outside LOAC and it will be a challenge to sell self-defence.  In LOAC the principles of distinction and proportionality are likely the ones that are going to bite here.  Originally designed to protect civilians, they also protect POWs and a massive GPMG response on the whole unit likely violates both. Unless the UA troops can prove that the entire unit was exercising perfidy and a collective lethal force response was required then they are on very shaky legal ground.  In short the legal principal of “Shoot first, last and let God sort them out” does not stand under LOAC.

Now that all said - this is war and this stuff, on the line stuff, happens all the time.  You basically have a lot of emotions and ammunition in the same place so over-reaction is very understandable and happens. This one, from the photos and video may have crossed the line to an unrighteous shoot but there will need to be a full investigation to establish that and then a military legal process to prosecute any offenders etc, allowing them full protection of the law.  The Hague and international court will not be getting involved as this is 1) too small/not systemic and 2) Ukraine as a signatory of the Geneva conventions is more than capable of prosecution under national law. 

So to summarize - mass shooting of POWs is almost never warranted or legally supported even if one of their members exercises perfidy.  If a crime was committed by UA troops there is a process to establish this and deal with it. Until Ukraine demonstrates that it is not going to follow that process or the LOAC, which we have seen no real evidence of particularly considering the actions of the RA, then any international criminal process is off the table.

It does not help the Ukrainian cause in the least to have these sorts of things happen but these things do happen.  Why?  Because all war is personal. A Russia POW got sh#tty and UA troops took it personally…whether it was a crime or not is for the investigation to decide.

Were the people in the video prisoners of war? Since when is a person a prisoner of war? From the moment his hands were raised, or from the moment this man was searched and made sure that he was no longer a danger to others? If fire is being fired from the side of a person who raised his hands, do soldiers have the right to fire in the direction of a person with their hands raised in terms of the laws of war? You are legally much more literate than me, explain these legal concepts to me

[The_MonkeyKing]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-prankster-impersonating-macron-spoke-polands-duda-after-blast-2022-11-22/

The recording: https://rutube.ru/video/1c3c0277eb2efdb63bc444382a42e6a8/

[Butschi]

6 hours ago, JonS said:

If you want to be seen as The Good Guy(tm), you have to do The Good Things. You can't really go around executing POWs while claiming the mantle of truth and justice.

And that is really the main point. I mean, we were all aware that in a war bad things happen on both sides and that at some point we would inevitably be seeing evidence of Ukrainian war crimes. We are all just human and war inevitably brings out the worst in (most of) us.

For now this is not a legal issue (though I really do hope that afterwards all major war crimes end up in the Hague not just the Russian ones). Right now this is about PR. Ukraine depends on Western support which in turn depends on Average Joe perceiving it not just as supporting the defender in a war of aggression but as a war of good against evil, as the good western (leaning) guys against the mongol hordes.

Again, I have the best grasp on the German perspective but I guess the situation isn't all that different in other countries. Our politicians rarely speak of just "the war" it is mostly "Putin's brutal war of aggression.". So there is a lot of connotation already. You hear a lot of grumbling from the average guy and a lot of that is about how stupid it is to go against Russia when it hurts us more then it does them (Russian propaganda does have an effect). So far this is held at bay because even in parts of the extreme right (AfD) being a Putin supporter isn't overly popular.

But once we start seeing more incidents like what we have been discussing lately this might change rapidly. Once there is blood in the water, journalists et al will dig deeper (if only because they already get accused of being partial in favor of Ukraine) and will uncover more.

And if this starts rolling the populists in all parties will have a field day and then all those who secretly are against supporting Ukraine (and/or in favour of getting cheap energy from Russia) will be going "Yay! Finally someone reputable dares to speak up against this nonsense!". 2015 all over again when at first Germans were mildly intoxicated with realizing that for once the world sees us as being the good guys helping poor refugees, with most politicians jumping on and supporting the movement. Then the rest catching up and rekindling latent resentments and politicians doing a 180 and saying "2015 must never happen again!".