How Ukrainian Combat Refusal Videos Were Misread

Those mutineers were hardcore

Related: There Has Been a Series of Ukrainian Combat Refusals

---

Let's say that you sent a battalion of troops to the frontline to block a superior enemy without adequate leadership, training, artillery support, heavy weapons, or reliable supplies.

Let's say that this battalion then spent weeks dutifully defending and taking heavy casualties, only falling back without an order after losing something like a third of its complement wounded and killed?

What would such an episode lead you to conclude about the caliber of these men as soldier material? Personally, it would lead me to believe these men are excellent soldier material.

And if they followed up their unauthorized retreat by issuing a public statement in which they openly called out their command for letting them down and vowed to refuse further combat until their demands were met I would conclude that they were also courageous to boot.

Throughout the war, there has been a steady stream of collective combat refusal videos. Some by rebel units, but mainly Ukrainian ones. Often by its poorly armed Territorial Defense formations, but also by its army regulars.

Russia backers have often taken heart in these video statements. Indeed they did testify to the potency of Russian artillery, and the immense strain on some Ukrainian units. I think that some were even expecting a cascade of such combat refusals across the Ukrainian front and its collapse.

But the other part of the story that the videos said was overlooked. 

Sure enough, as a military having mutinies on your hands is not an ideal situation. But what was the full content?

The mutinous units as a rule proclaimed that they had already fought hard and suffered grievously, but persisted under the most hopeless and horrific situations well beyond the call of duty.

They also proclaimed their willingness to return to the horror of the fray if only the most rudimentary issues like providing them with more support for their flanks, some artillery backing, lack of respite, and a non-cowardly command were resolved.

So why in the world was this good news for Russia?

If the combat refusal videos could be believed what would that actually mean?

It would mean that Kiev can take a Territorial Defense battalion from the Slovak border composed of men who were promised on sign up that they wouldn't see action outside their region, break the promise, transport them to Donbass. And that even such a battalion of double-crossed recent civilians with only light weapons would fight for weeks and take on heavy casualties before ever falling back.

Where in this was there any bad news for Kiev?

If the mutineers were telling the truth then Ukraine had especially tenacious soldiers, including the mutineers. Especially the mutineers!

In 1917 the French army famously mutinied. Not just on the edges (like in Ukraine) but wholesale. Yet did this make the job of the Germans any easier? No, it didn't. It merely meant that in addition to defying the Germans they also took on the additional task of defying their own command.

Red Army soldiers of WW2 are reputed as being particularly tenacious yet Soviet authorities also recorded 2,846,000 instances of desertion and draft-dodging and hundreds of thousands more opted to become stragglers. [Roger R. Reese: Why Stalin’s Soldiers Fought]

For proper evaluation of news it helps to have depth like that.

A certain level of friction between the troops and the authorities is expected. Especially if the war is intense, if the state had been unprepared for war, or if sacrifices are spread particularly unevenly. But it does not spell imminent collapse or defeat.

The difference is that now we have social media and smartphones and these GI revolts get out into the public. In fact, the minute that Russian conscripts arrive in Ukraine we might see some of the same fare from them. (Which is part of the reason Putin doesn't want them there.)

And we can only imagine what outrageous material WW2 Red Army men might have produced for us if they had digital phones back then.

One valuable information in these videos has always been to showcase how much Kiev, as well as Donetsk-Moscow, could get away with exploiting and letting down their troops before there would ever be repercussions.

However, when a unit confirms that fighting is heavy and casualties high, yet proclaims itself willing to go back if rudimentary issues are ironed out, that's no great news for the enemy.

The real news was the absence of any pro-Russian sentiment in these videos, or any other ideological motivation for their defiance. Their only gripes were technical. — Ie things that given a little breathing space could be worked on.

And guess what. As the war proceeds training and leadership are going to improve. To an extent so will the weaponry. As Ukraine generates more forces so will the issues of relief, rest, and rotation.

By failing to win quickly Russia has made sure of that.

That's kind of why when invading large European countries it's important not to do it piecemeal with the conscript part of your military left behind and run out of breath after a couple of hundred kilometers.

All that does is serve as a warning to the opposition to prepare themselves for you even better.

However, Putin is addicted to warning Kiev that it needs a bigger and better military. First the 2014 warning and now the 2022 one. In 2013 Ukraine had 5,000 combat-ready troops, when he is done it might have 500,000.

Is Putin the best thing that has ever happened to Ukrainian generals? Yes.