cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/30140601
Oleksandr deserted from the front line in eastern Ukraine after watching his fellow servicemen being pulverised by Russian bombardments for six months. Then, those remaining were ordered to counterattack.
It was the final straw for Oleksandr, 45, who had been holding the line in the embattled Lugansk region in the early months of the war. Even his commanding officer was reluctant to send his men back toward what looked like certain death. So when Oleksandr saw an opening to save his life, he did.
"We wanted to live. We had no combat experience. We were just ordinary working people from villages," the soft-spoken serviceman, who declined to give his last name, told AFP.
His decision is just one of many cases plaguing the Ukrainian military, which has already suffered at least 43,000 losses in nearly three years of fighting, President Volodymyr Zelensky revealed this month. The government is also struggling to recruit new troops. Together, these manpower problems present a critical hurdle for Ukraine, which is losing territory to Russia at the fastest rate since the early days of the February 2022 invasion.
The issue was put under the spotlight in September when 24-year-old serviceman Sergiy Gnezdilov announced in a scathing social media post that he was leaving his unit in protest over indefinite service. "From today, I am going AWOL with five years of impeccable soldiering behind me, until clear terms of service are established or until my 25th birthday," he wrote.
Figures published by the Ukrainian general prosecutor's office show that more than 90,000 cases have been opened into instances of soldiers going absent without leave or deserting since Russia invaded in 2022, with a sharp increase over the past year.
Oleksandr said that after leaving the frontline, he remembered little from the year he spent at home in the Lviv region owing to concussions he suffered while deployed. He recounted "mostly drinking" to process the horrors he witnessed but his guilt was mounting at the same time. He ultimately decided to return after seeing young Ukrainians enlist or wounded troops return to battle -- despite pleas from his family.
His brother was beaten during the historic Maidan protests in 2013 that toppled Ukraine's pro-Kremlin leader, and later died. His sister was desperate. "They're going to kill you. I would rather bring you food to prison than flowers to your grave," he recounted his sister telling him during a visit from Poland.
It was guilt, too, that motivated Buch, who identified himself by a military nickname, to return to battle. The 29-year-old deserted after being wounded in fierce fighting in southern Ukraine in late 2022 during the liberation of Kherson city. "Just staying under constant shelling gradually damages your mental state. You go crazy step by step. You are all the time under stress, huge stress," he said of his initial decision to abscond.
In an effort to address manpower shortages, Ukrainian lawmakers in August approved an amnesty for first-time offenders who voluntarily returned to their units.
Both the 47th and 53rd brigades in December announced they would welcome back servicemen who had left the front without permission, saying: "We all make mistakes." Prosecutors said in early December that 8,000 servicemen that went absent without leave or deserted had returned in November alone.
Still, Siver, commander of the 1st Separate Assault Battalion, known as Da Vinci, who also identified himself by his military nickname, said the number of Ukrainian troops fleeing the fighting without permission was growing. That is partly because many of the most motivated fighters have already been killed or wounded.
"Not many people are made for war," said Siver, describing how his perceptions of bravery had been reshaped by seeing those who stood their ground, and those who fled. "There are more and more people who are forced to go," he told AFP, referring to a large-scale and divisive army mobilisation campaign.
But other servicemen interviewed by AFP suggested that systemic changes in military culture -- and leadership -- could help deter desertions.
Buch said his military and medical training as well as the attitudes of his superiors had improved compared to his first deployment, when some officers "didn't treat us like people". Siver suggested that better psychological support could help troops prepare for the hardships and stress of battle.
"Some people think it's going to be like in a movie. Everything will be great, I'll shoot, I'll run," he said. "But it's different. You sit in a trench for weeks. Some of them are knee-deep in mud, cold and hungry." He said there was no easy solution to discouraging desertion, and predicted the trend would worsen. "How do you reduce the numbers? I don't even know how. We just have to end the war," he said.
Same goes for Russia regarding independence, and twice and thrice for corruption, and also poverty if you look anywhere but at the imperial core (Moscow/Petersburg). Same goes for, say, Romania. Who side note out-drink everyone.
Not a good measure, either. Maybe look at without whose toilets neither Boeing nor Airbus would be able to build planes: It's a small German company owning the global market for closed-system toilets, 100% market share in airplanes, dominating in high speed rail (where it's feasible to go with cheaper options because a toilet breaking down isn't as disastrous). Like 90% of multinational conglomerates run SAP. International shipping wouldn't exist without European propellers, even South Korea is buying them, and not due to lack of domestic heavy industry (they're building the rest of the ships, after all). The list of European hidden champions is endless, providing goods that just aren't available anywhere else.
You mean at the CERN? America, structurally, gravitates towards big companies that's why there's more big American companies. Capital accumulation is harder in Europe, regulations actually get enforced and anti-trust isn't a clownshow. You're dazzled by those companies, which tellingly were all end-consumer facing.
Let me make this more concrete: The Brussels effect, as well as the track record of economic wars started by the US and won by the EU in short order.
Tell me you know nothing about the military without telling me you know nothing about the military. If, say, the US was stupid enough to send all its aircraft carriers to Europe and leave its pacific flank exposed, those aircraft carriers would be gone within days. There are no counters against stealth subs.
That's why I specifically said "stalemate": Both sides would quickly discover that they're on the other side of an ocean and that it's completely infeasible to reach the other side.
Oh, technologically speaking, the US are far behind in the aforementioned stealth subs. Abrahms tank barrels are produced under license from Rheinmetall, the US aren't exactly stellar at metallurgy. European air to air missiles are generally superior to their US counterparts.
When the US tries to build frigates and the likes they turn out to be 20x more expensive than off the shelf European models, and still not as performant.
As said, you're wrong about the economy. The US is structurally weak, much of its GDP relies on broken windows, on financial transactions. Nobody wants to buy their cars or is excited about buying one of their factories. US manufacturing, by and large, is a joke.
Military strength, sure, but as already said there's limits to how much of it can be used. Monetary expenditure is not a good measure at all.
Fine. So did Britain and France and Germany and I bet others. Only the likes of Estonia have a clear record. Often the US only gets involved because it can't bear to not be seen doing something when Europe does something, it's e.g. still puzzling to me how Americans associate Libya with Hillary. France wanted Gaddafi gone and saw an opening, it's as simple as that.
As your source says: Cold war. Of course they did. So did the Soviets in the other direction. That's why it's called the cold war.
A very important nuance, though: The Kremlin is considering people becoming fans of liberal democracy "western hybrid warfare", independent of whether that's due to direct influence, or people looking at the world and saying "yeah we'd rather have that instead of a Tsar". Do you share that outlook?
"tool of American hegemony" is a loaded term. It presupposed the existence of a hegemony, for one. Sure it might have been intended for that but that doesn't mean that said hegemony exists.
You'd have to show me actual numbers. Partnership treaties with the EU date back to independence, being direct continuations of treaties with the USSR, Ukraine has shown general interest in EU membership since 1993. Millions and millions of migrant workers earning wages in the EU and spending them in Ukraine. Random shit, like being a ESA member and building rockets. Ukraine has been quite integrated into European frameworks for decades.
Speculation, also, so what. Specifically: Why, if the Ukrainian people are completely bought by the US, did they not do what the US wanted during Euromaidan. If you now think "why, they did", then that's because the sources you get your information from conveniently left those parts out, focussing only on instances where US preferences aligned with what Ukrainians wanted to do anyway.