Ukraine allows commanders to shoot own soldiers to control them - Polidicks

[QUOTE=gufu;47085287] equal to concept of invading Russia in winter. [/QUOTE] The funny thing is that russian winters are really mild last years. Damn you HAARP.

[QUOTE=antianan;47085367]The funny thing is that russian winters are really mild last years. Damn you HAARP.[/QUOTE] Instead of freezing to death, our enemies will drown. Still cool.

[QUOTE=Saigon;47085231]To defend his people and their right to self-determination? I guarantee you that if America were invaded, you wouldn't even need conscription to get people to fight.[/QUOTE] Even if this is true, you kinda have to realize the difference between Ukraine getting invaded and the US getting invaded. If the US got invaded it would be world war 3, and the US is a military superpower. Ukraine is however defending itself from a landgrab, done by a military with way more resources. They're not really defending Ukraine's existence, just part of the country - I guess people might think this is a waste of life?

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;47085976]Even if this is true, you kinda have to realize the difference between Ukraine getting invaded and the US getting invaded. If the US got invaded it would be world war 3, and the US is a military superpower. Ukraine is however defending itself from a landgrab, done by a military with way more resources. They're not really defending Ukraine's existence, just part of the country - I guess people might think this is a waste of life?[/QUOTE] Not only that, but they defend it by mostly questionalbe means that lead to more casualities among civilians, general confusion in regard of order executions, shittiest recon and general distrust among ranks. Ukranians would rather have somebody else to defend them, than their damn army apparently. Also, seeying all the numerous "Russia is fueling this conflict anyway" i am wondering if people can grasp actual aftermath Ukranian goverment would have to deal with if rebels would be shut from supplies [B]for realz[/B] and they roll in DNR and LNR: - Destroyed infrastructure that nobody but ukraine itself wil be be ever forced to pay for. - Economical blackhole to top already ruined economy - A region full of people hating Ukranian goverment for sending in forces at inception of rebelion instead of diplomatic solution and death of people in what followed such clusterfuck. - Thousands of soldiers that have to be supplied and stationed 24/7 to ensure security and restoration of goverment structures. - Hundreds of veteran rebels that revert to prolonged guerrilla warfare Think about those few things and look at current ukranian goverment. I think if anything, they'd rather have entire region wiped away rather then deal with all this crap. And by deathtoll and destruction, they kinda do. And don't go all moralistic with "It's their soil, they own it and can do what they want". Cut down that crap, I am talking about the pragmatic things govermennt have to face.

[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;47082635]Average SH Ukraine debate 1. I think Ukraine is no good 2. And Russia is bad btw 3. But the US does it too 4. Go to 1 until banned[/QUOTE] I mean Ukraine is pretty whack but that doesn't really excuse Russia actions. This is no Good vs Evil, it never is.

[QUOTE=proch;47086057]I mean Ukraine is pretty whack but that doesn't really excuse Russia actions. This is no Good vs Evil, it never is.[/QUOTE] The only problem is due to ongoing trend Ukraine was allowed to fuck things up while whole world seeying Russia as one and only to blame. For some reason, everybody talks about "diplomatic solution" while giving Ukraine a green light to allow certain scumbags wreck lives of Donbass civilians. Excuse me world, but a ceasefire is when [B]BOTH[/B] sides stop shooting at each other.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;47083178]I dont understand that people are shocked when citizens of a nation that are at war are drafted to fight. if the UK was attacked by invaders and were backed into a corner, the government would draft them to defend their country. Its part of your civic duty to protect your nation from invaders who threaten it.[/QUOTE] imo this is fucked up. Most people live in Ukraine or in the UK, or in any country, not by choice but because they're born there. They didn't sign up for that shit. Being "backed into a corner" doesn't mean everything has to be sacrificed in the hope for victory. Surrender is always an option. Maybe preventing further destruction and loss of lives is more important than preserving a government's control over some territory.

In what line of the document does it mention shooting own soldiers? The document says to restrain anyone who commits an illegal action and to avoid damaging the soldier's health in the process there's no mention of intentionally killing anyone. RT forgetting the important lines of course, to make the Ukrainians look evil.

Beginning of the end of Ukraine. Even Russia does not shoot it's own soldiers anymore and they have one of the highest scores.

[QUOTE=Ghost656;47086143]In what line of the document does it mention shooting own soldiers? The document says to restrain anyone who commits an illegal action and to avoid damaging the soldier's health in the process there's no mention of intentionally killing anyone. RT forgetting the important lines of course, to make the Ukrainians look evil.[/QUOTE] Yeah no shit they are not going to write "We permit direct shot at head of soldiers refusing to participate in battle". Even Ukranian posters confirmed meaning of this document, Sherlock.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;47083178]I dont understand that people are shocked when citizens of a nation that are at war are drafted to fight. if the UK was attacked by invaders and were backed into a corner, the government would draft them to defend their country. Its part of your civic duty to protect your nation from invaders who threaten it.[/QUOTE]hey i don't know about you but i'm not marching to any kind of war to kill and be killed by any kind of dehumanized cannon fodder - who were most likely forcibly drafted just like me - as long as my own leader sits in a bunker in his expensive suit while ordering the deaths of thousands of unwilling or indoctrinated innocents. and as far as i'm concerned, i don't "owe" my "nation" jack shit, i didn't choose to be born in this goddamn country. the people don't serve the government, the government serves the fucking people, and if the government brings "the nation" into a situation where the people will have to die to preserve the government's existence, then the government has failed in its servitude of the people and not worth "defending" - dying for in horrible ways - in the first place. what is this crap about countries and nations? you're deluded if you think that wars are fought to preserve "the country", "the nation" or whatever blindly patriotic term one wants to use. wars are fought because the opponent has something that the government wants or because the government wants to put as many meatshields as possible between them and the attacking army, and in the modern world the whole thing is about nothing but the personal, economical interests of the few. the easiest way to achieve the goals of these interests, when you have a hefty amount of power in your palm, is to send masses upon masses of young people to die. the crap about preserving "the nation" or "values" or "FREEDOM!!!" is nothing but simple mass indoctrination. the world where those terms had real relevance is gone. i'm ready to charge into battle when my generals, ministers and maybe even the goddamn president himself ride alongside their soldiers, but because we are not in the feudal times anymore or in some fancypants fantasy novel, that isn't very likely to happen, and as long as the incompetent yuppies in the parliament see it their right to run and hide like dogs while they send the men, women and children to be disemboweled by enemy machine guns, i refuse to put my left nostril on the line for them. if i am ever drafted into war, i will most likely shoot myself or surrender to "the enemy". the people don't serve the government, the government serves the people. if i am a coward and a traitor to my "nation" for choosing to live and let live instead of killing and being killed, then so be it. [editline]6th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Saigon;47085187]Are you reluctant to serve in the military? Why haven't you volunteered yet?[/QUOTE]you've got a lot of nerve, american

Ukrainian government needs to unfuck themselves and their military leadership before attempting to unfuck their army. /thread kind of alarmist but it's a pretty clear headed analysis of the situation [URL]http://20committee.com/2015/01/23/the-fate-of-ukraine/[/URL]

[QUOTE=karimatrix;47086738]Yeah no shit they are not going to write "We permit direct shot at head of soldiers refusing to participate in battle". Even Ukranian posters confirmed meaning of this document, Sherlock.[/QUOTE] So what they're Ukrainian? There are some Ukrainians actively supporting the seperatists, does that make them right? Nothing really prevents them from rushing through the article and not bothering to read the document properly. That does not make your argument any more right. Besides there's a big difference between stopping a soldier from commiting an illegal act with the use of force which is not lethal, than authorizing the commander to kill him no matter what. I know you would like to hear that from the Ukrainian government, but that is not the case.

I have a leadership manual with a lot of stuff about motivation and trust and then a small paragraph where there's a mention that "eliminating the leaders of the flight" is the final and most desperate option to stop a rout. [QUOTE=Joazzz;47086788]hey i don't know about you but i'm not marching to any kind of war to kill and be killed by any kind of dehumanized cannon fodder - who were most likely forcibly drafted just like me - as long as my own leader sits in a bunker in his expensive suit while ordering the deaths of thousands of unwilling or indoctrinated innocents. and as far as i'm concerned, i don't "owe" my "nation" jack shit, i didn't choose to be born in this goddamn country. the people don't serve the government, the government serves the fucking people, and if the government brings "the nation" into a situation where the people will have to die to preserve the government's existence, then the government has failed in its servitude of the people and not worth "defending" - dying for in horrible ways - in the first place. what is this crap about countries and nations? you're deluded if you think that wars are fought to preserve "the country", "the nation" or whatever blindly patriotic term one wants to use. wars are fought because the opponent has something that the government wants or because the government wants to put as many meatshields as possible between them and the attacking army, and in the modern world the whole thing is about nothing but the personal, economical interests of the few. the easiest way to achieve the goals of these interests, when you have a hefty amount of power in your palm, is to send masses upon masses of young people to die. the crap about preserving "the nation" or "values" or "FREEDOM!!!" is nothing but simple mass indoctrination. the world where those terms had real relevance is gone. i'm ready to charge into battle when my generals, ministers and maybe even the goddamn president himself ride alongside their soldiers, but because we are not in the feudal times anymore or in some fancypants fantasy novel, that isn't very likely to happen, and as long as the incompetent yuppies in the parliament see it their right to run and hide like dogs while they send the men, women and children to be disemboweled by enemy machine guns, i refuse to put my left nostril on the line for them. if i am ever drafted into war, i will most likely shoot myself or surrender to "the enemy". the people don't serve the government, the government serves the people. if i am a coward and a traitor to my "nation" for choosing to live and let live instead of killing and being killed, then so be it. [/QUOTE] I am sorry you feel that way but I disagree. [QUOTE=Kljunas;47086108]imo this is fucked up. Most people live in Ukraine or in the UK, or in any country, not by choice but because they're born there. They didn't sign up for that shit. Being "backed into a corner" doesn't mean everything has to be sacrificed in the hope for victory. Surrender is always an option. Maybe preventing further destruction and loss of lives is more important than preserving a government's control over some territory.[/QUOTE] True, but you also have to remember what each government/culture stands for. For example Russia has a problem with ignorance and oppression towards minorities, can you just let them do whatever they want?

[QUOTE=Falchion;47087415]I am sorry[/QUOTE]hah, don't be

[QUOTE=Joazzz;47086788]hey i don't know about you but i'm not marching to any kind of war to kill and be killed by any kind of dehumanized cannon fodder - who were most likely forcibly drafted just like me - as long as my own leader sits in a bunker in his expensive suit while ordering the deaths of thousands of unwilling or indoctrinated innocents. and as far as i'm concerned, i don't "owe" my "nation" jack shit, i didn't choose to be born in this goddamn country. the people don't serve the government, the government serves the fucking people, and if the government brings "the nation" into a situation where the people will have to die to preserve the government's existence, then the government has failed in its servitude of the people and not worth "defending" - dying for in horrible ways - in the first place. what is this crap about countries and nations? you're deluded if you think that wars are fought to preserve "the country", "the nation" or whatever blindly patriotic term one wants to use. wars are fought because the opponent has something that the government wants or because the government wants to put as many meatshields as possible between them and the attacking army, and in the modern world the whole thing is about nothing but the personal, economical interests of the few. the easiest way to achieve the goals of these interests, when you have a hefty amount of power in your palm, is to send masses upon masses of young people to die. the crap about preserving "the nation" or "values" or "FREEDOM!!!" is nothing but simple mass indoctrination. the world where those terms had real relevance is gone. i'm ready to charge into battle when my generals, ministers and maybe even the goddamn president himself ride alongside their soldiers, but because we are not in the feudal times anymore or in some fancypants fantasy novel, that isn't very likely to happen, and as long as the incompetent yuppies in the parliament see it their right to run and hide like dogs while they send the men, women and children to be disemboweled by enemy machine guns, i refuse to put my left nostril on the line for them. if i am ever drafted into war, i will most likely shoot myself or surrender to "the enemy". the people don't serve the government, the government serves the people. if i am a coward and a traitor to my "nation" for choosing to live and let live instead of killing and being killed, then so be it. [editline]6th February 2015[/editline] you've got a lot of nerve, american[/QUOTE] Probably the only time a war will ever unite or benefit humanity is if it was a War against an Alien Race or some mega Virus.

[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;47087483]Probably the only time a war will ever unite or benefit humanity is if it was a War against an Alien Race or some mega Virus.[/QUOTE]or machines, or some other sci-fi enemy that somehow could unite us infighting is already stupid, but making others kill and die for your money and power is downright disgusting

[QUOTE=Ghost656;47086143]In what line of the document does it mention shooting own soldiers? The document says to restrain anyone who commits an illegal action and to avoid damaging the soldier's health in the process there's no mention of intentionally killing anyone. RT forgetting the important lines of course, to make the Ukrainians look evil.[/QUOTE] [quote]Командири (начальники) в особливий період, у тому числі в умовах воєнного стану чи бойовій обстановці, з метою затримання військовослужбовців, які вчиняють кримінальні правопорушення, пов'язані із непокорою, опором чи погрозою начальнику застосуванням насильства, із самовільним залишенням бойових позицій та визначених місць дислокації військових частин (підрозділів) в районах виконання бойових завдань, мають право особисто застосовувати заходи фізичного впливу, спеціальні засоби, а в бойовій обстановці також зброю чи віддати підлеглим наказ про застосування таких засобів, якщо в інший спосіб неможливо припинити злочинні діяння[/quote] This is from [url=http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/webproc34?id=&pf3511=53587&pf35401=324789]this file[/url] which contains the document itself. Translation mine (plus some help from google translate, my knowledge of Ukrainian is limited): [quote]During special periods of time, such as conditions of martial law or situation of direct military engagement, for purposes of stopping criminal activity (such as insubordination, resisting orders, threatening the superiors with violence, desertion etc. on part of soldiers) officers (commanders) are authorized to personally use physical violence, special equipment, in case of direct military engagement - use weapons; officers are also permitted to issue orders to their subordinates to use all of the above, in case no other means of stopping the criminal acts are possible[/quote] Not saying this isn't quite a bit less sensational than the RT article makes it out to be, but it still does, in fact, allow officers to shoot their subordinates.

[QUOTE=gudman;47087693]This is from [url=http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/webproc34?id=&pf3511=53587&pf35401=324789]this file[/url] which contains the document itself. Translation mine (plus some help from google translate, my knowledge of Ukrainian is limited): Not saying this isn't quite a bit less sensational than the RT article makes it out to be, but it still does, in fact, allow officers to shoot their subordinates.[/QUOTE] True, though you don't have to shoot to kill. These are also in special periods of time, like conditions of martial law or if a direct military engagement happens. But as that part of the document says, to make an arrest, physical restraint is allowed and in extreme situations (when it's impossible to stop the activity in the previous ways) commanders may use weapons. [QUOTE]"а в бойовій обстановці також зброю чи віддати підлеглим наказ про застосування таких засобів, якщо в інший спосіб неможливо припинити злочинні діяння."[/QUOTE] And the commander is required to warn the person he will shoot, use physical restraint, or any other special method if he doesn't comply, if the circumstances are right. [QUOTE]"У разі якщо дозволяють обставини, командир (начальник) перед застосуванням заходів фізичного впливу, спеціальних засобів або зброї повинен голосом чи пострілом угору попередити про це особу, проти якої можуть бути застосовані такі заходи"[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Ghost656;47087797]True, though you don't have to shoot to kill. These are also in special periods of time, like conditions of martial law or if a direct military engagement happens. But as that part of the document says, to make an arrest, physical restraint is allowed and in extreme situations (when it's impossible to stop the activity in the previous ways) commanders may use weapons. And the commander is required to warn the person he will shoot, use physical restraint, or any other special method if he doesn't comply, if the circumstances are right.[/QUOTE] Yup, it's supposed to be a last resort. I left that out because it's beside the point, but I guess you could see it as me tampering with information I give, I assure you, it isn't. "You don't have to shoot to kill" doesn't work, are you imagining someone "aiming for the legs" while under fire or something? So there's no point beating around the bush, it's authorization for officers to shoot their subordinates if they misbehave. Besides, outside of an active military engagements the commanding officers can't use weapons at all, at least, from what I understood. And it seems kinda reasonable, to a point, on paper, but I have a feeling that it's going to be abused a lot. Ukrainian army has failed to show a lot of discipline and competence, I feel like allowing this kind of thing is dangerous. Not for me to decide, obviously, but still it bugs me.

What's happening is really a war however nobody has actually 'declared' it officially...People would take it more seriously if they finally outright said. (then again, Russia is pretty much toying with them, if Russia wanted they could completely squash them in less then a day.)

[QUOTE=gudman;47082406]Still can't quite wrap my head around that one... [b]why[/b][/QUOTE] Maskirovka..?

[QUOTE=gudman;47088396]Yup, it's supposed to be a last resort. I left that out because it's beside the point, but I guess you could see it as me tampering with information I give, I assure you, it isn't. "You don't have to shoot to kill" doesn't work, are you imagining someone "aiming for the legs" while under fire or something? So there's no point beating around the bush, it's authorization for officers to shoot their subordinates if they misbehave. Besides, outside of an active military engagements the commanding officers can't use weapons at all, at least, from what I understood. And it seems kinda reasonable, to a point, on paper, but I have a feeling that it's going to be abused a lot. Ukrainian army has failed to show a lot of discipline and competence, I feel like allowing this kind of thing is dangerous. Not for me to decide, obviously, but still it bugs me.[/QUOTE] People here think as if the Ukrainian army is going to setup a firing line and shoot anyone deserting like Order No. 227. The officers here are fighting alongside their subordinates, I'd be pretty pissed off too if one of my soldiers started running away and abandon his mates during an engagement that will probably make the fight more tedious and result into more casualties. Maybe it's just to repel deserting during a fight and they aren't really expecting to shoot their own subordinates since they'll probably know it's more dangerous than fleeing outside of a battle, which probably won't get you shot in the crossfire or by your officer. I'd like to know why you think the Ukrainian army fails to show a lot of discipline and competence, I understand if you're refering to the chaos at the start of the conflict but lately they're fighting pretty well. They fight well, but they don't have the proper equipment.

[QUOTE=Ghost656;47091975] I'd like to know why you think the Ukrainian army fails to show a lot of discipline and competence, I understand if you're refering to the chaos at the start of the conflict but lately they're fighting pretty well. They fight well, but they don't have the proper equipment.[/QUOTE] Because they appear to have huge desertion rates, maybe? People don't desert because they 'fight well'. People desert because they don't see their odds of surviving all that high.

[QUOTE=Ghost656;47091975]People here think as if the Ukrainian army is going to setup a firing line and shoot anyone deserting like Order No. 227. The officers here are fighting alongside their subordinates, I'd be pretty pissed off too if one of my soldiers started running away and abandon his mates during an engagement that will probably make the fight more tedious and result into more casualties. Maybe it's just to repel deserting during a fight and they aren't really expecting to shoot their own subordinates since they'll probably know it's more dangerous than fleeing outside of a battle, which probably won't get you shot in the crossfire or by your officer. I'd like to know why you think the Ukrainian army fails to show a lot of discipline and competence, I understand if you're refering to the chaos at the start of the conflict but lately they're fighting pretty well. They fight well, but they don't have the proper equipment.[/QUOTE] The key part is, Ghost656, that officers ARE allowed to shoot their subordinates on such vague terms. This is not particularly good, or normal. When someone deserts, they should be given a fair trial in a military court, not a bullet. Ukrainian army wouldn't need such hasty measures if they were in fact fighting pretty well. Officers being allowed to shoot their subordiantes show that the army lacks [I]discipline[/I], not [I]equipment[/I]. Shooting your subordinates doesn't cure a lack of equipment. [QUOTE]Maybe it's just to repel deserting during a fight and they aren't really expecting to shoot their own subordinates since they'll probably know it's more dangerous than fleeing outside of a battle, [/QUOTE] That is the main logic of Order 227, Stalin wasn't a retard to make an order just to kill his own soldiers, this is the logic of it.

[QUOTE=gudman;47092143]Because they appear to have huge desertion rates, maybe? People don't desert because they 'fight well'. People desert because they don't see their odds of surviving all that high.[/QUOTE] Or probably because they don't want to kill people of the same nationality. Just imagine this happening here in Russia, so you'd have to kill your compatriots or even friends just because of some stupid political stuff happening around. This is so damn crazy.