Maybe he realized that was his best option. He could not report the deficiency, refuse the command, or go AWOL successfully (might have done so if he could disappear into Ukraine). Or maybe he was already depressed.
Assuming the bare facts of the story are true (insert caveats about unreliable information), it raises questions about the motivation.
Was he a tank commander from elsewhere, sent to the depot to raise a new fighting group by retrieving the vehicles from storage? Upon discovering the poor condition of the vehicles, did he kill himself rather than facing the grim reality of sending men to their certain deaths (or likely the severe punishment for refusal or inability to carry out the order)?
Or was he the local commander, directly responsible for the security of the depot and the maintenance of the vehicles? Was he lazy, neglecting to secure the storage area, or is he actively culpable, having taken bribes to allow the theft of the valuable components? Is he therefore killing himself to avoid facing accountability for failing in his duty?
The bulletin doesn’t give enough details to draw a conclusion. The former might be an honorable suicide. The latter … provokes rather less sympathy.
When your “best” option is kill yourself that is pretty goddamn sad regardless of how he got to that place or whether or not someone else might view it as “honorable” or not.
Maybe he spent some time at the front in the last month. The four Capitol police officers who committed suicide after the 1/6 attack is a good reminder of just how devastating PTSD can be, especially after battling people you might consider countrymen.
Man, if the NATO nations were straining at the leash to invade Russia like Vlad imagines this discovery would surely be the tipping point. Of course, then it would be our guys being cursed at by babushkas with – I dunno – packets of beet seeds.
If Russia is digging into their long term inventory storage that’s a serious problem. If those assets don’t exist in the short term then what is left in the Ukraine has to go against the inventory of NATO and Europe.
I would hazard a guess that the reason their pounding cities with missiles is because that’s all they have to work with. They’ve lost the ground war.
If this is true then their supply of aircraft will suffer the same fate. If they want to send them on one-way missions then that effort should be given every opportunity.
Also, if they’re using ships to launch missiles then a supply of Exocet missiles will further deplete their hard asset inventory.
Not if you read between the lines. “The course of the operation confirmed the validity of this decision” translates to “it turns out we’d kicked a hornet’s nest”.
What if we gave a war and nobody came –
because the engines had been sold off from all the equipment?
That makes the dubious assumption that Ukraine will be willing to give up Donetsk and Luhansk. All indications are that they are not.
It is impossible for Ukraine to accept any of Russia’s ultimatums. Not the recognition of the so-called “republics” within the borders of Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts, not the annexation of Crimea, and not the demilitarisation of Ukraine.
Kyiv understands that these concessions will not bring any security and in no way will they guarantee the withdrawal of Russian troops. Moreover, these “compromises” will not prevent a new Russian attack. To the contrary, they can only provoke a new Russian offensive against Ukraine.
Based on surveys that I have seen, probably the right answer would be that Ukraine propose that Luhansk, Donetsk, and Crimea are provided with a free election to decide whether to rejoin Ukraine, separate into Ukrainian and Russian regions, or become independent states (or an independent state).
The voting method will be chosen by and overseen by an organization chosen by or created by the agreement of the governments of Israel, India, and Switzerland. Similarly, this organization can set rules around campaign contributions, political ads by foreign groups, etc. with the power to issue international indictments, global warrants, and prosecute in the International Court. And, above all that, they can void the election results any number of times until they are satisfied that there has been no election interference by any external party.
As a part of voting, a poll tax should be collected sufficient to finance a years worth of time for the following body to produce their work.
The goal is to elect a body of representatives from each region (say, one representative per 10,000 persons) who will be given the vote to answer this question. Along that lines, they will have the power to call for delegates from Ukraine, Russia, or any other body, individual, or organization that they believe could help them make a determination (be it on the basis of finances, defense, or other considerations).
The discreet regions can decide to join together, go their own way, split into subregions, etc. Should they decide to become independent states then they are free to generate and begin their own governments, by whatever rules they wish.
Ultimately, it is the affected people who should, of their own free will (and given the freedom to properly investigate and deliberate), decide.
When it’s over the Ukrainians should cut up the Russian tanks and sell them as souvenirs.
I may have missed it in the thread but I took great satisfaction with the impounding of a Russian AN-124 in Canada.. This is the smaller version of the AN-225 the Russians destroyed.
I’d love to see them use that to haul NATO supplies to Europe or better yet, humanitarian supplies.
I read a less-detailed version of this yesterday. It’s a good solution, except for the fact that Russia is allergic to democratic solutions.
Who exactly is suggesting this? It sounds farfetched and complicated, and unlikely to be accepted by either Russia or Ukraine – never mind Israel, India, or Switzerland (a curious trio of countries to choose).
- If Ukraine wants that territory back and wants it to not cause more problems than it is worth, it needs to be voluntary. And the best way to make sure that they want to join us by demonstrating that you are a person worthy of that trust.
- Negotiations can never begin if neither side is willing to be reasonable. The first person to be reasonable has an advantage in the long run because they were able to put in a real answer and once you have a clearly reasonable and fair answer in there, it’s very hard to go away from it. There’s simply no argument that can best it.
- Russia-as-a-pariah-nation isn’t liable to be all that attractive, so the risk that they go that direction is relatively small.
- Likewise, it’s fairly likely that a reasonable body with the power to deliberate will realize that the micro-states are going to be the toys and pawns of larger powers, so they are quite liable to choose Ukraine - and that will be through a completely fair process that the people trust in.
Me. I didn’t suggest that there was some body making the proposal.
Within the most contested regions of Luhansk and Donetsk, at least, surveys would seem to indicate that the people want to be an independent state - not a part of Russia nor Ukraine.
The ideal 3rd party is neutral and immune to influence (e.g. a nuclear power).
India is a nuclear power, abstained on the UN vote against Russia (so they are officially neutral), but they are liable to be weak to influence from Russia through corruption and military dependencies.
Israel has been accepted by both Ukraine and Russia as a relatively neutral intermediary, is (believed to be) a nuclear power, but is more open to influence by the USA.
Switzerland is famously neutral through history and while not a nuclear power I don’t think that anyone is too worried about their being influenced much by either of the two superpowers. If you could only choose one nation to run oversight, they’d be a good pick but you probably won’t be able to get Russia to accede if they don’t have a way to put their thumb on the scale. Ergo, we need to add in India, to give Russia the sense that they might be able to corrupt the system, and then ergo we need to add in Israel to balance.
That article (which dates from 2019) says nothing of the kind.
It says that they would prefer to be part of Ukraine. Didn’t you even bother to read it?
I did and that’s why I said, “in the most contested regions of”. The entire territory is Donetsk leans towards Ukraine but the parts which have been independent since 2014 lean towards autonomy.
That’s also why I said that the regions might choose to split themselves.
In the separatist-held areas of the Donbas, about 55% of the respondents expressed a preference for being part of the Ukrainian state.
We can assume that’s a lot higher now, considering the way that Russia has treated them recently.
Russia will probably not accept a referendum because if the result was that the territories wanted to stay part of Ukraine (which I bet they will) it will make the invasion appear even more inexcusable than it already is. Russia will have nothing to hide behind.
They might accept a referendum if the oversight was weak enough for them to believe they can manipulate it (which they would undoubtably try to do).