By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Russian commanders in Kherson are refusing orders to launch a suicidal offensive across the Dnieper River, citing plummeting troop morale. This insubordination, reported by the ATESH partisan group, involves sabotage of equipment and even self-harm to avoid the mission. The refusal affects planned assaults on Dnipro delta islands, jeopardizing Russia’s offensive preparations and potentially impacting the war’s duration. Despite increased ammunition stockpiles and preparations, the situation reveals significant challenges to Russia’s manpower and operational capacity.
Read the original article here
Reports are circulating that Russian commanders are refusing orders to lead their troops across the Dnieper River, deeming such a maneuver a suicidal mission. This development suggests a growing recognition within the Russian military hierarchy of the significant challenges and potential catastrophic losses involved in such an offensive. The sheer scale of potential casualties, coupled with the fortified Ukrainian positions on the opposite bank, makes this a highly risky undertaking.
The reluctance of these commanders highlights a stark reality: the increasingly precarious situation facing the Russian forces in Ukraine. It raises serious questions about the strategic competence and overall viability of the Russian war effort, especially given the reported refusal to carry out what are seemingly considered blatantly suicidal orders. This internal resistance suggests a level of dissent and potentially a breakdown in the chain of command.
The refusal of Russian commanders to carry out these orders might also stem from a growing awareness of the futility of the operation. The Dnieper River acts as a significant natural barrier, providing the Ukrainian forces with a strong defensive position. The logistical nightmare of supplying troops across a major river in the face of determined Ukrainian resistance would likely result in a swift and devastating defeat for the attacking forces. The potential for mass casualties undoubtedly weighs heavily on the minds of the commanders.
Interestingly, this situation seems to mirror historical parallels, evoking comparisons to the disastrous Russian campaigns in Afghanistan. The sheer cost in terms of lives and resources mirrors the costly and ultimately fruitless efforts in Afghanistan. This seems to be a point many commenters raise when analyzing the current conflict. The parallels are undeniably troubling for Russia’s military leadership.
The comments also raise the point that using North Korean troops for such high-risk missions appears to be an increasingly common tactic for the Russian military. The blatant disregard for North Korean lives suggests a disturbing willingness to sacrifice foreign soldiers rather than risk depleting their own already strained resources. This tactic reveals a cynical calculation that prioritizes minimizing Russian losses even at the expense of allies.
Speculation abounds regarding the potential consequences for these dissenting commanders. The risk of severe repercussions, possibly including extrajudicial punishment, is a looming concern. However, the sheer scale of the potential disaster inherent in carrying out the order suggests that even the threat of reprisal is overshadowed by the likelihood of complete annihilation. The weight of this understanding may have contributed to the commanders’ decision.
The lack of verifiable proof regarding the report adds another layer of complexity to this story. Yet, the sheer volume of comments suggests a widespread belief that there is at least some kernel of truth in the reports. In any case, the potential implications of commanders openly rejecting orders carries profound implications for the future of the war. The situation serves as a stark indicator of the challenges facing the Russian military leadership and perhaps a sign of a broader systemic failure within their command structure. This event, whether definitively confirmed or not, offers a compelling insight into the difficulties of the Russian war effort.
It’s important to note that this situation is far from clear-cut. While the reports of refusal might be somewhat exaggerated, the underlying sentiment — that crossing the Dnieper River at this juncture is a dangerously high-risk operation — remains prevalent and credible. The comments suggest that even amongst the Russian military leadership, there is a growing understanding of this grim reality. The war continues, and the risks remain high, but this narrative strongly highlights the evolving complexities of the situation.