Russia said a battalion of Ukrainian prisoners of war, or POWs, would soon be sent to the front lines to fight against their own country, state media reported.

State media said troops had taken an oath of allegiance, but the move could still be a violation of international laws concerning warfare. It also raises questions about the need to use POWs, in particular about the state and quality of Russia’s forces as they suffer a high number of casualties on the battlefield.

On November 7, the Russian state media outlet RIA Novosti said Ukrainian POWs in the “Bogdan Khmelnitsky” battalion swore an oath of allegiance to Russia and would soon deploy into battle. The outlet had said in late October that Russian authorities were planning to send the group — described as a battalion including about 70 prisoners from various penal colonies — to the front lines and that they were conducting relevant training in preparation.

  • interceder270@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Curious how that will work out in an actual combat scenario.

    Is there just a direct line of sight to would-be defectors at all times? Seems like in the heat of battle, it would be pretty difficult for Russians to fight their own soldiers as well as Ukraine’s.

    • snooggums@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      A small decently trained squad who has a plan to obliterate a group of forced and most likely untrained group with less lethal weapons is going to absolutely destroy that untrained group as has been shown multiple times in history. Russia is a common example!

      • bassomitron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Untrained? They’re prisoners of war, though… As in, they were formerly Ukrainian soldiers. What’s to stop those PoWs from just immediately turning on this supposed “death squad” within their ranks at the first opportunity, as I’m guessing they would greatly outnumber their wardens.

        Regardless, for all we know, these PoWs really could have turned coat. Guess time will tell.

        • snooggums@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Bold of you to assume prisoners of war always means soldiers and not any men who gave the slightest resistance to Russian occupation.

      • interceder270@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        in the heat of battle, it would be pretty difficult for Russians to fight their own soldiers as well as Ukraine’s.

          • interceder270@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, I guess more targets wouldn’t make things difficult in the heat of battle.

            Especially if these targets are shooting back at you.

            • snooggums@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              1 year ago

              You have no idea how the modern battlefield works. It is nothing like call of duty with a vast battlefield with a plethora of targets.

              It is a hectic blend of small engagements mainly won through surprise and tactics and having a few more targets that you know the location of compared to the overwhelming number of possible surprises isn’t that big of a change.

              • HikingVet
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sounds like you don’t understand how any battlefield works.

      • HikingVet
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Less lethal? Are they giving out tasers and bean bag guns? What about pepper spray?

        Seriously there are few controls and the machine gunning of retreating troops a la ww2 isn’t exactly an easy thing to do in modern warfare.

        • snooggums@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not less lethal like police equipment, less lethal like a knife or barely functioning rifle with few bullets vs a light machine gun with plenty of ammunition.

          The conscripts are probably unarmed the majority of the time, and poorly armed when thrown into the meat grinder while the leadership will always be well equipped and organized to quickly put down any resistance by conscripts.

          • HikingVet
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            You realise that the condition of the weapon doesn’t change it’s lethality?

            A rifle capable of firing a round is lethal, full stop.

            A knife even when dull is lethal (and more destructive to the person stabbed).

            It sounds like you don’t understand how weapons work.

              • HikingVet
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Lol, you’re the one who doesn’t seem to understand how weapons work, so I’ll just continue on with my day.

      • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s The Most Dangerous Game, not “a battalion fighting against their own country”.