Why are the Ukrainian troops fighting inside residential areas?

​

In this article I want to consider the question: Who is to blame for destruction of Ukrainian cities?

This question can be partially answered by finding out who is to blame for the Ukrainian crisis in general; see the thread Has the Russian Special Military Operation in Ukraine been provoked?

Spoiler

But it is also necessary to note the following.

In Western media you can often see photographs of destroyed residential areas of Ukrainian cities, but these media do not tell you that it was the Ukrainian government that made the decision to fight exactly in the residential areas.

For example, it was decided to fight this way in Mariupol, Bakhmut, and now in Chasiv Yar.

And on the contrary, in March 2022, the Ukrainian army left the Ukrainian Oblast Capital Kherson without a fight - an Oblast is the largest administrative unit of Ukraine. Probably, the decision not to fight inside the residential areas of Kherson was made exactly because the Ukrainian authorities decided not to destroy the Oblast Capital.

Later in November 2022, when Ukrainian troops approached Kherson during their counteroffensive, the Russian army too did not fight in residential areas and just left the city. Therefore, Kherson was not destroyed.

If you search “destroyed Kherson” on Google Images, you will see only pictures of destroyed individual houses, photographed in close-up to make it difficult to see that the surrounding houses are intact.

During World War II, the French capital Paris had a similar story. French troops had left the city without a fight in June 1940 even before France surrendered.

Now let's return to the destruction of Ukrainian cities.

A search for “destroyed Mariupol” or “destroyed Bakhmut” will return images of entire residential areas destroyed. They are destroyed because the Ukrainian army fought inside these areas until Russian troops knocked Ukrainians out. To do this, the Russian army had to storm every house, suffering heavy losses.

Of course, hiding behind residential houses is much easier for the Ukrainian military than fighting in a field. And for Western media, a picture of destroyed entire streets is much more impressive than photographs of destroyed individual houses.

But how legal is it to use civilian objects for defense of troops?

Please read below paragraphs (b) and (c) of Article 58 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions – this Protocol was adopted in 1977.

see the official website of the International Committee of the Red Cross

Therefore, we can conclude that the use of residential areas by the Ukrainian troops as their shelter is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, since these areas are civilian objects.

However, the Western media never reports this to the Western public. Instead, Western media reports constantly tell about destroyed residential houses in Ukraine and about civilian casualties there.

Source

 

Apartment building are apparently made of concrete over there. Steel reinforced concrete buildings provide good defensive positions for both keeping out of small arms fire, sheltering from shrapnel and hiding from drones. They seem to be pretty robustly built, in contrast to US multifamily dwelling typically made from lumber or manufactured wood.

Second best is a wooded tree line dividing fields or in a forest. These provide hiding places from drones, either drones dropping munitions or drones used as spotters to direct artillery fire. Soldiers can spread out their trenches and foxholes so that they aren't so vulnerable to artillery and bombs.

Third best is one or two story dwellings and farm buildings. These provide shelter and a place to hide from drones, but they are easily taken out by artillery and rockets.

Open fields are not where you want to be. The drones will get you and the fields are likely mined. There are lots of videos of men and vehicles being blown up in open fields.

The only thing better than apartment buildings are heavy industry buildings.

 

I didn’t realize Ukraine was putting troops in every building hundreds of miles from the front line.

Thanks for the info.

 

Have you read - or understood - the information of the Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions cited in the first post of the thread?

Both apartment buildings and industry buildings are civil objects and must not be used as shelters for troops.

 

There is no particular danger to civilians. In the front line cities, the residents have all fled.

Armies do what is most practical. Currently in Vovchans'k, near the border north of Kharkhiv, the Ukrainian strong point is the main block of high-rise apartment buildings, and the Russian strong point is a factory and office complex.

The Ukrainian defensive lines are essentially strings of small to mid-size cities, with trenches and purpose-built fortifications linking them along strings of villages. Progress by either side is achieved by advancing through the tree lines and forests to assault and capture the villages. Only after villages have been captured around a more major city like Chasiv-Yar or Vuhledar can the heavy bombardment and assault on the city be successful.

Drone warfare makes operation in open fields suicidal.

The Russians left Kherson city because the logistics of supporting their force west of the Dnipr River were too difficult.

 

Unfortunately, it's war. But the aggressor is to blame for all destruction, both in Ukraine and in the aggressor's nation.

We did this in WW2 where we bombed the **** out of Germany and Japan using "daylight precision bombing." Cities were destroyed, some completely, like Dresden for instance.

 

Its interesting how when Hamas does this in Gaza, many people say they are using human shields, and are to blame for all the destruction in Gaza, but when Ukraine does it, it is the aggressor doing the bombing and destruction that is to blame. I'm not saying those are your views, because I have no idea what your views are. Just an observation on how many have double standards.

 

Unfortunately- while there are "rules" for war, the entire concept of war rejects rules. If a place is off-limits to attack, it's the ideal place to hide- but it ensures it will have to be attacked to end the war.
Thus Hamas used hospitals and schools as well as residential buildings to protect its military and war supplies.

If we could make rules that would be respected by all, there would be no need for wars. The concept of double standards is very widespread.

 

And makes one side no better than the other, as in each conflict it is just a matter of perspective and which side you are on. There is no good guy or bad guy in war. There are just combatants and non combatants.

 

Hamas brought about the destruction of Gaza Strip when they attacked Israel on October 7th. Israel is basically trying to drive all Palestinians from Gaza so that Israel can claim that land all their own, a goal of the Likuid Party.

Russia was the aggressor in Ukraine and Hamas was the agressor with Israel. Ukraine wants its land back that Russia has stolen, especially the Crimea region. They are willing to let the two breakaway regions go to Russia.

 

If one goes to war, there is only one rule, total war.

 

There would be no damage to Ukrainian Cities if the Russian Federation had not invaded the Ukraine.
There would be no damage to Ukrainian Cities if Russians had not bombarded them.

"Provoked" means that the Federation had to use force to get what they wanted.
"Provoked" is a great excuse for annexing parts of another foreign nation.

 

Total war is existential war between nation states where all the resources of each state are used in any way feasible to achieve unconditional surrender of the loser. WW II was a total war.

Limited war is fought for specific objectives with only some of the resources available. Most wars since WW II would be limited wars. The Korean "UN police action" is a good example. It did not become a total war when Truman sacked MacArthur and decided against direct action against China.

A third form of war is war against organizations that are not nation states. This can vary from military action against criminal or terrorist groups up to civil war against rebel combatants in uniform.

Definitions are sort of fuzzy in that Ukraine may think it is fighting a total war against Russia, while the US and NATO members think they are fighting a limited war against Russia using Ukraine as a proxy to avoid further escalation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_war

 

There would be no damage to Ukrainian Cities if pro EU/NATO Ukrainians had not overthrown the elected government of Ukraine in 2014 with Western aid and connivance to start a civil war.

 

Based on your definitions, both Ukraine and Russia are fighting a limited war, generally, because each country has specific objectives. The last total war the US was involved in was WW2.

But the point that I was making is not a singular definition, but a singular reason if a nation goes to war to achieve its political objectives. That use is total war, or in other words, destroying all fabrics of resistance by that nation or group that it cannot fight again in the near or far future against the nation or nations they went to war with. Mutually Assured Destruction, if used, is total war concept in the modern battlefiled.

 

Have to disagree to some extent, because some wars are fought for sheer survival; there is a good guy and a bad guy. WWII clearly so. Others are fought for political influences such as Vietnam was.
However, the soldiers are more like the fodder or ammunition. Some have chosen to be there, some not, some have no idea why they have to be there.

I tend to hold the aggressors who initiate violence responsible.

 

Unfortunately that is the nature of it. Trying to be the nice guy is not a successful tactic.

 

That often depends on perspective. To the Americans that was about political influences; to the Vietnamese it was about sheer survival.

 

Exactly. In every war, those on each side view themselves as "the good guy". Even the Germans in WW2 thought so, and in most wars, certainly EVERY war since WW2, who is the "good guy" and who is the "bad guy" is extremely murky, and people seem to have a very difficult time putting themselves in the shoes of the opposing side.

 

or the Russian hadn't interfered by encouraging it and supplying weapons
Was it because of the civil war that Russia was forced to annex the Crimea?

 

When Ukraine became hostile to Russia, Russia decided that it had to undo the transfer of Crimea to the Ukraine SSR in 1954.

From 1783 to 1954, Crimea was part of Russia.

Prior to 1783, Crimea was part of the Ottoman Empire. It was never part of Ukraine. In fact, Ukraine did not exist prior to WW I. It was part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Austro-Hungarian Empire or Russia. The Donbas was always part of Russia after it was liberated from the Turks.

 

Good point. Many truths get lost in the battle for public opinion in most wars- and the level of "Misinformation" in the Vietnam war was unlimited.

I remember reading that the commanders there had so much pressure from Washington to produce kill numbers that they started using a formula. Basically if there were 10 dead enemy soldiers counted after a battle, they would assume that the enemy carried off another 10, and that perhaps 20 were wounded and no longer capable of returning- and the "kill count" would be reported as 40. This became so common that the total kills added up to more than the entire enemy army.

The public demands things it wants to hear, but what we need to hear most is truth. Seems truth and politics are rarely compatible.

 

According to what law? Please cite the Ukrainian legal code on that.

 

Are you kidding?

The conflict was started by Russia. That's a fact not in dispute. During war, when defending your homeland, you fight where the enemy is.

These buildings look like they've been empty for at least a year or two, likely after being bombed to hell by the Russians.

 

That may explain Crimea, but what's the excuse for invading a sovereign nation?

Putin took action only after his hand-picked puppet was voted out of office in Ukraine. Ukraine was cleaning house with an aim of joining NATO. Putin already had three neighboring NATO countries on his western border (four now, with the recent addition of Finland). He didn't want another.