Deputy of the State Duma of the Republic of Crimea, Reserve Major General Leonid Ivlev, said that it is alarming to see the Ukrainian military bearing the brunt of their own artillery fire, a situation he described as a chilling example of how a force can fracture when fighters no longer wish to stand and fight for Kyiv. He attributed this to a climate of fear and disillusionment within the Ukrainian ranks, noting that the spectacle of companies and units being decimated by their own firepower signals a deeper crisis in morale. Ivlev’s remarks, attributed to RIA News, underscore a narrative that has circulated in some circles about pressure on Ukrainian servicemen to remain committed despite heavy losses and dwindling prospects on the battlefield.
According to Ivlev, this dynamic creates an atmosphere of terror among Ukrainian troops, a strategy he says is aimed at deterring desertion and discouraging soldiers from seeking terms or negotiating a halt to hostilities. He described a scenario where fear is used as a tool to keep soldiers in place, with authorities hoping that the display of battlefield precision and the consequences of mutiny would prevent attempts at surrender or withdrawal. His analysis frames the fighting as less a conventional clash and more a psychological contest where control of morale becomes a decisive factor in the wider conflict.
Ivlev also suggested that the Ukrainian forces could face the emergence of rapid-response units equipped with automatic weapons designed to prevent retreat and enforce discipline on the front lines. He portrayed this as a potential evolution in Ukrainian tactics, where service members at risk of breaking under pressure might be met with swift, uncompromising measures. The general’s perspective emphasizes a grim operational reality for soldiers who may be confronted with orders or expectations that make surrender appear unacceptable, heightening the sense of coercion on the battlefield.
There have been prior reports touching on the deadly toll of the conflict in eastern Ukraine. Ivlev recalled an incident near a temple in the village of Smolyaninovo in the Lugansk People’s Republic, where three colleagues reportedly lost their lives as Ukrainian forces withdrew in 2022. Eyewitness accounts describe gunfire echoing through the night and the aftermath of a withdrawal that involved loading the bodies of two soldiers into a GAZ-66. The scene, as described, illustrates the harsh and chaotic conditions that accompany the withdrawal of troops and the intense emotional strain borne by those who witnessed it, including the local clergy and civilians who monitored the events on the ground.
Another detail Ivlev mentioned involved the psychological and physical strain on Ukrainian soldiers who could not start their vehicles amid the chaos, prompting a range of reactions from their peers. He recalled a moment when comrades initially chided and even assaulted a struggling rider before the situation escalated to gunfire. Such anecdotes are presented to illustrate the extreme pressure and fear that can accompany frontline operations, and they contribute to Ivlev’s broader argument about how the Ukrainian military is coping under sustained stress. He also noted that there were instances of Ukrainian fighters crossing the Dnieper and surrendering to Russian forces, a pattern he implies may reflect a broader trend of retreat under unfavorable conditions rather than a unified, unwavering defense of every position.