Russia invades Ukraine

[Cloud Strife]

A worthwhile update: it looks like the HIMARS systems are tearing through Russian bases. Zelensky today said that out of 50 strikes, they hit all 50 without a miss. That's an absolutely astonishing number, and shows that the Russian air defences are simply not capable of defending against modern weaponry.

It's important to note that the systems currently in place along with the new ones promised won't be enough to completely change the war, but it's now a very clear sign that *if* the US equips Ukraine with the numbers needed (100-150, I believe), Russia will have no choice but to retreat. Ukraine is hitting targets at will, and with the US now declaring that the Kerch Bridge is a legitimate target, you have to wonder if the plan isn't to gradually ramp up the deliveries of the HIMARS systems as Ukraine proves that they can use them. I suspect that there's also an element of trust: if Ukraine limits itself to attacks within Donetsk/Luhansk, then the US will feel comfortable with giving them longer range weapons.

It seems that the Ukrainian intelligence is also spot on, as they're able to pick off Russian fuel depots and ammunition dumps with ease.

 

[adc82140]

The US has not declared the Kerch bridge as a target. A retired US commander speaking in a personal capacity has. That doesn't equate to US policy.

 

[ainsworth74]

A worthwhile update: it looks like the HIMARS systems are tearing through Russian bases. Zelensky today said that out of 50 strikes, they hit all 50 without a miss. That's an absolutely astonishing number

Yes, frankly unbelievable. I have no doubt that HIMARS is having an effect on Russian logistics but I'd be surprised if all 50 strikes hit something worthwhile even if they didn't miss. You can get unlucky with units or whatever your targeting having moved between the decision to strike and the strike going in. Equally HIMARS is veeeery accurate but no system is 100%. Remember Ukraine is playing the propaganda game just like anyone. I continue to apply a 50% reduction to all the claimed Russian casualties coming out of Ukraine to try and remove any optimism bias. Whilst I suspect that they've managed to hit more than 25 targets with HIMARS I also believe it will be less than 50 out of 50.

and shows that the Russian air defences are simply not capable of defending against modern weaponry.

To be fair the game of defending against rocket sized munitions a very difficult one. There's only really Israel's Iron Dome that can do it reliably to protect wide areas. The other systems out there are point defence only. The Russian do have stuff that could probably do it but it's a naval system not land based. Even the US doesn't have that much that can shoot down rockets of the sort that HIMARS uses. This isn't to say that Russian air defences are impenetrable (the continued activity of the Ukrainian Air Force is all the proof you need that they aren't!) but I'd be very wary of drawing conclusions as to their ability on the basis of them being unable to defend against an attack they aren't designed to protect against.

It seems that the Ukrainian intelligence is also spot on, as they're able to pick off Russian fuel depots and ammunition dumps with ease.

Well, "Ukrainian" intelligence. You don't think that those NATO surveillance aircraft running loops over eastern Poland and in the Black Sea, to say nothing of military and commercial satellites flying over Ukraine, are just there for fun do you? Though no doubt it's an advantage that the local population are likely to be very anti-Russian and quite happy to let slip to the right people when they see anything interesting going on! Eyes on the ground are always a powerful source of information.

 

[TheEdge]

I continue to apply a 50% reduction to all the claimed Russian casualties coming out of Ukraine to try and remove any optimism bias. Whilst I suspect that they've managed to hit more than 25 targets with HIMARS I also believe it will be less than 50 out of 50.

Agreed, Ukraine is playing the propaganda game as hard as Russia. Remember at one point they said the Ghost of Kiev was real when it was quickly known to be from the DCS games. The Oryx website is keeping a running score for losses; destroyed, abandoned or captured, for both sides (UAF 1261 vs RuAF 4722 btw) and has photographic or video evidence for each loss so its a fairly reputable source at this point.

To be fair the game of defending against rocket sized munitions a very difficult one. There's only really Israel's Iron Dome that can do it reliably to protect wide areas. The other systems out there are point defence only. The Russian do have stuff that could probably do it but it's a naval system not land based. Even the US doesn't have that much that can shoot down rockets of the sort that HIMARS uses. This isn't to say that Russian air defences are impenetrable (the continued activity of the Ukrainian Air Force is all the proof you need that they aren't!) but I'd be very wary of drawing conclusions as to their ability on the basis of them being unable to defend against an attack they aren't designed to protect against.

Its the general public mix up of the term "missile". The normal projectiles fired from the MLRS system that the HIMARS mounts (excluding the ATACMS which is a whole other beast and I don't think has been sent to Ukraine) are 4m long by 20/30cm in diameter. They are relatively small projectiles. The sort of sized missiles that point defense can really deal with are tactical ballistic missiles and bigger, you are talking 6m long by 50cm diameter for the Tochka or anti ship missiles like the Exocet. Even those are really only in the realms of things like the Phalanx and Goalkeeper systems which, as you say, are mostly a naval affair where the target is obvious and you can mount guns on it. For normal AA systems you are really talking about ICBM sized missiles which are 10m+ by 2m diameter.

Well, "Ukrainian" intelligence. You don't think that those NATO surveillance aircraft running loops over eastern Poland and in the Black Sea, to say nothing of military and commercial satellites flying over Ukraine, are just there for fun do you? Though no doubt it's an advantage that the local population are likely to be very anti-Russian and quite happy to let slip to the right people when they see anything interesting going on! Eyes on the ground are always a powerful source of information.

"Oh no, I hope no one steals this pile of intelligence papers I left here by the Polish/Romanian border post while I go and make a coffee for the next 15 minutes..."

 

[Yew]

Yes, frankly unbelievable. I have no doubt that HIMARS is having an effect on Russian logistics but I'd be surprised if all 50 strikes hit something worthwhile even if they didn't miss. You can get unlucky with units or whatever your targeting having moved between the decision to strike and the strike going in. Equally HIMARS is veeeery accurate but no system is 100%. Remember Ukraine is playing the propaganda game just like anyone. I continue to apply a 50% reduction to all the claimed Russian casualties coming out of Ukraine to try and remove any optimism bias. Whilst I suspect that they've managed to hit more than 25 targets with HIMARS I also believe it will be less than 50 out of 50.

My understanding is that these systems are hitting things such as Weapons and Fuel depots (which are large and don't move in the timescale of a missile strike), that until recently Russia considered them to be safe as they were out of conventional artillery range.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jul 2022 ==

Its the general public mix up of the term "missile". The normal projectiles fired from the MLRS system that the HIMARS mounts (excluding the ATACMS which is a whole other beast and I don't think has been sent to Ukraine) are 4m long by 20/30cm in diameter. They are relatively small projectiles. The sort of sized missiles that point defense can really deal with are tactical ballistic missiles and bigger, you are talking 6m long by 50cm diameter for the Tochka or anti ship missiles like the Exocet. Even those are really only in the realms of things like the Phalanx and Goalkeeper systems which, as you say, are mostly a naval affair where the target is obvious and you can mount guns on it. For normal AA systems you are really talking about ICBM sized missiles which are 10m+ by 2m diameter.

Indeed, the HIMARS is a massive truck that has space for a mighty 6 missiles, the M240 MLRS (Which fires more of the same missiles) can fire a 24 inch diameter, 13 ft long missile weighing a tonne and a half. If a NLAW is a stick, the HIMARS is a small telegraph pole.

 

[TheEdge]

Indeed, the HIMARS is a massive truck that has space for a mighty 6 missiles, the M240 MLRS (Which fires more of the same missiles) can fire a 24 inch diameter, 13 ft long missile weighing a tonne and a half. If a NLAW is a stick, the HIMARS is a small telegraph pole.

That 13ft 24inch missile is the ATACMS which is the one I specifically singled out as an extreme example not relevant here. That thing is a tactical ballistic missile that isn't being sent to Ukraine, the ammunition Ukraine is getting is the much smaller much shorter ranged (G)MLRS missiles.

 

[Yew]

That 13ft 24inch missile is the ATACMS which is the one I specifically singled out as an extreme example not relevant here. That thing is a tactical ballistic missile that isn't being sent to Ukraine, the ammunition Ukraine is getting is the much smaller much shorter ranged (G)MLRS missiles.

I had meant that as an illustration in concert with the other post I quoted, unfortunately I couldn't find any specific dimensions for the missiles that have been (likely) sent, It still provides an indication of the order of magnitude of scale; particularly when looking at pictures of the MLRS. These are not man-portable things, they are gigantic tubes with 100kg of explosive in. 100kg of explosive gives you a substantial margin of error in terms of accuracy.

 

[Gostav]

In general, as I have seen the evaluation of the Russian army by the officers of the PLA (Chinese People's Liberation Army), Russia lacks sufficient funds to modernize and informatize the military, and is unable to completely update its equipment, which has led to the unfavorable progress of the war and more casualties. The industrial chain is not complete, resulting in the inability to maintain large-scale delivery of high-precision weapons.
There are also some deeper discussions that seem to be going on, such as "make divisions converted to cobmbined arms brigades"* is reallly a right way for a total war?

* This discussion is like in the railway system "Is division and privatization really the right way to do?"

 

[TheEdge]

In general, as I have seen the evaluation of the Russian army by the officers of the PLA (Chinese People's Liberation Army), Russia lacks sufficient funds to modernize and informatize the military, and is unable to completely update its equipment, which has led to the unfavorable progress of the war and more casualties. The industrial chain is not complete, resulting in the inability to maintain large-scale delivery of high-precision weapons.

I think what we are seeing is Russia has spent the last 30 years just publically saying and believing it still has the terrifying Red Army of the 1960-1980s where a land war between them and NATO would really have been an even balanced meat grinder.

The lack of updated kit is a known issue. The Su-25 has an upgraded variant but the amount of them upgraded is in single figures. Most of them are using 20/30 year old kit. Much like the mass roll out of T-80s, the "80" gives a good hint of that age. Although even the T-90s (which remember is nothing more than a post-USSR rebrand of the T-72) isn't exactly super modern.

 

[the sniper]

This analysis/conversation is well worth listening to if you've got half an hour:

Why does the Russian Air Force (read: Aerospace Force VKS) not fly more strikes? Why are 'drones' like Bayraktar not as effective as we think? What should NATO learn from this conflict? Listen in to my chat with Justin Bronk (RUSI) to find out!

 

[Gloster]

Deleted as in the wrong thread.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

A worthwhile update: it looks like the HIMARS systems are tearing through Russian bases. Zelensky today said that out of 50 strikes, they hit all 50 without a miss. That's an absolutely astonishing number, and shows that the Russian air defences are simply not capable of defending against modern weaponry.

It's important to note that the systems currently in place along with the new ones promised won't be enough to completely change the war, but it's now a very clear sign that *if* the US equips Ukraine with the numbers needed (100-150, I believe), Russia will have no choice but to retreat. Ukraine is hitting targets at will, and with the US now declaring that the Kerch Bridge is a legitimate target, you have to wonder if the plan isn't to gradually ramp up the deliveries of the HIMARS systems as Ukraine proves that they can use them. I suspect that there's also an element of trust: if Ukraine limits itself to attacks within Donetsk/Luhansk, then the US will feel comfortable with giving them longer range weapons.

It seems that the Ukrainian intelligence is also spot on, as they're able to pick off Russian fuel depots and ammunition dumps with ease.

As others have said we should remember that Ukraine is as capable as Russia at producing propaganda though likely with less obvious exageration/hyperbole.

Some weeks ago (mid/late May?) Ukraine said that it expected that the war would start to turn in its favour during August though no details were offered as to how. My own suspicion was that the timescale related to the anticipated delivery of more capable western weapons along with the training of suitable numbers of personnel. Perhaps this report of highly accurate missile strikes is the first sign of this forecast coming to pass.

 

[JamesT]

I think what we are seeing is Russia has spent the last 30 years just publically saying and believing it still has the terrifying Red Army of the 1960-1980s where a land war between them and NATO would really have been an even balanced meat grinder.

The lack of updated kit is a known issue. The Su-25 has an upgraded variant but the amount of them upgraded is in single figures. Most of them are using 20/30 year old kit. Much like the mass roll out of T-80s, the "80" gives a good hint of that age. Although even the T-90s (which remember is nothing more than a post-USSR rebrand of the T-72) isn't exactly super modern.

If you’re going by the age of the base design, nobody is fielding anything modern. The initial orders for the M1 Abrams were placed in 1979, same year the Leopard 2 entered service, and the Challenger 2 started production in 1993.
But each of these platforms have been felt to be good enough to keep in service with appropriate updates. Question is whether Russia has been able to do the same?

 

[TheEdge]

If you’re going by the age of the base design, nobody is fielding anything modern. The initial orders for the M1 Abrams were placed in 1979, same year the Leopard 2 entered service, and the Challenger 2 started production in 1993.
But each of these platforms have been felt to be good enough to keep in service with appropriate updates. Question is whether Russia has been able to do the same?

I'm not, if we go by age of the base design then the Russians still come stone dead last with everything tracing back to the T-64, so 1967.

But put an original M1 next to M1A2 SEPv3 or a Leopard 2 next to a 2A6 and they are so vastly improved as to be different vehicles. Whereas the T-90 is a very slightly improved T-72B which is developed from a cheap version of the T-64.

Challenger 2 is slightly different as it doesn't really share much with the Challenger 1.

 

[DustyBin]

As others have said we should remember that Ukraine is as capable as Russia at producing propaganda though likely with less obvious exageration/hyperbole.

Very true and it’s worth remembering this, as much as we’d like to see Ukraine win (well most of us anyway).

Some weeks ago (mid/late May?) Ukraine said that it expected that the war would start to turn in its favour during August though no details were offered as to how. My own suspicion was that the timescale related to the anticipated delivery of more capable western weapons along with the training of suitable numbers of personnel. Perhaps this report of highly accurate missile strikes is the first sign of this forecast coming to pass.

Yes I think this prediction was largely in anticipation of Western heavy weapons, along with trained personnel, being deployed in significant numbers. What we do know is that the HIMARS in particular are causing the Russians a real problem as they don’t have an answer to them. It seems to be accepted that Ukraine doesn’t have enough of them yet to completely halt the Russian advance and mount an offensive, but that’s clearly the aim.

It’s also worth bearing in mind that Russias capability is being eroded day by day.

 

[Pete_uk]

All being well, funding for Ukrainian fighter pilots to train on F15 and F16 jets could start in the autumn.

That will give the Russian air force something to think about if they show up!

 

[TheEdge]

Lavrov is working hard on his mental gymnastics.

Now that Ukraine has been given long range weapons the goals of Russia will have to increase beyond their original (!) aims of the Donbass.

I mean this coming from the same county who shot down one of their own advanced fighters and has now claimed Ukraine is using bioengineered mutant soldiers...

 

[DustyBin]

Lavrov is working hard on his mental gymnastics.

Now that Ukraine has been given long range weapons the goals of Russia will have to increase beyond their original (!) aims of the Donbass.

I mean this coming from the same county who shot down one of their own advanced fighters and has now claimed Ukraine is using bioengineered mutant soldiers...

Their idiotic statements grow ever more, well, idiotic!

They’ve got the backing of Iran though so they’ll be pleased with that. Thinking about it, if Iran supplies them with drones etc. would Russia become Iran’s proxy in its “war” against the West? A mildly amusing thought!

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Their idiotic statements grow ever more, well, idiotic!
!

Its going to be interesting to watch as reality collides with fiction and how the Russian state attempts to spin it. Clearly Lavrov is maintaining the doctrine of a satellite state ‘buffer zone’ that dates back to Stalin in the 1940s anticipating the post WW2 settlement, but clearly not willing to consider that the only viable option to achieve this might be to move the Russian border eastward!

 

[brad465]

Their idiotic statements grow ever more, well, idiotic!

They’ve got the backing of Iran though so they’ll be pleased with that. Thinking about it, if Iran supplies them with drones etc. would Russia become Iran’s proxy in its “war” against the West? A mildly amusing thought!

While not as prolific, in Yemen Iran already is effectively in a proxy war with the west: Iran is supporting Houthi rebels, while the Yemen Government are supported by Saudi Arabia, who are receiving western weapons. I would suspect though the main proxy war here is between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

 

[DustyBin]

While not as prolific, in Yemen Iran already is effectively in a proxy war with the west: Iran is supporting Houthi rebels, while the Yemen Government are supported by Saudi Arabia, who are receiving western weapons. I would suspect though the main proxy war here is between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

There certainly appears to be an element of Western support for the Yemen Government, via Saudi Arabia, as you say. It's the thought of Russia being used as a proxy by Iran that amused me!

 

[Cloud Strife]

Its going to be interesting to watch as reality collides with fiction and how the Russian state attempts to spin it. Clearly Lavrov is maintaining the doctrine of a satellite state ‘buffer zone’ that dates back to Stalin in the 1940s anticipating the post WW2 settlement, but clearly not willing to consider that the only viable option to achieve this might be to move the Russian border eastward!

Playing devil's advocate, it's worth pointing out that the concept of a 'buffer' has been an integral part of Russia's foreign policy for a long, long time, and certainly before 1940. They have a very deep-rooted fear of invasion, something that the Americans in Washington didn't quite understand during the Cold War. I've read one account from a US diplomat on the ground in Berlin, and he was very clear that both the Americans and Soviets understood each other there: don't interfere with each other's business and everything will be fine.

For what it's worth, I think Lavrov's rantings have given the game away: they know that HIMARS systems are hurting, and the US seems to be very willing to drip-feed them into Ukraine so that they can build the pressure slowly. The additional 4 systems aren't a huge gamechanger, but by all accounts, Russia is wasting a huge amount of resources to push forward very slowly.

 

[DustyBin]

Playing devil's advocate, it's worth pointing out that the concept of a 'buffer' has been an integral part of Russia's foreign policy for a long, long time, and certainly before 1940. They have a very deep-rooted fear of invasion, something that the Americans in Washington didn't quite understand during the Cold War. I've read one account from a US diplomat on the ground in Berlin, and he was very clear that both the Americans and Soviets understood each other there: don't interfere with each other's business and everything will be fine.

For what it's worth, I think Lavrov's rantings have given the game away: they know that HIMARS systems are hurting, and the US seems to be very willing to drip-feed them into Ukraine so that they can build the pressure slowly. The additional 4 systems aren't a huge gamechanger, but by all accounts, Russia is wasting a huge amount of resources to push forward very slowly.

I wonder what it is that underpins this deep-rooted fear? They have been invaded a few times, including by Nazi Germany in pretty horrendous fashion, but that doesn't make them unique. Perhaps it's the fact that they share so many borders, or that the land mass is too large to defend? I'd be interested to know where this fear comes from.

 

[gg1]

I wonder what it is that underpins this deep-rooted fear? They have been invaded a few times, including by Nazi Germany in pretty horrendous fashion, but that doesn't make them unique. Perhaps it's the fact that they share so many borders, or that the land mass is too large to defend? I'd be interested to know where this fear comes from.

Probably a combination of history and geography. The European Plain which stretches from the Urals to Germany was historically difficult to defend against an invading army.

Of course what were legitimate concerns in the 19th and early/mid 20th centuries are rampant paranoia in the 21st century.

 

[TheEdge]

For what it's worth, I think Lavrov's rantings have given the game away: they know that HIMARS systems are hurting, and the US seems to be very willing to drip-feed them into Ukraine so that they can build the pressure slowly. The additional 4 systems aren't a huge gamechanger, but by all accounts, Russia is wasting a huge amount of resources to push forward very slowly.

A little bit of speculation but I think some of this is that Russia has gotten a very rude awakening. Since the end of the Cold War they've spent their time invading small countries or internal self governing regions (Georgia, Chechnya) who with all the will in the world just didn't have the numbers and quality of kit to hold fast against Russia. Now they've gone in again expecting the same outcome and their trump cards, the air force and the artillery just hasn't come good in the way it has in the past.

Ukraine has proven not only can it keep Russia from getting control of the air but it can return artillery fire in a similar force that Russia can. They started off with pretty decent kit, mostly the same but slightly older versions of the kit Russia has. But since then they've received (or are getting) some of the best bits of artillery out there. They've got the Czech DANA and French CAESAR which are both decent ranged highly mobile things. They've got the PzH2000 off the Germans which has a suitably advanced German autoloading system capable of sending 10+ 155mm shells down range in a minute, which is insane. They've been given the Polish KRAB which uses the British AS90 turret which is capable of burst fire. Then they are getting the M109 and M777 which are unremarkable be very capable. But until they got the HIMARS the heavy rocket systems of Russia (the SMERCH, TORNDO and URGAN) could fire with relative impunity outside the range of Ukrainian systems. The HIMARS and M270 basically mean Russia are now on an level playing field when it comes to artillery. Its going to start coming down to the abilities of each force to do counter battery operations.

And the wry smile of the fact the Kerch Bridge is now in range...

I wonder what it is that underpins this deep-rooted fear? They have been invaded a few times, including by Nazi Germany in pretty horrendous fashion, but that doesn't make them unique. Perhaps it's the fact that they share so many borders, or that the land mass is too large to defend? I'd be interested to know where this fear comes from.

They've always had it, to the point of absolute paranoia but really, being invaded continually, doesn't really set them apart from most European nations. If it wasn't the Germans it was the French, if it wasn't the French it was the Spanish, if it wasn't the Spanish it was the British, if it wasn't the British it was the Swedish, if not them the Polish. Its not a unique history to Russia.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I wonder what it is that underpins this deep-rooted fear? They have been invaded a few times, including by Nazi Germany in pretty horrendous fashion, but that doesn't make them unique. Perhaps it's the fact that they share so many borders, or that the land mass is too large to defend? I'd be interested to know where this fear comes from.

It's a good question. The Polish and Serbian victim complexes are easy to understand, but Russia will point at things that happened in the 17th century as an example of why they need to behave like that today. The only answer I have is that it was a deliberate policy by the Tsars to frighten the peasant population, which would explain by the Soviet leadership were so paranoid too. But at the same time, how on earth could a typical Tsar convince so many people across such a large landmass?

And the wry smile of the fact the Kerch Bridge is now in range...

To be honest, that bridge is coming down, it's just a question of when. I wouldn't be shocked if it goes boom at the same time as Ukraine launches a counterattack in/around Kherson.

 

[najaB]

And the wry smile of the fact the Kerch Bridge is now in range...

To be honest, that bridge is coming down, it's just a question of when. I wouldn't be shocked if it goes boom at the same time as Ukraine launches a counterattack in/around Kherson.

The Antonovskiy Bridge (linking Kherson with the rest of Donbass) has been hit multiple times and will likely be destroyed pretty soon. Which will effectively cut off Kherson from resupply - the only question is if the Russians will pull back to avoid the slaughter.

 

[ainsworth74]

The Antonovskiy Bridge (linking Kherson with the rest of Donbass) has been hit multiple times and will likely be destroyed pretty soon. Which will effectively cut off Kherson from resupply - the only question is if the Russians will pull back to avoid the slaughter.

Though of course destroying that bridge makes it difficult for Ukraine to continue offensive operations in the area. Fording rivers is tricky in the best of times and doing so opposed is very difficult verging on suicidal, as at least one Russian brigade (I think it was a brigade) found to their cost earlier in the war. The next crossing is forty odd miles up river at the Kakhovka Hydroelectric power plant.

Of course the Russians know this too so you have to figure that they may blow the Antonovskiy bridge themselves if they look likely to lose control but depending Ukraninan plans destroying it may not be the goal.

 

[najaB]

There are reports that Russia is "recruiting" prisoners to fight in Ukraine.

A human rights group that monitors the treatment of inmates at Russian penitentiaries says hundreds of men at a prison in the North Caucasus region of Adygea have agreed to be sent to fight in Russia’s war against Ukraine as a result of aggressive recruiting.

The founder of the organization Gulagu.net, Vladimir Osechkin, told RFE/RL on July 11 that two sources told him that some 300 inmates at Correctional Colony No. 1 in the town of Tlyustenkhabl had been recruited by the private military company Vagner, which has ties to the Kremlin and is involved in the war in Ukraine.

Rights Group Says Hundreds Of Prisoners In Russia's North Caucasus Recruited For War In Ukraine

A human rights group that monitors the treatment of inmates at Russian penitentiaries says hundreds of men at a prison in the North Caucasus region of Adygea have agreed to be sent to fight in Russia’s war against Ukraine as a result of aggressive recruiting.

www.rferl.org

In return for fighting they are promised to be paid between 200-300,000 roubles a month (and have their prison sentences commuted if they survive) and their families will receive around 5,000,00 roubles if they die.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Of course the Russians know this too so you have to figure that they may blow the Antonovskiy bridge themselves if they look likely to lose control but depending Ukraninan plans destroying it may not be the goal.

There is a huge question as to why this bridge wasn't destroyed when Kherson was first invaded. It came out a couple of days ago that it apparently should have been, but it wasn't.

There are reports that Russia is "recruiting" prisoners to fight in Ukraine.

Doesn't surprise me. They have a very clear policy of not sending ethnic Russians, probably because most minorities are rather marginalised in Russia.