Okay y’all have heard this story. Three Ukrainian navy ships were fired on, wounding several on board. Then the vessels were boarded and seized by the Russians. On the surface, this sounds like one of the most disgraceful acts in history. And it was not committed by the Russians. It was committed by the Ukrainians. The response of the Ukrainians when confronted by a hostile force, was to immediately throw up the white flag and surrender their vessels to the enemy. Without firing a shot. If true, this is beyond pathetic. If the crews are ever released, the captains should be set to prison for cowardice. Wow.
What action would your experience in naval tactics and command have done instead?
They were probably outgunned by a huge margin. Are you saying that surrender is never acceptable, and it is their duty to die…?
As a former Marine, we had this:
Article II code of conduct.
" I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender my men while they still have the means to resist."
Sounds like a pretty good policy. Doncha think?
No. But when fired upon you fire back. I don’t think Ukraine would get nuked over a naval exchange.
Two of the ships were gunboats. So yes.
So as a former Marine, your assessment of the situation is such that anything less than annihilation was an act of cowardice?
Though oddly you seem to be ok with Russian actions is there a reason kinda critical of country Russia attacked?
Only if it is a country at odds with Mother Russia.
More on Article II
“When there is no chance for meaningful resistance, evasion is impossible, and further fighting would lead to their death with no significant loss to the enemy, members of Armed Forces should view themselves as “captured” against their will versus a circumstance that is seen as voluntarily “surrendering.”
They must remember that the capture was dictated by the futility of the situation and overwhelming enemy strengths. In this case, capture is not dishonorable.”
So semantics, I would assume they understood they would be easily overwhelmed with little damage inflicted to the Russians.
Because we already know that the Russians are nothing but a country of goons and violent thugs. That’s why they should have returned fire. The Ruskies deserved it.
Why would you assume that? Are you thinking that the Ukrainian ships are junk? If they are it re-enforces my question. Why do they have a Navy?
Compared to the Russian navy? Are you really asking that or simply that uninformed?
And naval battles are not something you ■■■■ around with, those ships and their crews could be sent to the bottom in seconds…
So again. you are making assumptions. You are assuming that Ukrainian five inch guns and surface to surface missiles could not take out a Russian ship. Why do you believe this?
Did you really start this thread with no understanding of the relative strength of the Russian and Ukrainian militaries, much less navies?
What happens if the Ukrainians reply with a barrage of gunfire and surface to surface missiles?Doesn’t that send the Russian ship to the bottom in seconds?
They were small artillery boats. Russia scrambled jets and helicopters.
You really need to inform yourself before starting threads.
These were not Navies. They were individual ships. If you are attacked, you respond. The Russian coast guard attacked two Ukrainian artillery boats. I’m not sure what they use in the Russian coast guard, but they are probably not battle cruisers.
Russian fighters and helicopters responded, and these were small gunboats. Like I said, inform yourself.
They were not boarded by the Russian Air force.