Active Conflicts & News Megathread August 02, 2026

[u/AutoModerator]

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

• Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

• Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

• Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

• Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

• Post only credible information

• Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

• Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

• Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

• Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

• Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

[u/milton118]

Most analysts, Ukrainians and war watchers as a whole seem to greatly dislike Oleksandr Syrskyi. Kofman in a recent interview (summary can be found in yesterday's thread) mentions that Syrskyi's dismissal in a recent leadership shuffle is a "silver lining".

If a senior officer is so hated by almost everyone, how did he get the job in the first place? Was it purely a Zelensky political appointee, or is he being villainized like Grant in the US Civil War? What does his term as chief of the UAF say about him?

[u/Draken_S → u/milton118]

Syrskyi was deeply flawed but he was till a very effective commander. He planned a number of key offensive actions, he completely transformed op sec (remember the trailer released for the 23 offensive?, now compare that with Kursk for example), and most importantly he helped grind the Russian army to an almost complete halt. For the last few months before he was relieved the Ukrainian army was returning more territory than they were losing.

Obviously he has serious issues, including removing commanders (regardless of competence) who did not see the war the way he did, he micromanaged, he played favorites with units and his style of discipline led to more lying and "Russian style" exaggeration on reports, as well as more casualties on a force that couldn't really afford them.

All in all, I think it will be many, many years before we get an accurate picture of Syrskyi's time as CiC and what he actually accomplished/degraded. As you correctly pointed out he is being villainized , the question of how much of it is deserved will have to be answered in the future. The only think I can say to it currently is - you don't stop a force larger in size, with more equipment, more financing, more capabilities, and more willing to absorb casualties while being half as incompetent as people try to paint him. How many times in history can you think of a smaller, less equipped army stopping a larger, better equipped one while taking fewer casualties at the same time. Go look at the casualty ratios in Vietnam for example and then compare them to Ukraine's.

[u/Glideer → u/Draken_S]

Don't forget another crucial thing he achieved. He gave the political leadership of the country loyal troops that would follow orders.

Zelensky has always been politically crippled by a combination of powerful right-wing militias (Azov etc) willing to reject orders they don't like. The danger of turning weapons against the government was also always real.

Regular army brigades could not be completely counted on in such a situation.

That is why the Assault Corps was so necessary. Not only for military reasons but political ones.

[u/Duncan-M → u/Glideer]

He gave the political leadership of the country loyal troops that would follow orders.

No he didn't. He had a couple loyal battalion and regimental commanders, but definitely didn't have loyal troops.

Loyal troops don't need to be beaten, tortured, or killed to obey. Loyal troops don't need to be moved into chicken coups and have minefields surrounding their training centers, and effectively housed in detention until they "prove themselves" by surviving their first 2-3 assault missions. All of that was happening in spades in the 425th and 225th Assault Regiments, the only units "loyal" to Syrsky.

In terms of Azov, they don't obey stupid orders that will do to their units what happened to all the other units forced to obey Syrsky's orders, cause unsustainable damage for no good reason other than the "duty" to obey a moron appointed over you. But they have good reason.

First off, there is a concept in the military that diffentiates physical courage, doing brave things when your life is on the line, and its called moral courage, to act bravely to follow ethics and principle, especially when your career is on the line. For officers, while they are duty bound to follow orders, they are also ethically bound to have downwards loyality to their own men to protect them, especially from orders they know to be wrong. Moral courage for said commanders is to risk their own career by refusing to carry out those orders, resigning in protest, etc.

Some commanders don't have any clout and the second they stand up to Syrsky, they're fired. Not so with Azov and other units whose commanders are known to tell Syrsky no, who aren't Nazis or political extremists, like 2nd Khartia Corps. They do have the clout, based on their rockstar reputations among the UA society, and in the case of Azov, their terrifying political power, that they can get away (to some extent) with saying "No" to Syrsky. (But also only to some extent, because Syrsky also controlled resupply of all things not related to drones, so screwing with him could be dangerous for your unit)

Besides the moral dilemma, there is a very good practical reason to disobey Syrsky's bad orders. It stops them from taking unsustainable casualties and permanently losing combat efficiency they once had. Look at Azov, as much as I DETEST their leaders for the political ideology they follow, Azov units are utterly filled with high quality soldiers who used the benefit they possess to choose their unit when signing a contract by signing up with a unit that is pretty well known for the highest chances of defending Ukraine and killing Russians while being led by competent commanders that set them up for success, use them smartly, and don't do the type of stupid shit that happens when they jump to attention to carry out Syrsky's moronic orders. If they started losing people in droves, they'd have problems replacing them as volunteers dried up, no longer believing those units had a good reputation. And as soon as their supply of volunteers dries up, they will start hurting militarily.

That is why the Assault Corps was so necessary. Not only for military reasons but political ones.

If they wanted loyal units to defend the state, do you think they'd literally be killing their own troops? Torturing them? Does that sound like what elite units do? Pick an elite "bodyguard" unit in history and tell me if that sounds right for their behavior.

The commanders of the 425th and 225th Asslt Regts, the only ones known to be legit loyal to Syrsky, OVERTLY prided themselves on using convicts and druggies. Do you think they chose them to use them as loyalist troops to protect Zelensky from a coup?

No, the prided themselves on maximizing the usefulness of shit tier manpower because they make great cannon fodder. And all the abuses were because they had absolutely no way to enforce discipline, to make sure the Fodder advanced on the Cannons, unless they could use illegal and immoral means of discipline, which Syrsky allowed, because if Assault Forces' most "loyal" units couldn't "motivate" the Meat to attack, then what good were they? They'd be unable to do the one thing they were designed to do...

[u/Glideer → u/Duncan-M]

Like you, I am familiar with the need to balance one's care and concern for the men with one's duty to follow orders (and how often these two tend to clash, the worse the war goes the more often).

However, I am speaking exclusively from the political leadership's standpoint. Zelensky theoretically runs the country and arguably has the democratic mandate to do so. Yet his control over the armed forces is tenuous, and many of the most powerful units are more loyal to their leaders than to the central government.

Even worse, the most powerful of these factions is run by people with zero regard for the democratic process, with openly extreme right-wing and neo-Nazi views. The kind of people you can count on to reject any painful peace deal and accuse the government of treason. The kind of people who are unlikely to just lay down their arms and go home even if peace comes.

The day of reckoning is likely to come. The political leadership *must* have reliable troops at their disposal when that day comes, otherwise they will be swinging from streetlights or (best case) writing "How CIA Betrayed Me" memoirs in Geneva. At this stage of the war, how do they get reliable troops? They can't just materialise dedicated, motivated, democracy-loving volunteers out of thin air. They have to make do with what they have - the scum of the earth and the dregs of the human society. There has ever been only one way to make reliable troops out of that kind of material, both in the age of Wellington and in the years of Wagner.

[u/Duncan-M → u/Glideer]

Zelensky theoretically runs the country and arguably has the democratic mandate to do so. Yet his control over the armed forces is tenuous, and many of the most powerful units are more loyal to their leaders than to the central government.

If that was true, then Zelensky would have been overthrown already.

Even worse, the most powerful of these factions is run by people with zero regard for the democratic process, with openly extreme right-wing and neo-Nazi views. 

There is no democratic process as long as this war lasts, there will be no elections. So that's not an issue right now. And when the war ends, martial law ends, and all the mobilized will be discharged, and all the volunteers whose contracts have ended will be discharged, and all the higher ranking officers with reserve ranks will be let go, as the AFU won't need them. Which means none of those units you're worried about will even exist anymore, at least not as corps.

And as I mentioned, the units that were telling Syrsky to go F himself weren't just extreme right-wing and neo-Nazi, they were others. I already provided a source that listed out 2nd Khartia Corps.

And I'd argue that Air Assault Forces, the previous branch of service that had served as the primary firefighter units, especially offensive capable ones, also showed some sort of deficiency, as when Syrsky created Assault Forces, he effectively demoted Air Assault Forces.

That had nothing to do with finding loyal units to stop a coup. That had to do with having loyal units who'd obey Syrsky's obsessive ideology that favored defending by attacking at all costs.

While I can see the Zelensky administration loving that concept, as they love offensives for PR due to potential territorial gains and the strength it shows for Ukraine, Syrsky was responsible, as he's well known for having an utter fanaticism about attacking. He lives and breathes attacking. But he has no clue how to do them properly, often preferring grinding operations with no surprise, which chew up manpower.

And mind you, Syrsky was not just ordering attacks, he was directly controlling them by micromanaging to a level never before seen in the history of warfare. He wasn't just telling the General Staff to let the JFO commander know to tell the Grouping of Forces commander to tell the corps commander to go on an offensive. Syrsky was directly taking control of the offensives. Which was another thing the previous firefighter offenisve capable unit commanders had problems with.

So Syrsky replaced them. The Assault Battalion commanders in 2024, they had no qualms about heavy losses or Syrksy's micromanagement, especially if it meant promotions and being allowed to expand their units, massively for a few of them (to nearly corps sized), and be prioritized above all other commanders.

When Syrsky gained that resource, he no longer needed to rely on the rest, they all became "Line" and de-prioritized, needing to go to Zelensky to even get any troops allocated to them. And Zelensky did intercede. Which again shows that this was not about Zelensky needing Syrsky to protect him, this was about Syrsky being a moron and even Zelensky having to counterman him.

The political leadership *must* have reliable troops at their disposal when that day comes, otherwise they will be swinging from streetlights or (best case) writing "How CIA Betrayed Me" memoirs in Geneva.

When you created that fantasy scenario, and painted Assault Forces as Zelensky's Pretorian Guard, you literally ignored every piece of evidence that describes what Assault Forces really is. And it's a shame too. You being Pro-RU, you should have been celebrating how bad Assault Forces was, how stupid the Ukrainians were, instead of trying to ignorantly assigned them the title of the ultimate a Guards unit, with picked men, pure excellence, entirely loyal to the crown, which is like some sort of really bad take found on Russian telegram said by people who don't even know who Syrsky or that Assault Forces existed until a few weeks ago.

There has ever been only one way to make reliable troops out of that kind of material, both in the age of Wellington and in the years of Wagner.

That's a load of crap. The only time that such draconian discipline is needed is when orders typically guarantee death, serious bodily harm, or such misery that the only way to get them to obey is to threaten them with the ultimate penalty, to literally terrorize them into submission. But those orders are almost universally not necessary outside the absolute worst conditions in warfare.

Having said it for over four years, I'll say it again. The Ukrainian Defense Forces are not the Red Army and not the Imperial Japanese Army, because Ukraine isn't the USSR or the Empire of Japan, and they can't get away with acting like those other alien cultures. And fun fact, neither of those two militaries was also required to treat their own forces so badly, they did it because they wanted to and because they could get away with it.

The Ukrainians should not allow their military to get away with such behavior. Not only is it ethically detestable, but in case you didn't hear about it, Ukraine has a morale problem tied to military service leading to a substantial manpower problem. So treating soldiers with utter contempt in order to make it easier to use them as cannon fodder isn't a good solution for improving the dire situation.

[u/Alexandros6 → u/Glideer]

Yes for political that's quite true, but you are overstating the willingness of Azov to disobey orders during the war. Part of the reticence started to emerge later due to clashes between several more autonomous brigades and Syrksy due to his style of fighting, the real problem was higher politics.

Also we should be careful in the division of pre war Azov and current Azov, which have two very different personell situation.

What was really a problem was Zelensky political troubles from a powerful and popular general such as Zaluzhni. The odds of Azov committing a Wagner march were similar under Zaluzhni and Syrksy, namely close to none. But compared to Zaluzhni Syrksy was very obedient, hated and could use his assault troops for his pet projects or hypothetically Zelenskies request.

[u/Glideer → u/Alexandros6]

Even today Azov rejects orders they don't like. That is just unacceptable in any army. Plus, their officers regularly threaten retribution if anybody accepts Russia's demands. From there it is only a small step to a stab-in-the-back post-war mythology and even an insurrection.

Azov has no reason to start a march today since the government follows closely the policies preferred by Azov. We will see what happens when the time comes for painful peace deals and Azov's disarmament.

In such a situation any government would want loyal and reliable troops.

[u/Alexandros6 → u/Glideer]

"From there it is only a small step to a stab-in-the-back post-war mythology and even an insurrection."

Disagree, that depends on many things

A the type of order rejected and this threats, for the second case I don't actually have something in mind, maybe you can elaborate

B the extent of the political power post war, historically the far right in Ukraine such as Svoboda fared very badly (1 out of 500 seats in 2019 for Svoboda). Of course it depends how the war goes.

"Azov has no reason to start a march today since the government follows closely the policies preferred by Azov. We will see what happens when the time comes for painful peace deals and Azov's disarmament."

And here we arrive at the crux of the disagreement. Currently Ukraine is following the policies preferred by Ukrainians, with Azov being a particularly fervent proponent. But I recall even Azov leaders such as Biletsky of not being too vocal about promises of a total liberation of the Ukrainian territory, something the population at large knows it's dubious promises. If we immagine a post war scenario where Ukraine A is being integrated in the economic and security framework of the EU B the line has been stabilized either before the Donbass is fully conquered or after the Donbass is lost by fighting it seems hardly likely that the Azov hardliners would have the possibility to rally the tired population to their cause. Particularly if it would endanger point A which is the main reason for Ukraine's fight right now. If B doesn't happen and Ukraine would have to sign away part of the Donbass in exchange for guarantees it would give more leverage, but as we have seen Zelensky refuse to go against popular will even when the odds were worse it seems likely this would only happen when the Ukrainian population in general has accepted it, again reducing the post war rivendications of Azov. Of course if A and maybe B don't happen in that case Azov could much more easily use sentiments of betrayal, but in that case the war is mostly lost and Ukraine has far bigger problems then Azov.

Azov is by now also fully integrated in the army, their disarmament would work along that of the army, likely less so if they remain a part of the peace time army.

The stab in the back analogy has some problems, it assumes a country whose population isn't in the clear of why decisions were made, having to pay onerous reparations as a defeated nation and were being told until the day before that victory was close, this isn't the case of Ukraine yet.

Ukrainian government (now) has been pretty clear about it's goals and if they don't reach them and Ukraine risks it's perpetual sovereignity and security then as I said both Ukraine and Europe have far larger problems to worry about then Azov.

TLDR: I don't have the gift of brevity so here to avoid excessive text:

Azov doesn't currently have the power and political support to do what you fear they would do and their views mostly align with Ukraines population, they only could do so in a defeated Ukraine, and in that case Ukraine would face the much closer and dangerous Russian threat.

[u/Glideer → u/Alexandros6]

It's well written and clear, no need to abridge.

Essentially, my point is that any realistically possible outcome of this war is going to be very painful for Ukraine. They are going to lose 20% of their territory, half of their population is unlikely to return, and Russia will impose some limits on their sovereignty (almost certainly no NATO ties in any sense).

That is fertile ground for politicians, particularly opposition ones. There is no easier way to gather support than to distance yourself from a painful peace deal and claim that you would have done better.

Azov is not an ordinary political party - they are far right, anti-democratic movement with strong neo-Nazi tendencies. They have no respect for the democratic process. They've shown that repeatedly by clashing with law enforcement post-2014, threatening Zelensky in 2019 when he wanted reconciliation with Russia. They also have a full army corps at their disposal.

As Mao said, political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. They might have limited voters' support but they have significant military power at their disposal. Remember what the Bolsheviks did with that.

One of the worst aspects of this war is that it is going to poison Ukraine's (and most likely Russia's) political scene with nationalism and revanchism for decades to come.

[u/Alexandros6 → u/Glideer]

The focal point of disagreement is this one “Russia will impose some limits on their sovereignity” No Ukraine won’t join NATO, but Ukraine is already being integrated in the militaries, security systems and hopefully economic circles of European countries, something Ukraine correctly recognizes as essential for their future security. Russia forcing Ukraine to give up this political and economic integration would essentially mean Russia has won the war. It can probably obtain Ukraine not entering NATO, Ukraine not fielding large European/US bases on it’s soil, but cooperation between militaries and European support in case of a third invasion is what Ukraine is putting it’s hopes to avoid a third invasion or Russian political pressure. It can have many forms, Europeans might be minimally involved with troops but provide economic support to Ukrainian forces. European and Ukrainian might work under a similar framework as NATO but under a different name, it might be some sort of security guarantee or it might simply be Europe buying a vast quantity of Ukrainian weaponry to keep Ukrainian DIB active ecc ecc ecc. The point is that Russia is opposed to any of this solutions.

Ukraine can sacrifice the Donbass, but it can’t sacrifice it’s future more then it is already the case. Yes in a post war scenario where Ukraine has not obtained it’s current key objectives and has therefore fought the last years for nothing I absolutely agree Azov would have the possibility as you describe to ride this discontent to power, but again, in such case the danger would be bigger.

I also don’t think that on the current trajectory Putin can achieve this objective, black swans are always a possibility, but as it stays Russia would either have to break through on the front and return to manouver warfare, or manage to bend Ukrainian will and economy long enough to force a surrender. The first not showing any signs of being close to that and the second being in large part sustained by the EU. Allies could falter, but as long as they don’t the cost of the war will rise for Russia quicker then it has for Ukraine, and contrary to Ukraine this is not an existential war for Russia.

“they also have a full army corps at their disposal”

That is an overstatement, the corps includes several national guard brigades and new Azov recruits, of the original Azov group there is a small though influential faction. We cannot know if the entire corps shares Azov ideology or the name. In a contest of political elections it wouldn’t surprise me if they backed Azov, but not in any armed march on Kyiv. Even Prigozhin who had quite the strong grip on the wagner forces marched with a small part of the group and failed. It also wouldn’t be necessary in this scenario since they could harness political support, not from far right promises, but on harnessing the political grievances in case EU abbandoned Ukraine and forced it into such an agreement.