Are there any strategic reasons that Russian authorities would allow indiscriminate killing of Ukrainian civilians?

Question

First of all, I believe that killing unarmed civilians is evil. But I know that this is not a problem for many leaders, including Putin, so I'm taking morality out of the equation in my question.

I completely fail to understand why the Russian military would do things like indiscriminate killing of civilians in places like Bucha, and why their commanders and top politicians would allow that.

To clarify what answer I am looking for: what Russia is doing in Mariupol is evil, but I can understand what their strategy is. They want to take Mariupol at any cost, and since they didn't manage to do it with infantry, they use indiscriminate shelling to create hellish conditions for the defenders.

But I cannot see any reasons why the Russian military would want to indiscriminately kill civilians on territories that had already been under Russian control. If they, for example, regarded Ukrainians as an inferior race that needs to be exterminated, that would be an evil reason to perform such acts, but there would be some consistency in it. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

What seems to be happening here are acts that go against the goals of Russia. It would make it more difficult to establish a pro-Russian government. It would create even more bad press for Russia.

There might be some consistency in it if Russia officially declared that it doesn't care about human rights. But Russia does want to be seen as a country that cares about human rights. Otherwise Putin wouldn't need to state that the reason for the "special military operation" is preventing genocide, and could simply admit that he wants to take the territory that he believes should belong to Russia and that he doesn't care how many civilian lives it will take.

And even if they intend to blame the Ukrainians for the massacres, it doesn't make much sense. They blamed the Ukrainians for a genocide in Donbass, even though there had been no proof that any genocide happened, and that propaganda seemed to work well within Russia. Which means that it's simpler to just blame somebody for committing atrocities, and there is no need to commit actual atrocities to do that.

Can somebody explain it?

Answer 1

I am not sure why you would think that Russia's "official declarations" have any weight. Russian lying has been one of the most consistent elements of this war. Nor do I understand why you think that Russia would try to build good will for the sake of a future peace.

There is little doubt, and a great deal of evidence, to suggest that Russia is pursuing the long-term strategy of terror. Terrorizing the civilian population is not a bug, it's a feature of Russia's efforts. Russia has

• deliberately bombed hospitals,
• kidnapped thousands of civilians and force-relocated them,
• killed and/or kidnapped local mayors and other elected officials,
• bombed civilian administrative buildings and residential buildings,
• created conditions in which soldiers had no restrains and had all the motivation to rape, torture and kill civilians. The killings in Bucha were conducted in many, many places within ear-shots of officers' living quarters. Clearly the officers, at the very least, knew about them.

Russia has a history of using terror as a war strategy.

• Russia has killed large swaths of its own citizens in Chechnya to put down the rebellion there through sheer terror. Civilians were targeted first and foremost. It has worked out for Russia in Chechnya because Chechens are now compliant.
• Russia has used chemical weapons to put down a rebellion in Syria. It worked. The rebellion ended.

Russia is using terror because until now the world has looked away and Russia was able to achieve its ends by using terror.

You maybe thinking that Russia would not do that for some moral reasons, but there is no evidence that Russia applies any level of deference to any population that isn't highly compliant.

In free countries, populations can entertain, and often act on, some wacky ideas. The trick to running a free country is to have mechanism for maintaining law and order even when people are unpredictable and highly non-compliant.

But Russia is not a free country. Terrorizing the non-compliant populations, until desired outcomes are achieved, is a traditional, rather than esoteric, tool of tyrannies.

The question is really not would Russia do it. The question is why would anyone be even surprised that Russia would do it.

Answer 2

It's probably a mix of different factors, as others have noted:

• "Nazis". Well, Nazis are "bad people" and since the troops were told Ukrainians were "Nazis", you get the treatment of civilians you'd expect from that, especially from a country whose self-justification for Stalin's decades of abuse towards its own citizens is "fighting Nazis".

• Russian modus operandi. This is really no different from Chechnya, where numerous abuses of civilians happened and justice was lenient. Or Syria where the Russian backing for Assad was ruthless. Once you kill civilians for strategic reasons, how do you draw the line at what's just sadism? Watching the Russian army operate feels a lot like looking an earlier time in Western military customs. Even then, few troops would have done this on the ground, rather than through bombing civilian areas. And not to their supposed "ethnic brothers".

• Uncontrolled, undisciplined, scared troops. The Russian army is not doing well, going through a meatgrinder, after being badly equipped and ineptly led. They are refusing orders and surrounded by angry civilians and are getting ambushed. It would take a lot of discipline to get them to respect the laws of war in all cases. This is not this war and Russia, under Putin, is not that country. This will probably only get worse as both sides get more hardened and this is probably the biggest single direct contributor. However, the nature of this type of massacre is their spontaneity. If this repeats often as Russian troops retreat, then it will start looking less like uncontrolled events and more like policy, or at least an institutional predisposition to facilitate such events.

• There is a last, even more disturbing possibility. One historian cited by Dan Carlin in his Supernova in the East podcast briefly mentions that Japanese war crimes against POWs and non-combatants may have occurred by policy. What the quote claimed was a deliberate policy, by local officers, to cut off Japanese troops from the possibility of surrender: after what the troops did, what they were ordered to do, how could they expect to be treated if they surrender? Your fate is tied to the boss's. You could even have the same phenomenon, going up, to political leaders, rather than down, to troops. Officers out-Putinning Putin and making damn sure the war can't be wound down. Examples of this are the various Manchurian incidents staged by hardcore junior Japanese officers in the 30s and some actions by French army officers in Algeria in the 50s.

• To be exhaustive, there's a last possibility, that it didn't happen and that it's a staged, fake, situation. You can look at years of Kremlin spin control and judge for yourself how likely that is. But you can also look at the expected benefits for Ukraine and the West from a potential disinformation. Truth is, there aren't many by this point. Zelensky had to say peace talks are still on. Ukraine handily won the public relations battle 6 weeks ago, it might get some more weapons but otherwise NATO has no choice but to keep its troops away from direct confrontation with a nuclear state. If Ukraine was to negotiate the end to this conflict war crimes like this give Zelensky less room to make any concessions requiring a referendum. This is nowhere as convenient for the West as the Putin cheerleader brigade would have us think and the downside to getting caught out in a quite-likely-to-be-found-out lie would be massive for Ukraine. Occam's Razor seems to apply quite well: it's vanishingly unlikely to be anything but a Russian war crime. Just like people claiming Abu Ghraib was fake had to end up eating their words.

Speaking of which, the BBC has an article debunking some of the talking points of Russian claims of fakery.

Answer 3

Besides some possible pure revenge killings when withdrawing (not unheard of in other wars/armies), from what I understood from the Western reporting on the matter, males were shot after being interrogated about digging ditches etc., so presumed to have supported the Ukrainian defense one way or the other. So Russian soldiers were probably trying to implement a crude version of the (alleged) filtration camps used in Chechnya and possibly in the DNR/LDP.

Also, Russian soldiers were seen somewhat indiscriminately shooting up civilian vehicles (e.g.). Although no vehicle-borne IEDs were reported in this war insofar, you could clearly see some Ukrainian military personnel move in civilian vehicles, and sometimes transporting ammunition that way as well. Some of the (allegedly) intercepted comms between the Russian forces seem to back up this theory, i.e. orders to shoot when in the slightest doubt as to status of people seen in the field.

Answer 4

The goals of Putin’s regime w.r.t. Ukraine appear similar to those of Hitler and Stalin previously. Putin’s regime goals include occupation of the Ukrainian land via direct annexation of all or part of Ukraine to Russia, or changing the regime of Ukraine to a pro-Russian one, similar to that of Yanukovich.

Ukraine is economically and geopolitically important to Putin’s regime primarily as a land mass. It is acceptable if it is occupied by a population friendly to Russians, but failing that, by Russians themselves.

In that respect, the friendly Ukrainian population alternative did not materialize so far. Hence, we see the other alternative in action: mass killings of Ukrainian civilians and other war crimes in order to scare the rest into submission, and to free parts of the Ukrainian land to be settled later by the Russians.

Similar practices were carried out by Hitler in WWII and by Stalin during the repression and Holodomor starvation periods before WWII. The fact that Putin’s government banned Memorial, an organization dedicated to the historical studies and education about the time of Stalin’s rule, is relevant to this issue as well.

Answer 5

This is only a suspicion, but it seems to fit the facts.

One of Russia's lines of argument has been that Ukraine is run by Neo-Nazis. To the West, that has seemed nonsensical, and has been ignored. To quote this BBC news story:

The exact end goal of Russia's invasion has not been made explicit, but President Vladimir Putin described the aims as the "demilitarisation" and "denazification" of Ukraine, characterising the government's leaders as a neo-Nazi junta killing millions in a genocide of Russian speakers.

If this is what Russia has told its soldiers, it's believable that they would seek to kill some of the "Nazis" or "Nazi supporters" before pulling out of an area. The Great Patriotic War against the actual Nazis was a formative experience for the Soviet Red Army, and is still important in the culture of the Russian Ground Forces, which descend from the Red Army.

If this suspicion is correct, then Putin is using the spectre of Nazism for a purpose nearly as foul as the conduct of actual Nazis, and will presumably try to paint Ukraine's supporters in the wider world as supporters of Neo-Nazis.

Answer 6

Yesterday there was published an article on ria.novosti (original link, and wayback machine link) that describes plans of "denazification" of Ukraine, that, in my opinion, fulfills the definition of genocide.

Some translated quotations:

The Nazis who took up arms should be destroyed to the maximum on the battlefield. No significant distinction should be made between the APUand the so-called national battalions, as well as the territorial defense that joined these two types of military formations. All of them are equally involved in extreme cruelty against the civilian population, equally guilty of the genocide of the Russian people, do not comply with the laws and customs of war. War criminals and active Nazis should be exemplarily and exponentially punished. There must be a total lustration. Any organizations that have associated themselves with the practice of Nazism have been liquidated and banned. However, in addition to the top, a significant part of the masses, which are passive Nazis, accomplices of Nazism, are also guilty. They supported and indulged Nazi power. The just punishment of this part of the population is possible only as bearing the inevitable hardships of a just war against the Nazi system, carried out with the utmost care and discretion in relation to civilians. Further denazification of this mass of the population consists in re-education, which is achieved by ideological repression (suppression) of Nazi attitudes and strict censorship: not only in the political sphere, but also necessarily in the sphere of culture and education.

The name "Ukraine" apparently cannot be retained as the title of any fully denazified state entity in a territory liberated from the Nazi regime.

Denazification will inevitably also be a de-Ukrainization - a rejection of the large-scale artificial inflation of the ethnic component of self-identification of the population of the territories of historical Little Russia and New Russia, begun by the Soviet authorities. Being an instrument of the communist superpower, after its fall, artificial ethnocentrism did not remain ownerless. In this official capacity, he passed under the authority of another superpower (the power standing over the states) — the superpower of the West. It must be returned to its natural boundaries and deprived of political functionality.

Unlike, say, Georgia and the Baltic countries , Ukraine, as history has shown, is impossible as a nation state, and attempts to "build" one naturally lead to Nazism. Ukrainism is an artificial anti-Russian construction that does not have its own civilizational content, a subordinate element of an alien and alien civilization. Debanderization by itself will not be enough for denazification - the Bandera element is only a performer and a screen, a disguise for the European project of Nazi Ukraine, therefore the denazification of Ukraine is also its inevitable de-Europeanization.

The Bandera elite must be eliminated, its re-education is impossible.

So the strategic reason is to remove Ukrainians as a nation.

UPDATE
To add a second source, U.S. Representative to the Office of the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva warned on February 21

I would like to bring to your attention disturbing information recently obtained by the United States that indicates that human rights violations and abuses in the aftermath of a further invasion are being planned. These acts, which in past Russian operations have included targeted killings, kidnappings/forced disappearances, unjust detentions, and the use of torture, would likely target those who oppose Russian actions, including Russian and Belarusian dissidents in exile in Ukraine, journalists and anti-corruption activists, and vulnerable populations such as religious and ethnic minorities and LGBTQI+ persons. Specifically, we have credible information that indicates Russian forces are creating lists of identified Ukrainians to be killed or sent to camps following a military occupation.

Answer 7

There are at least 3 strategic goals that Russia could gain by openly committing genocide

1. Break the will to resist

This strategy is not new, it was broadly used by Mongols and Assyrians, but also Romans and Greeks have slaughtered the whole cities. It's a clear message. If you will resist us, every single one of you will be killed, even women and children.

2. Refugee crisis

This is something that Russia has tried in 2021. Flood the EU with millions of refugees, breaking social security systems and causing the rise of populist dictatures, like the one of Orban, which are easy to undermine and control.

3. Madman strategy

Putin's thread to start a nuclear war if the West will interfere wasn't taken seriously as it would mean killing at least of 90% population worldwide, and would be a suicide on a national level. By ordering to kill civilians at will Putin would send a signal human life means so little to him, that he'll be able to start nuclear war to achieve his goals.

Answer 8

Your question implies that the moral price of mass killing of civilians for the ordinary soldiers is high and the expected outcome has to be comparably important.

This is plain wrong.

The Russian society has decades of profound indoctrination against the nazism / fascism as seen in the WW2.

But there is a catch: the average Russian on the street and the average Russian soldier in particular does not know neither the strong definition of the nazism or fascism, nor some particular properties that can be used to recognize them.

Should they know something like this, the indoctrination would not be possible, because in fact they lived in an improved variety of fascism.

This is why, the question who is nazi or fascist is left to the country's leadership.

These two words are understood as synonyms and used as a general insult in politics-related discussions.

The main indoctrination point is that fascists are not human.

Being non-human lowers the standard of dealing with them to a great extent - in general, to the level of dealing with cattle. These are killed/slaughtered on "as practical" basis, they don't have any other right to live besides being useful.

This said, much weaker goals are ok to be implemented like this.

Edit:

Like:

• Boast at least partial success in the proposed ethnical cleansing ("get rid of the nazis" for a great deal of Russians means exactly an ethnical cleansing).
• Encourage the Ukrainians to leave their settlements when the Russian army approaches. This will increase the refugee burden for Ukraine and the Ukraine-supporting neighbouring countries.
• Discourage Russian soldiers contemplating the idea of desertion or surrender and becoming a POW. Their chance of survival is substantially lowered after news like these propagate.
• Skip the humanitarian support effort and expenses.

Answer 9

Strategically, killing everyone in an area and claiming its resources can be useful.

Ukraine has lots of natural resources. Ukraine has a population that doesn't want to do what Putin tells it to do. Putin killing and driving off the population and replacing it with a population that is amenable to following orders has strategic advantages.

This is known as genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Creating a smoke screen that you aren't doing this, together with propaganda efforts to create allies to buy that story, can be sufficient. People will buy almost any lie; there are people who believe the earth is flat, the moon landing is faked, covid 19 vaccines are more dangerous than covid 19, and the holocaust never happened. All utter nonsense, but believed by significant numbers of people.

Simply commit mass murder of civilians who aren't cowed by you, make up nonsense lies about it: that the murder was deserved, and that they killed themselves, and that no murder happened, and that it was a false flag, and that the other side did it already so it isn't that bad. Push those nonsense stories everywhere, and market it well, and you'll get people using some arbitrary subset of your lies as excuses to support you.

It is the simple calculus of Fascism. Get in line, and you can identify with the Fascists. Oppose, and get oppressed or brutally killed.

As horrible as these tactics are, they work; there are many countries that survived this way for decades. The key to them is generally that the wealth of the Fascist state is insufficiently dependent on the people who produce it, so slaughtering them/driving them off/etc doesn't weaken the state enough for it to collapse.

A Fascist state might prefer a conquered people to kneel down and fall in line. But a resource-filled territory full of dead civilians is easier to exploit than the same territory full of malcontents and rebels.

Answer 10

Likely no.

This looks more like a breach of the military discipline and spontaneous act of revenge due lack of the self-control. Deciding from the scale, the breach likely occurred somewhere high in the military hierarchy. Some orders or at least permissions were given to the ordinary soldiers. Still I do not say that the nation who did is not responsible.

Probably none of the fighting sides would have authorized such an action intentionally with cold mind, as well as no any single third country. This does not help to win the actual fighting in any way, just a waste of resources. Digging out the truth will now discredit them below the true Nazi of the WWII, regardless whom. True Nazi were doing punitive actions where they saw them as relevant, but were not permitted by they commanders to shot anyone on sight just for sport.

And finding the truth with evidences is probable, as the scale of the action is too big, there are too many people involved, too many traces left - it will be short work for a competent criminal investigator. Will be seen.

Answer 11

Like in other massacres (such as the one in Srebrenica), the murder victims are (almost?) all men. This is because of the idea that men between 18 and 60 are considered able to fight against the Russian occupation. Therefore, the reasoning is, that by killing all men between 18 and 60, nobody left alive can fight the occupation.

Answer 12

(This answer is speculative and therefore may be completely wrong)

Postulate: a rogue Russian-aligned unit was responsible.

The reason is that there don't seem to be any good strategic reasons for Russia to slaughter Ukrainian civilians. The most obvious reason is to spread terror, but for terror to be effective, you need to do more than kill people in limited fashion. Here's a historical example of what was perhaps the most effective terror campaign in history - the one by the Mongols.

The success of Mongol tactics hinged on fear to induce capitulation of enemy populations ... The linchpin of Mongol success was the widespread perception by their enemies that they were facing an insurmountable juggernaut that could be placated only by surrender. The Mongols may have counted on reports of horrifying massacres and torture to terrify their foes. The goal was to convince all that the costs of surrendering were not nearly onerous enough to risk an unwinnable war, with a guarantee of complete annihilation if they lost.

In other words, for terror to be successful:

1. You need to win. Russia is not winning right now.
2. Your opponents need to know that death awaits them if they resist. Ukraine apparently didn't know about what happened in Bucha until recently.
3. You need to be merciful to the people who surrender. You can kill everyone who resists, but you need to let those who surrender live, to show any would-be resisters that they do have a "better option".

What happened in Bucha seems to fulfil none of these conditions for a successful terror campaign.

The other obvious possibility is genocide. In this scenario, Russia doesn't like the people in Bucha for whatever reason and so are indiscriminately killing them. If this is the case then it begs the question of why the killings apparently happened only in Bucha. Why didn't it happen, for example, in Kherson or Irpin? Only thing I can think of is that these people were transported from other parts of Ukraine to Bucha and executed there, but I don't see why Russia would do that, and in any case I don't see any suggestion that this happened. Instead there are indications that the dead people are from Bucha (e.g. this).

Finally it seems to me that there are predictable negative consequences for Russia if they engage in indiscriminate killing and are discovered, which they inevitably will be if they withdraw from Bucha. You could argue that they don't have anything to lose because Western opinion of Russia is already at rock bottom, but it still seems unnecessary unless there is some advantage to be gained elsewhere.

So I postulate that a rogue Russian-aligned unit was responsible. This also explains why the official Russian line is that the massacre was Ukrainian propaganda - in this scenario the Russian high command did not give such an order, so they do not think it happened. It wouldn't be the first time such an incident has happened in war either. Compare the My Lai massacre from the Vietnam War.

Caveat: as mentioned all this is speculation and may be completely wrong.

Edit: looks like Russians don't believe their countrymen would engage in indiscriminate killing of civilians, which is very similar to how some US politicians reacted to the allegations of a massacre at My Lai.