Archives

ARCHIVES

The BCFA Archive dates back to February 2022. Our archives allow members to study information preceding the most recent reports in order to gain full understanding regardless of their current familiarity with the topic of interest.

Ukraine Defense Ministry: 470 Russian troops killed in 24 hours

The total combat losses of the enemy from 24.02.22 to 31.05.23 were approximately:personnel ‒ about 207910 (+470) persons were liquidated, tanks ‒ 3802 (+0), APV ‒ 7472 (+3), artillery systems – 3460 (+15), MLRS – 575 (+0), Anti-aircraft warfare systems ‒ 333 (+1),aircraft – 313 (+0), helicopters – 298 (+0), UAV operational-tactical level – 3124 (+32),cruise missiles

Read More »

Russian Defense Ministry: up to 535 Ukraine troops killed in 24 hours

On May 29, as a result of a high-precision strike launched by the Russian Aerospace Forces against a military berth in the port of Odessa, the last of the Ukrainian warships, Yuri Olefirenko, was destroyed.  ️ In Kupyansk direction, assault detachments, Operational-Tactical aviation, artillery, and heavy flamethrower systems of the

Read More »

Ukraine General Staff:410 Russian troops killed in 24 hours

The total combat losses of the enemy from 24.02.2022 to 30.05.2023 were approximately: personnel ‒ about 207440 (+410) persons,  tanks ‒ 3802 (+1),  APV ‒ 7469 (+2),  artillery systems – 3445 (+10),  MLRS – 575,  Anti-aircraft warfare systems ‒ 332 (+1), aircraft – 313,  helicopters – 298,  UAV operational-tactical level

Read More »

Russian Ministry of Defense: 340 Ukrainian troops killed in 24 hours

During the day, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation carried out group strikes using long-range precision air-based weapons against central decision-making points where terrorist attacks against Russian territory were being planned under the guidance of Western intelligence experts. All the assigned targets have been engaged. ️ In Kupyansk direction,

Read More »

Ukraine General Staff: 430 Russian troops killed in 24 hours

The total combat losses of the enemy from 24.02.2022 to 29.05.2023 were approximately: personnel ‒ about 207030 (+430) persons,  tanks ‒ 3801 (+4),  APV ‒ 7467 (+11),  artillery systems – 3435 (+10),  MLRS – 575 (+1),  Anti-aircraft warfare systems ‒ 331 (+2), aircraft – 313,  helicopters – 298,  UAV operational-tactical

Read More »

Institute for the Study of War: Russia stages biggest drone strike of the war — but only one of the 59 Iranian built drones gets through

Russian forces conducted the largest Shahed drone strike against Ukraine since the start of the war overnight on May 27-28. The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Russian forces launched 59 Shahed-131/136 drones, of which Ukrainian forces shot down 58.[1] Ukrainian Air Force Spokesperson Colonel Yuriy Ihnat characterized this strike as the

Read More »

May 31, 2023

Institute for the Study of War: Russian military orders Chechen forces into combat

Institute for the Study of War

The Russian military command has likely ordered Chechen Republic Head Ramzan Kadyrov’s forces to begin offensive operations in Ukraine following the withdrawal of Wagner Group forces from Bakhmut. Kadyrov claimed on May 31 that Chechen forces received a new order and assumed responsibility over the Donetsk Oblast frontline. Kadyrov claimed that Chechen units need to start “active combat activities” and “liberate a series of settlements.” Kadyrov added that Chechen “Akhmat” Special Forces (Spetsnaz) and the “Sever-Akhmat” Special Purpose Regiment transferred to the Marinka direction southwest of Donetsk City. The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) also claimed that assault detachments of the 5th Separate Motorized Rifle Brigade of the 1st Army Corps and Akhmat Spetsnaz conducted offensive operations in the Marinka direction. Kadyrov noted that the Russian military command ordered Russian, Rosgvardia (Russian National Guard), and Chechen Akhmat forces to begin offensive actions along the front line in Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts as well. Kadyrov claimed that these units have already begun tactical preparations for these offensive actions and claimed that “Akhmat” units’ offensive operations began before Ukrainian forces launched a counteroffensive. ISW has observed no indications of Chechen offensive operations in Zaporizhia or Kherson as of this writing.

The claimed return of Chechen forces to offensive operations would break Kadyrovites from a nearly yearlong hiatus from participating in high-intensity combat operations. Chechen forces have been largely operating in the rear after participating in the battles for Mariupol, Severodonetsk, and Lysychansk – with the exception of some offensive activities around Bilohorivka, Luhansk Oblast. ISW also observed Kadyrov’s forces operating as a police force in the rear in southern Ukraine and performing localized reconnaissance-in-force operations in Zaporizhia Oblast. Kadyrov also claimed that 3,300 personnel of the “Sever-Akhmat” Regiment were in Chechnya as of May 8, and ISW assessed that Kadyrov may have been conserving his forces instead sending them to the frontlines. Chechen units’ limited participation on the frontlines alongside Kadyrov’s heavy emphasis on recruitment may suggest that Kadyrov is hesitant to commit his forces to grinding offensive operations in Ukraine despite his ultranationalist narratives.

The official Russian responses to recent attacks against Russia remain likely insufficient to satisfy the Russian ultranationalist information space’s desire for escalation in the war. Belgorod Oblast Governor Vyacheslav Gladkov called on Russian forces on May 29 to capture Kharkiv City and Kharkiv Oblast to create a barrier between Belgorod Oblast and Ukraine. Gladkov later announced on May 31 the evacuation of children from the border areas of Shebekino and Grayvoron raions — including 300 children relocated to Voronezh Oblast — in response to the “deteriorating” border situation. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov refused to comment on Gladkov’s statements on May 29, igniting some ire in the Russian information space. Former Russian officer and ardent nationalist Igor Girkin criticized Peskov, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu for their reluctance to address attacks against Russian territory. Russian milbloggers have complained about the lack of Russian military escalation to secure border areas in Belgorod and Kursk oblasts since at least September 2022, often criticizing the Kremlin for underreacting to attacks against Russian territory and failing to fully dedicate itself to the war effort. The evacuations and Peskov’s comments are largely consistent with Putin’s unwillingness and inability to meaningfully escalate the war short of full-scale general and economic mobilization, as ISW has previously assessed.

Key Takeaways:

  • The Russian military command has likely ordered Chechen Republic Head Ramzan Kadyrov’s forces to begin offensive operations in Ukraine following the withdrawal of Wagner Group forces from Bakhmut.
  • The claimed return of Chechen forces to offensive operations would break Kadyrovites from a nearly yearlong hiatus from participating in high-intensity combat operations.
  • The Kremlin may be attempting to reintroduce Kadyrovites as the main offensive force following the culmination of Wagner forces and their withdrawal from the front lines.
  • The Kremlin may also be attempting to sever Kadyrov’s relationship with Wagner financier Yevgeny Prigozhin and re-emphasize federal authority over Chechen forces.
  • The official Russian responses to recent attacks against Russia remain likely insufficient to satisfy the Russian ultranationalist information space’s desire for escalation in the war.
  • Russian forces conducted ground attacks northwest of Svatove and south of Kreminna.
  • Russian forces conducted limited ground attacks around Bakhmut and along the Avdiivka-Donetsk City line.
  • Russian forces continue to concentrate in southern Ukraine.
  • The Russian State Duma appears to be considering measures to legalize the military recruitment of current or formerly incarcerated Russian men.
  • Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada Human Rights Commissioner Dmytro Lyubinets announced that Ukraine has a new avenue to repatriate Ukrainian children abducted to Russia.
Share the Post:

Wilson Center

Forced displacement represents one of the most pressing humanitarian issues of our time. Individuals and families, torn from the fabric of their communities, find themselves navigating a world of uncertainty, often without basic necessities or a clear path to safety. There are currently some 110 million forced displaced, and this number is growing by 10 million each year!

At the heart of this crisis are the political triggers. Armed conflicts, ethnic or religious persecutions, and systemic human rights abuses force millions to flee their homes in terror. Many are displaced within their own national boundaries, while others seek asylum abroad. If these factors change as a result of political shifts at home or the pressures from abroad, they can return to their homes. Forced displacement is thus different from environmentally driven displacement, as victims of climate change may never be able to return to their homes.

The ramifications of any sort of displacement are profound, not just for those directly affected, but also for host communities and countries. Overburdened infrastructures, socio-economic strains, and cultural tensions can arise, necessitating comprehensive strategies to foster harmony and integration. Yet the root causes of forced displacement can be remedied with a concerted focus by local players and international diplomacy.

Organizations like Refugees International play a crucial role in this arena, advocating for the rights and needs of the displaced, conducting on-the-ground assessments, and influencing policymakers to take informed actions. Their relentless work underscores the gravity of the situation and the urgency ofinternational cooperation. But they, too, are overwhelmed by the rapid expansion of the crisis.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with its core principles centered on the protection of civilians during conflicts, plays a pivotal role in this discourse. Yet, despite clear legal frameworks, compliance remains
inconsistent. This initiative emphasizes the importance of upholding and reinforcing these international standards.

It’s not just about recognizing the problem; it’s about active engagement. We urge governments, organizations, and individuals to prioritize the rights and needs of the forced displaced. Through collective efforts, informed policies, and sustained advocacy, we can shift the narrative from passive acknowledgment to proactive intervention.