Talk:List of guards units of Ukraine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Ukraine Portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
List	This article has been rated as list-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces (nations and regions): Russian and Soviet military history task force

[edit] Retention of Soviet honorifics and awards

I think maybe Ukraine is not as independent as it thinks it is--mrg3105mrg3105 01:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. So far as I hear, the SBU hasn't been always acting with Ukraine in mind, more toward the interests of Russia. But that's nothing to do with Ground Forces lineages. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And why is that? Because it didn't chose to disband its army and create a new one?Ceriy (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me you answer your own question. Ukraine had no Army to disband on its creation, so would have had to form a new one, which it did. All officers and NCOs had to swear allegiance to it.--mrg3105mrg3105 03:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and because New Zealand is now independent, we should give up our battle honours from the Boer War? Get real Mrg. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Which New Zealand unit served in the Boer War?--mrg3105mrg3105 03:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The New Zealand Mounted Rifles Buckshot06 (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, even if you claim the battle honours from the A Sqn Kaikoura Mounted Rifle Volunteers Raised 10 Nov. 1898, you till need to prove they were present in the Boer War as a unit. However this [1] source doesn't seem to list any NZ units as such. In fact its an infantry unit that claims the battle honours [2], but I have no idea on what grounds since it states on its site that "Between 1899 and 1902, large numbers of volunteers served in the Anglo-Boer War as mounted riflemen and the battle honour "South Africa" was added to the regimental colours." Since when do volunteers claim battle honours for their units? --mrg3105mrg3105 06:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My army and my government has seen fit to bestow those battle honours; that's good enough for me. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually Ukraine didn't form a new army, they just made every unit stationed on Ukrainian soil part of their army. No units were disbanded or created. The reforms came a few years later and are still ongoing. Ceriy (talk) 04:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly. Same units, continuing histories. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong. All units were disbanded and newly created. At least they were in the Soviet Army which no longer exists. All unit budgets come from Kiyiv, all officers are educated in Ukraine using doctrinal material printed in Ukrainian language, new personnel rolls were started in Ukrainian. Ukrainian is the new language of the Armed Forces. They are for all intents and purposes all new! However, in case of Ukraine we are not dealing with the same circumstances as NZ. There was a complete and utter disassociation, legally, structurally, organisationally and in all other ways except hardware with the former Soviet Union.

I'm sorry Mrg, you know this was not true. On 25 Dec 91 (or 7 May 92) nothing changed at unit level. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hardware was repainted. For example a veteran of the Ukrainian division will only receive a veteran's pension if he or she is a citizen of the Ukraine legally emigrates to Ukraine. There is absolutely no way to link new units with their old identities other then the titles retained by the government of Ukraine. However these titles have been retained selectively. The 24th Mechanised brigade's full name if retained (currently pointing to (Soviet Union) would be 24th Samaro-Ulyanovsk Motor-Rifle Berdychivskaya, Iron, Awards of October Revolution, three times Red Banner, Suvorov's, Bogdan Khmelnitsky brigade. Now that would be interesting, right? :o)--mrg3105mrg3105 06:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason there is a Soviet Army and Russian Army/Ground Forces articles, and and similarly, with other services, but no separate units articles, is that, as Ceriy says and as you well know Mrg, is that no units were disbanded on 25 December 1991 (or 7 May 1992, if you wish). There was no change at unit level. There were changes in Kiev, and in Moscow, and there was outright chaos in the Caucasus, but no units were disbanded - they simply became part of new armies, and even that took time to filter down. The Belarussian Military District was not disbanded until late 1992, for example. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not "well know" this. From a Constitutional POV this is certainly untrue. All officers in RF had to have their ranks reconfirmed under new RF legislations on Military Service. Separate RF legislations were required to transfer former Soviet units into RF service. Separate agreements were signed for transfer of assets to other former republics, but there was no mention of unit transfers. What happens in Belorussia is completely different to Ukraine, again for political reasons. If you suggest that I am mistaken, then you will have to come up with proof. However you may find this difficult given published legislations in RF and Ukraine. However, I am prepared to be educated :o) Where do you get the above dates? The final legislation "on defence" was adopted yet again on my birthday, 31 May 1996 [3] By then all former Soviet Union units were disbanded and reformed within the Russian Federation, which was originally known as the RSFSR within the USSR. This is the sole claim to the Soviet legacy by current units. It is a claim that Ukranian units can not make since Ukraine did not ratify the SNG (Commonwealth of Independent States) treaty (1993) along with Moldavia and Turkmenia. It is also not a member of the Organisation of Agreement for collective Security--mrg3105mrg3105 08:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

25 Dec 91 was Gorbachev's handover of power. 7 May 92 was the formation of the Russian MoD - as you'll see, with the source I inserted, at Russian Ground Forces. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that more research is required for Russian Ground Forces article. However I will not turn to this now, and try to devote more time to the Eastern Front project. In any case, I explicitly disagree that Ukrainian units have any claim to former Soviet units.--mrg3105mrg3105 09:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're disagreeing that Boris Yeltsin did not sign the decree establishing the Russian MoD on 7 May 1992, I have to say you're wrong, and I can cite that from numerous, independent sources, first and nearest being Austin & Muraviev, The Armed Forces of Russia in Asia, Tauris, 2000, p.130, or Baev, The Russian Army in a Time of Troubles, IPRI Oslo, 1996, p.54, 66-7. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Signing a decree and actually getting things done are two different things. The story did not end there, particularly with reference to Ukraine.--mrg3105mrg3105 10:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That's my exact point! There was very little done at unit level that day. All that units heard was that day or two or three days later that something had happened in Moscow. No units were disbanded, no soldiers were discharged, no equipment removed from service. There was virtually total continuity between the Soviet and Russian + everyone else's armies for a long time. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Who told you this? There was an utter chaos. When Ukraine failed to ratify CIS charter everyone had to apply for passports. Of course any Ukrainians did, and some Russians who come from the territories that became Ukraine also did, but everyone else left. Many units became non-combat capable overnight, with barely a few officers left in entire regiments. I was told there was an artillery regiment that had not one officer left after three months. It was commanded by an NCO who was until that time the chief supply NCO for one of the battalions. There were internal attempt by 'cossacks' to take over some units and entire bases. There was even one group who wanted to restore all the pre-Revolution nationalist units. No equipment could be move in most cases because there were insufficient crews. The draw-downs of the many units even now reflect this. Its not possible to replace so many specialists so quickly, and most people 'in the know' even then agreed it would take a generation, thats 20 years. Even now there are not enough officer applications in the surviving military institutes. However, this is academic. Just because the equipment stayed in the same place does not mean the unit still exists. Consider the French Revolution. Men clung to old uniforms for years until they fell apart during the campaign, but they eventually forgot all about the Royal Army. Something similar has happened in Ukraine, except instead of the uniforms it is the old titles that 'hang' off the shoulders of the 'units'. There is absolutely nothing that binds the service personnel to these titles, above all the swearing of allegiances. By not ratifying the CIS declaration the Ukrainian armed forces are now completely outside of the post-Soviet Defence agreements and nothing links them to the Soviet Era. Units are not just 'created' you know. They are authorised by the various means of the governing power, in this case the Ukrainian Rada. The Rada has no authority to reconstitute units created under the authority of the Soviet Union. There is really nothing else to say in the matter. If you doubt this, ask any German serving in the Bundeswehr units with numerals that have same numeration to those in Wehrmacht or the old Imperial Army. I think this is the last comment I will make. Anyone can convince themselves anything if they persist long enough.--mrg3105mrg3105 12:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)