Ukraine: Blind infantry fire and tactical retreat

Blind fire in infantry: 99.99% of bullets never see the enemy

A squad fires bursts at an unseen enemy and, when the exchange intensifies, withdraws in a straight line while continuing to shoot. The scene, recorded on the Ukrainian front, reopens the eternal discussion: are these men fighting or wasting ammunition? The uncomfortable answer is that it is almost always the former. In light infantry, fire is nearly always directed blindly, contrary to what war movies have taught us.

What the video shows: reconnaissance, a tank, and breaking contact

Context changes the interpretation. The soldiers were conducting reconnaissance missions searching for an enemy trench system. Upon attempting to assault a position, they encountered much tougher resistance than expected: there was a tank. From then on, what is seen is not improvisation but a coordinated maneuver: some fire to suppress enemy response while another teammate rotates position. The goal of suppression fire is not accuracy, but ensuring the moving soldier does not get shot in the back.

The criticism always hits the same point: if no one sees the enemy, what are they shooting at? At probable positions, those guessed by noise and trajectories. This is the mechanics of reconnaissance by fire: those who shoot heavily do not seek to hit the target, but to force the adversary to take cover and compel them to move.

Why 99.99% of ammunition misses

The figure circulating in the debate is almost a joke: in all wars, practically all light infantry ammunition is expended without ever seeing the enemy. The exact number —99.9999999999999999%— is an exaggeration, but points to something real: infantry does not fight against silhouettes at forty meters, but against bushes, shadows, and noise.

From this arise two opposing schools of thought. One argues that shooting without a confirmed target is just noise and nervousness, revealing the position more than protecting it; that well-aimed fire, falling close, is the only thing that truly terrifies. The other responds that, during a break-contact procedure, the objective is not to kill but to exit, and that anyone firing toward the enemy is buying seconds for their unit.

Why do they retreat in a straight line and not flank?

This is the most repeated objection. If you retreat straight back into empty space, you become a target fleeing in a file. Why not break sideways? Flanking sounds good on paper, but requires knowing what is on the sides. And here, no one knows: there could be two men or two entire companies.

When the enemy is 150 or 200 meters away, any lateral movement crosses uncovered terrain. Bounding overwatch withdrawal —some shoot, others run, swapping roles— is the least bad way to disengage from fixing fire. Flanking theory is learned in manuals; terrain geometry is learned through scares.

Thermal imaging, drones, and the myth of visible combat

The great modern equalizer appears: the thermal camera. Armies need ranges above 300 meters, and a military thermal scope (lighter, more durable, and with better battery life than civilian ones) costs between 1,000 and 4,600 dollars per unit. Multiply this by mass mobilization and it becomes clear why not everyone has one.

Infrared emitters add another layer of confusion: some believe they are invisible, which is not entirely true, as they can be detected via another IR receiver, even a lower-power one. The terrain becomes a board where some see and others are seen. But the eye that, according to observers trinc these fronts, truly reveals the enemy horizontally is not human: it is the drone.

From alleged staging to hoaxes

Like any war video, this one has generated its harvest of legends. Versions circulate claiming it was filmed in a laboratory, that the soldiers are holographic recreations or even rubber dolls, and some consider the dust rising at the feet of those retreating suspicious. None of these claims are backed by any evidence and all are repeated without verification.

The underlying question also looms: who is fighting? Some argue that the current war is primarily fought by private military companies and foreign militias on both sides, rather than national armies. It is a thesis often repeated but rarely proven.

Comparison with Syria and Afghanistan

Those who trinc the wars in Syria or Afghanistan recognize the pattern: suppression fire, medium-range positions, and when things go wrong, radio calls for support. On those fronts, the side with air superiority resolved exchanges with an aviation pass or an artillery barrage on the zone. In Ukraine, that capability is more evenly distributed between the two sides, and this difference explains why pogre occurs in one sector while retreat happens in the next.

In the end, the scene remains where it started: some see a textbook maneuver, others see four men wasting ammunition into the air. No one has yet managed to decide which of the two it is. Meanwhile, the video continues to accumulate views as if it were a trailer for a video game.