Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Artillery as a reflex: how "Azov" methodically breaks down the combat capability of occupiers

First Deputy Commander of the 12th Special Purpose Brigade "Azov" Lev Pashko described the tactics of continuous fire pressure, which, according to him, develops a conditioned reflex in Russian soldiers and has already yielded concrete results: 24 prisoners captured in a single day with no losses on their side.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

April 8, 2026 · 2 min read

Artillery as a reflex: how "Azov" methodically breaks down the combat capability of occupiers
Російські військовополонені (Фото: 43 бригада)

Lieutenant Colonel Lev Pashko — Hero of Ukraine, veteran of the defense of Mariupol, currently commander of a battalion of the 12th Special Purpose Brigade "Azov" of the National Guard — described an approach to fire pressure that the brigade applies systematically. The essence is not in a single strike, but in the rhythm.

"I tell officers: train the Russians. Artillery must work from morning to evening so they are trained: as soon as there's movement — open fire. This breaks them methodically".

Lev Pashko, first deputy commander of the 12th "Azov" Brigade of the National Guard, for LIGA.net analysis

The word "training" here is not a metaphor for rhetorical effect — it is a description of a specific behavioral mechanism. Constant fire response to any movement develops a conditioned reflex in a soldier: immobility becomes the only survival strategy. A unit that does not move, does not attack, does not rotate and does not resupply — is withdrawn from combat without direct assault.

Results That Can Be Measured

In "Azov," they cite a specific episode: thanks to the method of continuous fire pressure, brigade fighters captured 24 Russian servicemen in one day — with no losses on their side. Details regarding direction and date are not disclosed in the public version for operational security reasons. Previously, the brigade publicly reported taking prisoners on the Kreminna direction, where cases were recorded when occupiers surrendered after coming under fire from their own artillery.

In parallel — and this is an important tactical context — the commander of the drone group of the same brigade noted: the time from target detection by reconnaissance drone to FPV strike today is between 30 to 90 seconds. Artillery and drones mutually reinforce each other in this system: artillery forbids movement, drones prevent evacuation and rotation.

Why This Is Not Simply "Psychological Pressure"

The psychological effect here is derivative of the tactical effect, not the other way around. A soldier conditioned for months not to move at the sound of gunfire loses initiative — and this directly affects the unit's ability to perform offensive tasks. That is why Pashko speaks of "breaking" — not emotional, but functional.

At the same time, the effectiveness of the method depends on one critical resource: continuous supply of artillery ammunition. "From morning to evening" — this is not rhetoric, but a logistics requirement. If the rate of fire drops, the conditioned reflex begins to fade.

If the pace of 155-mm shell supplies from allies in the second half of 2025 remains at the level of the first half — will "Azov" have enough ammunition to maintain this rhythm across the entire brigade's area of responsibility?

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026