• masquenox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “forcibly conscripted men”

      Conscription isn’t voluntary… that’s the whole point of conscription.

      • AnarchoDakosaurus@toast.ooo
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        For sure, conscription in of itself is criminal but like the USA during Vietnam, poor people,ethnic minorities and developmentally disabled men are disproportionately grabbed off the streets and litteraly forced into service.

        The men in Moscow and St Petersburg seem to still have avoided such issiues this deep into the war.

        Maybe conscription is the wrong word to use, and more like state sponsored cleansing of " undesirables." Certainly helped the state reduce spending on male prison populations…

        • masquenox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Conscription is always a horrible thing… but conscription in Russia is batshit insane. I read Arkady Babchenko’s account of it (he was conscripted into the 1st Chechen War, and essentially a mercenary during the second one) and it’s as bad as you can imagine - recruits in USMC bootcamp don’t know how luxurious their lives are in comparison. It’s a carnival of corruption, extortion and unrestricted abuse - and that’s just the basic training.

          After reading that, I was no longer surprised at the Russian military’s failure in Ukraine - I’d say the Russian military is in as bad a state now than they were during the ill-advised invasion of Finland in 1939.

          • rammer@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I beg to differ. Finland has conscription. And it is the backbone of Finnish defence. People here willingly perform their mandatory military service. You can get out of it if you want to*. But most don’t. People trust that they won’t end up in wars of conquest. It’s in our constitution.

            Now with NATO there is an ongoing discussion about whether reservists can be sent out on NATO operations. It’ll probably end up with calling for volunteers and then using reservists if there aren’t enough volunteers.

            Conscription is a necessity for us. And we’ve done it “right” IMHO.

            *) You can perform “civil service” just by asking. But you can go to jail if you don’t want to do even that. Or wear an ankle monitor for a while.

            • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Mandatory service doesn’t create modern soldiers. The reason the US is the best (besides money) is because they’ve had a professional military since WW2.

              All commissioned officers go to college and many enlisted careers are decades long. Even the technology and logistics people have experience. This extra knowledge allows the US Military to do things others can’t. All the pioneering astronauts were fighter pilots with years of experience.

              Anyone can fire a gun but that’s easy. It takes experience to do all the hard logistics and tactical work. Pay real soldiers instead of forcing kids to work.

              • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The US doesn’t border a hostile nation 30 times it’s size. Finland has two options, either spending an inordinate amount of money maintaining a massive standing army, or having a smaller professional cadre that can be filled with conscripts.

                Obviously they went for option B, leaving them room for things like a working social safety net, universal healthcare, etc.

              • masquenox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The reason the US is the best

                Is that why the US couldn’t defeat the Taliban? Because they’re the best?

                This extra knowledge allows the US Military to do things others can’t.

                You mean… like being defeated by the Taliban?

              • ours@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Mandatory service doesn’t exclude a professional military.

                It’s a hot topic now but politics aside, Israel famously has mandatory service for both men and women. That doesn’t mean they don’t have a core of professionals under contract.

                Switzerland also has mandatory service but they have a core of professionals. Officers at a certain level have to be professionals and fighter pilots can’t just train a few weeks a year.

                Shooting a gun is easy but keeping a large conscript army with a good level of marksmanship isn’t. Hence Switzerland has its conscripts regularly trained in shooting on top of their regular military training. Plus a whole culture of facilitating the sport of shooting with tiny villages having shooting ranges, many competitions, and shooting clubs.

          • halva@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            arkady babchenko

            you’ve found quite possibly the worst source of information on the russian army besides the russian government

            • masquenox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t really see anyone challenging his accounts of his experiences during the 1st and 2nd Chechen Wars - you want to provide some?

    • baldingpudenda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wasn’t there an article recently where they told them not to report the crime from vets? Since they did they tour instead of full time in prison, all those model citizens are home. I guess a bullet is cheap solution to that problem.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    There’s a Stanley Kubrick movie about this that takes place in WWI called Paths of Glory. It’s really haunting.

    Russia’s morality is back in the 1910s.

    • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You don’t even have to go that far back.

      Enemy at the gates, Both movie (2001) and book (1973), give a graphic depiction of Stalin’s Not a step back command, Order No. 227, where soldiers were shot for refusing orders to die where they stand and not retreat in WW2.

      There was no arrest, trail and formal execution as seen in Paths of Glory. The troops had the choice to be shot by the Germans in front of them or by the USSR Political Officers behind them.

      • deranger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Enemy at the Gates is a decent flick, but it’s pretty inaccurate. I wouldn’t be citing it as a source on what actually happened on the eastern front.

        • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I was replying to a comet about a movie, so I replied with one. I also linked order 227, which is accurate.

          If you have a link that you feel is more accurate please post it.

          • deranger@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’m not disputing the content of order 227, I’m disputing the historical accuracy of the film. Yes, they did have supply issues, penal battalions, and blocking units in the Soviet army, but not like it was depicted in the film.

            All in all, the most likely way that a soldier or officer would interact with a barrier troop was not through being cut down by a Maxim, but through arrest and drumhead court martial. Especially in the case of the NKVD detachments, they wouldn’t be set up right at the line of battle, but some ways to the rear, where they would apprehend retreaters, run a quick show “trial”, execute a few to make an example, and sentence considerably more to serve time in a penal unit.

            https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3pcjfv/comment/cw54qf3/?context=3

      • masquenox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Enemy At The Gates is utter propagandistic and asinine bullcrap - you’ll get more historical accuracy from Mel Gibson’s crappy “historical” movies than that one.

        Order No. 227 mostly only applied to high-level officers - in reality, the vast majority of retreating soldiers caught by barrier troops were merely returned to their units. There are records of these things - no matter what western historians assume.

        • nevemsenki@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You say there are records, but even right now Russia is intentionally keeping a lot of its dead soldiers go unrecorded (ie MIA instead of KIA) just so they can keep payouts lower and more easily downplay losses. Doesn’t mean the same happened in WW2, but how do we know it didn’t either?

          • masquenox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s really simple… it’s difficult to keep things secret when an entire country is suddenly involved in a war that’s literally on it’s doorstep. It’s the same reason so many people in the US still don’t have the foggiest clue what the US actually did in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia - it’s much easier to keep secrets when the war is happening somewhere else. So yes… despite what western historians will have you believe, the Soviet Union of 1942 did have typewriters - lots and lots of them, as well as people to operate them. The massive losses the USSR suffered couldn’t be kept a secret - by 1942, the Soviet Union was literally filled with millions of first-hand witnesses. Stalin also didn’t have to lie to keep people in the Soviet Union fighting - the true nature of the genocidal Nazi colonialist program (Operation Barbarossa was no mere military operation) was pretty damn self-evident by that stage, too. If you read actual accounts of people who witnessed it all you get a far better understanding of it than the hot garbage alt-history Enemy At The Gates is based on - I recommend The Unwomanly Face of War.

            • Gnothi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              it’s difficult to keep things secret when an entire country is suddenly involved in a war that’s literally on it’s doorstep

              This description applies to the war with Ukraine as well. Weird that you think this is a point in your favor.

              • masquenox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                This description applies to the war with Ukraine as well.

                No, it doesn’t. It’s a war somewhere else. You think the German populace knew what was really going on in Poland? You think South Africans really knew what was going on in Angola and Mozambique? How many USians do you know that is very clued up on how the (so-called) “War On Drugs” is playing out in Mexico?

                Please think before you post.

                • Gnothi@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If you don’t think Ukraine is on Russia’s doorstep I suggest you brush up on your geography.

      • Albbi@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The original Call of Duty (2003) featured a level about the battle of Stalingrad where you’re given a rifle but no ammo to start the level. That has always stuck with me.

    • Rose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Has Russia’s morality ever been above that? Apart from some minor glitches in the system seen as chaotic, its history goes from one dictator to another.

    • cmbabul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Hot take that’s his best film. Not that the rest aren’t great(Barry Lyndon aside)

  • Melllvar@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    “We also have information that Russian commanders are threatening to execute entire units if they seek to retreat from Ukrainian artillery fire,” Kirby said.

    Threatening hundreds of armed men doesn’t seem like a smart thing for a commander to do.

    • randon31415@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Threatening hundreds of armed men doesn’t seem like a smart thing for a commander to do.

      Well, good thing they are not armed!

    • Spaghetti_Hitchens@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is utterly asinine. The only way to survive artillery when you’re spotted is to run somewhere. The king of battle will zero in and wipe out everyone otherwise.

    • masquenox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Threatening hundreds of armed men doesn’t seem like a smart thing for a commander to do.

      They tried that in 1917, too - it most definitely wasn’t a smart thing to do.

    • SARGEx117@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I distinctly remember a few Russian commanding officers this past year and a half that tried to push a group of armed men into doing something they didn’t want.

      it did not go well for them.

  • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Even as utterly self-owning as this is, I for one greatly appreciate Russia’s generosity in saving Ukrainian time, ammo, and lives by executing their own soldiers, even if it is for the most stupid, ridiculous, inhuman and useless of reasons.

    It would have been better for all if lil taterhead Putin had not started the war at all, but inasmuch as he has and no one involved can possibly escape it because he refuses to budge, it’s far better he shoots his own soldiers than leaving it to Ukraine.

    If nothing else, this proves to the Russian soldiers still living and watching that there IS ammo, it just won’t be given to them to protect themselves on the battlefield. I sincerely hope they remember who did this shooting if/when they finally do get some ammo for themselves, and aim in that general direction first. Слава Україні!

    • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There has already been the mutiny of the Wagner mercs, I wounder how far away it is for the army proper.

          • ours@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Eh, Putin has to go but being replaced by a group of actual nazis who seem to know how to actually fight wasn’t great either.

            I was all for a “let them fight!” situation and Ukraine certainly could have benefited short-term from the distraction but the outcome was very unclear.

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not defending Russia, but I believe most militaries have rules on the books saying that field executions for disobeying orders are a necessary part of war.

    So the big story here is that Russia is exercising those laws whereas most countries don’t, but on the other hand most countries don’t get involved in land wars in Eastern Europe either…

    • Syndic@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Not defending Russia, but I believe most militaries have rules on the books saying that field executions for disobeying orders are a necessary part of war.

      The last time western powers seriously used this was WW1. WW1 was quite famous and hated exactly because of the flippant use of executions of soldiers who weren’t willing or able to follow horrific orders. After that you’ll find a hard time to find examples. Especially after WW2. I certainly haven’t heard of a single US soldier for example who was executed in the field in Iraq or Afghanistan nor any death penalty even when found guilty of serious charges against them like Abu Ghraib.

      So yeah, no. Russia isn’t just doing what every other military is doing as well.

    • Dremor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      In the past, maybe. In the modern world I doubt it. But from Russia I’m not surprised, they have a habit of disregarding life for quite a long time.

  • Sheev@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Treason against the Empire cannot be tolerated, and the swift execution of those found guilty upholds the rule of law and maintains the strength of our Galactic Empire.

  • Cylusthevirus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Here’s the bit that chills me:

    Representatives from the Kremlin, the Russian defense ministry, and the Russian embassy to the United States did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the issue.

    If they’re not denying it immediately that says they think there’s some utility in not doing so.

    • HumbertTetere@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      The utility is sufficiently explained by the fact that diligently denying things creates the impression that not denying things means that it’s true.

      • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Also Russia denying it immediately would make me think it’s definitely true. Then again, I’ve seen barrier troops shooting their own guys so I believe this anyway.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    WWII all over again.

    Put up Barrier troops, kill those that desert or retreat. Russia really hasn’t changed much. Just throw everyone at the enemy, poorly equip them, and kill or jail the ones that try to escape.

    • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The pop culture myth of Soviets killing anyone who retreated is potentially based on a few real incidents of it, but the barrier troops were formally there to detain/arrest and most of them were sent back to active duty. It wouldn’t necessarily have been for “retreating” either but for abandoning your unit, a unit could very well engage in a “retreat.” There’s also conflation between motivating propaganda saying things like “no retreat!” and supposed “no retreat laws.” None of this is really unique to the Soviets or Russia either.

  • rengoku2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    How do they maintain morale for the remaining troops if they execute their own?

    And how would they recruite fresh ones if this will be the possible fate of the troops?

    • Mago@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      They forcibly recurit people. Thats why so many young russian men left the country since the invasion.

    • ours@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      They can’t build morale so they use fear. I have a suspicion it mustn’t be as effective.

    • Syndic@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      How do they maintain morale for the remaining troops if they execute their own?

      They don’t care about morale. They rule their troop with brutal means.

      And how would they recruite fresh ones if this will be the possible fate of the troops?

      Through forced conscription.

  • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Russians have shot their own soldiers for retreating in the past in Ukraine. Now they shoot them for refusing orders. Not a good sign for them.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    WASHINGTON, Oct 26 (Reuters) - The United States has information that the Russian military is executing soldiers who do not follow orders related to the war with Ukraine, the White House said on Thursday.

    “We have information that the Russian military has been actually executing soldiers who refuse to follow orders,” White House spokesperson John Kirby told reporters.

    “We also have information that Russian commanders are threatening to execute entire units if they seek to retreat from Ukrainian artillery fire,” Kirby said.

    The United States has strongly condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and is providing aid to Kiev.

    Kirby said Russia’s mobilized forces were undertrained, underequipped, and unprepared for combat.

    He said the military was using “human wave tactics” by throwing groups of poorly trained soldiers into the fight.


    The original article contains 216 words, the summary contains 129 words. Saved 40%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!