https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/white-house-russia-is-executing-soldiers-who-refuse-follow-orders-2023-10-26/
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.
“forcibly conscripted men”
Conscription isn't voluntary... that's the whole point of conscription.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
If you don't think Ukraine is on Russia's doorstep I suggest you brush up on your geography.
Ohhh, Braveheart VS Enemy at the Gates.
Sounds like a drinking game where everybody dies..
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.
Yeah they gave em a clip and an order to follow someone with a rifle and pick it up when they inevitably get shot.
That's why you shouldn't rely on crappy war-crime training simulators for your history knowledge.
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.
Before the Mongols married into Moscow royalty. That's how far back you would have to go.
"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.
Threatening hundreds of armed men doesn’t seem like a smart thing for a commander to do.
Well, good thing they are not armed!
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.
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.
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.
Wouldn't be the first time. The soviets already did that in ww2, so there is a precedent for it.
Looks like my original source was antony beevors book 'stalingrad', but the wikipedia page on decimation has a lot of discussion about the veracity of it, and it no longer appears on the main page
Ah, yeah, that makes sense. Beevor seems willing to take at face value quite a lot of stories that kinda, let's say, strain credulity.
There has already been the mutiny of the Wagner mercs, I wounder how far away it is for the army proper.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
The laws are still there
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_the_United_States_military
Desertion, willful disobedience. Both capital crimes in the military
Yes but at least you will get a trial and not just "go to die at the front or be executed right now"
Yes. The last person that the United States executed for desertion, Eddie Slovik in 1945, was tried in a military court, found guilty, and executed.
I assume that Russia would have rules for the same. Whether they are followed is the question.
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.
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.
The utility is sufficiently explained by the fact that diligently denying things creates the impression that not denying things means that it's true.
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.
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.
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.
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?
They forcibly recurit people. Thats why so many young russian men left the country since the invasion.
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.
Yeah, they won’t surrender, just saying they could. Like the Russian soldier who flew a helicopter into Ukraine to surrender.
They do have a choice.
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.
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!