By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Russian Navy newspaper warned that relatives of Russian soldiers are inadvertently aiding Ukraine by sharing their loved ones’ locations online, leading to precision strikes. This information is reportedly compiled by Ukrainian intelligence and used to target Russian troops and training grounds. The warning, promoted by pro-war blogger Anastasia Kashevarova, calls for the prosecution of these women. The article notes Kashevarova’s ties to Russian militant groups and Ramzan Kadyrov, highlighting the context of this alarming message within a pro-war media landscape.
Read the original article here
Mothers and wives must take part of the blame for the significant losses suffered by the Russian military in Ukraine, according to a recent argument put forth by a Russian military newspaper. This assertion places the onus of responsibility not on military leadership, strategic failures, or the effectiveness of Ukrainian forces, but squarely on the shoulders of those at home.
The argument suggests that seemingly innocent conversations between wives and mothers and their loved ones serving in the conflict are inadvertently providing crucial intelligence to the enemy. This information, it is claimed, is then used to pinpoint the locations of Russian troops, leading to devastatingly accurate strikes.
Such an accusation, however, raises several critical questions. The sheer vastness of the Ukrainian battlefield makes it highly improbable that casual conversations could consistently offer the pinpoint accuracy needed for such targeted attacks. While soldiers might mention their general area of operation, the level of detail necessary to guide precision strikes would seem far beyond the scope of everyday communication.
Furthermore, the claim directly contradicts the reality of modern warfare, which depends on sophisticated intelligence gathering and analysis, not casual remarks from loved ones. Even in an age of pervasive technology and social media, it strains credibility to suggest that pinpoint accuracy of battlefield strikes is solely dependent upon informal communications.
The argument’s core seems to be a blatant attempt to shift blame away from the failings of the Russian military command and the overall strategic decisions that have led to heavy casualties. By focusing the blame on women at home, the narrative conveniently avoids acknowledging any shortcomings within the military structure itself, whether that be leadership, supply chain problems, or inadequate training.
This strategy reflects a deeper societal issue: the blatant attempt to manipulate public opinion and deflect responsibility for the ongoing failures in the war. It echoes historical patterns of blame-shifting, prioritizing political expediency over honest assessment and accountability.
The suggestion that mothers and wives should have somehow “tried harder” to give birth to “bulletproof” sons is not just insensitive; it’s profoundly dehumanizing. It reduces individuals to mere instruments of war, ignoring the complex emotions and human toll inflicted by the conflict. The focus is entirely on the military outcome, disregarding the suffering of those directly affected.
The assertion feels less like a genuine security concern and more like a desperate attempt at gaslighting, a tactic intended to instill fear and guilt while absolving the real perpetrators of the war’s devastating consequences. It aims to silence dissent by pinning the blame on a vulnerable group, effectively suppressing any potential criticism directed towards the government.
The very absurdity of the argument speaks volumes about the current state of the Russian narrative. The focus on mothers and wives as the primary cause of military losses represents a stunningly inaccurate, and frankly, offensive distortion of reality. It reveals a culture struggling to accept responsibility, a culture that would rather place the blame on its citizens than confront the issues within its own leadership and military strategies.
The situation mirrors a broader trend: a system that consistently seeks to externalize blame rather than engage in self-reflection and accountability. The sheer number of those voicing dissent and outrage reveals just how poorly this strategy is likely to resonate within Russian society.
Ultimately, this approach risks creating a climate of fear and distrust, potentially further undermining morale and potentially sparking unrest as the Russian populace grapples with the sheer absurdity of the accusation. The attempt to shift blame to mothers and wives is not only ineffective but actively harmful, exacerbating the existing tensions within the nation. The article’s core premise demonstrates a disturbingly reckless disregard for truth and the human cost of war.