By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A new investigation by Verstka reveals a disturbing pattern of internal violence within the Russian army, with evidence of commanders executing or deliberately sending soldiers to their deaths. The outlet documented 101 servicemen accused of murdering, torturing, or fatally punishing their own comrades, with at least 150 confirmed deaths and the true number believed to be higher. Methods used to enforce obedience include “execution shooters,” drone strikes on retreating soldiers, torture, and forced gladiator-style battles. Despite nearly 29,000 complaints received by the military prosecutor’s office, few, if any, perpetrators have been held accountable due to an informal ban on investigating cases against commanders in combat zones, resulting in widespread impunity.
Read the original article here
Russian army chiefs torturing and executing soldiers who refuse to fight in Ukraine, report says, paints a grim picture, doesn’t it? It’s a reality that’s hard to ignore, especially when reports and, disturbingly, even videos surface depicting such brutal acts. The very suggestion of such tactics evokes a visceral reaction, one of both shock and revulsion. It’s a stark reminder of the horrors that can unfold during war, particularly when combined with a disregard for human life.
This practice, shockingly, might not be entirely new. There are whispers of a “tradition” within the Russian military, something often referred to as a “reign of the old man.” This phrase alone suggests a system where those in power wield absolute authority and treat subordinates with callous disregard. Accounts from decades ago, detailing the torture of recruits, reinforce this tragic pattern. One has to wonder how such brutality can possibly inspire loyalty or effective fighting, and how any semblance of morale can possibly be maintained.
It’s natural to question how such tactics can be effective. If the only way to compel soldiers to fight is through terror, what are they truly fighting for? Isn’t it a sign of weakness, a desperate measure to hold onto power when everything else has failed? The alternative, as suggested, in most civilized societies, is a court martial and a period of imprisonment. The stark contrast between this and the alleged Russian methods, involving torture and execution, underscores the depths of this disturbing reality.
The consequences of such actions are profound, extending far beyond the immediate victims. It’s easy to see how this can become a self-perpetuating cycle of fear and violence. The ripple effects are significant, creating a climate of mistrust and paranoia within the ranks. And, of course, the information on the atrocities probably doesn’t even make it to the broader Russian populace, making them possibly blind to the reality of the situation. This lack of transparency, coupled with the state’s control of information, can contribute to a disconnect between the experiences of soldiers and the understanding of the public, which causes more trouble.
The discussion highlights the use of “blocking” or “barrier” troops as a tool of coercion. These units, strategically positioned behind the front lines, are allegedly tasked with preventing retreats. This concept, employed throughout history, shows just how deeply entrenched is the desperation that has sunk in. The implications are clear: the threat of death is ever-present, whether from the enemy or from your own side. One can see how a constant, all-encompassing threat is used to control soldiers and force them forward into combat.
The narrative also raises a crucial moral question. If the only way to compel someone to fight is through coercion and brutality, what are the values being upheld? It’s easy to see how such actions can undermine the very cause they are meant to serve. A fighting force built on terror cannot be considered to be operating under any kind of moral compass.
The comments also reflect on the role of ideology and propaganda in shaping perspectives. Terms like “vatnik” and references to the Warhammer 40k universe, and comparisons to Mordor, highlight the impact of such narratives. This is indicative of a wider conflict, where perceptions of “good” and “evil” are manipulated to justify extreme actions, and where the lines between reality and fiction become dangerously blurred.
It’s disheartening to consider the potential for these practices to erode the support of even those who might initially have supported the cause. The existing troops could lose their morale and faith in the mission. It is a dangerous path, and it can eventually result in civil war and unrest.
The discussion also acknowledges the importance of historical context. Parallels are drawn to similar events during the Second World War. Such comparisons serve to reinforce the idea that these are not isolated incidents, but rather a pattern of behavior rooted in a deep-seated culture of violence and repression. It underscores the recurring nature of human cruelty and the tragic tendency of armies to adopt such practices in desperate times.
The call to distinguish between the various groups within Russian society is a critical one. To condemn the actions of the Russian military is not to condemn all Russians. The distinction between those actively fighting against Putin and those who are apathetic is crucial. It is important to focus on the people who are actively trying to sabotage and undermine Putin.