By John Q. Hosedrinker 
As the sole survivor from a group of 79 men, one individual’s grim accounting reveals the devastating losses of his unit. He alleges that his refusal to advance to the front lines resulted in severe torture, including being urinated upon. Furthermore, he claims that other soldiers in his company who also refused orders faced even more brutal fates, including electrocution, starvation, and being sent unarmed into enemy fire.
Read the original article here
Reports are emerging that Russian soldiers serving in Ukraine have witnessed their own comrades being executed on the orders of their commanders. These accounts suggest a chilling reality behind the lines, where battlefield failures or perceived disloyalty can lead to the ultimate punishment, carried out not by the enemy, but by their own side. This grim picture paints a stark contrast to the often-touted narratives of patriotic duty and unwavering loyalty, revealing a deeply fractured and brutal command structure.
The accounts hint at a disturbing continuity with historical Soviet practices, where discipline was often enforced through extreme violence. One particularly stark comparison is drawn to the infamous “Shtrafbat,” penal battalions used by the Red Army, where soldiers were often sent on suicidal missions. While the scale and specific methods may differ, the underlying principle of using lethal force to maintain order within the ranks appears to persist. This echoes historical accounts of unit commanders resorting to brutal disciplinary measures to quell dissent or perceived cowardice, sometimes resorting to methods like “decimation,” where one in every ten men was shot.
The implications of such internal executions are far-reaching, potentially impacting Russia’s ability to sustain its military operations in Ukraine. Beyond the obvious loss of manpower, these acts of brutality would inevitably shatter morale, fostering an environment of fear and distrust. When soldiers are more afraid of their own officers than the enemy, the likelihood of desertion or surrender to Ukrainian forces significantly increases, as they might see it as their only path to survival. This internal fracturing can be far more damaging than external battlefield losses.
The effectiveness of the Russian military in Ukraine is called into question when considering these reports. The idea that such a significant number of its own soldiers are being eliminated by their own command raises serious concerns about strategic decisions and the overall efficacy of their forces. It suggests a leadership that prioritizes brutal control over the well-being and effectiveness of its troops, a tactic that history has shown to be ultimately counterproductive.
For those within Russia, these reports might not come as a complete surprise, given the country’s historical context and the current suppression of independent media. The tight control over information within Russia means that such atrocities are unlikely to reach the vast majority of the population, allowing the official narrative to remain unchallenged. This lack of transparency perpetuates a cycle where the grim realities of war remain hidden from public view, fostering a sense of detachment from the true cost of the conflict.
The existence of channels for Russian soldiers to potentially betray or provide information about their commanders to Ukrainian forces is also alluded to. While not directly related to executions, the idea that soldiers might be willing to risk severe reprisal to expose their leadership suggests a deep level of disillusionment and desperation. The mention of programs designed for Russian soldiers to arrange surrender highlights the perceived dangers they face from both sides, but more pointedly, from their own command.
The presence of specific units, like the Storm-Z units, which are described as expendable and having little expectation of survival, further underscores a disturbing trend in military strategy. These units, often composed of prisoners or individuals with little training, appear to be used for high-risk missions with a disregard for human life. This mirrors historical tactics of “human meat waves,” where overwhelming numbers were deployed with little regard for casualties, a strategy that is both brutal and often strategically unsound.
The broader context of the conflict and the motivations behind such actions are complex, but the consistency of reports suggesting brutal treatment of soldiers, both by historical Soviet forces and potentially by contemporary Russian military leadership, points to a persistent pattern of authoritarian control. The reference to “Chechen blocking units” further illustrates a disturbing tactic where soldiers are threatened with lethal force by their own side if they attempt to retreat or surrender, effectively forcing them into suicidal engagements.
Ultimately, the accounts of Russian soldiers witnessing executions of their comrades on the orders of their commanders paint a grim and disturbing picture of the war in Ukraine. It suggests a military operating with a level of brutality and disregard for human life that extends even to its own ranks, raising profound questions about the ethical foundations of the conflict and the true cost of this war, not only to the enemy but to the soldiers fighting it.