"Russian soldiers refusing to fight" Topic

Troops are saying no to officers, knowing that punishment is light while Russia is not technically at war

The Guardian: link

Excuse me Bill.. but in UK, few trust 'The Guardian'… or much press altogether. But, thank you for posts.

I don't understand how mutually exclusive thoughts can coexist in the same head.
If there is lawlessness in Russia, if a soldier (or general) can be shot or sent to the Gulag simply at the whim of the authorities, then how can he refuse something, simply appealing to the fact that formally there is no war?
Complete lack of logic…

Tell us more about these soldiers and generals who are being summarily executed or sent to prison.

Heedless Horsemen,
The article appears to be well written and sourced. Accurate information is of course difficult to obtain in wartime, but I would accept that this piece is a genuine effort at doing so.

From what I understand it is not technically a war in Ukraine according to Russia. Therefore soldiers are not bound by the laws that comes into play when Russia is at war.

And as there is no war conscripts cannot be called in "en masse".

So the "conscripts" in the Ukraine war/special military operation is contracted. They might have been conscripts but signs a paper and therefore becomes employed as soldiers.

A technicality but an important issue.

There is no lawlessness in Russia, there is a justice system and Putin cannot round that too much. He might be able to install a few laws here and there and influence certain trials (against oligarchs) but I do no think he can round the entire system. In a way he must keep the "masses of the people" at least fairly happy so that there is no uprising.

So if courts uphold the law that soldiers do not have to do certain things (like go to Ukraine or what not) Putin can do very little about it unless he wants to risk the acceptance of the people.

Excuse me Bill.. but in UK, few trust 'The Guardian'… or much press altogether.

A lot of people actually do trust the Guardian which is owned and run by a Trust – not by some media baron. Though has long standing reputation for typos.
link

The issue of 'refusals' has been kicking around for awhile – apparently some Russian National Guard refused to cross the border – in retrospect a pretty smart move given what happened in the early stages!

Where in that article is 'lawlessness in russia' adressed?
The main problem at the moment seems to be russian lawlessness outside its state territory.

Which is, according to international law, rightfully adressed, for example, by cooking russian soldiers in their tanks, before they cause more harm with them.

No one really cares what russians do among themselves.
Probably unsavory affairs, like people everywhere else in the world.

Of course I still do not understand why they do not just buy their washing machines in Ukraine instead of looting them.
They could have asked us, Germany, for advance on salary, a credit or welfare.
We know each other quite well.
Had something together once, so to say.

We are generous people and are still a little ashamed of our past.
But certainly not for much longer, given what's happening in the world at the moment.

US Department of Defense reports similar situations including officers

link

Well … regardless, who reports what … based on their performance on the ground. The Russian Bear is a cub without many teeth.

Does a russian battleship named Potemkin happen to be anchored near Odessa?

In case they have one left of course, I am not up to date.

Oh those "Guardian Readers" – like Ken Barlow in Coronation Street.

A lot of people actually do trust the Guardian which is owned and run by a Trust – not by some media baron.

Sure, "trust but verify" given the Guardian is very left wing. Every media outlet has some biases. There's a news aggregator site called Ground.news, which tags stories and outlets with a left, center, or right label (which is relatively less biased than other sites) to let you know the ideological spin on the story you're reading.

As Twain once said:

Guardian is very left wing

Not really in UK terms – centre-left (probably around Bernie Sander's in US terms) – when Jeremy Corbyn (left of Sanders) lead the UK Labour party it wasn't always considered left-wing enough among his acolytes since it dared to give voice to Blairites and members of the Parliamentary Labour Party who though it was going to end in tears (which it did a couple of elections later).

Cuprum2, this situation has happen all over the world through out history, it is the result of bad training, poor leadership, morally doubtful intentions and the desire not to die in the immediate short term.

dapeters +1 …

Bernie Sanders is pretty far to the left. He is not center left for sure.

Not in the UK context. TBH alot of his positions wouldn't look out of place with the UK centrist party the Liberal Democrats.

Bernie Sanders is pretty far to the left. He is not center left for sure.

We have to be careful talking politics … however, his supporters overall are small.

@ Legion 4

In more ways than one!

Indeed !

however, his supporters overall are small.

I beg to differ. At least in 2016, his number of supporters were not small. I was present at many of the various candidates' campaign events (from both parties) and saw first hand the masses of supporters for Sanders. In 2016, there were two populist leaders that consistently attracted large crowds to their events…one from each party…the others not so much. Again, this is what I observed first-hand (no political commentary or intent).

"Bernie Sanders is pretty far to the left. He is not center left for sure."

In the US sure but sadly it say more about us then him. Almost any other country he would be the in the center.