4 ms·

Having read the entire article, I also wonder how the soldiers let commanders execute fellow soldiers? That's got to take some serious psychological breakdown

Having read the entire article, I also wonder how the soldiers let commanders execute fellow soldiers? That's got to take some serious psychological breakdown to not pull a sidearm and shoot the corrupt commander.

Nextgrid 8mo ago
> not pull a sidearm and shoot the corrupt commander Wouldn't you just get "zeroed" by the upstream commander or court-martialed and sentenced to a gulag?
cheeseomlit 8mo ago
What would be your next move after shooting your commanding officer? You're a dead man yourself after that. Possibly even shot by your fellow soldiers who did drink the kool-aid. And your family back home would probably face consequences as well. I wondered the same thing when reading about WW1 where soldiers were ordered to charge at enemy trenches and they'd predictably get mowed down immediately, then the officer would send the next group out. I can't help but think 'just shoot him', but it's a lot different actually being in that situation vs. reading about it
- expedition32 8mo ago
  Humans are social animals- in prehistoric times that meant charging an angry mammoth together in the 21st century it means charging a machine gun nest. Can't fight your programming.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
estimator7292 8mo ago
Fear of being executed, probably. Russia has not historically been friendly to whistle blowing.
- IAmBroom 8mo ago
  The US would execute such a soldier... after a long, drawn-out appeals process lasting years. And a decade later some journalist might find damning evidence that the soldier was justified.
  - jjtheblunt 8mo ago
    Are there examples where the US did such? I went looking after your comment landed, and didn't find current examples.
yetihehe 8mo ago
From other articles I've read: the commanders have their own bodyguards and soldiers get their weapons only when actually sent to front. Also, there are castes of soldiers. Those who are cannon-fodder are sometimes even brought in handcuffs (there are even videos of this).

Nextgrid 8mo ago

> not pull a sidearm and shoot the corrupt commander Wouldn't you just get "zeroed" by the upstream commander or court-martialed and sentenced to a gulag?

cheeseomlit 8mo ago

What would be your next move after shooting your commanding officer? You're a dead man yourself after that. Possibly even shot by your fellow soldiers who did drink the kool-aid. And your family back home would probably face consequences as well. I wondered the same thing when reading about WW1 where soldiers were ordered to charge at enemy trenches and they'd predictably get mowed down immediately, then the officer would send the next group out. I can't help but think 'just shoot him', but it's a lot different actually being in that situation vs. reading about it

expedition32 8mo ago
Humans are social animals- in prehistoric times that meant charging an angry mammoth together in the 21st century it means charging a machine gun nest. Can't fight your programming.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]

estimator7292 8mo ago

Fear of being executed, probably. Russia has not historically been friendly to whistle blowing.

IAmBroom 8mo ago
The US would execute such a soldier... after a long, drawn-out appeals process lasting years. And a decade later some journalist might find damning evidence that the soldier was justified.
- jjtheblunt 8mo ago
  Are there examples where the US did such? I went looking after your comment landed, and didn't find current examples.

yetihehe 8mo ago

From other articles I've read: the commanders have their own bodyguards and soldiers get their weapons only when actually sent to front. Also, there are castes of soldiers. Those who are cannon-fodder are sometimes even brought in handcuffs (there are even videos of this).