A Russian Social Media Post
Returning to the topic of informal practices, let’s dwell on assaults.
I will immediately stipulate that the formation of assault groups from poorly trained marching reinforcements or technical specialists of other profiles due to a “sudden” shortage of personnel are separate sore points. In this case, we will talk specifically about assigning to assaults as an informal form of punishment.
Above, I made a proposal to introduce a ban on this type of punishment and to send the intruders to work teams of diggers and riggers.
On the one hand, given the huge volumes of excavation work and the critical importance of the delivery, the organization of such work teams seems to be the optimal option for using penal soldiers (our practice in 2014, for example, speaks of the sufficient effectiveness of sending intruders to dig trenches). On the other hand, the threat of assignment to assaults often serves as a tool for blackmailing personnel, which in itself creates an unhealthy atmosphere in military groups, plus the use of such a practice allows unscrupulous commanders to get rid of inconvenient and unwanted people.
Now I quote a comment from a concerned observer from the chat on the above proposal regarding informal punishments:
Regarding sending offenders to labor teams – it is very controversial. Because many will very quickly use this to their advantage – after all, you can screw up at the right moment and increase your chances of survival by transferring to riggers. And those who did not drink, did not fuck up, will die in assaults. Accordingly, this will accelerate the negative selection.
The logic of this comment is clear, but this logic does not take into account a number of critically important nuances. Below is a message from a good friend with whom we also discussed the problems of informal punishment and the organization of assault operations:
We basically have a system in place where assault groups are equated to a penal battalion, where all the fly-bys, all the inconvenient ones, all the ones you don’t feel sorry for are sent for their mistakes. Commanders even call them “unsaleables”, “substandard”, in short, not particularly combat-ready and useful fighters. We have such a system. We need to reconsider the approach to assault operations, when everyone should work for the assault group: the bird reconnaissance, the support of the kamikaze attack drones, the artillery. All this is tied into a single communication loop. Then the result will be normal, if you approach assault operations from this point of view. I know units that work exactly like this. But, unfortunately, there are very few of them. Therefore, we have what we have.
That is, formally, we do not have penal units to which military personnel could be sent in the established manner for a given period of time, depending on the severity of the violation or crime committed. But there is an informal practice of actually turning assault squads into penal companies, which has become widespread. Given that the organization of assault actions in our country in principle leaves much to be desired, such an informal practice seems absolutely counterproductive and only further aggravates the situation.
The approaches to the formation of assault groups outlined above, on the one hand, do not ensure their practical effectiveness (some do not have normal assault training, others are not fit for duty due to their physical condition, others are generally unsuitable for either assaults or for fortification, the groups are not coordinated, people often see each other for the first time); on the other hand, they do not in any way dispose the command staff to the proper organization and provision of assault actions, working to preserve the practice of meat assaults, since commanders accustomed to considering assaults as disposable meat will not bother themselves with “extra” tactical considerations.
Thus, the informal practice of punishment by sending to assaults leads to senseless, and often downright criminal waste of human resources; has as a consequence the professional degradation of the command staff; seriously hinders the advancement of assault infantry and assault actions to a qualitatively different level.
