Corporal bully-boys, and a line of vunerable recruits....watch the sadistic mayhem unfold.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rb6-a8h8X0I
HM British Army provides young men with opportunities, purpose, pride, focus and drive.
What exactly does the Russian army offer in this state?
Share This Page:
The state of the Russian army
, I dont think they should go to that extent and they look like they were just pulled off the street too. 
-
Wholley
- Guest
This is an interesting video. OK, for one minute put aside all the conditioning we've received at school and home and work. and emotionally charged cultural words such as 'bullying', 'intimidation', 'brutality', etc. This training looks systematic to me. But what does this kind of training actually achieve?
For a start, I think when the human body is prepared for a blow, it is much more resilient than many of us believe. So, the violence is more brutal when seeing it from the outside. Secondly, a soldier who undergoes this training is likely to be much more mentally tough than someone who has just done push-ups or something. Nobody can claim that it offers any physical protection against fired ammunition, but would it confer mental strength in the face of adversity? I think so.
Apart from these aspects, let's look at the good of the unit, and morale. OK, it will 'demoralise' inexperienced soldiers, but is that so important during the training stage? Won't it also create a sense of common, shared experience? Even if it means they all HATE the NCO, at least they will have something in common, and perhaps a sense of belonging and unity. In addition, there is the factor of respecting authority - the recruits will be more afraid of their own boss than anything the enemy might threaten. In a world where there are land mines and chem/bio weapons, this might be a valuable psychological edge. What I'm saying is, the recruits would be conditioned to see the trainer as a primate higher up the food chain than them, who is also responsible for their well-being - kind of like a big brother family member. Creating a sense of family and tribal belonging.
My own opinion about this is, quite simply, we don't have to like it but unfortunately the Russian army is doing it so we will have to look into it too. If anyone ups the ante whether it's in their funding, their weapons development or arsenal or their training, then we have to adapt to remain on top otherwise our guys will be too soft in comparison to theirs. I believe that the Russian training would turn out tougher guys than the current training regime we have in place.
For a start, I think when the human body is prepared for a blow, it is much more resilient than many of us believe. So, the violence is more brutal when seeing it from the outside. Secondly, a soldier who undergoes this training is likely to be much more mentally tough than someone who has just done push-ups or something. Nobody can claim that it offers any physical protection against fired ammunition, but would it confer mental strength in the face of adversity? I think so.
Apart from these aspects, let's look at the good of the unit, and morale. OK, it will 'demoralise' inexperienced soldiers, but is that so important during the training stage? Won't it also create a sense of common, shared experience? Even if it means they all HATE the NCO, at least they will have something in common, and perhaps a sense of belonging and unity. In addition, there is the factor of respecting authority - the recruits will be more afraid of their own boss than anything the enemy might threaten. In a world where there are land mines and chem/bio weapons, this might be a valuable psychological edge. What I'm saying is, the recruits would be conditioned to see the trainer as a primate higher up the food chain than them, who is also responsible for their well-being - kind of like a big brother family member. Creating a sense of family and tribal belonging.
My own opinion about this is, quite simply, we don't have to like it but unfortunately the Russian army is doing it so we will have to look into it too. If anyone ups the ante whether it's in their funding, their weapons development or arsenal or their training, then we have to adapt to remain on top otherwise our guys will be too soft in comparison to theirs. I believe that the Russian training would turn out tougher guys than the current training regime we have in place.
-
Alfa
- Guest
Here's the links to the full versions of that video, you'll need a youtube account to view the videos because of their content.
Part 1: http://uk.youtube.com/verify_age?next_u ... hixinV1PYY
Part 2: http://uk.youtube.com/verify_age?next_u ... kRiDVV4IGA
Apparently they're old videos, probably late 90's, and that the Russian Army has tried to clear things up so it's not as bad however if you read the following link it's quite obvious they still have a long way to go.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4656586.stm
The guy who had his legs and genital amputated after the attack is now trying to get the nod to stand in the elections for the Duma to highlight what happens to the conscripts.
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/20 ... 8cd46.html
Part 1: http://uk.youtube.com/verify_age?next_u ... hixinV1PYY
Part 2: http://uk.youtube.com/verify_age?next_u ... kRiDVV4IGA
Apparently they're old videos, probably late 90's, and that the Russian Army has tried to clear things up so it's not as bad however if you read the following link it's quite obvious they still have a long way to go.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4656586.stm
The guy who had his legs and genital amputated after the attack is now trying to get the nod to stand in the elections for the Duma to highlight what happens to the conscripts.
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/20 ... 8cd46.html
I used to work with a Russian who enlisted in the army, completely unaware of the problems he would face.
Needless to say he got a shock.
The main reason I started this thread was to draw attention to the Russian army, I knew there was a major problem with bullying, but could never truly understand why.
Needless to say he got a shock.
The main reason I started this thread was to draw attention to the Russian army, I knew there was a major problem with bullying, but could never truly understand why.
I knew it was bad, never knew it was that bad.They are mostly convicts with a choice and the second one is not good.
-
Dangermouse
- Member
- Posts: 357
- Joined: Sat 17 Mar, 2007 4:46 pm
- Location: Wales
I can't view that video (crap internet) but i'm guessing its the one about Russian conscripts, not full time professional soldiers.
But even so, Russia has never really had a strong, disciplined military. It has always focused on armoured vihicles and stand-off weapons to engage the enemy. One reason why the Soviets/Russians have produced formidable helicopters, aircraft and tanks is because they have cut the armies budget for thier infantry. Even when the Russians first went into Afghanistan and Chechnya, they relied on heavy tank columns because thier troops were'nt disciplined enough to engage in an infantry war. Of course, thier are units which are as good as any found in the west, particulary Alpha gorup, the Spetsnaz, and units made up of experienced veterens. But for the most part, they are inadequately trained. When they went into Chechnya, all the militias needed to do was stay in the cities and force the russians to adopt urban tactics, which they were generally poor at. Many young russians were killed simply because they were unprepared to leave thier armoured vihicles in narrow streets, and became easy targets for guerillas armed with anything from mines, RPGs and molotiv cocktails.
When thew Russians withdrew from Afghanistan, they were not entirely forced out. Thier were many reasons, but one reasson was because the Russians basically refused to be drawn into large scale anti-guerrilla operations in the Afghan mountains. When the Muhajhideen got hold of morters and anti-aircraft missiles from the CIA, the Russians couldn't pull off effective attacks on Mujahideen strong points, while bases themselves became easy targets for the morter teams.
Also, contrary to western beliefs at the time, the Russians never really had an aggressive strategy for Western Europe so had no need for a strong infantry.
But even so, Russia has never really had a strong, disciplined military. It has always focused on armoured vihicles and stand-off weapons to engage the enemy. One reason why the Soviets/Russians have produced formidable helicopters, aircraft and tanks is because they have cut the armies budget for thier infantry. Even when the Russians first went into Afghanistan and Chechnya, they relied on heavy tank columns because thier troops were'nt disciplined enough to engage in an infantry war. Of course, thier are units which are as good as any found in the west, particulary Alpha gorup, the Spetsnaz, and units made up of experienced veterens. But for the most part, they are inadequately trained. When they went into Chechnya, all the militias needed to do was stay in the cities and force the russians to adopt urban tactics, which they were generally poor at. Many young russians were killed simply because they were unprepared to leave thier armoured vihicles in narrow streets, and became easy targets for guerillas armed with anything from mines, RPGs and molotiv cocktails.
When thew Russians withdrew from Afghanistan, they were not entirely forced out. Thier were many reasons, but one reasson was because the Russians basically refused to be drawn into large scale anti-guerrilla operations in the Afghan mountains. When the Muhajhideen got hold of morters and anti-aircraft missiles from the CIA, the Russians couldn't pull off effective attacks on Mujahideen strong points, while bases themselves became easy targets for the morter teams.
Also, contrary to western beliefs at the time, the Russians never really had an aggressive strategy for Western Europe so had no need for a strong infantry.
If that was true this kind of punishment would be commonplace in the USMC.I believe that the Russian training would turn out tougher guys than the current training regime we have in place.
Notice how those soldiers are almost visibly shaking in their boots?
Victims of bullying can turn into many things, but they do not become tougher.
I'm not sure I agree. Times change, many things that were acceptable in military training years ago no longer are. This is constant in the modern PC world, lads passing out now seem to have had a less harsh time in training than I had as little as three years ago, lads who've been in 10, 15 or 20 years will tell you all of us are wrapped in cotton wool. Whilst we still expect (and achieve) the same professional standards, I don't think the training produces as 'hard' a man as it did in the past. This is not a disadvantage, as we are trained to use the kit we have; in the past lesser kit meant harsher punishment to the body in extremes, and therefore a tougher complexion was required; we still do the same jobs to the same standards, arguably with greater intelligence; but I wouldn't like to be naked roll mat fighting in winter in the Exe with a 20 year sweat 
-
CptStabbo
- Member
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Wed 05 Oct, 2005 10:17 am
- Location: Where the locals shout "Gimme Six!"
We're not fighting the same wars in the same way as we used to either. The days of dropping battalion after battalion of death-dealing Paras into the quagmire are (thankfully) behind us.
Like it or not the wars we fight today take place other than in the trenches. Yes there is a need for infantry and air support, but there is also an increasing need for intelligent soldiering and an adaptable fighting force capable of discretion and judgement.
So there.
CS
Like it or not the wars we fight today take place other than in the trenches. Yes there is a need for infantry and air support, but there is also an increasing need for intelligent soldiering and an adaptable fighting force capable of discretion and judgement.
So there.
CS
Interesting thoughts, but I still think most of the 'violence' in this instance occurs in the mind and not in the body. I don't think it's inherently wrong to hit trainees during training. I think the problem area is when you have abusive NCOs whose aim is to strike terror and not strength, confidence and encouragement into their hearts.
As an example, if you look at traditional martial arts training, the trainees will routinely hit each other with full force, until their bodies adapt so that they are impervious to the blows. They do it happily and willingly. In sword/staff arts the practitioners will use real weapons and inflict real injuries, at the highest leves. The example given of the Paras in the trenches is also apt: the old guys would train hard and attack and defend with maximum realism, against resulting in people getting hit hard during training. The same people really could kill with their bare hands, behind enemy lines. In modern martial arts training too there's the example of guys such as Geoff Thompson (and these days many others too) who hit their students with full force and regularly knock them out or break bones. So, hitting people hard isn't the problem.
The problem seems to be the attitude exuded by the people inflicting the hurt, in this video. To my eyes, and to you guys as well it sees, they want to just hurt people for fun, and don't come across as trying to help them. Well, actually I find this assessment is not necessarily fair. What will happen, when/if these guys are dropped behind enemy lines, get cut off from support and communications, and are captured by the enemy? I know what will happen. They will be treated like in this video, and because they're used to it, they will not give up military secrets so soon.
As an example, if you look at traditional martial arts training, the trainees will routinely hit each other with full force, until their bodies adapt so that they are impervious to the blows. They do it happily and willingly. In sword/staff arts the practitioners will use real weapons and inflict real injuries, at the highest leves. The example given of the Paras in the trenches is also apt: the old guys would train hard and attack and defend with maximum realism, against resulting in people getting hit hard during training. The same people really could kill with their bare hands, behind enemy lines. In modern martial arts training too there's the example of guys such as Geoff Thompson (and these days many others too) who hit their students with full force and regularly knock them out or break bones. So, hitting people hard isn't the problem.
The problem seems to be the attitude exuded by the people inflicting the hurt, in this video. To my eyes, and to you guys as well it sees, they want to just hurt people for fun, and don't come across as trying to help them. Well, actually I find this assessment is not necessarily fair. What will happen, when/if these guys are dropped behind enemy lines, get cut off from support and communications, and are captured by the enemy? I know what will happen. They will be treated like in this video, and because they're used to it, they will not give up military secrets so soon.
Personally, i think it works for the Russians. Looking at history , they have never been interested in making every soldier a professional. Instead, their strength has always been their sheer numbers. I'm not sure about now but in the past they were perfectly happy if they had x thousands/millions of men who will fight one way or another.
If bullying and hitting recruits is the way they think it best to fill men with anger and aggression so as they'll charge when told to, then it isn't as thoughtless as it appears.
Western military training is designed to create a professional soldier because thats clearly what the western world thinks is more effective for their needs - the russians obviously have a different agenda.
If bullying and hitting recruits is the way they think it best to fill men with anger and aggression so as they'll charge when told to, then it isn't as thoughtless as it appears.
Western military training is designed to create a professional soldier because thats clearly what the western world thinks is more effective for their needs - the russians obviously have a different agenda.
I kind of have to agree with that; I too was a little shocked at seeing the poor guys being beaten about... but with that said, is it not their way of 'army' life, their culture?xcj wrote: If bullying and hitting recruits is the way they think it best to fill men with anger and aggression so as they'll charge when told to, then it isn't as thoughtless as it appears.
It's like bull fighting in Spain, Asian countries eating anything that moves... to us it's strange/wrong/outrageous but to them... it's life.
I know it's a poor comparison but it's just my opinion, however, flying karate kicks to the chest is a little extreme
When I was in Asia, I saw some pretty strange stuff that would make those videos look quite... tame heh
