The Putin youth?
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
220 points (99.1% liked)
Ukraine
8216 readers
1731 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
*Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.
*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
*Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title
*Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human must be flagged NSFW
Donate to support Ukraine's Defense
Donate to support Humanitarian Aid
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Sure sounds like that.
The closer equivalent existed since 2005 and did a lot to prepare the Russians to the invasion, as they would often paint Putin's opponents as Nazis controlled by the West and attack them.
That sounds a bit hitlerish.
Hasn't he done enough damage to the next generation is Russians?
I think we all know Putin is about to deploy children to the front lines.
Once you're already wanted for war crimes why stop there?
I would like to think at some point he will overplay his hand and the people will rise up against him, but I doubt they will. If he's given your kids machine guns then sourcing weapons shouldn't be a problem.
It can't be long, surely.
Beslan told the world how little they value the lives of children.
Putler is preparing his „Volkssturm“ … so even he thinks, that he lost the war
Maybe. I don't think that the war is necessarily the main concern.
Hitler consumed all of his fighting-age men, and then had to use what he had left, which were the youth and elderly. That's not the situation in the Russo-Ukrainian War, not by a long shot.
The Kremlin is very probably concerned about the political effects of mobilization. Mobilization was delayed well past the point where it was probably militarily-advisory, and the Kremlin was willing to pay a lot to bring in contract soldiers to try to limit mobilization. That's not a government that's exhausted all available manpower and is looking for stop-gap measures to try to convert more people into military power. It's a state that's worried about what the conflict might do to the government politically.
The Kim dynasty stayed in power in North Korea for a long time by keeping the country in a constant state of alert and militarizing society.
The Political Motives of Sustaining a Perpetual War
While often—yet mistakenly—called the forgotten war, to both North and South Koreans the Korean War is not some distant memory, but has become an integral part of their respective national identity. In North Korea, the discourse on the Korean War is among the most important meta-narratives that make use of the country’s foundational history and recurring historical analogies to explain and legitimize contemporary their government. According to this narrative, the Korean War did not end in 1953 and while the nature of this conflict changed over time, the logic of a perpetual national emergency has been kept intact.
Even in times of political détente, the discursive construction of a permanent threat by and perpetual war with the United States was largely upheld in the domestic discourse. Described as a “diplomatic war” in many North Korean sources, diplomacy with America is described as continuation of war by other means. Understanding the reason behind this logic requires us to acknowledge that, to the decisionmakers in Pyongyang, sustaining a state of perpetual war and supreme emergency serves a number of tangible political functions. For instance, most notably to strengthen collective identity by provoking and allaying anxiety to maintain quiescence and de-legitimizing dissent. As the identity of the Self is experienced and apprehended more strongly in times of increased threats and the existence of an external enemy, these notions are frequently used to build internal unity and coherency.
Selig Harrison rightly stated that North Korea’s “permanent siege mentality” has not only helped bonding the society (and the political class) together, but that the permanent state of supreme emergency is also a powerful political strategy that helped solidify the rule of Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il and now Kim Jong-un. As the leader is basically equated with the sovereignty and independence of the North Korean state and the protection of the Korean nation, the production of an identity as a warring nation reinforces a strong need to preserve the absolute nature of its leader.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songun
Songun is the "military-first" policy of North Korea, prioritizing the Korean People's Army in the affairs of state and allocation of resources. "Military-first" as a principle guides political and economic life in North Korea, with "military-first politics" dominating the political system; "a line of military-first economic construction" acting as an economic system; and "military-first ideology" serving as the guiding ideology.
Songun elevates the Korean People's Army within North Korea as an organization and as a state function, granting it the primary position in the North Korean government and society. It guides domestic policy and international interactions.[1] It is the framework for the government, designating the military as the "supreme repository of power". The government grants the Korean People's Army the highest economic and resource-allocation priority and positions it as the model for society to emulate.[2] Songun is also the ideological concept behind a shift in policies since 1994 which emphasize the people's military over all other aspects of state and society.
[continued in child]
[continued from parent]
There's a name given to a limited-duration effect seen in the US where, under certain conditions, US Presidents get a short-term spike in popularity during military conflicts. That's not a very long-lasting effect, but it is quite dramatic in strength -- if the public considers the country to be at risk, they will tend to put aside political differences and support the current leadership.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rally_'round_the_flag_effect
The rally 'round the flag effect (or syndrome) is a concept used in political science and international relations to explain increased short-run popular support of a country's government or political leaders during periods of international crisis or war.[1] Because the effect can reduce criticism of governmental policies, it can be seen as a factor of diversionary foreign policy.[1]
But suppose that instead of a short-term effect because of a temporary conflict, you can have a country -- from a domestic political standpoint, at any rate, no or little actual fighting required -- staying in a permanent, wartime crisis mode. Then maybe you can leverage the effect on an ongoing basis. North Korea has, rarely, had limited and small conflicts with South Korea subsequent to the Korean War. If it did initiate a second annexation attempt, it would likely go poorly for North Korea. It is not likely, as things stand, to initiate a second attempt. But by keeping the country politically at a state of war...well, you can still maintain control when, by most respects, North Korea's situation isn't all that great for the typical person in North Korea. The Kim dynasty is quite politically-repressive, and the country has about three percent the per-capita GDP of South Korea. That's ordinarily a situation where people are likely going to ask some difficult questions of the government. But as long as, from a political standpoint, the country is at war...shrugs
Russia in 2023 is more-politically-repressive than it was, say, ten years back, but it's also still no North Korea. But I have wondered whether it might be the case that the Kremlin winds up trying to leverage some of the same mechanisms that the Kim dynasty does.
I hope that is true and I hope he follows in all of Hitler's footsteps right to the very end.
"Yes, we are killing our young men, but what about their children, have we considered planning to kill them?"
Dictators going for children is classic move.
He should self sacrifice himself for the cause!
Maybe someone can help him with that.
"You see, children, Ukrainians are born with a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I'm sending wave after wave of you at them until they reach their limit and surrender."
Basically, military service for 16/17yos? I'm against it, but it's honestly not that crazy given that Singapore, the US, and Germany allow military service at 17 with parental consent. Canada also allows people to join Military Colleges at 16. It's unclear how parental consent will play into this in Russia.
Hits different with the desperation behind it. If you're culturally indoctrinating your kids for war just as a standard, fine. But when your fighting men are being deleted and you pivot to this strategy it just looks bad.
Russia doesn't have a strategy in this war except "charge".
You're wrong. They also have artillery until it's gone and no retreat because we'll shoot you.
America: Look what they need to mimic a fraction of our power
I have ruzzian child soldiers on my 2024 bingo card.