Why don’t Russian soldiers shoot their commanders, despite all the abuse, humiliation, and “meat assaults”? More scientifically, the question sounds like this: Why is there no fragging in the Russian military, even though all the conditions for it exist?
Fragging: where is it?
Fragging is the intentional killing or attempted killing of a commander by a soldier. This term emerged during the U.S. war in Vietnam and comes from the English word "fragmentation," referring to fragmentation grenades. These grenades were often used by soldiers to kill commanders and senior officers they were dissatisfied with due to harsh orders or incompetent actions that undermined the morale of the troops.
Fragmentation grenades were the perfect weapon because an explosion could appear as a combat loss or accident, making it difficult to prove intentional murder. The explosion would destroy all evidence, making it hard to attribute the death directly to the soldier.
What about Russia? Abuse, total disregard for soldiers' lives, torture, "neutralization" of their own, and, of course, “meat assaults”… Such conditions cannot help but cause tension, conflicts, lowered morale, and protest, yet there is no evidence of fragging.
Is it needed?
Could fragging help bring an end to Russian aggression?
Well, how to put it… Of course, there’s nothing good about fragging, but it could have a long-term negative impact on the combat readiness and discipline of the Russian military. Fragging inevitably undermines commanders' authority and can erode subordination and strategic coordination. If soldiers start openly attacking their commanders, those commanders become less decisive in making the tough calls needed to fulfill combat objectives, fearing for their own safety. As a result, command control could be weakened at all levels.
If cases of fragging gained widespread coverage in Russian and international media, it could have a powerful symbolic effect, weakening public support for the war in Russia. It would expose a deep crisis within the military and further reduce motivation among soldiers at all levels.
The Russian authorities’ response to such cases would likely be extremely harsh, with even stricter disciplinary and punitive measures, which would create a new cycle of violence and distrust within the military.
What triggered fragging in the U.S. military?
The first cases of fragging were recorded in 1966-1967, but the phenomenon became most intense from 1969 to 1971. This was during the Vietnam War. During this period, U.S. command reported a significant increase in cases of assaults on officers — around 600 attacks in 1971 alone, some of which resulted in death.
Fragging was the result of a combination of psychological, social, and political factors that made this war one of the most traumatic and complex in U.S. history. By the late 1960s, many American soldiers had lost sight of its purpose. The longer the war dragged on, the more battle fatigue increased, along with skepticism about its goals. Constant losses and exhaustion wore down soldier morale, increasing the number of conflicts with commanders.
Some officers, especially those with little combat experience, were extremely unpopular among soldiers. When they required soldiers to carry out dangerous and seemingly pointless missions, it understandably led to tension and resistance.
Drugs. By the end of the Vietnam War, drug use had become widespread among American soldiers, further affecting their mental state and behavior. Drugs, combined with constant pressure, risk to life, and psychological trauma, greatly increased tendencies toward aggressive behavior.
While many soldiers voluntarily went to the front at the beginning of the war, by the late 1960s, many were forcibly drafted through conscription. This meant that people who initially did not want to fight and did not support the war were also serving, creating further division between soldiers and commanders.
While the military was fighting in a distant country, the antiwar movement in the U.S. was gaining strength. Antiwar sentiments gradually seeped into the military itself, eroding the motivation and self-respect of the rank-and-file soldiers.
The cumulative effect of these circumstances led to fragging — soldiers began attacking their commanders.
Things are different in the Russian military.
Is servitude in their blood?
Parallels between the American and Russian armies naturally come to mind, but there are a number of differences that, in fact, explain why fragging does not arise in the latter.
Political culture and upbringing
American soldiers in Vietnam came from a democratic country with active antiwar sentiments and critical attitudes toward authority. There were far more people among them who could think for themselves and analyze what was happening independently. Freedom of speech, good education, and access to alternative information played their part.
In Russia today, the conditions are entirely different: there is no freedom of speech, independent media are either exiled or controlled, powerful propaganda shapes public opinion, and repressive laws punish any dissent. In the Russian military, therefore, it is much easier for a soldier to accept the official version of events, which they often do. Recruitment practices also resemble negative selection, focusing more on obedience and endurance rather than ambition and critical thinking.
Fear and repression
The Russian military operates under a strict system of discipline and harsh punishment. Any act of disobedience can lead to severe consequences, including death. The repressive system creates an atmosphere of fear, where soldiers are more likely to obey, even under intolerable conditions, than to protest. The culture of brutality and mistrust among soldiers and commanders fosters an environment of dehumanization, apathy, and submission.
In the U.S. military, there was more room for protest and criticism of leadership, though it was not officially permitted.
Propaganda
Propaganda in Russia has a strong impact on society as a whole and on soldiers in particular. In Russian pro-government media, the war in Ukraine is justified as defending the “Russian world” and “fighting the West.” This bolsters soldiers’ ideological motivation, as it aligns with an imperialistic historical narrative. Thus, soldiers may see their sacrifices as part of a globally important mission.
In the U.S., support for the war had significantly decreased by 1968, both in society and among soldiers, leading many to question the mission’s legitimacy.
Social and economic differences
The Russian military has historically developed in a culture of strict hierarchy and subordination, where individual initiative is not encouraged, and obedience is paramount. The behavioral models brought to the military by American soldiers from a free society were markedly different and allowed for greater agency.
In terms of education, American soldiers often had a stronger background in the humanities, which fostered critical thinking and awareness of social injustice. In Russia, soldiers are primarily recruited from impoverished regions where educational opportunities are limited, and the military often serves as the only form to have some success.
Absence of a mass antiwar culture
During the Vietnam War, there was a powerful antiwar movement in the United States that only grew stronger over time. This movement had a significant impact on soldiers, encouraging critical thinking. In Russia, such a movement is virtually absent, creating an information bubble where soldiers lack the support of alternative perspectives.
In addition to the above factors, there are three significant elements that make Russian soldiers different from their American counterparts: "drill," the principle of "I’m the boss, you’re the fool," and the tactic of "meat assaults." Each of these will be discussed separately below.
Drill
“Drill” is a method of training soldiers to obey orders automatically, which suppresses willpower, critical thinking, independence, and even self-preservation instincts. The goal of drill is for soldiers not necessarily to understand orders, but to carry them out without question, without regard for morality or effectiveness.
It would be a mistake to think that drill exists only in the Russian military. In essence, “drill” is simply rigorous training pushed to the extreme, something present in every military. But drill in the American military has its own characteristics. There, it is called “Drill” or “drill and discipline” — strict training discipline and cohesion of the troops through mechanical execution of commands. The term “boot camp” is also used to describe the initial training period when recruits go through intense discipline and learn to follow orders. However, American drill focuses on improving efficiency and coordination, and soldiers retain a certain degree of autonomy and ability to think independently. Their drill is just part of the training process, not a permanent form of interaction between soldiers and officers throughout their service.
The U.S. military, like any other military structure, is strictly hierarchical, but, surprisingly, commanders are encouraged to promote initiative and critical thinking at the tactical level, especially among officers.
Official U.S. doctrines (such as Mission Command) are based on the principle that commanders should allow their subordinates freedom of action when necessary so that they can make decisions independently on the battlefield and adapt to changing conditions.
The American system of officer training, including through institutions like West Point and other academies, emphasizes the need to develop critical thinking, leadership, and the ability to make decisions in complex situations. This education includes not only military skills but also the moral and ethical foundations of leadership, enabling officers to understand when and how to apply initiative in practice.
The official document FM 6-0 (Field Manual), which covers the principles of command and control within the Mission Command doctrine, emphasizes that commanders should encourage initiative and independent decision-making among subordinates within their functions and tasks. Additionally, ADP 6-0 (Army Doctrine Publication) notes that critical thinking is linked to successful leadership and emphasizes the importance of developing these skills through training programs used to prepare officers.
It may be hard to believe, but the development of critical thinking, leadership, and the ability to make independent decisions really does take place in democratic countries. U.S. military education genuinely includes the cultivation of critical thinking and initiative among officers, and this is an institutionalized part of military doctrine, not just an informal approach.
I’m the boss — you’re the fool
This saying aptly reflects the essence of Russian state structures, which have long since become a tradition. This style of management has deep roots in Russian history, where power was concentrated in the hands of the czar or other authoritarian rulers, fostering a culture of absolute obedience. In such a system, initiative and critical thinking are suppressed, and unquestioning loyalty becomes the highest virtue.
Certainly, such an approach exists in every military. But if it is an unwritten rule in the Russian military, in the American military it’s more a feature of individual leadership styles than a systemic trend.
In fact, this same “I’m the boss — you’re the fool” principle might be one of the key reasons the war started: no one in the Russian elite was able to say “no,” and no one dared to object despite the catastrophic consequences of Putin’s decision.
It is worth noting that this principle hinders any form of resistance, even on the level of individual thought.
The Tactic of “Meat Assaults”
In the current war between Russia and Ukraine, the concept of a "meat assault" has become widely recognized. We can now clearly see that it was this tactic that led to the incredible losses suffered by the USSR during World War II — and there is little to be proud of in this. But now we are talking about modern times, and it seems that Russia’s tactics regarding the preservation of personnel have not changed conceptually in the past 80 years. According to numerous reports, the soldiers assigned to assault units have minimal chances of survival in the long term. Such an approach sounds shocking in the 21st century.
In which other countries' armies has fragging occurred?
Systematic fragging is almost a uniquely American phenomenon, but there have been several conflicts in which similar cases were observed, though not on the same scale.
World War I
In the British and French armies during World War I, there were also cases of insubordination towards commanders, but fragging in the classic sense did not become widespread. Many soldiers were dissatisfied with the stalemated and futile operations, especially in trench warfare, where the losses were enormous. One form of insubordination was desertion and even mass protests, but there were few cases of commanders being killed.
World War II
In the Nazi army, although very rarely, there were cases of resistance against commanders, especially on the Eastern Front. Psychological pressure and relentless fighting led to decreased morale, especially in the final years of the war. However, the level of discipline and severity of punishments in the Nazi army were so high that open fragging was infrequent.
The Iraq War (2003–2011)
In the U.S. military during the Iraq War, fragging was also not widespread, although cases of attacks on commanders did occur. As in Vietnam, soldier morale and psychological conditions were poor, but the circumstances were nonetheless different in many respects.
Thus, fragging remains a unique phenomenon most vividly manifested in the U.S. military during the Vietnam War. This means that it is unlikely to expect a similar occurrence within the Russian military.
But why did the U.S. military of the 60s and 70s become such an exception?
The explanation lies once again in a number of social, cultural, and psychological factors specific to American society at that time.
Freedom of Speech and the Anti-War Movement
It’s clear that one thing led to another: the ability to freely express opinions allowed anti-war voices to be heard. As a result, the anti-war movement wasn’t a marginalized initiative, as it is in today’s Russia, but a widespread school of thought that eventually became mainstream. This had a significant influence on soldiers, who fought knowing that more and more people saw the war as senseless, shameful, and unjust.
Conscription
Many American soldiers in Vietnam were drafted, meaning they had no choice but to serve. This resulted in a large portion of the army consisting of people who didn’t want to fight at all.
Leadership Crisis and Poor Officer Training
During the Vietnam War, there was a shortage of experienced officers, and many young and inexperienced leaders were quickly promoted after minimal training. These officers often didn’t understand the real circumstances of combat, leading to foolish and harsh decisions. As a result, soldiers felt disrespect and frustration, viewing their commanders as the cause of their suffering.
Social and Psychological Effects of War
American soldiers in Vietnam faced serious psychological issues, including PTSD, frustration, resentment, and anger. While similar issues could arise in other militaries, American soldiers had more social avenues to express their protest.
Lack of Repression
The American military, despite disciplinary measures, was less harsh in terms of punishment for disobeying orders compared to the militaries of authoritarian states like the USSR or Nazi Germany, where any attempts at fragging were punishable by death.
Can we expect fragging in the Russian military?
It seems unlikely. Counting on fragging to demoralize the Russian military seems futile. The initial conditions and circumstances faced by Russian soldiers are nothing like those experienced by U.S. troops during the Vietnam War. The Russian armed forces more closely resemble a conscript army of 19th-century serfs, whereas the U.S. military in the 1960s and 70s was largely made up of free citizens who could afford to critically evaluate both orders and government policies as a whole.
During the current war, freedom of speech in Russia is strictly limited. Alternative information is largely unavailable to most Russian soldiers. Although it’s worth noting that this information isn’t just unavailable but also undesirable for the soldiers themselves. Since any criticism of superiors is harshly punished, it is easier for them to simply feign belief and stay out of sight. This information environment effectively traps most soldiers in an information bubble, which is consistently maintained by propaganda and repression.
In the Russian military, the culture of collectivism and obedience has deep roots in the Soviet era. Russian soldiers, even if they do not support the war, may see compliance as a natural duty or a means of survival. Patriotic rhetoric and state propaganda embed loyalty to “our own people” in soldiers’ minds, no matter what atrocities their comrades may commit in Bucha or elsewhere. And, on top of that, it’s all for the sake of a “higher purpose.” Such beliefs create strong psychological barriers against fragging.
What about fragging in Ukraine in this war?
Currently, there are no available reports of fragging within the Ukrainian military. The absence of such cases may, of course, be due to a lack of open data, which is natural for a country at war. However, several features of the Ukrainian military significantly differentiate it from the Russian military, reducing the likelihood of fragging.
High Motivation and Morale
Ukrainian forces have strong support from both their society and the international community. They are fighting for the survival of their country, for freedom, and for the future of their children. This high level of motivation significantly reduces the potential for conflict between soldiers and commanders.
Reforms
Since 2014, the Ukrainian military has undergone significant reforms, leading to improved discipline and better command structures, which also helps minimize internal conflicts.
Operational Effectiveness
The Ukrainian military has demonstrated high efficiency in managing combat operations and maintaining defensive positions against a much stronger enemy. This success also contributes to the trust in commanders and the overall strategy.
Is Fragging a Calculated Act or an Impulse?
When discussing fragging in the U.S. military, it would be incorrect to view it solely as a conscious act of defiance. Fragging, as a phenomenon, can certainly be a deliberate form of resistance against dangerous or criminal orders, but in most cases, it appears to be an act of emotional response — a reaction triggered by psychological stress during moments of despair and fear for one’s life. Fragging is rarely motivated by moral reasons, though soldiers may justify their actions as such.
In reality, fragging may stem from a combination of both factors: an emotional impulse at a critical moment may drive a soldier to act, but that action may be supported by a chain of critical thoughts built up over time.
Ancient Traditions
Numerous videos and descriptions of Russian military actions in Ukraine clearly demonstrate that the Russian military largely relies on 18th-19th century approaches in terms of authoritarian command culture and discipline. This “cannon fodder” model operates on the principle that sheer human mass is the key to victory, while individualism, initiative at all levels of hierarchy, and critical thinking are not only undervalued but often seen as undesirable qualities in soldiers. In this model, orders are not to be questioned, initiative is suppressed, and protest is punished by death. Military training focuses on mechanical execution of orders rather than combining discipline with situational analysis and independent decision-making.
This type of military model has historically delivered victories, which is why it continues to exist. But the cost of these victories in human lives has always been tremendous, often hidden or portrayed as a mark of great military effort and heroism.
As for fragging, if it hasn’t started yet — despite all the horrors of war, death, brutal command tactics, and the suffering of Russian soldiers — there is little reason to expect it now. The Russian military is simply not the kind of system where fragging is likely to emerge.
Although… there’s a first time for everything. If fragging were to start in the Russian military, it could become one of the factors leading to the end of this horrific and criminal war, resulting in Ukraine's victory.
