In Russia, half of school classes will be devoted to military training - Bloomberg
unn.ua
УНН War in Ukraine ✎ Russian teenagers from the age of 13 will be taught weapons handling, tactics, medicine, and survival skills. The reform is intended to strengthen the…

Students returning to Russian schools this week will discover a change to their civics courses that puts military training at the heart of the lessons, as Bloomberg reports (paywalled).

The mandatory classes for teenagers include learning about the main types of armaments including machine guns, anti-tank weapons and hand grenades, as well as emergency field medicine and general military discipline. While some of the skills were previously taught in limited high school modules, the new version escalates this training for children as young as 13.

…

Although some of these skills were previously taught as part of limited modules in upper grades, the new version of the program expands this training to children aged 13 and older.

“The updated curriculum, approved by the Ministry of Education, requires half of the weekly classes within the course “Fundamentals of the Security and Defense of the Homeland” to be devoted to basic military training,” Bloomberg says.

“This is part of the gradual militarization of Russian schools, aimed at shaping a new generation of conscripts, while the Kremlin continues its war in Ukraine, which has already been ongoing for the fifth year.”

…

In addition to training in weapons handling and combat tactics, basic military training includes lessons on Russia’s national security doctrine and the structure of the armed forces. Students will also study mines and explosive hazards, first aid for combat injuries, chemical and radiation exposure and acute stress, as well as survival skills and procedures for operating in conflict zones.

The education reform effectively contributes to creating a flow of potential conscripts from schools into the army. This is reinforced by the involvement of combat veterans from the war in Ukraine in schools and kindergartens, where they speak with children, urging them to support Putin’s decision to launch the full-scale invasion in 2022.

…

“The romanticization of war and violence, combined with a constant fear of external enemies, instills in young people the idea that human life holds no value and that dying for the regime and the president is normal,” says Pavel Talankin, an exiled Russian teacher who co-directed the Oscar-winning documentary Mr. Nobody Against Putin that focused on rising war propaganda in his school, according to Bloomberg.“If necessary, one must die for the motherland, taking up the flag and marching into the line of fire without asking questions.”

…

Russia [also] continues to scale up practices of militarizing children in the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine, turning teenagers into a mobilization resource for future wars.

…

Archived

  • glasratz@feddit.orgEnglish
    3·
    3 days ago

    They run impressment gangs?

    From what I understand it’s mainly the cops. If you have a confrontation with the police, you can count on ending up on the front. There have been reports of people claiming they left them the choice of being framed on drug charges or volunteer for service

    • bedwyr@piefed.caEnglish
      13·
      3 days ago

      That is the natural progression of any large country without Jury Trials.

      • glasratz@feddit.orgEnglish
        1·
        3 days ago

        I don’t see what this has to do with jury trials. A jury will eat up planted evidence as well as a judge or lay judges. It comes down to tight control of policework, which is a fantasy anyway.

        • bedwyr@piefed.caEnglish
          11·
          2 days ago

          The larger a country is, the less you can trust their judges and court.

          Politicians that choose judges does not lead to real justice. maybe we don’t see the harms because everyone is ground under the heel of oppression.

          Jury trials are the ideal. We should all want them. Hail the magna carta!

          • glasratz@feddit.orgEnglish
            11·
            2 days ago

            The larger a country is, the less you can trust their judges and court.

            That’s complete nonsense, though. While it’s true that our largest countries have broken justice systems, it’s not like there is any tendency to get better systems in smaller countries.

            Politicians that choose judges does not lead to real justice. maybe we don’t see the harms because everyone is ground under the heel of oppression.

            Whether politicians choose the judges or not has nothing to do with whether you have a jury system or not. GB has a jury system and the judges of the highest court are chosen by politicians.

            Jury trials are the ideal. We should all want them. Hail the magna carta!

            No, they are not the ideal. Juries tend to be wooed by the flashiest presentation and tend to prefer a well told story over the actual law. Ever heard of the CSI-effect? In theory this is much better addressed in a lay judge system, but this also has its downsides. That you see this system as an ideal and “hail” the Magna Carta, just goes to show that you haven’t looked at other justice traditions.

            • bedwyr@piefed.caEnglish
              11·
              1 day ago

              Balderdash!

              First of all, ALL countries basically allow politicians to appoint judges, how else you going to do it? That is not unique to common law countries, the birthplace of western liberty in the modern era by the way.

              Now, you want to trust your accusation to a politically appointed and dependent hack over a jury of your peers?

              I almost posted an ableist slur of sorts, not the hard r, but was going to ask if you had all of your mental faculties. Sorry to end an otherwise reasonable post with what one might consider an insult, but it is warranted here as I saw it.

              • glasratz@feddit.orgEnglish
                1·
                1 day ago

                First of all, ALL countries basically allow politicians to appoint judges, how else you going to do it?

                I did not complain about politically appointed judges. You did! You brought that up in a way that read like you didn’t know this. So I wrote one example. Now you call me a moron for providing you an example?

                That is not unique to common law countries, the birthplace of western liberty in the modern era by the way.

                Goes to show how narrow your horizon is. It does not even include the whole “western” world. France would really have to have a word with you there, just for example. Furthermore, being the “birthplace” of something often means sticking to outdated ideas - a case that could be easily made for common law in general.

                Now, you want to trust your accusation to a politically appointed and dependent hack over a jury of your peers?

                It’s funny that you hold common law in such regard and fear politically appointed judges, since courts have much more power in common law than in many other systems, blurring the line between jurisdiction and legislation.

                Let me rephrase your question in an intentionally unfair way, just to keep on par with your writing style: Do you want to trust your accusation to a crowd of random people who are not in any way educated in law or to people who are professionally trained and should know it to the letter?

                I have to say it like this because you won’t accept that the system has any flaws. I also made the point of lay judges several times - which is, if practiced right, a way to include peers but without the flaws of a jury trial. I think it’s safe to say that you do not know what this is and refuse to look it up, because this would go against your precious beliefs.

                I almost posted an ableist slur of sorts, not the hard r, but was going to ask if you had all of your mental faculties. Sorry to end an otherwise reasonable post with what one might consider an insult, but it is warranted here as I saw it.

                Now that fits your boorish and naive way of arguing pretty well. You can’t accept nuance, you did not look into other systems at all and you try to hold failing arguments you made against me.