This is no doubt an interesting and ambiguous case. It is well known that the Russian army is internally very harsh, and several Council of Europe reports have documented the particularly violent treatment that new conscripts can suffer. However, it is not clear that fleeing to the enemy in such cases would be legitimate. From an international asylum law point of view, it might help if Glukhov could show that he was being persecuted on the basis of membership in a group (ethnic or religious for example). Then again, the issue is whether it is the case that Russia could not provide him with an adequate degree of protection if he were to denounce the violence he is a victim of. Glukhov could have deserted and run off to a number of other places, although we do not know whether that was possible in the circumstances.Nonetheless, it bears stressing that there is a long tradition of army mutinies, not necessarily leading to desertion, in the face of command from officers that was morally particularly abject, rather than because of anything the soldiers might have been asked to do as part of military duties. Perhaps most famously, troops from almost all allied nations at one point or other revolted during the First World War, notably after a series of attacks in 1917 that evidenced a total disregard for human life (as famously portrayed in Stanley Kubrick's Paths of Glory).
No comments:
Post a Comment