The deployment of so-called “barrier troops”, units stationed behind regular soldiers with orders to shoot anyone attempting to flee, is one of the internationally prohibited tactics that Putin’s army has brought back into use to stop its own ranks from retreating. International humanitarian law, which forbids using deadly force against one’s own combatants in order to enforce discipline, expressly prohibits this practice, which is reminiscent of the most heinous periods of Soviet military history.
A straightforward, unapologetic examination of military psychology, historical precedent, and the harsh calculus of authoritarian control is necessary to comprehend the reasoning behind this strategy. This strategy is part of a larger pattern of power and coercion in the Russian military apparatus, where fear is used to compel obedience rather than inspiration or ideology.
Barrier Troops’ Historical Origins
Russian military doctrine has long included the idea of barrier troops. Stalin’s notorious Order No. 227, “Not one step back!”, permitted NKVD units to shoot deserters and hesitant soldiers during World War II. This tactic is credited with terrorizing the Red Army and causing panic. The way the contemporary Russian military has responded to attempts at retreat in Ukraine is another example of how this legacy has endured.
Barrier troops could enforce discipline, as the Soviet experience showed, but they frequently did so at the expense of unit morale and trust. Such measures caused psychological trauma that left both commanders and soldiers with long-lasting scars. The Russian military’s intermittent application of such strategies in the post-Soviet era illustrates the conflict between contemporary military professionalism and historical authoritarian tendencies.
Frameworks for Ethics and the Law
It is clear from international law that using deadly force to stop one’s own troops from fleeing is a war crime. The execution or threat of execution of soldiers for disciplinary violations is expressly forbidden by the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, as well as by customary international humanitarian law. These regulations are intended to preserve the proportionality principle in military discipline and shield combatants from cruel treatment.
International organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has jurisdiction over crimes against humanity and war crimes, uphold the legal prohibitions. In addition to violating soldiers’ rights, such tactics call into question the legitimacy of the military campaign and expose political leaders and commanders to possible legal action.
The Psychology of Control and Fear
Barrier troops are used to take advantage of fundamental psychological levers, such as coercion, fear, and the loss of agency. By equating retreat with certain death, commanders subdue soldiers’ innate survival instincts and compel them to fight against their will and tactical judgment. Although this strategy might result in short-term compliance, it comes at a high psychological cost, as it can lead to trauma, cognitive decline, and the breakdown of cohesiveness within the unit.
According to psychological research, fear-based discipline can cause dissociation and poor decision-making under pressure, which hinders soldiers’ capacity to adapt to changing battlefield circumstances. Imposing fatal penalties for retreat can worsen mental health issues like PTSD and others, which can have long-term effects on military institutions and veterans.
Current Data and Case Studies
There is strong evidence of barrier troop deployments in Ukraine from recent intelligence intercepts and statements from Russian and Ukrainian sources. According to reports, mercenaries from the Wagner Group and Chechen units were stationed as anti-retreat forces with the responsibility of executing deserters and sustaining the offensive momentum at gunpoint. Intercepted communications in October 2022 showed Russian soldiers talking about orders to shoot escaping prisoners who had turned into combatants.
The lines between official military policy and paramilitary operations are blurred when irregular forces like Wagner are involved, making the chain of command and accountability more difficult. In order to enforce discipline and accomplish goals, this case study demonstrates how prohibited tactics are incorporated into hybrid warfare strategies, which combine official military units with mercenaries and proxies.
Desperation or Discipline?
A contrarian viewpoint contends that barrier troops are a reasonable extension of military discipline under extreme duress, despite the majority of analysts viewing them as a sign of dysfunction and desperation. According to this perspective, extraordinary measures are justified in order to preserve order and prevent collapse due to the existential stakes of the conflict in Ukraine.
Barrier troops are a brutal yet practical means of stopping retreats and sustaining the offensive momentum, particularly in situations where more traditional approaches are ineffective. But this justification runs the risk of normalizing war crimes and weakening the moral lines separating lawful military action from illegality.
Second-Order Impacts: Attrition and Morale
There are significant second-order effects when internationally prohibited tactics are used. Barrier troops frequently increase attrition by promoting fatalism and mass surrenders when the chance presents itself, rather than strengthening resolve. Russian units that are subjected to such measures appear to experience higher casualty rates and more instances of mutiny or defection, according to data from the Ukrainian frontlines.
Barrier troops may also unintentionally tell enemy forces that the targeted units are weak and demoralized, which could lead to more intense attacks. The ensuing cycle of demoralization and attrition complicates attempts to stabilize frontlines or make strategic gains and accelerates military decline.
Third-Order Impacts: Political and Strategic Repercussions
Beyond the battlefield, the return of barrier troops harms Russia’s reputation internationally and calls into question the validity of its military campaign. Unavoidable repercussions include possible war crimes prosecutions, international censure, and the dissolution of alliances. At home, the revelation of such strategies stokes discontent, casts doubt on the Kremlin’s story of national sacrifice, and runs the risk of upending the larger system of governmental control.
The social contract between the state and its citizens is weakened by the use of such harsh tactics, which also alienate groups of Russians, such as veterans and military families. The regime’s hold on power may be weakened by internal instability brought on by this erosion of legitimacy.
The “Spiral of Discipline Death”
The “Discipline Death Spiral” can be used to visualize the effects of barrier troops: when morale declines, commanders increase coercion, which further damages effectiveness and trust. This cycle keeps going, leading to increasingly drastic actions and worsening dysfunction. This spiral is best illustrated by the Russian experience in Ukraine, where punitive discipline takes the place of authentic leadership and strategic flexibility.
This framework aids in explaining why using coercive tactics speeds up institutional decay rather than achieving long-term military success. It also highlights the importance of leadership that balances discipline with motivation and trust. The “Discipline Death Spiral” is not specific to Russia; it can happen in any organizational or military setting where command turns into coercion and fear takes the place of respect.
Final Evaluation
The use of internationally prohibited tactics by Putin’s army in response to retreat attempts is a sign of a larger institutional ill: a military culture that values brutality over resiliency, obedience over flexibility, and fear over initiative. Even though such actions might result in short-term benefits, they have disastrous long-term psychological, operational, and strategic costs.
These actions will be viewed by history as proof of a regime prepared to forgo its own power in order to create the appearance of control, rather than as displays of strength. With a focus on moral behavior and psychological support as the cornerstones of an effective armed forces, this analysis highlights the urgent need for reform in military doctrine and leadership practices.
