I’m looking for as close to a factual answer as possible, but if this should be in another forum so be it.
I’m reading that some of the Russian soldiers are refusing to fight, not having been told that they were invading Ukraine. But what happens to them after the hostilities? Do they receive any sort of asylum? Because I can’t imagine Putin’s Russia will welcome them back without repercussions. Is there some sort of international law or treaty? It seems to me that if they know they will be repatriated that’s a strong disincentive to do what they might feel is the right thing.
if the question i for Russians, desertion is punishable of 10 years of prison.
Insubordination can lead to death by fire squad, especially in front of the “enemy”.
being taken prisoner, on the other hand, is comprehensible…
Well, a quick Google search shows that desertion can be up to 7 years in prison. I’m not sure what surrendering to the Ukrainians would be considered…it’s probably going to be circumstantial. As for refusing orders, that could be considered a capital offense, especially in the face of the enemy, but, again, it’s probably going to be circumstantial. It will almost certainly hinge on how many Russian troops actually do this and on the outcome of this conflict…and whether Putin and his regime survive this cluster fuck.
Putin is not Stalin of course, and 21st Century Russia is not 20th Century USSR, but it may be in Putin’s and the Russian top brass interests to make an example of some of the more blatant examples of soldiers refusing to fight and surrendering to Ukrainian forces instead, by prosecuting them for desertion or insubordination (if the reports are to be believed, and that did happen.) On the other hand after this over it will also be in Putin’s interests to portray the Russian army as stalwart brave soldiers who stoically took on the forces of neonazism for the Motherland, so we aren’t going to see mas arrests I’m sure.
What to do with POWs who don’t want to be repatriated can really gum up negotiations for a ceasefire or armistice. That was big issue at the end of the Korean War. Only 1\3 of Chinese POWs returned to red China. The rest defected to Taiwan.
So I actually thought there was something in the Geneva convention about this but Googling it turns out there is not, the Geneva convention says they should be returned at the end of hostilities though the US has historically allowed them to stay:
it quickly became apparent that many of the prisoners would resist being sent back. President Harry Truman, disregarding the advice of senior military commanders, decided that there would be no forced repatriation. “We will not buy an armistice,” he said, “by turning over human beings for slaughter or slavery.”
This firm stand prompted the Communists to break off the truce talks and almost certainly led to a prolonging of the fighting. In the end, though, Truman’s principled view prevailed. Out of about 170,000 Chinese and North Korean prisoners fully half, after being interviewed by neutral nations’ observers and representatives of their own governments, refused repatriation.
There was also the case of the Cossacks who fought for Germany in WW2 who were returned to the USSR forcibly after the war, where they were wiped out by Stalin.
It will depend on how weak the Ukraine is at the end of the war, if it they are basically defeated and the Russians get to name the terms, they are unlikely to make a fuss about it.
To my knowledge, here isn’t anything etched in stone regarding prisoners who don’t want to be repatriated after a war has ended. After WW2 the West forcibly deported Soviet POWs who had been captured by the Germans and then liberated by the Western Allies back to the USSR where most went to the gulags or faced execution, as noted above, while after the Korean War many Chinese and North Korean POWs who didn’t want to be repatriated weren’t, as also noted above. Twenty-three American POWs being held by China at the end of the Korean War also initially refused repatriation back to the US, choosing to stay in China.
One issue I haven’t seen discussed is the demographics of the Russian Federation.
The current male 20-29yo cohort is significantly smaller than previous age groups. Making that population even smaller looks like a bad move. Alienating it is also a bad idea (but so is invading Ukraine.) I did see an article describing a significant increase in draft-dodging Russians of military age seeking refugee status in the USA (via Mexico) up from a few hundred to thousands over the last year.
I also wonder if they could adopt the same tactics as Vietnam era draftees in limiting the enthusiasm of senior officers?
Given asylum by whom? In order to request asylum, you have to actually reach the territory of another state. They could try to request asylum in Ukraine, but whether or not that’s granted will probably depend on who’s in charge of Ukraine at the end of the war. If they manage to make it to another country, it would be up to that country to decide if they faced a reasonable risk of political persecution if they are returned to Russia.
Presumably the Ukrainians, with enough problems taking care of their own population, would be happy to pass on prisoners to the West if they express interest in not going home. At this point, I can see the west countries being willing to accept healthy young men with a dislike of Russia’s leaders.
Latest claim is that 6000 Russian soldiers have been killed in less than a week. IIRC in the whole occupation of Iraq over a decade, only 4400 Americans were killed.
So to continue this, this morning I read that a number of Russian POWs are claiming that they are certain they will be shot if returned to Russian forces, and one group (platoon?) claims to have been fired on by their own forces for trying to protect civilians, which is why they surrendered.
Seems to me, if I were them I’d be offering to join the Ukrainian forces in exchange for residency when this was all over.