Yeah this was sadly corroborated by multiple sources.
Forcing men to fight a doomed war is not heroic or noble. It is just heartbreaking and foolish.
MSM is painting Zelensky as a great hero. What kind of hero does this?
Zelensky is definitely no hero and Putin is also no hero either.
This is truly a shitshow that could have be avoided if Ukraine had agreed to a neutralization agreement with Russia and not played along with Globalist plans to use Ukraine as a proxy against Russia.
Ukranian men will sadly pay for the mistakes of their corrupt leaders.
They've had 30 years to restore order and normalize relationships with Russia and the west. The CIA and swamp did everything in their power to prevent that because it was a resource heavy, politically weak country on an enemy's border. Just like they've always done. The leaders of the west, ukraine, and russia are all to blame for what is happening now.
Has the MSM not applauded the draft in every war since 1776 (except Vietnam)? Also the MSM currently hates Russia, so it’s more they don’t give two shits who gets ordered to fight Russia, just that people get ordered to fight Russia.
I'm not going to say Ukraine is evil for doing this.
If a foreign army invaded the US I'd be going to fight in whatever way I could, I wouldn't be evacuating. However, I get that people would want to leave too. Men really should be at least defending their homes and communities rather than fleeing to the border.
Why flee to the border when there are always quiet parts in a war where you don't have to fight?
It kinda doesn't matter what caused it, what matters is that your in it.
I would be the type of person who would fight to defend DC from a foreign invasion. Now, I might want to hang around after the forefingers are repelled in case DC caused it, but the forefingers have no right to be there.
I kinda see this both ways. I'd really say not to do it because conscripts are almost universally a bad idea. Conscripts who were so lacking in loyalty that they were already running away on the 1st day of battle is just dumb.
Why should men do this? Why don't the strong empowered feminists fight? I'd rather be imprisoned than defend what my country's become after the loathsome anti-male and anti-white rhetoric I've had to endure for the last 6 years.
Because feminists are retards that don't understand women.
And you should always use the chaos and collapse to take advantage of the freaks and cowards who are in charge. This is one of the reasons why I said that nearby agencies around places like Portland should be hiring those police and then patrolling areas that the PPB abandons. Same reason why you have State Militias to hire US Service Personnel.
The Cathedral is filled with cowards who will give ground once pressed. If they are pressed from the outside, take that ground. It's a very old geo-political strategy.
Women haven’t collectively treated the entirety of men the same way. Nor have Ukrainian women demanded Ukrainian men fight this war. Their male president did.
I don't think you work for Putin. I think you were created by Putin in an old Soviet era secret lab, by mixing Belle Delphine's bathwater and incel tears with human DNA.
Imp, you are again, doing what feminists do. You look at Ukrainian men, then you claim you are one of them from a distance. You flap your mouth about how the collective you is forced into something, while you are sitting on your ass at home in safety.
Nobody asked you to fight, honey. Stop.
This is the Imp version of "those middle eastern women".
This is appropriation of someone else's tragedy.
Woah, you declare you would not do a thing that doesn't involve you and nobody asked you to do.
I also wouldn't suck Elon Musk's dick. Not like he would want me, not like we will ever be in the situation, not like even if we ever talked we would bring it up. BUT NO NO I WON'T. This declaration made literal zero influence on how the world continues to go on.
I'm sure you would. I'm so sure you are not just doing mouth karate and I'm sure Russia would really need you. Just like when you claimed that in a societal apocalypse, people will beg for you to be the male leadership. Righto.
So if women, whom you hate, do something, you just have to copy it like crazy because...? You are so much better or something?
Do you have a mirror? Just because someone else is an ass, doesn't mean you have to be an ass as well. It makes no sense why you are so obsessed with copying bad female behaviour and still pretending you are better.
I'm from Hungary, we share a fucking border with Ukraine. That's pretty much just as close as you can get without being Ukrainian. Your point? Ukraine also took a portion of Hungary with Trianon, so they have a part basically filled to the brim with my countrymen. But we are safe here.
It's sounding like victimising yourself while you have nothing to do with it. Again, feminist logic, inserting yourself into the situation of someone else, because "it totes can happen to me at any moment... wait for it", while it is actually happening to someone else.
Not to be rude, but I doubt it will be men who loudly brag about how they will totally point at women suffering and laugh.
You ARE a misogyinst, though. I doubt a society in need of saving will go for the people who like to fantasize about themselves like Scar from The Lion King just pushing women off the cliff and claiming humanity dying out because "men refuse to breed" is not only realistic, but a positive outcome.
Yes, yes, I am the enemy while you are the mighty hero. My point was, neither of us are involved in the conflict, but you pretend you are. But I already got cast as an evil woman fucking you over.
Again, as both of us are chilling in safety. K.
But Imp, you are not being used or anything, as you keep repeating here, you are not involved with any women ever and all. So why are you trying to play the Womanhating Jesus who dies for the simps? You know better, don't you? You are free from baby shitting women.
The cold calculus is that women will not be able to fight as well. Draftees and Conscripts are terrible fighters as it is. Female Conscripts would be all but useless as infantry. Worse, if you believe in population change, killing off women is worse than killing off men. It destroys your population's ability to recover, and an overpopulation of men to women will cause massive social instability.
When it comes to an existential threat of war, men and women aren't equal. Worse, men are more expendable than women. Even children are more expendable than women if we are talking about the most extreme level threats.
If you have a population of 30 people: 10 men, 10 women, 5 girls and 5 boys, the lowest recoverable losses you can take are going to look like 1 men, 5 women, 0 kids. 10 men, 1 woman and 5 boys is basically the death of the group.
If the cold calculus is that women won't be able to fight as well, there should not have to risk themselves, then you're implicitly saying that... Men should hold the power as they take all the risk.
You are allowing them and enabling the double standard.
Either they are strong, independent and equally physically capable and thus able to be drafted and justified in the denigration of men all over the world... Or...
They are not equally strong, equally physically capable and therefore allowed to avoid draft and are UNJUSTLY denigrating men all over the world.
You are statistically correct with your assertion that female life is greater due to being the primary mode of reproduction but who are you to devolve women down to a uterus and protect them based on a sexual organ.
You also conveniently forget that not all Len are physically equal, capable, or strong enough to engage in war. Many a weedy, overweight, unskilled, and cowardly people were drafted, only to be cannon fodder. So if those people are draftable and capable then so are all the women who march that description.
Men should hold the power as they take all the risk.
Define "power". I think men should be the patriarchs of their families.
You are allowing them and enabling the double standard.
It's not a double standard, because I don't believe in equality between men and women, because I don't believe in equality. Inequality is the natural order of all things. Women have things they are good at, and men have things they are good at. If you are looking at an existential threat, the death of your women will cause the death of your society long-term. The death of your men is recoverable. The death of your children is very bad, but it's still recoverable.
They are not equally strong, equally physically capable and therefore allowed to avoid draft and are UNJUSTLY denigrating men all over the world.
Yes.
You are statistically correct with your assertion that female life is greater due to being the primary mode of reproduction but who are you to devolve women down to a uterus and protect them based on a sexual organ.
I'm not, I'm looking at the long-term survival of a people due to an existential threat. Women are invaluable in building families and social communities. Their reproduction and motherhood is a major aspect of that.
You also conveniently forget that not all Len are physically equal, capable, or strong enough to engage in war. Many a weedy, overweight, unskilled, and cowardly people were drafted, only to be cannon fodder. So if those people are draftable and capable then so are all the women who march that description.
I oppose the draft generally, but it's about an existential threat. No one can be "cannon fodder" in such a case. You need to hope that enough men can get past their problems to survive. Women, still, need to survive for the society to survive. The chance that women can fight long and hard enough to become the salty, battle-hardened warrior that we need men to be in such an existential event is practically zero. Even a fat-body man can become that with enough pressure.
I appreciate that you believe in such methods. But the problem is now is the time to hold people to the standards they have created, even if it hurts.
They have been tooting the horn that they are just as good and equal as men in ALL aspects, and time and again they Welch when it is time to prove it.
It might not be a personal double standard, but you are enabling the Female Superiority crowd to hold one.
I'm guessing were just opposite sides of the same coin. You would rather fight them over their double standard, I'd rather let them have it all including reaping what they've sown. Then just rebuilding after the fact. We've fought against the rhetoric for decades.
But the problem is now is the time to hold people to the standards they have created, even if it hurts.
They were never operating with standards to begin with. If you're going to hold them to any principles, you need to hold them to yours.
I'm guessing were just opposite sides of the same coin. You would rather fight them over their double standard, I'd rather let them have it all including reaping what they've sown. Then just rebuilding after the fact. We've fought against the rhetoric for decades.
Probably, understand I'm denying the foundation of their rhetoric entirely. I'm not interested in engaging with rhetoric they don't actually have any principles to support, and the asserted principles they claim are not even ones I accept. That's why I'm standing specifically against equality. Equality is a communist and Leftist argument. My argument is towards freedom, which creates inequality by definition.
Now, for the draft, my only point is that I'm tolerant of the coercion of a draft from an existential threat (which may not even apply for Ukraine, I just don't think it can be dismissed out of hand). If we assert a genuine existential threat, I can see the justification of a society attempting to demand the men of that society fight.
Then again, if a society does have to demand people fight for it, was it worth saving? That's why I'm not going to try and argue with people here who would say, "I won't fight." Fair enough, if you want your society to collapse, I should actually be encouraging you to leave it, not force you to defend it. ... which is why the draft is a stupid plan anyway. General mobilization may not be, but conscription is. I'd rather the government just hand out anti-aircraft weapons to anyone that wants them, rather than try to force people who are fleeing to fight. They make bad soldiers anyway.
It's similar to the American militia's experience in the Revolutionary War. Shitty and unmotivated militia can be used as a stop-gap in your line. You don't tell them to do anything but garrison a well defended position, put them next to highly motivated and disciplined troops, don't make it an obvious place to attack, and they'll actually do okay.
They aren't good troops, but you can typically use them in a pinch if you're careful. They may be motivated by the idea of glory in the battle if they do well. It's a good story to come home with.
Don't over expose them, don't give them complex orders, and allow them to retreat from battle slowly as a kind of skirmishing force, and you'll be fine.
The only real worse troops you can get is actually mercenaries. Your poorly motivated troops will flee at the first sign of trouble. Mercenaries, even good ones, can betray you during battle. You gotta be super careful with them. Machiavelli actually goes on and on about how fucking terrible mercenaries are. I think that's a personal bias from his particular era and region for warfare (feudal Italy... yeah, he's probably right). But mercenary forces can be highly competent and professional, and even more motivated that local forces if they are really good (the Swiss, the Hessians, the Prussians generally). Mercenaries are also the people who sacked Rome for years after not getting paid and forced the Pope to flee for his life, so you can see just how bad mercenaries can actually be.
Conscripts can work if used properly, and the worst they will do is break. Medium risk, low reward troops. Mercenaries can actually fucking turn on you, even if you paid them, even if they are professional. High risk, high reward troops.
Actual cannon fodder troops? Genuine troop formations designed to absorb heavy fire during the initial stages of an attack? They're actually all basically elite units. Light Infantry skirmishers that force the enemy to fire to early or expose their position (or sew disorganization by killing enemy officers), expert saboteurs who existed to blow up enemy fortifications, highly disciplined heavy infantry that are conditioned to resist artillery barrages, or even inspire incorrectly timed cavalry charges. The most extreme example are the Caroleans who were Sweedish crack infantry. They were extremely well-equipped, well-disciplined, professional soldiers who were designed to simply take heavy fire from enemy formations, engage at 50 yards, then re-engage at close range with swords and bayonets. This rush of crack infantry would regularly result in the breaking of enemy formations. The formations cannon and rear could then be attacked (either by advancing Caroleans or supporting cavalry), while the remainder of the regular troops made a slower advance on a disorganized enemy that would immediately try to redeploy and re-arrange units in the chaos, causing the whole formation to collapse into a route. This allowed the Sweedish Empire to punch well above their weight class against the French, Spanish, Poles, and Russians.
So yes, poorly trained and unmotivated troops can do well enough to survive and garrison positions if properly supported. But it's only the case if your enemy doesn't know how bad they are, and if you're a very competent commander. Otherwise, you do what the British did and just beat them into becoming disciplined. The whole Russian idea of shooting people who retreat didn't really serve any purpose except to scare other Russians from retreating, and keep the Germans on their toes.
Yeah this was sadly corroborated by multiple sources.
Forcing men to fight a doomed war is not heroic or noble. It is just heartbreaking and foolish.
MSM is painting Zelensky as a great hero. What kind of hero does this?
Zelensky is definitely no hero and Putin is also no hero either.
This is truly a shitshow that could have be avoided if Ukraine had agreed to a neutralization agreement with Russia and not played along with Globalist plans to use Ukraine as a proxy against Russia.
Ukranian men will sadly pay for the mistakes of their corrupt leaders.
This is modern “democracy” where the government pretends you are free until you have something it wants.
They've had 30 years to restore order and normalize relationships with Russia and the west. The CIA and swamp did everything in their power to prevent that because it was a resource heavy, politically weak country on an enemy's border. Just like they've always done. The leaders of the west, ukraine, and russia are all to blame for what is happening now.
What does Solanas have to do with Zelensky?
Absolutely nothing. Imp is retarded.
Has the MSM not applauded the draft in every war since 1776 (except Vietnam)? Also the MSM currently hates Russia, so it’s more they don’t give two shits who gets ordered to fight Russia, just that people get ordered to fight Russia.
This sounds like a recipe for friendly fire.
Yup. I'd be a lot more likely to fire on the guy trying to get me killed than the enemy.
I'm not going to say Ukraine is evil for doing this.
If a foreign army invaded the US I'd be going to fight in whatever way I could, I wouldn't be evacuating. However, I get that people would want to leave too. Men really should be at least defending their homes and communities rather than fleeing to the border.
Why flee to the border when there are always quiet parts in a war where you don't have to fight?
Fighting to protect your home voluntarily is good and it is a lot different than being conscripted while trying to flee the country.
I don't support Zelensky forcing men to fight a war they don't want to fight.
If Biden's admin tried conscription in America to prevent an invasion of a shithole city like NYC or DC, I would hope most men tell him to eat a dick.
Who wants to fight an unnecessary war caused by globalists and for globalist interests?
It kinda doesn't matter what caused it, what matters is that your in it.
I would be the type of person who would fight to defend DC from a foreign invasion. Now, I might want to hang around after the forefingers are repelled in case DC caused it, but the forefingers have no right to be there.
I kinda see this both ways. I'd really say not to do it because conscripts are almost universally a bad idea. Conscripts who were so lacking in loyalty that they were already running away on the 1st day of battle is just dumb.
Why should men do this? Why don't the strong empowered feminists fight? I'd rather be imprisoned than defend what my country's become after the loathsome anti-male and anti-white rhetoric I've had to endure for the last 6 years.
Because feminists are retards that don't understand women.
And you should always use the chaos and collapse to take advantage of the freaks and cowards who are in charge. This is one of the reasons why I said that nearby agencies around places like Portland should be hiring those police and then patrolling areas that the PPB abandons. Same reason why you have State Militias to hire US Service Personnel.
The Cathedral is filled with cowards who will give ground once pressed. If they are pressed from the outside, take that ground. It's a very old geo-political strategy.
I edited my comment. I think you may have missed my explanation. It should answer your question.
What the government says, and what the culture might expect are two different things.
I'm just saying, you really can't expect to take women to combat in an existential threat level situation. Let alone accept their casualties.
Women didn't start this war. Putin is not a woman.
Don't argue with him, he hates all women because none will sleep with him. He's just a MGTOW moron.
Women haven’t collectively treated the entirety of men the same way. Nor have Ukrainian women demanded Ukrainian men fight this war. Their male president did.
In your mind anyone who doesn’t hate women is a puppet of a great female conspiracy.
Him receiving money from the EU does not justify an invasion.
Feminist cunts will attack you directly now. The evil can only be denied by ignoring it , then of course attacking you for trying to make them notice.
I don't think you work for Putin. I think you were created by Putin in an old Soviet era secret lab, by mixing Belle Delphine's bathwater and incel tears with human DNA.
Post Reported for: Sink-Russian shill
Post Approved: I know he's not a Russian shill.
Imp, you are again, doing what feminists do. You look at Ukrainian men, then you claim you are one of them from a distance. You flap your mouth about how the collective you is forced into something, while you are sitting on your ass at home in safety.
Nobody asked you to fight, honey. Stop.
This is the Imp version of "those middle eastern women".
This is appropriation of someone else's tragedy.
Essentially the concept of 'Stolen Valour'.
Woah, you declare you would not do a thing that doesn't involve you and nobody asked you to do.
I also wouldn't suck Elon Musk's dick. Not like he would want me, not like we will ever be in the situation, not like even if we ever talked we would bring it up. BUT NO NO I WON'T. This declaration made literal zero influence on how the world continues to go on.
I'm sure you would. I'm so sure you are not just doing mouth karate and I'm sure Russia would really need you. Just like when you claimed that in a societal apocalypse, people will beg for you to be the male leadership. Righto.
So if women, whom you hate, do something, you just have to copy it like crazy because...? You are so much better or something?
Do you have a mirror? Just because someone else is an ass, doesn't mean you have to be an ass as well. It makes no sense why you are so obsessed with copying bad female behaviour and still pretending you are better.
I'm from Hungary, we share a fucking border with Ukraine. That's pretty much just as close as you can get without being Ukrainian. Your point? Ukraine also took a portion of Hungary with Trianon, so they have a part basically filled to the brim with my countrymen. But we are safe here.
It's sounding like victimising yourself while you have nothing to do with it. Again, feminist logic, inserting yourself into the situation of someone else, because "it totes can happen to me at any moment... wait for it", while it is actually happening to someone else.
Not to be rude, but I doubt it will be men who loudly brag about how they will totally point at women suffering and laugh.
You ARE a misogyinst, though. I doubt a society in need of saving will go for the people who like to fantasize about themselves like Scar from The Lion King just pushing women off the cliff and claiming humanity dying out because "men refuse to breed" is not only realistic, but a positive outcome.
Yes, yes, I am the enemy while you are the mighty hero. My point was, neither of us are involved in the conflict, but you pretend you are. But I already got cast as an evil woman fucking you over.
Again, as both of us are chilling in safety. K.
But Imp, you are not being used or anything, as you keep repeating here, you are not involved with any women ever and all. So why are you trying to play the Womanhating Jesus who dies for the simps? You know better, don't you? You are free from baby shitting women.
Terrorist state?
Bit far fetched.
The cold calculus is that women will not be able to fight as well. Draftees and Conscripts are terrible fighters as it is. Female Conscripts would be all but useless as infantry. Worse, if you believe in population change, killing off women is worse than killing off men. It destroys your population's ability to recover, and an overpopulation of men to women will cause massive social instability.
When it comes to an existential threat of war, men and women aren't equal. Worse, men are more expendable than women. Even children are more expendable than women if we are talking about the most extreme level threats.
If you have a population of 30 people: 10 men, 10 women, 5 girls and 5 boys, the lowest recoverable losses you can take are going to look like 1 men, 5 women, 0 kids. 10 men, 1 woman and 5 boys is basically the death of the group.
If the cold calculus is that women won't be able to fight as well, there should not have to risk themselves, then you're implicitly saying that... Men should hold the power as they take all the risk.
You are allowing them and enabling the double standard.
Either they are strong, independent and equally physically capable and thus able to be drafted and justified in the denigration of men all over the world... Or...
They are not equally strong, equally physically capable and therefore allowed to avoid draft and are UNJUSTLY denigrating men all over the world.
You are statistically correct with your assertion that female life is greater due to being the primary mode of reproduction but who are you to devolve women down to a uterus and protect them based on a sexual organ.
You also conveniently forget that not all Len are physically equal, capable, or strong enough to engage in war. Many a weedy, overweight, unskilled, and cowardly people were drafted, only to be cannon fodder. So if those people are draftable and capable then so are all the women who march that description.
Define "power". I think men should be the patriarchs of their families.
It's not a double standard, because I don't believe in equality between men and women, because I don't believe in equality. Inequality is the natural order of all things. Women have things they are good at, and men have things they are good at. If you are looking at an existential threat, the death of your women will cause the death of your society long-term. The death of your men is recoverable. The death of your children is very bad, but it's still recoverable.
Yes.
I'm not, I'm looking at the long-term survival of a people due to an existential threat. Women are invaluable in building families and social communities. Their reproduction and motherhood is a major aspect of that.
I oppose the draft generally, but it's about an existential threat. No one can be "cannon fodder" in such a case. You need to hope that enough men can get past their problems to survive. Women, still, need to survive for the society to survive. The chance that women can fight long and hard enough to become the salty, battle-hardened warrior that we need men to be in such an existential event is practically zero. Even a fat-body man can become that with enough pressure.
I appreciate that you believe in such methods. But the problem is now is the time to hold people to the standards they have created, even if it hurts.
They have been tooting the horn that they are just as good and equal as men in ALL aspects, and time and again they Welch when it is time to prove it.
It might not be a personal double standard, but you are enabling the Female Superiority crowd to hold one.
I'm guessing were just opposite sides of the same coin. You would rather fight them over their double standard, I'd rather let them have it all including reaping what they've sown. Then just rebuilding after the fact. We've fought against the rhetoric for decades.
They were never operating with standards to begin with. If you're going to hold them to any principles, you need to hold them to yours.
Probably, understand I'm denying the foundation of their rhetoric entirely. I'm not interested in engaging with rhetoric they don't actually have any principles to support, and the asserted principles they claim are not even ones I accept. That's why I'm standing specifically against equality. Equality is a communist and Leftist argument. My argument is towards freedom, which creates inequality by definition.
Now, for the draft, my only point is that I'm tolerant of the coercion of a draft from an existential threat (which may not even apply for Ukraine, I just don't think it can be dismissed out of hand). If we assert a genuine existential threat, I can see the justification of a society attempting to demand the men of that society fight.
Then again, if a society does have to demand people fight for it, was it worth saving? That's why I'm not going to try and argue with people here who would say, "I won't fight." Fair enough, if you want your society to collapse, I should actually be encouraging you to leave it, not force you to defend it. ... which is why the draft is a stupid plan anyway. General mobilization may not be, but conscription is. I'd rather the government just hand out anti-aircraft weapons to anyone that wants them, rather than try to force people who are fleeing to fight. They make bad soldiers anyway.
Very rarely, and mostly as filler.
It's similar to the American militia's experience in the Revolutionary War. Shitty and unmotivated militia can be used as a stop-gap in your line. You don't tell them to do anything but garrison a well defended position, put them next to highly motivated and disciplined troops, don't make it an obvious place to attack, and they'll actually do okay.
They aren't good troops, but you can typically use them in a pinch if you're careful. They may be motivated by the idea of glory in the battle if they do well. It's a good story to come home with.
Don't over expose them, don't give them complex orders, and allow them to retreat from battle slowly as a kind of skirmishing force, and you'll be fine.
The only real worse troops you can get is actually mercenaries. Your poorly motivated troops will flee at the first sign of trouble. Mercenaries, even good ones, can betray you during battle. You gotta be super careful with them. Machiavelli actually goes on and on about how fucking terrible mercenaries are. I think that's a personal bias from his particular era and region for warfare (feudal Italy... yeah, he's probably right). But mercenary forces can be highly competent and professional, and even more motivated that local forces if they are really good (the Swiss, the Hessians, the Prussians generally). Mercenaries are also the people who sacked Rome for years after not getting paid and forced the Pope to flee for his life, so you can see just how bad mercenaries can actually be.
Conscripts can work if used properly, and the worst they will do is break. Medium risk, low reward troops. Mercenaries can actually fucking turn on you, even if you paid them, even if they are professional. High risk, high reward troops.
Actual cannon fodder troops? Genuine troop formations designed to absorb heavy fire during the initial stages of an attack? They're actually all basically elite units. Light Infantry skirmishers that force the enemy to fire to early or expose their position (or sew disorganization by killing enemy officers), expert saboteurs who existed to blow up enemy fortifications, highly disciplined heavy infantry that are conditioned to resist artillery barrages, or even inspire incorrectly timed cavalry charges. The most extreme example are the Caroleans who were Sweedish crack infantry. They were extremely well-equipped, well-disciplined, professional soldiers who were designed to simply take heavy fire from enemy formations, engage at 50 yards, then re-engage at close range with swords and bayonets. This rush of crack infantry would regularly result in the breaking of enemy formations. The formations cannon and rear could then be attacked (either by advancing Caroleans or supporting cavalry), while the remainder of the regular troops made a slower advance on a disorganized enemy that would immediately try to redeploy and re-arrange units in the chaos, causing the whole formation to collapse into a route. This allowed the Sweedish Empire to punch well above their weight class against the French, Spanish, Poles, and Russians.
So yes, poorly trained and unmotivated troops can do well enough to survive and garrison positions if properly supported. But it's only the case if your enemy doesn't know how bad they are, and if you're a very competent commander. Otherwise, you do what the British did and just beat them into becoming disciplined. The whole Russian idea of shooting people who retreat didn't really serve any purpose except to scare other Russians from retreating, and keep the Germans on their toes.
No problem.