Qualitative analysis explores political implications of military refusal among Russian servicemen, indicating broad societal impacts.
This article examines the institutional pressure experienced by Russian servicemen who refused participation in military operations associated with Crimea and Ukraine. Drawing upon qualitative institutional analysis, documented testimonies, migration-related narratives, and journalistic materials, the study explores how military refusal gradually transformed from a disciplinary issue into a politically sensitive category connected to loyalty, legitimacy, and state authority in contemporary Russia. The article argues that refusal cannot be understood exclusively through legal or military frameworks. Following the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the escalation of the conflict involving Ukraine, military participation increasingly acquired symbolic political meaning associated with patriotism, sovereignty, and national unity. Under such conditions, refusal became institutionally interpreted not merely as procedural disobedience, but as a potential sign of political unreliability and deviation from officially sanctioned narratives. Particular attention is devoted to mechanisms of governance through uncertainty. The study demonstrates that institutional pressure frequently operates not only through overt repression, but through administrative ambiguity, reputational vulnerability, anticipatory fear, psychological destabilization, and adaptive self-regulation. The article further examines broader consequences of refusal, including migration, exile, identity fragmentation, and political estrangement. The Russian case illustrates how contemporary authoritarian systems increasingly maintain control through symbolic management of loyalty and regulation of psychological conditions shaping visibility, conformity, and political belonging. Originally published in April 2021. This revised academic edition was prepared for archival publication and international research accessibility in 2026.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ernest Ibragimov (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: