comment: >
  
  I was an officer in the Canadian military. The  punishment for not obeying an order in a combat situation was immediately execution…by me. My punishment for not not carrying out the execution…my execution.
  Did it ever happen? No..not since the two World Wars.  Would it have happened. Only in very particular dire circumstances.
  Allowing lower units to make decisions is not th  same as not carrying out orders. Part of the orders is to use discretion in well defined circumstances. Otherwise, all orders are absolutely expected to be carried out with no wiggle room.
  As for ‘fragging’.  There is a lot of mythology without any actual evidence.  If it happened any soldier involved would have been executed or given a life sentence and, no, thr military ould not let it ‘slide’ but pursue the case for decades if necessary.  Modern western militaries are based on absolute discipline and absolute following of orders. The time for reasonable discussion, etc. is before an order is given and not afterwards.  Once I, a green second lieutenant with 2 months in rank give a clear order to my senior NCOs with 30 years experience, they  snap to attention and  say ‘yes, sir’ regardless how stupid the order is.
context: Sounds to me, it would be better to make the discipline fairer (less corruption and favoritism) instead of harsher. >
  
  
  questioning orders
  
  Especially this part is troublesome in my opinion, soldiers who put their lives on the line should have the right to question orders that sound suicidal or otherwise idiotic and/or dubious. Blind obedience is exactly the thing that makes the Russian army fair so badly, -they're essentially denied the right to use their own judgement on how to achieve their set goal in the field. And now Ukrainian Generals want to do the same? >
  
  We probably need to hear more about the details of the law rather than get it from a newspaper article.  The US has similar laws in place that prohibit troops from disobeying, but exempts it when the order is illegal.  As a veteran myself we were made to understand it as "you can refuse an order, but you'd better be absolutely sure that it's illegal". >
  
  When they cover the part about disobeying orders do they cover Hugh Thompson and the My Lai massacre? Or do they just talk about it in generalities? >
  
  Charlie company..  I should've known, it's always Charlie company. >
  
  
  The law aims to standardize and toughen the repercussions for rule-breaking, improving discipline and the combat readiness of military units. Disobedience will be punishable by five to eight years in prison, rather than the previous two to seven; desertion or failure to appear for duty without a valid reason by up to 10 years. Threatening commanders, consuming alcohol, questioning orders and many other violations will also be dealt with more harshly, potentially with prison time; those who broke these rules in the past may have gotten away with a probation period or the docking of their combat pay.
  Those who lobbied in favor of the new law, such as the Ukrainian Army General Staff, argue it will make discipline fairer: Previously, because courts adjudicated infractions on a case-by-case basis, some perpetrators were able to escape punishment for serious rule-breaking entirely, while others received harsher sentences for less significant violations, according to an explanatory note that accompanied the new law.
  But soldiers, lawyers and human rights watchdogs have slammed the measures as an inappropriate and blunt instrument that won’t deal with the root causes of military indiscipline — and over 25,000 Ukrainians called on the president to veto the law altogether in a petition submitted to the president late last year.
  
  For US redditors in the service, how different is this from the UCMJ in terms of severity for similar offenses at wartime? >
  
  It’s a little harsher, in the US for example the max punishment for failure to follow an order is 2 years confinement. Disobeying an officer is 5. 
  Desertion is where the UCMJ get heavier. Desertion during wartime carry’s the max sentence of the death penalty. >
  
  
  Desertion during wartime carry’s the max sentence of the death penalty.
  
  as also does a willful destruction of government property or endangering it ie. hollywood style "I just steal this airplane/tank etc. and do heroic suicidal shit with it" actually carries a death penalty if you make it back. >
  
  Tom Cruise, we are looking at you! 
  How do you differentiate “willful destruction” from (successfully or not) taking the initiative (man on the ground) in action and ruining / wasting some equipment / munitions in the process? Surely in a combat scenario people do all sort of things, including dumb ones, you cannot punish everyone >
  
  "You know it when you see it."