International

Russia sends soldiers to war but ignores mental trauma they bring home

Published

4 years ago

December 10, 2022

When Vladimir returned from the front line to his hometown in Siberia, his wife barely recognized him.

The nice young man she married in university was gone. Instead, she now lived with a secluded, abusive husband who routinely drank himself into oblivion, brutally beat her and tormented their three children.

Their four years of happy marriage had ended when Vladimir was conscripted into the Soviet army in the mid-1980s and sent to fight in Afghanistan. He rarely spoke about what he experienced, except when the flashbacks occasionally broke through from the depths of his consciousness during drinking bouts.

“He would get so drunk he wouldn’t remember who was in front of him, and he’d confuse us with those on the front line, screaming that he was going to kill us all,” his daughter, Alya, said in an interview, speaking on condition that only first names be used to protect her family’s privacy.

It is now widely understood that psychological injuries remain long after combat ends. And as Russian President Vladimir Putin presses on with his bloody war in Ukraine, it is only a matter of time before thousands of veterans begin returning from the front — to their families and to a failed mental health care system that many experts say is no better equipped to help them than it was when the Afghanistan war ended in 1989, or after two wars in Chechnya in the 1990s and 2000s.

Violent altercations involving soldiers who returned from Ukraine this year are already piercing through the slumber of Russian society, which has tried to tune out the war from daily life.

READ ALSO:

In September, a soldier who recently returned from “behind the ribbon,” a euphemism for the Ukrainian border, walked into a pizzeria in Tula and hit the owner with a metal chair, reportedly dissatisfied by the look the owner gave him.

A month earlier, in Rostov-on-Don near the Ukrainian border, the captain of a missile regiment shot a taxi driver who said he opposed the invasion of Ukraine, according to local media.

Already more Russian soldiers have been killed in nine months of war in Ukraine — more than 25,000, according to British Defense Ministry estimates — than in the decade-long Soviet mission in Afghanistan, in which 15,000 died.

“When soldiers return from Ukraine, their families and friends will be the first ones to suffer because the soldiers will go nuts from all the injustice,” said Dmitry Florin, a journalist and a veteran of the Second Chechen War. “And if later it starts to dawn on them that the whole war in Ukraine is one of the biggest deceptions of this century, and that they were sent there like cattle to kill people with their own hands, it will be a nightmare.”

“After their relatives, the state will be their next target of placing anger and their main enemy,” Florin added, “as it is the state that ruined their lives.”

Florin said that his tours in Chechnya still haunt him in a recurring nightmare, where a general orders him to go back even though he quit military years ago.

He said that the authorities effectively discarded many of his comrades after their return from the war. Promised financial payments were often never received — Florin sued his local military office for eight years to get his — and officials dismissed their requests for any rehabilitation or psychological help.

The only counseling, Florin said, was during mandatory “prep” sessions before each deployment to Chechnya, which he said felt more like ideological indoctrination with “hate lessons.”

The war in Ukraine means that Russian men born in the late 1990s or early 2000s will grapple with the same lack of support provided to Russian men born in the 1960s to 1980s who served in the military operations in Afghanistan and Chechnya, which as in Ukraine now, the Kremlin refused to call “wars.”

While the Kremlin’s use of euphemisms is commonly viewed as part of a propaganda campaign, the lack of a formal war declaration can have legal and financial implications for Russian soldiers who, as a result, may not technically qualify as being eligible for veterans’ benefits.

Soldiers who fought in Afghanistan and Chechnya were eventually granted veteran status and modest benefits similar to those who served in World War II, known in Russia as the Great Patriotic War, but they hardly basked in glory.

READ ALSO:

A conflict in a foreign land, Afghanistan, that was at first hidden from the population and the “counterterrorism” operations to suppress Chechen guerrillas in a rebellious territory seemed alien compared to the Red Army’s defense of mainland Russia against Nazi Germany that became a pillar of Soviet identity.

Instead, “Afghantsi,” as the Afghan veterans are commonly referred to in Russia, were quickly forgotten by the state and did not find sympathy in the general public. The chaos that ensued from the fall of the Soviet Union only exacerbated the situation of widespread and untreated post-traumatic stress and an overall sense of purposelessness experienced by thousands of ex-soldiers.

“Returning from Afghanistan, they could not find a use for themselves, without a profession and education, many of them are forced to drag out a miserable existence, especially those who were injured and became disabled,” concluded a 1993 sociological paper, published by the Russian Academy of Public Administration four years after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. “They no longer had the strength to earn money, and their pensions are barely enough not to starve to death,” the report said.

And if surgeries and prosthetics for missing limbs were eventually obtainable, there was little to no psychological help available to address the trauma veterans suffered.

Even now, there are no centralized Russian rehabilitation programs for veterans of military conflicts and those returning from Ukraine risk being left to their own devices as private organizations struggle to cope with the rise of people needing help, according to a Russian grass-roots support group called War Veterans.

“There are no rehabilitation programs themselves, because no one tests veterans for [psychological] trauma, and its effect on the physical state of the body,” the group said. “There is no individual approach to assessing the condition of combatants and often a common single and ineffective template is applied en masse.”

According to War Veterans, the Russian government provides grants to veterans’ unions and individual groups set up by former soldiers, effectively outsourcing counseling and rehabilitation. The existing network of government-run military sanitariums, a Soviet-era relic where wounded ex-soldiers could spend several weeks for recovery, has also proven to be ineffective. There are few such facilities and even fewer with specialized programs for veterans.

Some Afghantsi, and later Chechnya veterans, formed the core of organized crime groups that defined much of the 1990s in Russia. Amputees in military uniforms begging for money on the streets or veterans busking on town squares singing wartime songs were a frequent scene in Russia in the 1990s and 2000s. Alcoholism and drug use spiked among former combatants, often hand in hand with domestic abuse.

READ ALSO:

Zinky Boys, Svetlana Alexievich’s collection of firsthand accounts from the war in Afghanistan, which is probably one of the fullest depictions of the disarray experienced by soldiers and their families, opens with a monologue by a mother whose son killed a neighbor with a kitchen ax and put it back into her cupboard as if nothing unusual had happened.

The book paints a picture of forgotten soldiers, left to fight their demons and the chaotic Russian bureaucracy on their own.

“When Afghantsi came to the authorities to solve some problems, they were always told: ‘I didn’t send you to Afghanistan,’ ” retired Col. Leonid Khabarov recalled in a 2019 Current Time TV special commemorating 30 years since the Soviet withdrawal, referring to years-long legal battles for compensation and health care promised by the state.

According to Alya, her family only realized Vladimir was dealing with a severe case of PTSD later in life, as they had never heard the term and access to psychological help was severely limited.

There were no one-on-one counseling sessions. Vladimir went to several group meetings set up for Afghan veterans, but they only triggered him, and each gathering led to drunken violence. Vladimir was especially harsh on his son.

Alya’s mother for years tried to protect her children from abuse, but constant beatings took a toll on her mental and physical health. She also developed an alcohol addiction, barely left the house in her final years, and died recently from liver failure. Neither Alya nor her elder siblings married or had children, fearing they might carry the abuse and trauma into a new generation.

“We discuss it often with my brother: Should we, with our family experience, ever have kids? Will we be able to raise normal people, or will we turn into our parents?” Alya said.

“People who will be returning soon from Ukraine are not only traumatized but also corrupted by all-permissiveness,” Alya said. “This won’t be just something they keep in the families; it will pour onto the streets.” She added: “There will be thousands of men just like my father, and it won’t be safe either for them and for us.”

The Washington Post

Related Topics:Featured mental trauma Russia war

Up Next

Man jumps to death from 25-storey Times Square building in New York

Don't Miss

Over 100 injured in Spanish train collision

International

Kemi Badenoch: I Don’t Want Migrants Turning UK Into Nation Of ‘Little Ghettos’

Published

8 hours ago

October 6, 2026

Trends Admin

Leader of the UK Conservative Party, Kemi Badenoch

Kemi Badenoch: I Don’t Want Migrants Turning UK Into Nation Of ‘Little Ghettos’

UK Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch has warned against the emergence of what she described as “little ghettos” of separatist migrant communities in Britain, arguing that newcomers must integrate and respect the country’s culture and values.

Badenoch made the remarks while opening the Conservative Party’s annual conference in Birmingham, where she set out her vision for rebuilding the party and Britain.

Speaking about immigration and integration, the Conservative leader said she wanted Britain to remain a “high-trust” society in which people coming into the country accept the social expectations and responsibilities that come with living there.

“I don’t want lots of little ghettos of separatist communities where they are recreating the place that they came from. That will ruin the United Kingdom,” Badenoch said.

She added that Britain was “not a dormitory” or “a hotel” and argued that migrants who come to the country, including those who come primarily to work, should respect British culture and values.

Badenoch stressed that she was not advocating race-based citizenship, saying Britain had never operated such a system. However, she argued that British culture, norms and expectations remained important to maintaining social cohesion.

READ ALSO:

“It is not just about the values and the principles,” she said, arguing that the way people conduct themselves and the expectations they share also form part of British culture.

The remarks form part of Badenoch’s broader attempt to establish a tougher Conservative Party position on immigration, integration and national identity as the party seeks to regain political ground.

She has also acknowledged failures by previous Conservative governments to deliver promised reductions in immigration. In her newly published policy document, The Right Way, she argues that the party needs clearer principles and a more consistent approach to government.

The Conservatives are also proposing tougher conditions for migrants seeking permanent settlement in the UK, including changes to the rules governing indefinite leave to remain.

Badenoch’s comments have drawn attention because of the sensitivity surrounding immigration and multiculturalism in Britain, with critics arguing that language about migrant communities risks stigmatising minority groups.

Her supporters, however, say the emphasis on integration rather than race is intended to reinforce a shared national identity and social cohesion.

The debate comes as immigration remains a major political issue in the UK, with the Conservatives facing pressure from Reform UK over migration while the Labour government continues to face questions over legal and irregular immigration.

Badenoch, who became Conservative leader in November 2024, used the conference to present her party as a political alternative focused on economic growth, stronger national security, reduced bureaucracy and stricter immigration policies.

Her comments on migrant communities are expected to remain a significant part of the Conservatives’ political message as the party seeks to redefine its approach to immigration, integration and British identity.

Kemi Badenoch: I Don’t Want Migrants Turning UK Into Nation Of ‘Little Ghettos’

International

Trump Approves Firing Squad Execution For Fort Hood Shooter Nidal Hasan

Published

8 hours ago

October 6, 2026

Trends Admin

Trump Approves Firing Squad Execution For Fort Hood Shooter Nidal Hasan

President Donald Trump has approved the execution by U.S. Army firing squad of former Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who was sentenced to death for the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, that left 13 people dead and 32 others wounded.

The Pentagon announced the decision on Monday, saying Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had recommended the firing-squad execution and Trump approved it.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said the Secretary of the Army would determine the date and location of the execution.

Hasan, a former Army psychiatrist, opened fire at a medical facility at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009, shortly before he was due to deploy to Afghanistan.

The attack killed 12 active-duty soldiers and one retired serviceman, while 32 others were wounded. Hasan was shot and seriously injured by a responding civilian police officer and has been partially paralysed since the attack.

READ ALSO:

A military jury convicted Hasan in 2013 of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder and sentenced him to death.

During his court-martial, Hasan represented himself and did not call witnesses in his defence. He acknowledged that he carried out the shooting and argued that his actions were intended to protect Muslims whom he believed were being targeted by U.S. military operations.

Hasan has remained on military death row at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, while pursuing legal challenges to his conviction and sentence.

Trump’s approval does not mean the execution will take place immediately. Further legal and administrative procedures remain, and Hasan could seek relief through the federal courts, potentially delaying the execution.

If carried out, Hasan’s execution would be an extraordinary event in the history of the U.S. military justice system.

The U.S. military has not carried out an execution since 1961, when Army Private John Bennett was hanged. The last known U.S. military execution by firing squad took place in 1945.

The decision also comes amid renewed debate in the United States over methods of execution. The Trump administration has expanded the available methods for carrying out federal executions, while recent difficulties surrounding lethal injection have intensified scrutiny of capital punishment.

Hasan’s case has remained one of the most prominent military death-penalty cases in the United States since the Fort Hood attack nearly 17 years ago.

The Army is now expected to determine when and where the execution will take place, subject to the remaining legal process.

Trump Approves Firing Squad Execution For Fort Hood Shooter Nidal Hasan

International

UK Threatens to Expel 27 Israeli Diplomats as Jerusalem Consulate Standoff Escalates

Published

19 hours ago

October 5, 2026

Trends Admin

UK Threatens to Expel 27 Israeli Diplomats as Jerusalem Consulate Standoff Escalates

The UK-Israel diplomatic crisis has escalated to its most dangerous level in decades, with Britain threatening to expel 27 Israeli diplomats if Israel proceeds with its plan to shut down the British consulate in East Jerusalem this Thursday. The extraordinary standoff—sparked by UK sanctions on illegal Israeli settlements—now threatens to sever one of the West’s most strategically important bilateral relationships. According to reports confirmed by The Jerusalem Post and The New Arab, British Ambassador to Israel Simon Walters personally delivered the warning to Israeli officials: for every British diplomat forced out of the East Jerusalem consulate, London will expel one Israeli diplomat from its embassy in London. With 27 British staff members facing expulsion, Israel’s London embassy—which has already been without an ambassador since September 2025—could be effectively gutted. The UK Foreign Office declined to comment on the reported threat, while Israeli diplomatic sources told The Jerusalem Post there was “no reason for us to address speculation regarding decisions other countries might make in the future.”

Behind the scenes, UK National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell made a quiet visit to Israel last week in a desperate attempt to prevent the closure, three sources told Reuters. The talks failed to produce an agreement to keep the consulate open, and the British government did not disclose the visit.

The confrontation traces back to September, when UK Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband announced sweeping trade sanctions on goods from illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. In a dramatic statement to Parliament, Miliband accused the Israeli government of turning a “blind eye” to what he called “ethnic cleansing” by settler terrorists. “The British government agrees that there is ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in areas of the West Bank, perpetrated by settler terrorists,” Miliband said. “All too often the Israeli government has turned a blind eye to this, and worse members of it have made statements and taken actions to support the forced displacement of Palestinians.” The UK settlement sanctions, announced in coordination with France and Canada, will ban imports from illegal settlements and target companies and individuals providing “construction, infrastructure, financing, or real estate for settlement expansion.” According to the House of Commons Library, the measures will take effect within six to nine months, with the import ban applied geographically based on settlement postcodes. Britain specifically cited the Israeli government-backed E1 settlement project—which would effectively sever the West Bank from East Jerusalem—as a key factor undermining the two-state solution.

READ ALSO:

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar announced a series of countermeasures on September 8, calling the UK sanctions “morally distorted” and accusing Britain’s ruling Labour Party of interfering in Israel’s upcoming October 27 general election. The Israeli retaliation included closing the British Consulate General in East Jerusalem within 30 days, removing British representatives from the US-led International Gaza Support Center in Kiryat Gat, ending British participation in training Palestinian Authority security forces in Ramallah, and barring 12 British officials deemed “anti-Israel” from entering Israel, including 11 MPs and a lawyer. Sa’ar framed the measures as a necessary response to what he called a “hostile Labour government.” “Israel has nothing against the British people,” he said. “Unfortunately, a hostile Labour Government is in office, systematically acting against the State of Israel, and it has left us with no choice but to finally respond.”

The British Consulate General in East Jerusalem is not a routine diplomatic post. Established in 1838—110 years before the founding of Israel—it operates separately from the UK embassy in Tel Aviv and handles relations with Palestinians in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza. The consulate is located in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood. The UK, like most of the international community, does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem, which Israel occupied in 1967 and later annexed in a move not recognized internationally.

The UK sanctions on Israel have drawn fierce criticism from within the British Jewish community. Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis called the measures a “dark day for British Jews,” warning they could “embolden those, at home and abroad, who use hatred as a weapon against Jews.” Miliband, who describes himself as a “proud British Jew,” rejected the chief rabbi’s claim directly. Asked on BBC Radio 4 whether Mirvis was wrong, Miliband replied: “Yes, I am saying I don’t agree with the chief rabbi, somebody over whom I have great respect.” He added: “Anyone who holds British Jews, or indeed Jews around the world, responsible for the actions of the Israeli government is engaging in antisemitism, pure and simple.” The Board of Deputies of British Jews said it followed the announcement with “deep regret,” warning that deteriorating UK-Israel relations could “further inflame community tensions.”

The standoff has been further inflamed by domestic political developments in Britain. On Sunday, the UK Green Party voted to declare Zionism a form of racism, passing the motion by 1,022 votes to 813 at its annual conference. Israel’s foreign ministry declared the resolution “a clear antisemitic text” and announced that Foreign Minister Sa’ar was barring Green Party leader Zack Polanski from entering Israel. Israeli President Isaac Herzog called the Green Party decision “a disgrace,” while Labour Party chair Bridget Phillipson described it as “shameful.”

With the consulate closure deadline set for Thursday, both sides appear entrenched. Israel’s Foreign Ministry has confirmed the consulate will close “as announced.” Two sources told Reuters that while talks were still ongoing, an agreement before the deadline was unlikely. If Israel proceeds and the UK follows through on its threat, the expulsion of 27 Israeli diplomats would mark an unprecedented rupture in British-Israeli relations. Israel’s embassy in London has already been without an ambassador since September 2025. The loss of 27 additional diplomats would effectively gut the mission. A Western diplomat told The Guardian that the closure would set a “dangerous precedent” for the status of diplomatic missions monitoring the status quo in Jerusalem, emphasizing that the UK does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the city under international law. The coming days will determine whether this UK-Israel diplomatic crisis escalates further—or whether a last-minute compromise can pull both nations back from the brink.