Categories
The AR10 – Colion Noir at IMT
DENVER. COLORADO -(Ammoland.com)- A leaked resignation letter provided to AmmoLand News shows the ATF agency in turmoil over political pressure.
Brandon M. Garcia was a career Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) special agent until he resigned over the politicization of the federal agency and the Government’s attempt to divide people.
Garcia sent a lengthy six-page resignation letter (embedded below) laying out his reasons for leaving the Bureau after 18 years of service. He explains that he didn’t do the job for money or “fun.” He wanted to put violent criminals behind bars. But lately, he doesn’t feel like he knew what the mission was anymore. He was asked to do things that didn’t make sense, and when he asked “why,” he was always told because “they” said so.
“I don’t know what the mission really is anymore, but I don’t like it. For the past couple of years, I have found myself asking “why” a lot more often. As of late, the answer is typically because “they” said so. I still don’t know who “they” are. But I seem to disagree with whoever “they” are on pretty much everything,” Garcia wrote in his resignation letter.”
The former Special Agent highlights how crimes across the country are prosecuted differently depending on if the state is a “red” state or a “blue” state. He explains that agents are expected to set aside their personal and political beliefs but says that the same standard doesn’t apply to the entire Department of Justice. He claims other ATF employees are struggling with the same realization.
Garcia claims that the “woke left” is running the country. He specifically targets the DOJ Civil Rights Division. He insinuates the low morale at the ATF and in law enforcement, in general, is because of the anti-law enforcement movement that he feels is being pushed by the administration and Joe Biden’s Attorney General. Merrick Garland. He says the DOJ was using COVID as a “scapegoat.” He points out that the last time that morale was as low as it is now was under the Obama administration, which was also hostile to law enforcement. He also points out that each administration celebrates diversity unless it is the diversity of thought.
“The last time morale was this low with ATF was probably 2013-2016. Coincidentally, that was also the last time we had an administration openly criticize law enforcement,” Garcia wrote. “Both administrations preached diversity, or rather “celebrate” it, but then expect everyone to have the same liberal opinion.”
The now former Agent wrote that he believes the country is more divided than ever, pushing people to extremes, and leaving those in the middle to suffer. He thinks the Government is “adding fuel to the fire.” Garcia thinks that the ATF’s leadership isn’t fighting for agents. According to him, the leadership is just going along with the administration not to lose their job. Biden demoted former ATF Acting Director Marvin Richardson for not going far enough with the new final rule surrounding the redefinition of a firearm.
Garcia believes that the ATF focuses too much on “the gun.”
He claims the recent actions by the ATF show that it is aligned with the left and says he doesn’t want to investigate the gun. He wants to investigate the criminal. He claims that the ATF used the failed vaccine mandate to increase the ATF’s budget to concentrate on “the gun.” He claims that the ATF “catered” to Biden’s dislike of guns. He says that most ATF agents are pro-gun and anti-criminal. He states that ATF agents didn’t become agents to go after law-abiding citizens for non-compliant firearms or to argue what a gun is or is not.
“Did our leaders forget that ATF agents are law enforcement? Most agents are pro-gun. All agents should be anti-criminal. We did not become ATF agents so we could collect data, ensure firearms are in compliance, seize trigger groups, argue about what a firearm is or is not, seize firearms for reasons other than prosecuting criminals, or spend countless hours inputting data to justify someone else’s existence in HQ. We became ATF agents so we could work the streets and smack evil in the mouth. We took this job because we are willing to risk it all and hope that we can make the streets just a little bit safer for the law abiding, upstanding citizens of the USA. At least that’s why I became an ATF agent,” Garcia wrote.
Garcia talks about how the Biden administration talks about guns and violent crime in the same sentence and pushes for banning certain types of firearms, but in blue states, those charged with gun crimes are only given a slap on the wrist.
He also states that violent crimes committed with firearms are usually “pled down to non-violent crimes, and the defendant again avoids prison.”
He also believes that banning guns wouldn’t stop crime. Garcia logically points out that criminals do not obey the laws. He doesn’t think criminals will stop using firearms no matter what the law says. He believes that banning guns will only affect law-abiding citizens.
The former Special Agent believes that the administration is targeting the conservative population. Garcia points out that very few people were charged with rioting during the summer of 2020, but hundreds have been arrested for the January 6 event for just being there. He even insinuates that pallets of bricks and frozen water bottles were planted at the scene of the 2020 summer riots.
“We can probably agree that law abiding citizens do not commit gun crime. I think that we can probably also agree that the majority of gun owners tend to be more conservative than liberal. So essentially, gun control will only affect law abiding, conservative citizens. Therefore, the Government is only punishing the conservative population. Similarly, in the summer of 2020, rioters were allowed to burn cities, assault the police, and terrorize citizens with little to no consequence. However, the chaos associated with January 6 has resulted in hundreds and hundreds of prosecutions. The vast majority of the defendants have been convicted of simply being there. They didn’t even have pallets of bricks or frozen water bottles staged at the scene, let alone Molotov cocktails for them to throw at the police. Still, 18 months later, the left continues to be absolutely obsessed with it,” Garcia said.
Garcia calls out President Joe Biden for blaming January 6 on Trump. He highlights Biden was saying you can’t be “pro-insurrection and pro-cop.” He insinuates that Biden and the Democrats are not “pro-cop.” he says that the administration changed the definition of “hypocrisy” like they changed the definition of “vaccine.”
“Where was the support of law enforcement from the Democratic party during the presidential campaign? For at least the past 10 years, the Democratic party and the DOJ Civil Rights Division has consistently justified criminal behavior, advocated for decriminalization, and scrutinized the officer’s actions when an officer was assaulted. That is the equivalent of asking a domestic violence victim what they did to cause their spouse to beat them up,” Garcia wrote.
During the January 6 event, a Capitol Police Officer shot and killed Ashli Babbitt. Garcia surmised if the protestors and Babbitt were left-wing, then the liberal media would crucify the officer, making sure he would never have worked again. He believes the DOJ is the “driving force behind this double standard.” He calls for equal treatment under the law.
He claims that politicians do not care about the truth. He says that they only care about public opinion. Garcia claims that the majority of the population supports law enforcement. He says most criminals dislike cops but that the Democrats are trying to appease the criminal population.
Garcia also takes issue with the amount of “violent federal defendants released following their detention hearing.” He says the system was broken. The agent blames the revolving door of prison as the reason for the rise of violent crime over the past few years.
Garcia says guns are not the problem. He believes that the problem is not holding criminals accountable for their actions. The former agent doesn’t think seizing firearms will combat violent crime. He believes that more violent criminals should be locked up and accuses legislators and members of the judicial system with neglecting their oath to uphold the Constitution.
He ends by saying he believes in God, I believe “in The Constitution, and I believe that bad guys belong in prison.” He doesn’t think the Government believes in those anymore.
I am aware that I run the risk of sounding like I have an inflated sense of the value that I bring to ATF. I do not. I know that I am just a guy, and I am someone that will be replaced the momentI turn in my stuff. Just to save everyone time, I will tell you that I am not resigning “in lieu of termination” and there is no scandal that resulted in my resignation. I have just reached the pointwhere I cannot, in good faith, support the direction this government is taking our country;specifically, the direction it is taking law enforcement.Over the past almost 18 years with ATF, I have worked in 4 different states and 5 differentcities. I have had at least 9 different supervisors and regularly received outstanding evaluationsfrom all of them. I am not a guy that bucks the system or causes problems or brings othersdown. I am just a guy that works hard and asks questions and wants to know the “why” behindeverything. I challenge others to simply do their very best, all the time, and expect them tochallenge me to do the same. But like most cops, I am also a guy that needs his job to be morethan a paycheck. I never did this job because it was “fun”, I did this job because it isnecessary…and purposeful. There are very few of us that are willing to do it. I have always saidthat I do this job for the mission, not the money. That mission used to be locking up violentcriminals. I don’t know what the mission really is anymore, but I don’t like it. For the pastcouple of years, I have found myself asking “why” a lot more often. As of late, the answer istypically because “they” said so. I still don’t know who “they” are. But I seem to disagree withwhoever “they” are on pretty much everything.It is getting more difficult, but I am still an optimist and I pray that someone, somewhere at thetop, pays attention and my resignation may somehow bring the support for law enforcement backto the people in the trenches. The people that could actually die doing this job, the street levelagents, Task Force Officers and street cops. I am not trying to speak on behalf of all agents andlaw enforcement personnel across the country. I can only speak to what I know is happening inareas I am familiar with. It seems like parts of the country may be perfectly content with the waythings are going. I don’t like referring to “red” or “blue” states, but at a minimum, I wouldsuspect agents and officers in “blue” states are not happy. We are a federal agency and so is theUSAO, if AUSAs in certain parts of the country are prosecuting various ATF type crimes,shouldn’t the entire country see similar results? Why do federal prosecutions vary from state tostate? We as agents are required to set aside our personal and political opinions and do our job.Why does that same standard not apply to the entire Department of Justice? I know there will bemany that disagree with my take on things and that is just fine. We should be allowed to havedifferent opinions; but I know there are others out there struggling with the same feelings I amstruggling with, and I pray they find purpose and rejuvenation for the job.Despite the email inundation, I did not submit my Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) because I think the questions are extremely vague. Vagueness leads to misunderstandings andmisrepresentations. If you want the truth, be specific. We are investigators, for us, the truth is inthe details. If you are implying the survey is in reference to certain people, include their name onit. Most field agents, especially younger ones, have no clue who makes up our “seniorleadership”. To be perfectly honest, I don’t know who all of them are either because most ofthem have no impact on my daily job. If you don’t include the name, we don’t know exactlywho you are talking about. And you won’t know who we are talking about. In a survey, thereshould be no room for interpretation. Unless of course, you want to manipulate the data. I
would be curious to know how the rest of the country feels about the Attorney General, theirrespective U.S. Attorney’s Offices, and DOJ as a whole. I think you would probably find thatlaw enforcement officers in a number of states feel like the DOJ Civil Rights Division and thewoke left are not only running the entire country but are decimating cities and policedepartments. You may also find that in certain areas, agents think ATF is folding to the pressures of the left. I doubt those questions will be asked because I don’t trust that you reallywant to know why morale is low. You look for a scapegoat, like COVID. But that is not why. Iam confident that the agents and officers regularly working violent crime and going toe-to-toewith the most violent criminals on the street are not worried about dying from COVID or ifeveryone is vaccinated or wearing a mask or if they can telework. If you want the field to takethe survey seriously, then you need to take the survey seriously.The last time morale was this low with ATF was probably 2013-2016. Coincidentally, that wasalso the last time we had an administration openly criticize law enforcement. Bothadministrations preached diversity, or rather “celebrate” it, but then expect everyone to have thesame liberal opinion. I don’t know anyone in law enforcement that wants to be“celebrated”. But people in law enforcement do need to know they are supported. We are allcops; race, sexual orientation, gender, religion, or political affiliation don’t matter to us when weare all working together to fight the evil that is out there. The government is creating thisissue. The government is dividing us. This job is not about us as individuals, it is about helpingthe people and protecting them from the predators.I have always loved the mentality of law enforcement officers. No matter their politicalaffiliation they stand for law and order. They stand for what is good. They stand for what isright. This is the fourth administration I have worked under. I have never seen the country moredivided than it is right now. We are becoming a country that focuses on extremes and all thegood people in the middle are the ones suffering. Instead of being a rational voice, thegovernment is only adding fuel to the fire. I don’t feel like our leadership is fighting for theagents, or for police in general. They seem to be going along with the attitude of the currentadministration. I get it, they don’t want to push back and risk losing their position, or title. Butwe are allowing people that have never done this job to dictate how we do this job. Why are weso afraid of educating politicians with the truth?Our agency talks a lot about developing real “leaders”. If our leaders are afraid, or unwilling, tofight back against things they know are wrong, maybe they are not leaders. “Because they saidso” or “Because I said so” should never be an acceptable answer for a leader and those phrasesare never used by a real leader. A long time ago, when I was a brand-new patrol officer inAlbuquerque, my training officer told me “If you have to say the words ‘I’m in charge’, then youare not in charge”. Our government tends to punish, shame or pressure employees intocompliance rather than motivate. If employees (especially those in law enforcement) aremotivated, and
know
they are supported, they will work their tails off. Money is not
the
motivating factor for law enforcement officers. Sure, we have bills to pay, and we should beable to live a comfortable lifestyle, but we
need
to serve a mission greater than ourselves, and we
need
to feel like what we do may actually make a difference.
I feel like what I am being told and what I see happening are contradictory. In a meeting not toolong ago, the Deputy Director told us that ATF is not aligning with either political party (whichis the way it should be. But also intriguing to me that he felt the need to emphasize it), however,ATF’s recent actions sure seem to align with the left. Over the last couple of years, ATF has been spending a significant amount of time talking about and changing the course of this agencyto focus on “the gun”. Frankly, I don’t really care about investigating the gun, I care aboutinvestigating the criminal, and then plucking that criminal out of society. Last year, HQ spent pretty much the entire year, talking about the “vaccine” and threatening termination for thosewho wouldn’t get it. Why should anyone, let alone the government, care who does and does notget vaccinated. Yet, the Deputy Director threatened to prosecute the agents for “lying to afederal agent” if we did not appropriately update our vaccination status the system. Seems a bitextreme. I have never even threatened a criminal with that charge. The push was clearly political, and I wanted no part of it. ATF didn’t fight for the rights of the agents. They allowedthe government to treat those that fought back like they were lepers. Then they tasked attorney’swith determining if agents were religious enough to opt out. Does it really matter? They didn’twant the shot. That should have been the end of it. But then there was a second assault from theattorneys, but this time the level of questioning essentially mocked one’s faith. They knew theyhad no legal grounds, so they used the leftist tactics of shaming, excluding, and threatening intocompliance. There is no telling how many agents got vaccinated for the sole purpose of keepingtheir job and their pension. The government’s tactic had no teeth and overnight it all just wentaway. They acted like it never happened. Another liberal tactic. But it was worth it right? ATFgot a bigger budget out of it. A budget that will be used to focus on “the gun”. ATF catered toan administration that has made it clear that they don’t like guns and they don’t like the police.Money isn’t free, no matter what this administration says.Did our leaders forget that ATF agents
are
law enforcement? Most agents are pro-gun. Allagents should be anti-criminal. We did not become ATF agents so we could collect data, ensurefirearms are in compliance, seize trigger groups, argue about what a firearm is or is not, seizefirearms for reasons other than prosecuting criminals, or spend countless hours inputting data to justify someone else’s existence in HQ. We became ATF agents so we could work the streetsand smack evil in the mouth. We took this job because we are willing to risk it all and hope thatwe can make the streets just a little bit safer for the law abiding, upstanding citizens of the USA.At least that’s why
I
became an ATF agent.Deep down, I can’t imagine that our ATF leadership agrees with this administration’s approachto policing or their treatment of law enforcement personnel. Nobody in law enforcement canagree with this administration and still believe in the mission of police work. It is not socialwork; it is police work. This cannot be the future of law enforcement if we truly care about ourcountry and the well-being of its citizens. For at least the last decade, the government hasfocused on holding police accountable. I agree, we do need to be held accountable. Buteveryone needs to be held accountable for their actions, not just police. Who is holding thecriminal accountable? Who’s holding the politicians accountable?As a first line supervisor, I consistently see agents and officers second guessing themselves before and after the use of force. It is not their fault. I have been in several uses of force, andthey were all deemed “reasonable”. I truly believe that after force is used by ATF agents, we
really are supported by ATF. The problem is most law enforcement leaders are afraid tovocalize the fact that using force against criminals is simply part of the job. But why? We canno longer say that because we have stopped fighting back, we have stopped standing up forourselves and now we are owned by the woke left. Words don’t stop violence. Only violencestops violence. That is just the way it is. That is also why this job is not for everyone. Violenceis the only language these violent criminals understand. If you have not experienced that type ofevil on the streets or while conducting your investigations, you are investigating the wrong people. They are out there, and they will kill you without thinking twice. Yet recently, thegovernment only seems to advertise fighting back against the right. Why don’t we advertisefighting back against all criminals? I think it’s because even good ol’ fashioned conservativefolks agree that there are consequences for breaking the law. So, nobody complains about it.Which makes it easy. Since most moderate conservatives tends to appreciate law enforcement,the far-right lacks support; therefore, the right cannot “cancel” you. The extreme left however,that is more difficult. They clearly have an anti-law enforcement view and even non“progressive” liberals openly share their discontent for law enforcement. So, we just play alongand act like what the left is doing is not evil. I feel like we have taken on the mentality of “if youcan’t beat them, join them”. I will not join them.If our leaders are unwilling to educate politicians as to why their policies are flawed or that it isimpossible to rationalize with irrational people (i.e., de-escalation) or that their naivety makesthem sound completely ignorant, how will they ever know? Or…. they do know, they don’t care,and our job no longer matters.This administration talks a lot about guns in the same sentence they talk about violent crime;however, they say nothing about holding people accountable for the crimes they commit (unlessit supports their agenda). I agree that gun crime is out of control. But I also know there is adouble standard that is being ignored. When horrible tragedies occur with firearms, the leftseizes every opportunity to argue for gun control and the elimination of certain types of weaponsystems. However, specifically in blue states, fewer and fewer defendants associated with guncrimes are actually sentenced to prison. Additionally, violent crimes committed with firearmsare consistently pled down to non-violent crimes and the defendant again avoids prison. This isnot unique to state prosecutors, the USAO does the same thing. If there is no consequence tocommitting a crime, then why would a criminal stop? If guns were banned, why would thecriminals actually agree to abide by the law?We can probably agree that law abiding citizens do not commit gun crime. I think that we can probably also agree that the majority of gun owners tend to be more conservative than liberal.So essentially, gun control will only affect law abiding, conservative citizens. Therefore, thegovernment is only punishing the conservative population. Similarly, in the summer of 2020,rioters were allowed to burn cities, assault the police, and terrorize citizens with little to noconsequence. However, the chaos associated with January 6 has resulted in hundreds andhundreds of prosecutions. The vast majority of the defendants have been convicted of simply being there. They didn’t even have pallets of bricks or frozen water bottles staged at the scene,let alone Molotov cocktails for them to throw at the police. Still, 18 months later, the leftcontinues to be absolutely obsessed with it.
While typing this I see that President Biden is completely distraught that Capitol Police officerssuffered through “medieval hell” on January 6
th
and, of course, it is all Trump’s fault. Hecontinues to say you can’t be “pro-insurrection and pro-cop”. Like the definition of “vaccine”,has this administration also changed the definition of “hypocrisy”? Where was the support oflaw enforcement from the Democratic party during the presidential campaign? For at least the past 10 years, the Democratic party and the DOJ Civil Rights Division has consistently justifiedcriminal behavior, advocated for decriminalization, and scrutinized the officer’s actions when anofficer was assaulted. That is the equivalent of asking a domestic violence victim what they didto cause their spouse to beat them up.Wasn’t there an officer involved shooting on January 6? We sure didn’t hear much about it untilthe left decided he was a hero. I’m not suggesting it was a bad shoot at all, I will always give theofficer the benefit of the doubt in a shooting. However, I am suggesting, if it was a differentcrowd of rioters, the officer might be in prison right now. At a minimum, the liberal mediawould have ruined his career and the officer would have been unemployable…effectively,canceled. If you think I am wrong, you are not in law enforcement, or at least not real lawenforcement. Cops know I am right. Yet, this is the side that our leadership has decided to please. DOJ is clearly the driving force behind this double standard. I thought they were allabout equal treatment?I am sure I don’t have all the facts, but where would we get them anyway? There is no mediasource I trust and there is no Congressional hearing that is not a complete sham. Depending onthe witness, they are either coddled or insulted. Politicians no longer (or maybe never) careabout the truth, they only care about public opinion. Why do we, as law enforcement, try to playthat game? Police will never deal with the majority of the population, and the majority of the population will always support the police. Of those we deal with, most of them will dislike us,and some of them will love us. Why can’t we just leave it at that? When we try to appease the percentage of the population that will always hate us (because they are criminals), everyoneloses.I think our job as Special Agents is relatively simple. We need to target, catch, and submit asolid case that results in violent criminals going to prison. I know there are other agent jobs thathave different roles, but as a whole, we need to put people in prison. ATF says NIBIN identifiesthe “trigger pullers”. I say NIBIN identifies a gun that was used in a shooting. Police workidentifies “trigger pullers”. My experience, and I would assume the experience of agentselsewhere, indicates that prosecutors no longer view circumstantial evidence as real evidence. Itseems to me like they view it as reasonable doubt. Through the emphasis on NIBIN, I think ATFis headed in a direction that will generate cases with more circumstantial evidence. Nowadays,at least in Colorado, it takes a very special prosecutor to take on a case with circumstantialevidence. Then a special judge and jury to convict. If we already know that prosecutors nolonger view circumstantial evidence as real evidence, then why are we trying to give them morestuff they won’t use. NIBIN should simply be a tool, if we continue to move our agency in adirection that relies so heavily on NIBIN, we will turn into data collectors and investigators thatrarely prosecute anyone. That’s not what I signed up for.
This year alone, our office has had more violent federal defendants released following theirdetention hearing than I have seen in my entire career. That is saying something because I havenever had to fight so hard just to get violent offenders prosecuted. So not only are we prosecuting fewer defendants (and pleading down charges to nothing so prosecutors can avoidthe courtroom), but they are also being released. Am I wrong to think that the system iscompletely broken when the outcome of an investigation depends on the draw of the AUSA andthe Magistrate? Could you imagine if the tables were turned? We would be fired orindicted. Especially in the past two years, it seems like jails and prisons can’t let people out fastenough. I wonder why violent crime is up. We really need to do something about those gunsthough, right?I stand firm that guns are not the problem. The problem is that we don’t hold criminalsaccountable for their actions anymore. I have spent the majority of my career working violentcrime. I learned a long time ago that you do not combat violent crime by seizing firearms; youcombat violent crime by locking up violent criminals for a really long time. Not just a reallylong time on paper, a long time behind
actual
prison bars; like we used to do it before legislatorsand members of the judicial system decided to neglect their oath.I hear people say that the pendulum will swing back like it always does. Historically, it hasswung back due to public opinion and the public realizing that being a victim is not as fun as theleft made it out to be. Now, the difference this time is that the pendulum swung left and is nowlocked there through laws and policies. In almost 20 years of law enforcement, I have neverseen a policy decision that made policing less restrictive. All policy decisions restrict whatagents and officers are allowed to do. This kinder, gentler, softer way of policing is now the newnormal.Like I mentioned previously, agents will work their tails off under the appropriate conditions.The agents, TFOs, and support staff assigned to the Colorado Springs Field Office absolutelywork their tails off. They have done more than I could ever ask of them. It is the people likethem that make me so proud to have been an ATF agent. But when prosecution comes down tothe roll of the dice, I am no longer willing to subject these guys to the situations I have previously subjected them to. They are far too valuable, and I care about them too much. I’msure there are other ways to do this job that doesn’t require us to get our hands dirty or look acriminal in the face and see the defeat in his eyes when he knows we caught him red handed.But those ways are not for me. I believe in God, I believe in The Constitution, and I believe that bad guys belong in prison. The Government no longer believes in any of those things. Since Ican no longer do this job the way I think it needs to be done and have the appropriate level ofsuccess, then it is time for me to fight this fight from a different angle. I will always fight for good, and I will always fight for law enforcement.
Thank you, ATF, be safe and God bless, Brandon Garcia
Categories
Because of its owner
1 of 17
The prisoners at the penal colony in St. Petersburg were expecting a visit by officials, thinking it would be some sort of inspection. Instead, men in uniform arrived and offered them amnesty — if they agreed to fight alongside the Russian army in Ukraine.
Over the following days, about a dozen or so left the prison, according to a woman whose boyfriend is serving a sentence there. Speaking on condition of anonymity because she feared reprisals, she said her boyfriend wasn’t among the volunteers, although with years left on his sentence, he “couldn’t not think about it.”
As Russia continues to suffer losses in its invasion of Ukraine, now nearing its sixth month, the Kremlin has refused to announce a full-blown mobilization — a move that could be very unpopular for President Vladimir Putin. That has led instead to a covert recruitment effort that includes using prisoners to make up the manpower shortage.
This also is happening amid reports that hundreds of Russian soldiers are refusing to fight and trying to quit the military.
“We’re seeing a huge outflow of people who want to leave the war zone — those who have been serving for a long time and those who have signed a contract just recently,” said Alexei Tabalov, a lawyer who runs the Conscript’s School legal aid group.
The group has seen an influx of requests from men who want to terminate their contracts, “and I personally get the impression that everyone who can is ready to run away,” Tabalov said in an interview with The Associated Press. “And the Defense Ministry is digging deep to find those it can persuade to serve.”
Although the Defense Ministry denies that any “mobilization activities” are taking place, authorities seem to be pulling out all the stops to bolster enlistment. Billboards and public transit ads in various regions proclaim, “This is The Job,” urging men to join the professional army. Authorities have set up mobile recruiting centers in some cities, including one at the site of a half marathon in Siberia in May.
Regional administrations are forming “volunteer battalions” that are promoted on state television. The business daily Kommersant counted at least 40 such entities in 20 regions, with officials promising volunteers monthly salaries ranging from the equivalent of $2,150 to nearly $5,500, plus bonuses.
The AP saw thousands of openings on job search websites for various military specialists.
The British military said this week that Russia had formed a major new ground force called the 3rd Army Corps from “volunteer battalions,” seeking men up to age 50 and requiring only a middle-school education, while offering “lucrative cash bonuses” once they are deployed to Ukraine.
But complaints also are surfacing in the media that some aren’t getting their promised payments, although those reports can’t be independently verified.
In early August, Tabalov said he began receiving multiple requests for legal help from reservists who have been ordered to take part in a two-month training in areas near the border with Ukraine.
The recruitment of prisoners has been going on in recent weeks in as many as seven regions, said Vladimir Osechkin, founder of the Gulagu.net prisoner rights group, citing inmates and their relatives that his group had contacted.
It’s not the first time that authorities have used such a tactic, with the Soviet Union employing “prisoner battalions” during World War II.
Nor is Russia alone. Early in the war, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy promised amnesty to military veterans behind bars if they volunteered to fight, although it remains unclear if anything came out of it.
In the current circumstances, Osechkin said, it isn’t the Defense Ministry that’s recruiting prisoners — instead, it was Russia’s shadowy private military force, the Wagner Group.
Yevgeny Prigozhin, an entrepreneur known as “Putin’s chef” because of his catering contracts with the Kremlin and reportedly Wagner’s manager and financier, brushed aside reports that he personally visited prisons to recruit convicts, in a written statement released by his representatives this month. Prigozhin, in fact, denies he has any ties to Wagner, which reportedly has sent military contractors to places like Syria and sub-Saharan Africa.
According to Osechkin, prisoners with military or law enforcement experience were initially offered to go to Ukraine, but that later was extended to inmates with varying backgrounds. He estimated that as of late July, about 1,500 might have applied, lured by promises of big salaries and eventual pardons.
Now, he added, many of those volunteers — or their families — are contacting him and seeking to get out of their commitments, telling him: “I really don’t want to go.”
According to the woman whose boyfriend is serving his sentence at the penal colony in St. Petersburg, the offers to leave the prison are “a glimmer of hope” for freedom. But she said he told her that of 11 volunteers, eight died in Ukraine. She added that one of the volunteers expressed regret for his decision and doesn’t believe he will return alive.
Her account couldn’t be independently verified, but was in line with multiple reports by independent Russian media and human rights groups.
According to those groups and military lawyers, some soldiers and law enforcement officers have refused deployment to Ukraine or are trying to return home after a few weeks or months of fighting.
Media reports about some troops refusing to fight in Ukraine started surfacing in the spring, but rights groups and lawyers only began talking about the number of refusals reaching the hundreds last month.
In mid-July, the Free Buryatia Foundation reported that about 150 men were able to terminate their contracts with the Defense Ministry and returned from Ukraine to Buryatia, a region in eastern Siberia that borders Mongolia.
Some of the servicemen are facing repercussions. Tabalov, the legal aid lawyer, said about 80 other soldiers who sought to nullify their contracts were detained in the Russian-controlled town of Bryanka in the Luhansk region of eastern Ukraine, according to their relatives. Last week, he said that the Bryanka detention center was shut down because of the media attention.
But the parent of one officer who was detained after trying to get out of his contract told the AP this week that some are still being detained elsewhere in the region. The parent asked not to be identified out of safety concerns.
Tabalov said a serviceman can terminate his contract for a compelling reason — normally not difficult — although the decision is usually up to his commander. But he added: “In the conditions of hostilities, not a single commander would acknowledge anything like that, because where would they find people to fight?”
Alexandra Garmazhapova, head of the Free Buryatia Foundation, told the AP that soldiers and their relatives complain of commanders tearing up termination notices and threatening “refuseniks” with prosecution. As of late July, the foundation said it had received hundreds of requests from soldiers seeking to end their contracts.
“I’m getting messages every day,” Garmazhapova said.
Tabalov said some soldiers complain that they were deceived about where they were going and didn’t expect to end up in a war zone, while others are exhausted from fighting and unable to continue.
Rarely, if at all, did they appear motivated by antiwar convictions, the lawyer said.
Russia will continue to face problems with soldiers refusing to fight, military analyst Michael Kofman said, but one shouldn’t underestimate Russia’s ability to “muddle through … with half-measures.”
“They’re going to have a lot of people who are quitting or have people who basically don’t want to deploy,” said Kofman, director of the Virginia-based Russia Studies Program at the Center for Naval Analyses, on a recent podcast. “And they’ve employed a lot of measures to try to keep people in line. But ultimately, there’s not that much that they can do.”