Corruption allegations and their handling can offer a very telling glimpse into the political dynamics and operational morale within armed forces and the society they serve. Two recent high-profile cases – one in Russia and the other in the United States – illustrate the huge differences between the two nations.
On 21 May 2024, Russian media reported General Ivan Popov’s arrest on charges of fraud and corruption related to the sale of military construction materials. Popov had previously commanded the 58th Combined Arms Army deployed on the fiercely contested Zaporizhzhia sector of the front line in Ukraine. He was dismissed from that post in July 2023. His dismissal followed his public criticism of the Russian defence leadership’s wartime decisions, which he boldly declared were incompetently handled.
Popov’s arrest has little to do with corruption and much to do with political retribution. Corruption is endemic in Russia: if there were a campaign to eliminate it or even control it, there would be huge numbers of arrests. But this is not the case. Rather, accusations of corruptions are used selectively to eliminate dissenters. Popov’s case perfectly exemplifies this. His arrest is a warning to others who might criticise the Kremlin – and thus, implicitly criticise Putin.
Popov’s popularity among the troops and reputation for competence make his arrest demoralising for Russian military personnel. It sends a clear message: loyalty to the regime supersedes operational effectiveness and merit. Your perception of Putin is valuable; your life is not.
In the Russian military, this creates an environment where questioning central command is discouraged, stifling innovation and initiative among commanders who might otherwise offer valuable input and leadership.
In contrast, the United States recently arrested retired four-star Admiral Robert Burke on bribery charges. Burke, who served as vice-chief of naval operations until 2022, allegedly awarded a government contract to a company in exchange for a job. If convicted, he faces up to 30 years in prison.
It couldn’t be clearer that Burke has been arrested because he is part of a system intent on holding individuals accountable, regardless of rank or status – not because of his personal politics. US Attorney Matthew M Graves was adamant that no exceptions are made for admirals or CEOs regarding corruption. In America, even those in positions of power cannot exploit their roles for personal gain without facing significant consequences.
Burke’s case is prosecuted on clear legal grounds, with transparent proceedings and a focus on accountability. His arrest is framed within a context of legal justice rather than political purging. This helps maintain institutional trust and morale among the ranks. It reassures service members that corruption is actively combated and the justice system is not used as a weapon against dissenters.
Moreover, the American military system, at all levels and branches, encourages its members to think on their feet and question decisions from higher-ups when necessary, fostering an ethos of innovation and critical thinking. American service people follow orders; but they are allowed and encouraged to point out mistakes and act independently in the right circumstances.
The stark difference in these two cases is an excellent example of the rigidity in the Russian military and society in general, versus the freedom of thought and action in the United States. In Russia, operational effectiveness is sacrificed for political loyalty. Commanders are less likely to question central command, which can only result in a more rigid and less adaptive force unable to think on its feet.
In the United States, while cases like that of Admiral Burke can harm public trust in the short term, the broader approach reinforces a culture of integrity and justice, ultimately supporting higher morale and operational effectiveness.