From other articles I've read: the commanders have their own bodyguards and soldiers get their weapons only when actually sent to front. Also, there are castes of soldiers. Those who are cannon-fodder are sometimes even brought in handcuffs (there are even videos of this).

> not pull a sidearm and shoot the corrupt commander

Wouldn't you just get "zeroed" by the upstream commander or court-martialed and sentenced to a gulag?

What would be your next move after shooting your commanding officer? You're a dead man yourself after that. Possibly even shot by your fellow soldiers who did drink the kool-aid. And your family back home would probably face consequences as well.

I wondered the same thing when reading about WW1 where soldiers were ordered to charge at enemy trenches and they'd predictably get mowed down immediately, then the officer would send the next group out. I can't help but think 'just shoot him', but it's a lot different actually being in that situation vs. reading about it

Fear of being executed, probably. Russia has not historically been friendly to whistle blowing.

Probably just realized he didn't want/couldn't lead a military dictatorship, which probably would've been his only option at that point.

Ah yes! Meatwaves armed with shovels, washing machines and refrigerators. Thanks for the "info"!