Our homeland. The strength from weakness

Russia.  The strength from weaknessMilitary buildup of, it seems, is designed to make up for the relative weakness in other factors force

Our homeland has set its sights on the military buildup. With all this military threat OUTDOOR unprecedentedly low. But the course with options to continue. It fits into the folding new international realities and meet the internal logic of today's development. The question is how to improve it.
We — well, it seems, favorite country — do not explain to myself and maybe to the end do not know why we military power and how much it should be.
Force plays?

It is believed that military force is losing its value. In particular, this thesis is popular in Europe, nicked, Samoyed stories in their own wars.
Indeed, most of the main problems of the modern world — climate change, the requirement of greater prosperity of the masses becoming more active, the state of the global money, increasing the relative lack of raw materials and food — are not solved by military force. The changing political culture and structure of the economy are doing stupid from an economic point of view, capture and hold territory and living on their populations.

The use of military force to a certain extent delegitimiziruetsya. If earlier war, to paraphrase painfully familiar formula of Clausewitz was the usual continuation of the policy, and now, after 2-world wars and the emergence of nuclear weapons, the ethical evaluation has shifted. The use of military force is regarded as a failure of policy.

The thesis of the uselessness and futility of military force in the world today and in the future and as a policy tool and as an indicator of the strength and increases the impact of the experience of recent years. The most massive government militarily — United States — plays in a row two wars that it initiated (Iraq, Afghanistan).

But the notion of the reduction of the role of military force in the world and its depreciation as the lead instrument of state policy against a different set of reasons and arguments.

Renaissance force?

War won all the same. The West prevailed in Yugoslavia — the cloudy outcome — in Libya. Our homeland defeated, though Straseni price in Chechnya and — for sure — in Georgia.

Nuclear deterrence works by preventing the huge wars. And no one seriously does not reduce nuclear weapon. And only upgrade — and increases. New world favorites such as China or India, as it were, winning in peaceful competition, rapidly arming themselves.
Go constant discussion of future wars for resources, water.

Such discussions can be considered remnants of an old mindset. And so it is. Municipal and scientific areas related to security policy, overcrowded passed its own peak-to-date good-looking gentlemen, who can not and do not wish to think differently both categories since his youth. And they pull back. Who — after inventing endless threats. Who — through calls for a return to the blessed times of their process of arms limitation. Who was one of the motors (though decent) the arms race.

If any of the readers of this article and considers me one of these gentlemen — I will not sulk. Though with them for the most part and do not agree. But in for a penny, in for a pound.

Discussions about the dangers are, apparently, and the specific grounds.

Dreams — Liberal (world government) or obscurantist (a massive brand-new concert of nations that would control the world) — are not implemented. The world is moving to the ordinary chaos, exacerbated by interdependence.

Undermined many of the ethical norms of international coexistence. The attack on Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, many justified on humanitarian grounds. But the main thing — the result. Countries have seen that the feeble beating. And though many, or strong — not beating. Non-nuclear Iraq under false pretenses smashed. And the least enjoyable from a humanitarian point of view, but had time to acquire a nuclear weapon North Korea do not touch.
Leave and an old principles of political morality — "do not pass their". At first, "their" passed the Russian Alliance. Who is "us" Mubarak became donate and West.

In a brand new world capture direct control over territory and resources located on it is not working. But the closing or opening of access to military means can provide. Not the case with the "new" near the main line of the arms buildup — Navy. If countries develop a tendency to overlap the upper reaches of the rivers, especially terrible for Indochina and India, this problem is solved and can start using military force.

Renaissance role of military force in international relations is a long time and began the spread of nuclear weapons. New and potential nuclear powers put their own neighbors in a vulnerable position. They will try and try to make up for it.

Towards greater reliance on military power and push structural changes in the international system. Faced with global challenges with the weakening of the institutions of global governance, society rushed under the protection of a conventional institution — the country. Began re-nationalization of world politics and in part of the economy.

But the country's weakened. All of them are less keep control of information, financial, economic, and the means and the political process, even in their own areas. Despite the fact that they are more dependent on the outside world. It creates another incentive to greater reliance on the tool that the country is still almost entirely are kept under control — military force.

In the medium term, the partial re-militarization of world politics can contribute and Drawstring a decade the global economic crisis. It limits the appetite of the military lobby. But immediately increases the radicals inside the state and makes a massive incentive for waging war in order to distract from the inner despair. The war in Libya — with all due respect to people who are repelled by Gaddafi — looked like a traditional small victorious war.

Our homeland and military power

Our homeland and began to increase that power. Despite the fact that from the standpoint of military security, it is unprecedented in the history of their own situation. Country, to form the millennium around the main idea of the state — protection against external hazards and the physical security of its own sovereignty — no one threatened in the medium term will not be able to threaten.

The latter possibility was a military conflict until 2008, while the expansion of the NATO alliance threatened involvement in Ukraine. What could make the intolerable from the standpoint of military security of the Russian Federation and the vulnerability was fraught with the advent of the Ukrainian division and conflict, which could be with the highest degree of probability drawn into the whole of Europe.

Expansion of the alliance was stopped as annoying though it may sound, not appeals to reason and persuasion. A military strike fist in Georgia. Moscow should be "grateful" the current Georgian administration and to those who pushed for its attack on South Ossetia. It is a private war and defeat, warned even more scary scenario.

Russian propagandists external dangers often indicate an advantage of the formal NATO's armed forces general purpose. But insidiously not behold the fact that the armed forces and their waste in Europe for two decades, shrinking and no end in sight.
China, in anticipation of worsening their own rivalry, including political
and military, with the United States to do everything in order not to threaten Russia. There is obviously a problem of the rise of China, which could result in the absence of enormous policy newcomer to the development of Trans-Baikal "Finlandizing" Russia. But this is not a military threat.

The real danger of conflict are multiplied by the southern periphery of Russia. And these conflicts will prevent or arrest, including military force. But the threat is qualitatively different from the existential, which defined the history of Russia.

Even in the normal run of trivial scale military threats are not visible. If, obviously, do not bully yourself danger creation by the United States the opportunity to strike a massive blow for the Russian Federation ultra-precise non-nuclear missiles. Even if the missile will be made, the threat of attack on Russian countryside looks funny. The answer is it can only be nuclear. If you obviously do not let yourself be drawn into an arms race in this pre unprofitable direction.

You can scare yourself and following the example of the European missile defense Russian who feared a completely fabulous Reagan's Star Wars. I hope that those who today leads a campaign against the European missile defense system, pursue more optimal targets: a politically tie the hands of the Yankees, get a good and convincing excuse for abandoning any further contractual steps to reduce all nuclear weapons.

But despite the absence of the danger of war and the pursuit of military growth inevitably. Not only because of the need to have modern armed forces to deter potential challenges.

I think that in the sight of the need to manage today's Russian military gain is determined primarily by factors of international positioning of the country in view of pledged its prospects. Four years of sweet kurlykane pro upgrade is almost complete lack of any specific action, not counting the "Skolkovo", with clear evidence of the fact that for modernization breakthrough not ripe neither society nor the elite.

With such a vector of internal development country can not hold the position of a third of the majestic powers. Despite all the luck and skill of diplomacy. And, apparently, the need for "greatness" lies not only in the ambitions of the favorites, and in most Russian.

Threatens economic weakening and weakening of sovereignty. Not only Vladimir Putin, and other Russian got in the 1990s. proof of his own belief that the feeble beating. A society that seems to be the same again almost at the gene level is ready to defend its sovereignty, come what may. What does it with a rare courage did in desperate throughout its history. Then to crawl back into poverty, and even slavery. One can regret the fact that we, in the majority of their own, can not and does not want to "live like everyone else", to be "normal" state. And I do not see it on the horizon of such configurations that could break down such type of behavior.

Military buildup, it seems, is designed to make up for the relative weakness in other factors of power — economic, technological, ideological and psychological.

Just condemn such a bet is not befitting for the modern world. It's almost all over the case. But the modern world is changing so rapidly and unpredictably, it's very possible and that this rate is adequate.

Military growth will inevitably

Increases the risk of errors that the institutional constraints of the arms race is virtually no
The most fascinating and revealing in the beginning of military reform — its luck. All the other proclaimed reforms are in place, crawling snail's pace or simply fail. It is not only in the claimed figures of appropriations for defense. They were obviously not stand up to the end of obmyslennye rearmament plans.

There is a truly revolutionary reform of the armed forces. From the large, usually mobilization Russian, Russian Army, calculated first at the huge land war with the West, in favor of smaller, more prof army constant alert, which would focus on conflicts of low and medium intensity. In order to prevent conflicts of huge increases reliance on nuclear weapons, which is also being upgraded.

Massive nuclear weapons, although heavily applied, as previously required, so no one tried to reach the advantages of conventional forces. In addition, a nuclear sword of Damocles is needed for the "tsivilizovyvaniya" hot heads. Particularly active when unparalleled depth and speed changes in the world lead to loss strategic guidelines sense.

Already saying that the army is rapidly professionalized and not far off a complete rejection of his appeal or a sharp decline and impending transfer to the volunteer base. Started, though unevenly, slowly, humanization of military service. But the main thing is that the armed forces, despite the resistance of the wild, are adjusted for the real challenges and difficulties of the real and the future.

Rearmament is creaking. MIC almost everything bled white. But the main thing — is hardly reformed. And there is the shadow of Russian Leviathan. As not long ago was a white shadow Russian Russian army.

I will not enumerate the merits. There are many. Do not be shorter than the list of problems and errors. Especially since the reforms deliberately not open a discussion and were studied. Apparently, the military and political leadership of the country has come to the conclusion that at least some discussion will lead to such opposition that the reform would kill again. Even the basic documents — the strategy of national security in 2009 and 2010 military doctrine does not actually reflect the processes taking place in the military. Just found in other, not a lot of intersecting planes.

How and how much

Continuation of the policy of military growth, not only in general better for the ruling elite, and perhaps also for the country, and inevitably. The question is, how and how much. Should not peretratit means ditching the budgets for development, and it seems to have embarked on a self-destructive for the country's decline — instead of a sharp rise — the cost of education. Even destroys the-horizon capabilities for modernization breakthrough.
Stupidly, peretrativ and rearm beyond reasonable measures to make themselves unnecessary opponents, fearing Russia.

Increases the risk of errors that the institutional constraints of an arms race in fact. So far only two stops. Ministers of money — past and present — try not to give much demand. And the Minister of Defense is trying to limit the appetite of starving and apparently corrupt, like almost all of us, remains of the MIC. Parliament in the current political system, the harsh role in determining military policy and budgeting can not play.

What is more worrying, as previously virtually no scientific and public debate over the definition of values of the military policy. In a limited way it was, even in the late USSR. We then make the academic team of professionals at the physical level and morally aged. Who is right — with a liberal hand — today's military policy is criticized, as I know, almost two-three publicist. Kudos to them for their courage. But they do not possess sufficient knowledge and politically committed. In the center stands a group close to the Ministry of Defence of professionals, as appropriate praising all his deeds and not pay attention to the error. On the left — in the media, fortunately, it is not reaching to the general reader — write the 10's, if not hundreds of professionals representing the remnants of the monetary and mentally bloodless academic part of the Russian military-industrial complex. I will not strike the reader phantasmagoric dangers that these professionals scare ourselves and our country. Very often they have no description of interfacing with reality, is a caricature of Russian fiction. It looks like they do not heed. But
they are under pressure and weight can not forms the public opinion in the multimillion human environment associated with the defense. In the middle of these professionals and Serdyukov, and behind it are registered Putin almost traitors limiting crazy appetite, trying not very successfully to impose konkurentnst how much-or modern methods of farming.

Paper — not a note to the governing bodies. Because I will not give detailed advice. Many of them, I think, are obvious. Some are not obvious to me. But to understand what needs to be done to artificially create an independent social, political, scientific examination of processes in the military sphere. Either there will be many very costly mistakes.

Like this post? Please share to your friends: