Contrary to the expectations of those who are inclined to judge the military reform by tabloid headlines — "change course" nowhere. You can either complete the military buildup, or to continue it. But such expectations are.
Their cause must be found, in-1's, misunderstanding what is being done in recent years. It is caused by the unwillingness or inability of the previous administration to clarify the meaning of Sun transforms not only the community, and those who are related specifically to the conversion. Also, a wide and fully successful information campaign designed to discredit the military build-up.
In-2, as though what a huge and complex matter, segodnyaschy military reform can not go completely smoothly, with no errors, well, no abuse of certain individuals too. Unscrupulous people should be punished, mistakes and wrong decisions — correct. And the new Chief of the General Staff explained that certain questions must be adjusted taking into account revealed the shortcomings. This applies to the abuse and wrong steps.
But military construction tasks remain the same. So what are they and why the cause is lack of understanding and a common worldview, as if all that is made — a "collapse of the army?" Let's try to understand.
According bolshennomu account Problem one — increasing the level of combat readiness of the Armed Forces. It is the beginning of big structural reforms initiated in 2008, to put it mildly, left much to be desired. Key measures for the merits of the tasks that were implemented under the previous leadership sun — do not cause vibrations.
This is the first general equipment with new, modern standards of weapons, vehicles and equipment. This issue was particularly acute, since most of what there was in the Russian Armed Forces, has not been updated since the Russian Union evenly became obsolete and was mentally worn out physically.
In the second place it is — removal of the Armed Forces of the amorphous-comatose state in which they are equally immersed in Russian end of time, and bring them into battle-worthy look.
To judge whether that is manufactured properly, and that will improve the management of newcomer — turn to what any "change of course" expected? Let us not be like tabloid media and talk about the "drank" with "kickbacks" — there is no hesitation that they have (unfortunately, they are accompanied by at least how little scale transformations), but task force development, they have no case. Turning to the issues of military construction, the majority of which are criticized by those who are looking at their deeper gossip and scandals — from ex-military.
Many of them are now critical of the "new look" Russian Armed Forces. Much of the Soviet Army remembers, her fame and power. And many may not realize and accept those configurations that occur in the last few years. It is not because they feel as though nothing should change. Quite the contrary — the condition in which aircraft were before the reforms, a far cry from the state of Russian Army, and the change of the state of oscillation does not cause anybody. Russian Army, in contrast to the Armed Forces, has not experienced neglect on the part of management of the country, because the defense was listed as the main concern of the country. It has not been unhurried destruction of the fact that the values of the country was in last place. Russian army avoid complete loss of combat effectiveness only by the strength of the supplies, the accumulated work of generations of Russian people, and a very long expected when taking care of her recovery will again become the country's biggest challenge.
And the country's defense tasks again among the main values. It seems to be quite the same level of support to return and re-start, that our army has once again become the best in the world. But that still saw the ones who know and the best and worst times of the Armed Forces? Scale reduction and structural changes that affected most database management and unit of the Armed Forces. How else could interpret such a reform, not counting as a "collapse" and "betrayal"? Communicating with the ex-military, to this day I hear that the military build-up has no vision the ultimate goal, and newcomer Ami built without understanding of its task.
Meanwhile, it is not. And the long-term prognosis of the situation of foreign policy, and evaluation of temper external threats and rendering scenarios of possible conflicts, and even the definition of a possible enemy — manufactured and put into a military base construction. And this work is done completely "effective managers" and the Russian military science, which has vast experience and his school and his proven an advantage over zabugornom not only on the pages of theoretical work, and in the fields of labor. For example, a large contribution to the understanding of a brand new form of the armed forces have brought the work in these days of celebrating its 180th anniversary of the Military Academy of the General Staff.
Moreover, few of these works are published in the popular press, and in a possible opponent nobody pokes his finger with a large crowd — have their own premises. In that sense changes do not explain to the people the military, and safety hazards, which are under construction army, a civilian society — I see the biggest mistake that allowed the conversion of information to discredit the very ways. Incidentally, they have long been a form of non-military warfare. A war themselves are becoming less like the last war, when the armies came together in the fields to get the victory valor and military fortune.
Here we come to the most frequent complaints about military reform. It is the swing of the need to eliminate division level in the Army and a general reduction of the armed forces.
Indeed, the standard way of planning, based on a comparison of existing in a certain direction forces with a possible opponent, gives the transition to a brigade structure and a reduction in the number of troops obvious reduction abilities. Just do not forget that all the recent large-scale invasion took place before the appearance on the stage of history of nuclear weapons — or else carried out in respect of those who do not possess this instrument. It is easy to realize that at least some are not veiled by "humanitarian" invasion by the standard 2-global war threatens the aggressor nuclear missile response. For this reason the possibility of crossing our borders "tank armadas" becomes vanishingly small. And though what the aggressor will try to avoid an open invasion if the country has nuclear weapon, you can still use it. Inability to implement strategic nuclear forces would be possible because: a) the scale of the internal conflict, where the aggressor "humanitarian" support one of the parties, b) conflict with bezyadernoy state, the scope of which will be adequate to use the SNF. And in the end we get the term guerrilla war in their own country or conflict a neighboring state, similar to 080808.
It turns out that the divisions, which are designed for large-scale conflict and can be deployed only in wartime — is not necessary. Let me remind you that the majority of Russian
divisions of the Army has been cropped, in other words, they had a part-time structure of peace. When the conflict they fielded combat-ready regiment support units, while the rest shall complete the mobilization of a plan to engage in full-scale combat.
So Makar, we do not need many thousands of mass army, calculated on the many thousands of indescribable invasion, and high operational control over a wide area. Perfectly cooked subdivisions with enough support modern weapons and defensive weapons, possessing sufficient mobility and speed of reaction to danger, will be more preferred in the criteria of our spaces, where often there is no population to economic activity, not to mention the fighting at the front of the extended band. The line itself is not peculiar to the front for a "guerrilla war", and in conflict with the bezyadernymi neighbors would not seek mass mobilization.
With all this mobilization reserve itself — you need, as once said Colonel-General Gerasimov in a meeting with the officer. He explained that the transition to a professional army is not absolutely never planned, and mixed manning (at the call and under contract) will continue in the future, as it allows the balanced forms the mobilization resources. In all this period of compulsory military service is an annual, because at the present level of preparation it is sufficient.
There will have to explain that at the present time most of the units have a mixed staffing. However, this procedure should be considered transitional. There has been a gradual transfer of units, a principal in the operational plan or require long-term personnel for technical training, one hundred percent on the contract. So Makar, a gradual separation of Prof. "backbone" of the armed forces and units of "reserve" that may be involved in the expansion of the potential conflict and will forms the mobilization reserve in specialties that do not require long-term training.
This separation should be considered correct. Having only a professional army saddest impact on the morale of the civilian society. Not having a fairly large number of people with military training and awareness of personal involvement in the defense of the country, it would seem to be separated from questions of national security, considering it "not their business." You also need to realize that a full-scale invasion of improbability does not eliminate the need to have a fairly large mobilization reserve for purely military reasons. This justifies imposing the situation in Syria, where, in fact, an internal conflict, supported by external forces that led him to participate in all of society. A variant of external aggression, beginning with breastfeeding support and internal destructive forces, again, should be considered more possible for us.
Meanwhile, the creation of perfectly cooked and the huge mobilization reserve has some difficulties for us. Forced recruitment has difficulty — even on a relatively comfortable year period. Motivation conscripts to serve in a large extent remains duress, which is influenced by the quality of training and combat effectiveness conscript units. And then, apart from the ideological necessity of working with civilian society, aimed at the realization of his involvement in nation-wide tasks, including the task of defense, and should think about the forms of mass training allowance.
Perhaps we should reflect on division of a regular contract and conscript spare units of the Armed Forces. The world has accumulated a lot of experience, "territorial army" and the "National Guard", created by the militia principle. Naturally, this experience can not be copied without the analysis of the features of our society. But, in my modest opinion, training and service provision with the smallest margin of civilian life (in some countries training is held in the form of fees or Short-even on weekends old days) — will allow increment replacement power both quantitatively and qualitatively.
With all of this takes a similar approach will claim the creation of a huge number of training centers, so that their distance is not a barrier to regular fees (hence the territorial principle in almost all countries.) Some legislative steps including the time spent on training part of the employer-paid weekends and holidays — in my opinion, would not be a big challenge. As well as benefits, incentives for verbovanie for service in the replacement units. Apart from this, such principle will allow the system easier to integrate pre-conscription training, which will be able to be more mass on the basis of common training centers.
In general, this is just my personal thought. And the question of the development of the draft system asks a comprehensive study and discussion by the company itself.