Non-obvious factor — the power tool

Non-obvious factor - the force of armsSubject of military force and its role in international relations has always been the focus of scientists. But soon some researchers began to notice the trend and reduce the impact of limiting the use of force. What position on this issue should take our homeland?

From November 30 to December 2, 2012 in Moscow was held XX Jubilee Assembly of the Council on the outside and Defense Policy (SWAP). In the past year, the organization celebrated the significant dates: 20 years and 10 years, swap body printed board "Russia in Global Affairs". Double anniversary, it was decided to use to inject new energy development and advice, and magazines: to bring them to the next, more than the highest level of information and analysis, management rejuvenate swap, bring it to a new generation of professionals, politicians, journalists, businessmen and public figures. According to the tradition as an official guest of the participants of the Assembly was Sergey Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, the veteran of the swap. The event was accomplished two-day International Conference "Russian force in the world of the XXI century — the power tools, tools, thoughts and images", in what was the role of the world's naikrupneyshie professionals in the industry strategy, international relations, current and former politicians, members of the Valdai kluba.Moderom section "The power of weapons" was Sergei Karaganov stretch occupied since 1994 as chairman of the Presidium of swap, and on the anniversary Assembly elected chairman of the Presidium of the great men of this organization. In the present article, the readers weekly creator presented his views on the relevance of force weapon, which at the current time, in his opinion, was not a completely natural factor. For a discussion on this issue in the course of the ensuing Assembly, told in an upcoming weekly "military-industrial complex."

Our homeland has set its sights on the military buildup. Accepted and put into practice programs from retrofitting and fundamental reform of the Armed Forces. Although OUTDOOR military threat unprecedentedly low, this policy will continue, as fits into the emerging international realities and meet the internal logic of the development of. Because we are at the moment is not about to change course, and how to improve it, avoiding blunders and foolish spending. The ideas expressed in this article are intended to provoke debate about defense policy, which in Russia is now much less intense than even the Soviet Union. And it's just not safe. Meanwhile specifically now the question of military strength — its role and capabilities in international relations — is particularly acute. And we seem to do not fully know why at this point how much military power and it needs to be.

Whether the instrument is losing?

Extensively vserasprostranena point of view, that the military force — This is central to the instrument throughout the history of politics — progressively loses its value. In particular, the thesis itself is popular in Europe, nicked, in their own stories of war and did during the second half of the XX century, opt for pacifism.

Indeed, most of the main problems of the modern world — climate change, the demands of greater prosperity by becoming more active masses, the collapse of the world monetary system, increasing the relative lack of food — can not be solved by military force. The changing political culture and structure of the economy are doing stupid from an economic point of view, the capture of territories and their population living on. Detain them under control is not possible. The population is unrealistic to operate only for their own benefit. All military victory ended the last 4 decades of political defeat (Iraq, Afghanistan) and / or embezzlement cyclopean to maintain the population at a conquered or reclaimed areas (the same as Iraq or Chechnya Russian).

In the era of mass communication really hampering (though not canceling) the purposeful manipulation of information, increases the moral and political costs of using military force, especially if it is a question of large-scale and long-term use. Such power may act under certain conditions in general do not receive public support or be outlawed (delegitimiziruyutsya). 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 use of military force often seen as a political failure.

Decrease the effectiveness of military force and its delegitimization of almost everything related to the continuation of the nuclear stalemate, first between Russia and the United States. The risk of an escalation of at least some severe conflict to the nuclear level and the global forces big countries to limit the use of force at lower levels. Thanks to the nuclear factor relative to peacefully ended the most profound political and ideological confrontation in history — the coolest war. Without it, unprecedented, frisky and profound redistribution effects in the world of the West in favor of the usual growing Asia would not happen before our eyes so smoothly. Almost always accompanied by stories such shifts — stimulated by either staying in — wars. So our motherland and the United States remain in a situation of nuclear clinch, and to a lesser extent, other nuclear powers can consider themselves godparents of the Asian economic miracle.

The experience of recent years seems to reinforce the idea that in the modern world and the future military potential will not be decisive as a policy tool and an indicator of the strength and influence of countries. Most powerful military power — the United States — actually loses in a row two wars that it has initiated (Iraq, Afghanistan). And politically multi-trillion dollar depreciates investment in the armed forces.

But there is another set of reasons and arguments which contradicts the idea of reducing the role of military force in the world and its depreciation as the lead instrument of state policy. War won all the same — with all the differences of events can recall the conflicts in Yugoslavia, Libya, Chechnya, Georgia, and the victory of the Sri Lankan Government to "Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam." Nuclear deterrence works by preventing the huge wars, and no one was seriously reduce nuclear arsenals, but instead enhances it. With nuclear deterrence fail struggling romance — obscurantist (South American supporters of missile defense), and the progressive-liberal (the dreamers of the "global zero" and the least restraint on the level of 50-200 warheads on each side). New world favorites such as China or India, who would win in a peaceful competition with all this quick arming. At the sight of militarize the rivalry between the main rivals of the future — the United States and China. There are ongoing discussions about future clashes over resources, water.

These and similar arguments could be considered a relic of times thinking cool war. Indeed, the debate around the problems of military security in almost all still identify those veterans who consciously or unconsciously seek to return the day or agenda of a bygone era. Some do it by inventing (sometimes even completely disinterested) endless non-existent danger to their country or the world at large, while others — calling for the return of the blessed times for their process of arms control, which in itself for itself served as part motor, however, decent, continue the arms race.
If I have ranked these veterans, many of whom are my friends, but with which I mostly do not agree, do not be offended. "In for a penny, in for a pound."

But it is impossible to deny both. Growing almost everywhere sense of threat of the modern world and as a consequence the revival of reliance on military force in the politics of many countries, including the Russian Federation, and has a concrete base. Dreams are not realized. Not a liberal — a world government, nor obscurantist — on a brand new massive concert of nations that would control the world. Planetka moves to chaos, but on the new globally and in the criteria for a wonderfully deep and vseobyatnoy interdependence. An ancient universities of international governance — the UN, the IMF, the EU, NATO, G8 slack. New — G20 or emerging regional structures do not work. And perhaps, the vacuum will not be able to complete maneuverability.

Undermined many of the ethical norms of international hostel — partly consciously do it, and sometimes this leads to the development of a fair world system. Homage to the municipal sovereignty, the usual rules of foreign policy — the principles of non-ideal. But they gave at least some points of support. Whatever may be guided by the founders of the attack on Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, the result of one all have seen that the feeble beating and no one comes to their aid. But even slightly, or not beating strong. Non-nuclear Iraq under false pretenses defeated, and had time to acquire a nuclear weapon North Korea, in human terms even the least pleasant, do not touch. Leave and an old principles of political morality — "do not pass their" or "son of a bitch, but our son of a bitch." At first, "their" passed the Russian Alliance. But this is something you can justify it in bankruptcy and the collapse. Who is "us" Mubarak became donate and West.

In a brand new world capture direct control over territory and resources located on it, apparently, really does not work anymore. But with the help of military methods, you can control access to them. It is no accident near the main line of the arms buildup rising powers — the naval forces. Sea routes — current and possible future (here, it is reasonable to recall the Arctic) are, as in the days of traditional geopolitics, the main object of enthusiasm majestic powers. Huge wars of the main resource of the future — fresh water — not yet. But the emerging tendency to overlap the upper river, and this practice is particularly unsafe for Indo-China and the Indian subcontinent, can lead to the fact that this would be the problem in the introduction of military force.

Renaissance supports its role and has long begun the spread of nuclear weapons. Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea and possibly Iran put its own neighbors in a vulnerable and politically losing position. They are trying to make up for it, or seeking to acquire nuclear weapons themselves, or by amplifying the ordinary armed forces, missile defense system. Eventually, with the help of attempts to undermine the intensified competitor inside as it is, for example, at the moment doing the Sunni monarchies of the Persian Gulf, working to overthrow friendly to Iran and also Syria's secular regime. North Korea's nuclear capability and all-encompassing dramatic rise of China in the future and pushing Japan to overcome the nuclear threshold. And this country has to of, as, in general, and South Korea, China, and territorial claims. But in East Asia, many claims are mutual. There around impartially growing China and the revival of old times because of territorial disputes quickly formed a security vacuum.

Structural changes in the international system also contribute to a shift towards greater reliance on military power. Faced with tremendous challenges with the weakening of the institutions of global governance, the company rushed under the protection of a conventional institution — the country. Began re-nationalization of world politics and in part of the economy. The trend has increased and due to the rise and exit to the forefront of world politics Asia — the continent conventional countries. With unusual daring in a new form, and on the new background vorachivaetsya old geopolitics, the concept of balance of power. Continuing to verbally condemn it (though sluggish), specifically this line are implementing more and more openly — rocking Syria, an ally of Iran, balancing China. Or interfering overcome residual military-political division of Europe. And of course, it is impossible to take seriously the slogans that such acts are undertaken in support of democracy. Moreover, the principle of balance of power not only revived around Europe, where he appeared, and led to countless wars, including two world, and begins to dominate in Asia, although that foreign policy culture of past centuries such an approach precluded a.

But the country is excellent loosed. All of them are less able to control information, financial, economic, and the means and the political process, even in their own areas. And the more dependent on the outside world. In this case, get rid of, to dissociate itself from such dependence is virtually impossible. So there is an extra incentive to rely on a tool that countries are still almost one hundred per cent 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. On the one hand, it limits the appetite of the military lobby. But on the other — radicalize policy increases the 'hawks' and makes the temptation to unleash war to distract from the inside of hopelessness and inability to write off cope with the crisis on external causes. Something similar can be seen in the case of most majestic powers in the Middle East. Against an attack on Iran, and that means a big war, declare all of the least energetic. And the invasion of Libya looked like a traditional "splendid little war." Win, then overpowered. But the jubilation quickly extinguished, carried out a continuation of the crisis and the collapse of the most hopeless of Libya.

Eagerness to rely on military force is stimulated by another circumstance. With all the likely political or economic claims that many in the world have had to the West, all proceeded from the fact that its policy is rational and predictable. But in recent years the west course is increasingly resulting in complete bewilderment.

The attack on Iraq was initially doomed to failure. Democratize the Middle East, to develop what seemed like a victory in the cool war, it was unreal. Received de facto fragmentation of Iraq, superbly strengthened by the head of the West rival in the region — Iran. Even more difficult to explain the correct entry of NATO troops in Afghanistan. The first part of the operation — the defeat of the main bases of the Taliban and "Al Qaeda" with air support, including by means of RF, anti-Taliban factions — was reasonable. But a ground invasion into this "tomb of empires", which for thousands of years no one could take and where the memory of the Soviet Union now living ruptured, to realize unrealistic. Intervention in predfeodalnoe society under the guise of "spreading democracy" was so crazy idea that hidden intentions tried to find not only the ordinary supporters of theories komplota.

Further — more. Western countries under slogans supporting democracy contribute to the downfall of authoritarian but secular regimes of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and now Syria, although they know that their overthrow is not only the discontent of the masses, and the fundamentalist Sunni monarchies of the Persian Gulf, an order of magnitude more obscurantist from Western values, beliefs, than regimes overthrown. As a result, began the retrograde motion of modernity and development to traditionalism. Also coming to power of Islamist regimes inevitably held view directly behin
d the "market" are becoming more anti-Western and anti-Israel. Even proponents of conspiracy theories in amazement.

The loss of the West's strategic orientations, inevitable because of the long crisis of the radicalization of his political behavior will wear flashy additional shtrishok a picture of chaos and unpredictability of the world in which the population of the earth will live for the foreseeable future. And add those arguments, including those in the Russian Federation, who is leaning toward greater reliance on something understandable — the sovereignty and power.

The position of the Russian Federation

And our country has started to increase this effect. From the standpoint of military security, we are unparalleled in the appropriate situation. In a thousand years the core idea of Russian statehood, the idea is to protect the state from external hazards and ensuring sovereignty. Now none of the RF harsh external forces deliberately not threatened in the medium term will not be able to threaten. Status as a nuclear superpower makes a pathetic possibility of large-scale attacks. This situation actually exists in the 60-70-ies of XX century, but then it was impossible to recognize the ideologically and politically. For obsession conflict Russian Alliance and paid the ultimate price — he left the world stage.

With the departure of the ideological confrontation practically no political differences that could lead Moscow to direct military confrontation with the West. However, the theoretical possibility has been to 2008, while NATO threatened involvement in the Union of Ukraine. This would make the intolerable from the standpoint of military security of the Russian Federation and the vulnerability was fraught with the advent of the Ukraine split and conflict that could be with the highest degree of probability involved the whole of Europe.

For the fact that a similar threat did not become a reality, Moscow and Europe should be "grateful" to Georgian control and to those who had pushed for the attack on South Ossetia. The victory of in the "five-day war," warned an even more terrifying scenario. And if the Russian administration Indeed, many say his critics, provoking the Georgian attack, so just destroy it later, it is an outstanding win diplomatically, dramatically strengthened the geopolitical position of the Russian Federation and the ability to rid Europe of a serious crisis. The issue of NATO expansion to Ukraine was essentially closed after only a few days after the events in Tskhinvali.

In the case came to power in Washington, ultra-reactionary forces may try to return to the question of the relationship and the alliance of post-Soviet space. But impartially the United States in the foreseeable future will not focus on it, and in a growing rivalry with China and hold its own crumbling Bolshennom position in the Middle East. The confrontation with Russia will only worsen the data prepyadstviya. Europeans also do not need confrontation: in them has neither the strength nor the desire.

Those in Russia who constantly reminds of external danger, point to an advantage of the formal NATO's armed forces general purpose. But insidiously ignore the fact that these same forces and the cost of them in Europe declining for two decades and, frankly, in most states tend inexorably to the symbolic level. (Unless there is something out of the ordinary, like an attack of Kim Il-sung, with the support of Stalin on South Korea in 1950, which sent back a one-sided disarmament of Europe and the United States after the second world war.)

The experience of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars showed a level of viability of NATO — is actually very small. This, however, is no guarantee of brutal behavior. Until the 90s was a purely defensive alliance. That sense of triumphalism and impunity shown after, it seemed, winning the cool war, the loss of Russia, which is experiencing a grave crisis in the last decade of the last century, the potential political containment caused euphoria and a series of invasions. But NATO RF threaten unable well and their success less intoxicated.

China, in anticipation of worsening own rivalry with the United States, including the military and political, is doing everything in order not to arouse fear in the Russian Federation. So, after the puzzling questions of Moscow were curtailed conducted a couple of years back exercises, the scenario which foresaw the transfer of troops to the significant distance. The modernization of China's nuclear force is not oriented as it can ever be against Russia. Beijing holds emphasized friendly policies. Contrary to frequent assertions China produces neither demographic nor vkladyvatelnoy expansion. Chinese people in Russia live on less than Germans. And a lot less than in the Russian Empire. But investment is not annoying to many.

In turn, Moscow, sealing the deal with China still keeps the band on hold vast nuclear and strategic advantages, and non-strategic (tactical) level. This is evidenced by the renewed Russian forces of modernization and actual rejection of subsequent treaties reducing them.

There is obviously a problem of economic and political rise of China, which can lead to, especially in the absence of enormous policy on a brand new development of Siberia and Baikal, to the "Finlandizing" Russia. But this is not a military threat, it is specifically related to the pace and quality of our internal development.

The risk of conflict built up on the southern periphery of Russia. The situation around Iran that could lead to armed conflict almost inevitable large war or a series of wars in the Middle East, brutal aggressiveness of the Islamic world — all this will definitely throw metastases power conflicts in the territory of Russia and its neighbors. Conflicts will prevent or arrest, including military force. And the threat is qualitatively different from the existential, which determined all Russian history.

The danger of these metastases are also ideological and political aggressiveness of the Islamic world, trying to make up for (including by means of oil) own defeat in the international economic and socio-political competition, it is more possible in the middle of the full range of military security challenges RF.

Large-scale conventional military threats are not visible in the future. Of course, you can bully ourselves that the United States increase the ability to put on a massive blow RF ultra-precise non-nuclear missiles. Most likely it's a bluff. But even if we imagine that these missiles will be clear that the answer to the Russian side could only be nuclear. And hardly anyone is willing to take the risk of danger such an attack. And most importantly in this context — to avoid being drawn into an arms race to advance unprofitable direction, because now someone has to create intensely at us such a potential. In other words, start recklessly playing games snipers when behind are multiple rocket launchers.

Another method of his own "wrap" — pumping passion about the European missile defense and begin to spend money foolishly following the example of Russian "hawks" who at one time and have mastered summon huge budgets to counter fabulous Reagan's "Star Wars." I hope that those who today leads a campaign against the European missile defense, pursue a more optimal targets: a politically tie the hands of the Yankees, limiting the freedom of action in this area, to get a good and convincing excuse for abandoning any further contractual steps to reduce all nuclear weapons. And even — you never know — to make the conditions for joint de-facto alliance relations in this sphere, if the U.S. ever give up faith in the possibility of strategic invulnerability.

But despite the absence of danger and the pursuit of strengthening military power inevitably. Not only and not so much because of the need in modern a
rmed forces that can deter or prevent intense direct safety hazard. Although the re-creation of such a force, after almost two decades of one-sided disarmament caused by the systemic crisis that started in the late 80s, impartially need. I think that in the eyes of today's Russian control (though not openly declared) the need to strengthen the military is determined primarily by factors of international positioning of the country in view of the fact that some other method to ensure its leading position segodnyaschy development model does not provide for.

Modernization breakthrough and not yet in sight. Neither society nor the elite is not ready. The Company is resting after 80 years of communist and post-communist hardship 90s. The ruling class sweetens the redistribution of rents. Dissatisfied, very energetic or effective or leave and live there, and here. De-modernization of the economy goes on, make her try and if, it is only through of imported technologies. Life becomes more comfortable, but the prospects do not arise.

With this vector, laid on the coming years, the country, despite a diplomatic skill and luck, can not hold the position of a third of the majestic powers, which it currently occupies on the fact (after the U.S. and China). But the need for greatness is characteristic not only our favorites, and the majority of people. In addition, we, like the British, are not kinked history unlike virtually all others in the past stately European powers.

Threatens economic weakening and erosion of sovereignty that we have established the 80-90-ies of XX century. Meanwhile, the company seems to be almost genetically prepared to defend that sovereignty that it enthusiastically and made a desperate courage throughout their history, then to vorachivatsya in poverty, and even in slavery. Most of the inhabitants of the Russian Federation's own can not and do not want to become a "normal country", "live like everyone else," enjoying the pleasures of eating only Skoromnov. Someone is disappointing someone funny. But no matter how to treat this type of public psychology, on the horizon is the circumstances under which it would be changed. Maybe the influence of her decades of peaceful evolution, but it's only a guess.

Military buildup is intended to make up for the relative weakness in other factors of power — economic, technological, ideological and psychological. Our homeland has surprisingly little attraction for the world. Respect it almost exclusively as a strong player. (Why did the civilization of Pushkin, Gogol, Tchaikovsky, Tolstoy, Pasternak, Shostakovich, Solzhenitsyn's such a lack of "soft power" appeal — a separate conversation.)

Just condemn such a bet as not befitting the modern world. But now the world is changing so rapidly and unpredictably, it may be that this rate and adequate. Obviously, even better to be strong and in the economy and in the development and culturally, spiritually. But it is not given. Went only military reform.

Our reform

The most unusual and demonstration in defense reform — is that despite a lot of obstacles and valued relationship, it is very successful. All other reforms, which they say has a lot of years — pension, housing, justice, education, eventually, political, stand still, crawling at a snail's pace or simply fail. A military reform is coming. And it's not mind-blowing figures promised allocations for defense — 18, 20, 23, again 20 trillion. They themselves are insignificant, right obmyslennye plans to re-do not stand behind them, and they will be corrected by accident. But the numbers indicate the political will to expend the army anymore.

There is a truly revolutionary reform of the Armed Forces. From the large, usually mobilization Russian and Russian armies, calculated first at the huge land war to repel the danger from the West (long been absent) in favor of small-sized, a professor 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. In the army finally began to receive intercontinental ballistic missiles with the latest generation of mortgaged ability to overcome any missile defense systems, which makes the deployment of these systems silly waste of resources.

The massive nuclear force, which is not really set up for implementation, as previously required, so that someone else obessmyslit sample pressure on Russia due to 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.

In other words, in fact the modernization of the Armed Forces impartially aimed not only to parry challenges to security and reinforcement of international political status of, and the overlap of the many canals in the arms race in the world, capable of impartially undermine international military-strategic stability. Ensuring their security and status, Our home immediately returns to the role of chief guarantor of international security and peace.

The Army abolish divisions, regiments, army corps in favor of clear and more than a regular brigade structure. Similar changes occur in the Air Force and Air Defense Forces. There is a drastic reduction of the machine twice — the generals and officers. Ahead of schedule optimizes overall strength of the Armed Forces. It seems, though they were right hulimye in the 90s reformers say that the best of the armed forces — about 800 thousand. Then cut and did not want to keep the call to somehow prop up an old army structure, wasted spending money in a poor country.

Already saying that the army is rapidly professionalized, not far off the impending sharp decline and conversion to volunteer base. Started, though unevenly, slowly and inconsistently, humanization of military service. Troops no longer engage in self-service. More effort is concentrated on the main task — to increase combat capability and combat training. But the main thing is that the Armed Forces, despite the savage resistance, adapt to the real challenges and dilemmas of the real and the future. A massive departure from the Russian in fact armed forces aimed at the reflection of the existing danger not long ago a massive attack from the West and designed for a country that can expend large sums for the maintenance of the armed forces and practically be their attendants.

Being actively upgrading, although it is with difficulty. Military-industrial complex — DIC (formerly it was called MIC) in almost all bled white in contrast to the Armed Forces is almost not reformed, remaining shadow Russian leviathan, as not so long ago Russian army was white shadow Russian.

But there are not only the merits, problems and lack of errors. After all, action plans deliberately not open a discussion and were studied. Apparently, the military and political governance has come to the conclusion that at least some discussion generate such opposition that the reform has once again buried. Even the basic documents — the Strategy of national security in 2009 and 2010, the military doctrine does not actually reflect the processes taking place in the Armed Forces. Simply, they are in others, maloperesekayuschihsya planes. But still our home is on the way to the modern reincarnation of a strong military power. What will it give — an open question, as, in general, and most of the other issues in the world today.

I personally particularly pleasant to write about the progress of the reform, as it almost coincides with offers and developments that are in the 90's and the first of the 2000s put forward the Working Group on Defence Reform Council on the external and defense policies. Then these ideas with irritation or even indignantly rejected by the War Department, but in the end were accepted as
consistent spirit of the times, the needs and abilities of the country. Constantly working group led by a brilliant man, a fine scholar and theorist Vitaly Shlikov, unfortunately, not so long ago deceased. But he managed to behold, as what he fought for many years, was implemented.


Given the situation in the world and the direction of development of the country's policy of continued military buildup inevitably. Question — how and how much. You can not rush into unbridled spending by ditching all the budgets for development. Feeding the masses of social regimes like current Russian is not normally shall be removed. And already, it seems, taken a course on self-destructive for the country's decline — instead of a sharp rise — the cost of education. It gives up even in remote capabilities modernization breakthrough — even in a liberal, at least in the anti-liberal version.

Stupid stupid to spend money on unneeded weapons or directions of development of the Armed Forces. Stupidly, rearm beyond reasonable measures to make themselves unnecessary opponents, fearing Russia. The risk is great, because unrestrained militarize not only the Soviet Union, who published and kept in service with more tanks than the rest of the world taken together, and even more advanced and democratic country. The risk of errors increased by the fact that there is virtually no institutional restraints arms race.

However, the Ministry is trying not to give money, as required, 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. But the parliament in today's political system, the harsh role in determining military policy and budgeting can not play. As before, in fact there is no scientific and public debate around the values of the military policy. And she was even in the late Soviet Union, when the Central Committee made a number of academic institutions, professional groups, not directly subordinate to the Ministry of Defense and the Military-Industrial Commission of the Central Committee of the same. They played a significant role in trying a process of arms limitation to lead the country from a state where it is virtually an economic point of view, practically at war with the world. It is not clear how much was spent on defense and related industries, but I think 20-25 percent of the budget is not as gross national product. Russian Alliance de facto did not finish the second world war and fell not only as a result of the economic inefficiency of socialism, and under the weight of a madman military burden. For the most part this is an unbearable yoke was planted voluntarily, without special needs. And because of ideology, and it engenders stupidity, and because of unrestrained appetites of the military-industrial lobby and totally inadequate representations of external danger, the echoes of which can be heard to this day.

We then make the academic team of professionals at the physical level and mentally older, do not want and can not be more intense polemics. Professionals for the war effort in fact. From the liberal side of the current military policy criticized by almost two to three publicist, speakers in the media of the second-and third-tier. Kudos to them for their courage, but they may not have sufficient knowledge, also 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. Right — in the media the third or fourth tier, fortunately, it is not reaching to the general reader, write 10's, if not hundreds of creators, represent the remnants of the monetary and mentally bloodless academic part of the Russian military-industrial complex, frightening phantasmagoric dangers and demanding money from the Ministry of Defense. Very often their writings do not have any interface with reality, is a caricature of Russian fiction. They do not seem to heed, but they are under pressure and weight can not forms the public opinion in the multimillion human environment associated with the defense. For these professionals traitors those who try to limit their appetites and crazy all the same — not very successfully — to impose konkurentnst much-or modern methods of management.

To understand what needs to be done to create an independent public scientific examination of processes in the military sphere. Such expertise from the top — in the form of commissions-independent high-level (blue ribbon committees) was created and is created in the various states, especially in times of reforming the armed forces. And it was relatively effective. The reform has already started. The opposition will not be able to stop it. The question is how to rationalize the reform. In the unlikely event a very costly mistakes are inevitable, which will not allow to use the powers granted to the Russian Federation by many trends of the modern world geopolitics and military-political situation. Do not warn of threats. And even to make for themselves new.

And the last. If the military buildup and can make up for other causes of impotence force, only in part. To remain dignified and sovereign power in the future, Russia will have to modernize and diversify the economy. According to another will not even base for strengthening military power. Necessary to restore and increase the "soft power" — appeal to the world and its own people — through the revival and creation of the modern Russian identity, based first on the majestic culture and glorious history of military victories. In another unfortunate political joke sparkling wit, former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt of the Russian Union as the "Upper Volta with missiles" would probably fair to Russia.

Like this post? Please share to your friends:
SQL - 45 | 0,400 сек. | 11.5 МБ