Media: The state plans to increase the length of service for military personnel to 25 years

The newspaper "Kommersant" today comes out with the material under the heading "Competition system and pensions." In the material of the authors Ivan Safronov, Alexandra Djordzhevich, Maxim Ivanov and Dmitry Butrin, it is stated that the state is preparing to increase the length of service time for servicemen by five years from 20 to 25. If a decision is made within the framework of legislative changes, then 25 will need years of service to enter a military pension. In this case, the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Finance, as he writes Kommersant, declare a "multi-billion dollar budget savings" in the event of a decision.

The possibility of changes is discussed in the format of the new bill: “On Amendments to the Law of the Russian Federation of February 12 1993 No. 4468 – 1 "means and psychotropic substances, institutions and bodies of the criminal correctional system, the Federal Service of the National Guard, and their families". "

The material is expressed especially for RIA News statement by Finance Minister Anton Siluanov. According to Siluanov, the term of service for the military, as well as the time before retirement, should be increased. From an interview with the Minister of Finance:

Military, I believe, you can also extend the length of service, allowing retirement. Look, we have 1 million healthy young men working as guards, not to mention the large number of security forces. Every barrier has a guard and is guarding it. Often the military, after serving 20 years, become retired in 40 years.

The article stated that amendments to the law may be made after the election of the President of the 2018 year. This is understandable, because if the amendments are made before the elections, and if the current president supports them, he risks losing a significant percentage of support - at least among military personnel and their families.

Comments

[John_f]

on the one hand it’s good, but on the other ... why are they in the army? do we have few military? or are we going to war?

[Vladimirets]

Quote: John_f

or are we going to war?

A 40-year-old pensioner is already a mobile reserve, and with the best training and experience. This is a purely monetary issue. Siluanov is concerned about military pensions; accordingly, the longer a person serves, the less cadets of VU need. Nothing personal, just business. And the toad, you see, is strangling, Siluanova in the civil service will suffer up to 65 years old, and the military, you see, can leave at 40. The only thing Siluanov did not say why retirees in the guard work is a small pension of 40 years, and children also need to be fed.

[John_f]

He is inclined to agree, since he also could not find other reasons for himself except financial ...

[dik-nsk]

given the number of military personnel, this is indeed a serious burden on the budget and, accordingly, on all taxpayers.
ps they served in the tsarist army for 25 years and nothing, but there life expectancy was not comparable

[cost]

Often the military, having served 20 years, become pensioners at 40.

Absolutely not deserved in relation to other professions - to waiters for example
But aside from jokes, how did the officials gather this deadline for us - with or without a side dish? This question has been raised more than once in my memory, and has been closed more than once. This did not lead to anything good - only to the outflow of specialists from the army.

[BecmepH]

Siluanov in civil service under 65 years old to suffer,

So they added a pension to themselves in order to sit (suffer) on the neck of the state for the extra 5 years. And security officials are added, supposedly for economy, for the state))). All this is conceived, so that there is something to receive by ourselves.

[Alexander Romanov]

Quote: John_f

on the one hand it’s good, but on the other ... why are they in the army?

And now people who have nothing to do with the army will express their opinion

[John_f]

Alexander, with all due respect to you and our Army, I am inclined to remain unconvinced, as I saw how hard it is to retrain 40-year-old men (who served in the USSR) for something new, it’s easier to train young people ... and here I am I agree with the comment above, all the same, for the most part, it is a monetary issue ... I will not argue for good or bad, I just think so.

[BecmepH]

since I saw how hard it is to retrain 40-year-old men

What nonsense! It’s hard to retrain anyone. And it does not depend much on age and on profession. And ... the 40-year-old could not serve under the USSR.

[Siberian]

Quote: BecmepH

And ... the 40-year-old could not serve under the USSR.

I support, 40 years old at least in 1993 entered the military bursa

[Victor N]

The army needs professionals. My father served 32 years without coercion, received a decent pension for those times. While I had strength, I still worked: it’s not boring, and the money in the family is not superfluous. Then the minimum retirement experience was 25 years of service. I think that it will be more interesting for many to serve in the army than to be a guard.

[The black]

And I have thirty calendars in early 2018 ... so comrade Siluanov

[Rushnairfors]

Yeah, thank God for 25 slipped by

[the most important]

Quote: Black

And at the beginning of 2018 I have thirty calendars ... so comrade Siluanov

Get ready ... 15% will be removed

[What a]

Quote: Victor N

My father served 32 years without coercion,

your dad was at least a polkan and 100% wiped his pants in some sort of headquarters. And try after 40 years in bronikov and with the full calculation of the obstacle course to go, you can’t get it easy. Most then barely reach the majors. And now I don’t have any ice from the fact that old people protect their homeland.

[Svoy_tovarish]

I agree. Let them look at who the man looks like after 10 years of military service, if he is not sitting in the headquarters. 30 guys at 45 year olds are alike. How did Siluanov know what restrictions or deadlines to set in the army. Did he even serve?

[RomanRVV]

It depends on what troops. In the Marine Corps, you can run up to the colonel waist-deep in the water.))) Or you can sit with the lieutenants in the research institute before the colonel.

[horhe48]

In the army, like nowhere else in other areas, there is a kind of pyramid. This pyramid is determined by the organizational structure and common sense. At the base there are a lot of platoon commanders, then three times less company commanders, then three times less battalion commanders, then three times fewer commanders of regiments (brigades), etc., and at the top there is one minister of defense. And this pyramid cannot be eliminated or “turned upside down.” T.O. Not all lieutenants will become majors, colonels, etc.A in positions up to and including a battalion commander (usually a lieutenant colonel), the rule “do like me” applies to the training and education of subordinates. This means that these commanders must run cross-country races, march throws, learn to shoot, drive military equipment, etc. Purely for physiological reasons, it is physically very difficult, if not impossible, for a 45-50 year old man to do so. And what about the majority of officers who are leaving for the reserve with the rank of captain major? After graduating from school at 22-23 + 20 years of service, they n get the right to a military pension. Now let's introduce a platoon company commander at the age of 47-48 ... Nonsense ... Or do not pay junior officers a pension at all? And who then will go to serve at all? For the service prospects are not obvious, but how many leaders have we had in a short history, such as Khrushchev, Gorbachev, Serdyukov, etc., who disarmed, dispersed, destroyed their own army for the sake of their defective views? try at least a month to serve as a platoon company commander (but only without fools) somewhere in the airborne assault, or motorized infantry tanks somewhere in the Transbaikalia or Chechnya ...

[Barakuda]

My father, at 45 left, as unnecessary official. Then for about 3 years there were calls - come help. But this is already Ukrainian history.

[The black]

Quote: Barracuda

My father, at 45 left, as unnecessary official. Then for about 3 years there were calls - come help. But this is already Ukrainian history.

And the father himself did not mind serving, as I understand it.? .......

[Bath]

it’s high time for men to send hefty absurdities to retire at age 40

[syndicalist]

Totally agree with you. And you can and should send 40-year-old men to retire

[Kapitanleutnant]

I apologize for wedging. I read the comments on the article and was horrified that many cannot distinguish length of service (which is in preferential terms) from calendar years. The shock of the couch soldiers.

[Alexey-74]

We return to the Recruitment set for a period of 25 years ..... Although I think this is not bad, the extra 5 years of employment for men will also not hurt, nevertheless, many military personnel continue to renew the contract annually to achieve the 20th year of service.

[Vladimirets]

Quote: Alexey-74

all the same, many servicemen, after reaching the 20th anniversary of their service, continue to renew the contract annually.

Yes, you can, of course, serve, you can. Until the next Serdyukov begins to “optimize” the army, reduce units and throw people out to the civilian who, after serving 10-15-20 years, will not have any pension at all.

[andj61]

Quote: Alexey-74

all the same, many servicemen, after reaching the 20th anniversary of their service, continue to renew the contract annually.

And some, inconvenient to the bosses, are not renewed, despite even professionalism and a desire to continue serving. There is a double edged sword ...
Only if this norm is introduced, then it is necessary to increase the age gradually, for example, by six months in a calendar year. For example, in 2018, the length of service is 20 years, in 2019 - 20,5, in 2020 - 21.
Further - who has already served a pension - to give an opportunity to go to it within 5 years according to the previous rules. Or significantly (by 10 percent, regardless of other factors) to improve payments to those who retire under new conditions. Other options are possible, for example, to whom 5 years are left before retirement - has the right to leave under the previous conditions. In general, this issue needs to be worked out before being implemented.

[bouncyhunter]

In Belarus, this is exactly how they are gradually increasing the retirement age for both the military and civilians.

[andj61]

Quote: bouncyhunter

In Belarus, this is exactly how they are gradually increasing the retirement age for both the military and civilians.

And rightly so!

[dik-nsk]

so, according to such a scheme, they are now increasing civil servants, so everything is running around, I think after the election and the rest of the population will be pulled up

[Metronome]

A logical and correct move. To let go of retirement at the age of 40 is an irrational waste of money, these people have not worked out even a third, but they are joining the ranks of pensioners, and taxpayers must also support them, working until they are old.

[Vladimirets]

Quote: Metronome

To let go of retirement at the age of 40 is an irrational waste of money, these people have not worked out even by a third

"By a third" ... Those. retired at 120? This is really

Quote: Metronome

A logical and correct move.

Pension for them can not be considered.

[andj61]

Quote: Vladimirets

Quote: Metronome
To let go of retirement at the age of 40 is an irrational waste of money, these people have not worked out even by a third
"By a third" ... i.e. retired at 120? This is really

Wrong think. What time did they start working or military service? At 17 - a cadet, at 22 an officer. If you count from 17, then at 40 there will be 22 years with a penny. This is the third, it means to serve only 66 plus 17 (childhood-youth) - just something 83!

[sabakina]

Eugene, well, you perfectly understood the idea of ​​the metronome. If (suppose), a person began his service at the age of 20, after serving 20 years, he retires. But it is quite capable of serving another half, i.e. 10 years, and retire in full juice. So it turns out that 20 years from 30 years is a third of the working period. And, I'm sorry, apparently Metronome wanted to write two-thirds of the term. And, still, I would force prosecutors to serve like McCain, to death.

[The black]

Quote: Metronome

A logical and correct move. To let go of retirement at the age of 40 is an irrational waste of money, these people have not worked out even a third, but they are joining the ranks of pensioners, and taxpayers must also support them, working until they are old.

Seriously, I agree with you ..... I will say more - this is more correct than raising the age for civilians ..... and sooner or later this will happen. These conversations are not the first year.

[NKVD]

It is not necessary to raise the length of service but to change the gaskets between the ceiling and the armchair in the cabinet of ministers. These so-called officials no longer know how to come off as pensioners for their stupidity and care for their personal pockets.

[Puss in Boots]

Yes, it would be better if they increased the term up to 2 years, otherwise you can only go through training in a year and no practice!

[Mountain shooter]

Well, what kind of information again? Just nonsense. Someone Siluanov, who by mistake was considered the Minister of Finance, suggested that it would be nice to increase the length of service to 25 years ... And we are already discussing the type of law adopted ... and even with a comment - if, then we will not vote for GDP together, but to spite him ... Funny. But such a statement of the question will lead to the fact that the next candidate will say that he WILL NOT pay a military pension, since they served in the “wrong army”.

[g1v2]

The question is controversial. In principle, it’s really difficult for a healthy still not old man to receive a military pension. So you have to go to work. At the age of 40 it is already difficult to master a new specialty. My friend retired at 32 years old. At the same time, he had 27 years of army experience. He liked girls to show documents and rub about the "son of the regiment", "went to the army at age 5," and so on. But in fact, he just had a year in 3. He served 9 years and retired at 32 years. And of course he went on to work for a citizen. And could, in theory, remain in the army. Thx xs. It is clear that the Ministry of Finance is trying to save on such a proposal and the military themselves on the drum. But on the other hand, military pensioners will still work, so why not in their specialty?

[Rabinovich_007]

A better contract in America or not.

[The black]

Quote: Rabinovich_007

A better contract in America or not.

Better to be silent

[prosto_rgb]

Media: The state plans to increase the length of service for military personnel to 25 years

Just as under the King will be.
Coins have already been minted and put into circulation.
They suggested changing the anthem, which means they will replace it.
Yes, that's just there is no Tsar.
I think the issue should be resolved in the near future.

[Alekseits]

So now, it seems that no one bothers them to serve
3. With servicemen who have reached the age limit for military service, a new contract for military service may be concluded in the manner determined by the Regulation on the procedure for military service:
having the military rank of Marshal of the Russian Federation, army general, fleet admiral, colonel general, admiral - until they reach the age of 70 years;
having a different military rank, until they reach the age of 65.
(item 3 in the edition of the Federal law from 02.04.2014 N 64-ФЗ)

And the age limit:
1. The age limit for military service is established for:
Marshal of the Russian Federation, army general, fleet admiral, colonel general, admiral - 65 years;
Lieutenant General, Vice Admiral, Major General, Rear Admiral - 60 years;
Colonel, captain of the 1st rank - 55 years;
a soldier with a different military rank is 50 years old.

[Scharnhorst]

He retired in the 24 calendar year (30 years of service). And then and now (thirteen years later) I think that it’s a pity I didn’t reach the cherished twenty-five years, both royal and Soviet bequeathed to one year old! It's only the first twenty-five years in the army that it’s hard to serve. And it will be a shame to us, men, if the women reach the retirement age before 60!

[Topotun]

For many military this decision will not be a burden. On the contrary, it is difficult to give up what you have invested most of your life in. And what to do ABOUT best. Especially if health allows. And it’s kind of like you can still work - and they tell you I'm sorry dear - PENSION ....

[servant.]

And for the majority it will be a burden! It’s one thing to sit out the harem pants at headquarters, another thing in the field or at the airport ...

[Pragmatist]

On the eve of the presidential election, information throws are carried out aimed at rocking the situation and undermining stability in the country. These are some of these stuffing. As for increasing the length of service for servicemen and persons equated with them, in this case it would be more expedient to increase the age limit for service, depending on the rank. So, for officers in the rank of lieutenant colonel, he is 45 years old. And the term of service of 20 years should be left as the right to retire, depending on the desire of the soldier, and not the will of his senior boss, who for subjective reasons suddenly became objectionable to the soldier. In this case, parity is observed between the right of a soldier to continue military service and the obligation to present him with notice when the age limit is reached.

[servant.]

You are a little behind life. The age limit of 45 is only for women, all the rest are already 50 years old and above.

[Pragmatist]

I don’t mind, maybe I’ve lagged behind life, in my time it was 45, and for the next 5 years - a report for renewal, was extended either immediately for 5 years, or for each subsequent year. To whom, depending on how much you need a job.

[Tolstoevsky]

the businessman will breach - he will take inexpensively

[Sergg]

It is justified to increase the service life to 25 years with serious salaries by impoverished Russian standards. It is important to make a reservation here that for health reasons you can go out with a 20-year length of service. This must be agreed, because after 40, health problems occur much more often.

[BAI]

The question is not unambiguous (I confess, but I saw such a phrase in the comments later, I did not write it off). There are categories of military personnel where you can serve up to 30 years both for 40 and 70 years. Who served - at a time alone will call a dozen positions. And there are places where it’s hard already by 45 (if it’s a real military officer, not a pants wiper). Probably the most reasonable choice is the voluntary determination of the retirement date. There is a minimum, then - at will and physical ability. It should be borne in mind that young officers need to grow.

[AKsvlad047]

I fully support you!

[AKsvlad047]

It’s good for the army, bad for the legitimate interests of people !!! I’d better increase the service life of conscripts to at least two years!

[Old26]

Quote: dik-nsk

ps they served in the tsarist army for 25 years and nothing, but there life expectancy was not comparable

In Soviet, too, there were 25. Father was called up in 1943, completed service in 1974.

Quote: John_f

Alexander, with all due respect to you and our Army, I am inclined to remain unconvinced, as I saw how hard it is to retrain 40-year-old men (who served in the USSR) for something new, it’s easier to train young people ... and here I am I agree with the comment above, all the same, for the most part, it is a monetary issue ... I will not argue for good or bad, I just think so.

Well no. Retraining is not difficult, and many would be happy to retrain. The question is different. How many employers will hire a person aged 40-45 years? But the man was purely civilian, at one time decided to change his place of work. He was engaged in printing by that time for about 10 years (you know, the experience was already not small) and found out that literally 2-3 hundred meters from the house there is also a printing company. Has come. The first question was: How old are you? To my answer - 47, I was told that we need employees up to 35.
And this happens in many cases. And you will not present any special claims to the employer. Always find excuse

Quote: Vladimirets

Yes, you can, of course, serve, you can. Until the next Serdyukov begins to “optimize” the army, reduce units and throw people out to the civilian who, after serving 10-15-20 years, will not have any pension at all.

In our city, they “optimized” the only communications school in the Strategic Missile Forces. Well, it turned out that there was no need for communication specialists in the Strategic Missile Forces. You can cook them in other places. Lucky for those who already had 20 calendars. And one of my acquaintances was either 18, or 18,5. what to do? It’s good that I was able to get into the police / police and serve. Now they say such a number does not work

[komradbuh]

Well, they waited for an increase in the retirement age, they started with the military

[Rushnairfors]

To be honest, I’m honestly interested in something else: for the time being: I served 20 years, earned a minimum salary of 50%, then every year plus 3%, the maximum pension is 85% of the social insurance coefficient, of course, taking into account the lower coefficient. There was a mulch that would increase the minimum wage to 25 years, but at the same time the minimum pension would be 65% right away, i.e. the same thing, you just have to serve longer, now they informally declare that they want to extend the service life to 25 years (as described in the article), but leave the minimum pension at 50%. This is not very nice.

[olegator]

Service and was 25 years old. Only with such a length of service did a soldier receive a full pension. Upon retirement at 20 years of service, pension was accrued minimal.

[Rushnairfors]

With a calendar service of 25 years (if without preferential service), a soldier, in principle, cannot receive a full pension. I have already written why. 20 years-50%, then 3% per year. Total, if the length of service is 25 years, then this is 65%, a full pension of 85%. Of course, many have preferential length of service (I have a year for two), the Easterners all have 1 for 1,5. But if you take a simple military man (not a pilot, not a diver, etc.) serving in the West, then 25 years for a full pension is not enough.

[Kolaaps]

... Brothers, but in the Ministry of Finance - surely one of their relatives and serves "In the Indestructible" .... Maybe they will first discuss this matter in an uuuzenky circle? For one, they also listen to Alexander Pokrovsky’s audio book “Shoot!”
.... Oh, ... I understand that it’s difficult for the Navy only the first twelve years, - then you somehow get used to it ... She is a bondage and a bondage in Blue Tahiti ... (it’s cold and cold in the Arctic)
But the 15-year-old captains - "non-fountain." And with a dvizhuha there can be problems (I strongly suspect somehow)

[RomanRVV]

I don’t know how it’s in the army now, but people from the police will break into a demobilization for sure. The head of the department, an acquaintance, said that now he served 20 years in many services “on earth,” and “in heaven” - the next day the report. It is again about those who do not rub their pants.

[Xscorpion]

Quote: Victor N

The army needs professionals. My father served 32 years without coercion, received a decent pension for those times. While I had strength, I still worked: it’s not boring, and the money in the family is not superfluous. Then the minimum retirement experience was 25 years of service. I think that it will be more interesting for many to serve in the army than to be a guard.

On the one hand, you are right. And on the other ... First, many people already serve 10-15 years, do not break into retirement, no one drives them, and secondly, if there are a greater number of so-called “older military men” in the army, there’s no need in a large number of cadets of higher educational institutions. And so it’s not just an ordinary guy to go there, there is too much competition, but after this it will not be realistic at all, again everything will be through the blat and the loot. Accordingly, the level of training of these cadets will be far from necessary, because there will be boys studying there, whose dads have connections or a lot of money.

[Rushnairfors]

Many serve, but believe me, many do not deserve it, so there are always places for young people. In our part, the staffing cannot reach 100%. Yes, and in any part so.

[Fitter65]

Often the military, having served 20 years, become pensioners at 40

And how much health does such a pensioner have left? After 20 calendars, they usually “retire” at the age of 40 either due to health or state statistics. Yes, all the military say that they’ve served 20 years for a civilian, but for the time that I served, and this is thank God 31 years 10 months and 9 days, only one “left” after 20 years. Well, I retired in August 15, now I work as a civilian in the same troops, ..

[Maxwrx]

why civilians go to 60, and the military to 40 even before. why besides the main receive additional pension? that civilians work less or less? that in 50 years or later it is easier for civilians to find a job? I think that it is necessary to level up with civilians, taking into account, of course, amendments to the conditions and requirements of the service. all staffers up to 60, and those who are in the fields can be in 40-45

[ramzes1776]

Quote: MaxWRX

why civilians go to 60, and the military to 40 even before. why besides the main receive additional pension? that civilians work less or less? that in 50 years or later it is easier for civilians to find a job? I think that it is necessary to level up with civilians, taking into account, of course, amendments to the conditions and requirements of the service. all staffers up to 60, and those who are in the fields can be in 40-45

Because by law, military service is a special type of public service for which certain benefits are relied. As for the staff, there are only a small percentage of those who have spent their whole lives in the headquarters. Mostly they all started from the fields and not the fact that after 40 years you will only serve at the headquarters. They can easily be sent back to the Far East again in old age on rotation or in Syria. In the Arbat district, you can serve up to 65, only who will determine who will be 40 and who will leave at 60.

[Maxwrx]

Tell me, and work in villages and villages, loaders and builders, etc. Is it easier than military service? Why aren't they entitled to the same benefits? I have many beneficiaries among relatives of friends. Firefighters, investigators, military, FSB, etc. And none of them worked more than me and many of my civilian acquaintances. This is disgusting to me personally. People then need to equalize all, not just the elect. Or evaluate everyone for medical reasons when they are allowed to retire.

[ramzes1776]

Quote: MaxWRX

Tell me, and work in villages and villages, loaders and builders, etc. Is it easier than military service? Why aren't they entitled to the same benefits? I have many beneficiaries among relatives of friends. Firefighters, investigators, military, FSB, etc. And none of them worked more than me and many of my civilian acquaintances. This is disgusting to me personally. People then need to equalize all, not just the elect. Or evaluate everyone for medical reasons when they are allowed to retire.

15 years of service in the Trans-Baikal Territory since 1999, when the lieutenant’s salary was as much as 1500 rubles. First, on the border with China, then from Mongolia. Replaced 3 garrisons, 2 apartments and 2 hostels. Do not want to serve in such a marvelous region at least 10-15 years old and communicate with the local population living according to the thieves concepts in whom someone was sitting in their relatives, sitting or about to sit down. Envy of nothing.

[Maxwrx]

but civilians who live in those marvelous lands and who plow shouldn’t you then get the same benefits?

[ramzes1776]

Quote: MaxWRX

but civilians who live in those marvelous lands and who plow shouldn’t you then get the same benefits?

And why do American military have privileges for entering higher educational institutions, good salaries and pensions. Once again I repeat that military service is a special type of public service in all countries, which compensates for the hardships and deprivations of service with certain benefits guaranteed by the "Law on the Status of Military Servants." DB still explain to you ??? Do you want to receive benefits, go serve your due, or there is nothing to tryndet !!! Equality in everything for no reason in any country has ever been, under any system.

[Maxwrx]

You didn’t answer the question. Why should people who experience no less hardships and hardships should not retire earlier? There are great benefits in the US Army. few people want to serve there. For them, the army is a low-paying dangerous job (the United States is the most warring nation now). In Russia, it has now become a prestigious and stable job, fairly paid (especially for small towns and rural areas) This is the difference. To add privileged privileges to everything for everything in a row and still retirement, I consider this discrimination to people who work or at least are in the same conditions.

[Normal ok]

It is economically feasible to raise the retirement age. But then, pensioners will immediately be given new benefits: it will be possible to cross the road to a red light and swim behind the buoys.

[Rushnairfors]

Many consider the retirement of the military at 45 (now 50), high salaries unjust, but at the same time many did not even bother to urgently serve, not to mention having to hang out in different garrisons in the North, Siberia and Far East, and often far from civilization. I don’t understand people at all: I entered the military school in those days when the military was akin to the scourge, they flew very little, they all told me, well, you're a deer, why do you need an army? Now that I have a decent salary and it’s kind of like retirement, they can tell me, of course you’re in military chocolate, and you already have the paycheck and the apartment and pension, and we’ll eat up the last one in civilian life without salt. And then in the late 20s what did not say this? My first commandi told me that in the 25s shepherd earned more than his pay, the pay of a commander of a supersonic missile carrier capable of carrying missiles with nuclear warheads. And nothing, no one was indignant among the civilians that a military pilot (tanker, sailor) receives as a loader or shepherd. And also to those who like to count other people's money and retirement age, I can remind you that sometimes the military have to participate in very interesting events called "military action" or the CTO, or forcing peace, whoever you like and often die there, young and beautiful and at home they have families, children. And in peacetime, the risk of not returning from work with the military is much higher than that of the civilian, so do not judge the respected, for you will be judged. Respectfully to all!

[Kolaaps]

Quote: MaxWRX

, and work in villages and villages, loaders and builders, etc.

.... No, well, I probably don’t mind (now) ..... And you are near a village, village, construction site, etc. - find a steel tank, load a supply of water food (you can NEMN !!!! dry) for a couple of months. ..- and sit in it, well, although for three weeks I wouldn’t have been outside, having preliminarily depicted the delivery of a bunch of tolerances, set-offs, course checks, inspections (which, alas, I forgot), well, you can be a sailor and STARPOM, invite a couple of homies .....
I am sure - quit smoking. And you will become best friends (or maybe not) .... No, well - an experiment ... a great thing !!! But remember for life ....
Good luck Health! Peace and quiet! And happiness in the family!
[/ i] no offense ... [i]

[Pragmatist]

I completely agree with you, I remember the 90s very well, then I was older, my salary is small, "in a day I’ll be on my belt", you practically don’t see your family and children, you can only dream of an apartment. Now it really has become better and the pension is more or less. And for the most part, the citizen and service are compared by those who do not know her service. And he didn’t risk his head. As for the fact that many leave after 20 years of service, so life situations and reasons are different for everyone. Some, indeed, as mentioned above, are no longer able to serve due to health, while others are strained in the family, etc. You can’t fit all under one comb. The question is different. If servicemen after 20 years of service try immediately to retire, and if there are a lot of such critics, then you need to understand the reasons for not wanting to serve further, and not force them to serve for another 5 years. Nobody needs a stick service. Especially in the army and organs.

[Puper driver]

Since the 90th year. 4 abbreviations. To the last TABURETKIN it was attached, and again everything was from scratch (I had to relearn). He left with a full pension at 45, and I do not regret it, although it was possible up to 50. Tired of this circus. And it's time to tie up with experiments.

[Clone]

According to Siluanov, the length of service for the military, as well as the time until retirement, should be increased

When I hear such phrases, I always want to say the famous phrase of Ostap Bender, - "Which regiment did you serve in?" In most cases, terry "white-ticketers" with a smart look talk about how much, where and how ... it is easy to serve the military.
However, Siluyanov allegedly served in the unit that was under the command of the KGB, and for two years served as chief financial officer ... He experienced the hardships and deprivations (hereinafter referred to as obscene) of the military service in full.

[Pastor]

I will have twenty years of service in 2019. I wanted to quit right away. I'm afraid I will have to give another 5 years. Although I’m so tired of not traveling abroad without a secret ...

[Clone]

Quote: MaxWRX

This is disgusting to me personally. People then need to equalize all, not just the elect.

For some reason I’m sure that it’s not at all disgusting, but simply enviable. It is enviable, for you have no idea what it means to be “under orders” for years and at any time of the day. Yes, the liberals made a lot of efforts to ensure that the easily suggested part of society had the opinion that the military was raking money with a shovel. I ask such people, - Why didn’t you personally want to make an effort to acquire this wonderful “shovel” ??? I got scared? Is it better and more pleasant to sit out on free bread, "in a wagon train", eating vodka and squeezing girls with "reduced social responsibility"?
Roughly, of course, he said, but ... show me that kind peasant anyhow a loader who changed 25 garrisons and a couple of dozen apartments in 17 calendars. At the same time, the family always got along with him through all the “holes” and not very remote areas from the far-field Zakardony to Turkestan ... except for cases of “fulfilling an international duty” and staying in other “hot spots”.
In general, “who studied what ...” There wasn’t enough tension - only yourself should be blamed. In the end, there are more suitable candidates to discuss their “sweet life” ...
Something like that.

[Pragmatist]

Let it be rude, although I do not think so, but in essence it is correct. Well said.

[Severok]

I press a paw. Everything is clear and concise.

[faterdom]

Quote: MaxWRX

Tell me, and work in villages and villages, loaders and builders, etc. Is it easier than military service?

What are you doing on Military Review? Got here to insult everyone in an ugly fashion? Leave - and never poke around here again!

[navy1301]

Quote: Metronome

A logical and correct move. To let go of retirement at the age of 40 is an irrational waste of money, these people have not worked out even a third, but they are joining the ranks of pensioners, and taxpayers must also support them, working until they are old.

I left at 36 (1/2) I work, I pay taxes, I don’t have to keep me like many

[Severok]

For some reason, everyone considers how much to serve and to how many. And who among you thought that if Siluanov would push this law, then half of the units would immediately be left without the most experienced military men who hold on to service only for the sake of retirement, for everything that could have been sucked out of service has already been sucked out !? And that youngsters, who MAY BE, will come to the places of those who have retired according to the old standards (or maybe they won’t), will not know and be able to and a third of what the "pensioners" knew and were able to? What to prepare a normal specialist is not a year of training, but five years.

I believe that the initiative of the Ministry of Finance with pensions and pensioners at least draws on treason, because with its ability to protect the interests of bankers and spread rot the interests of the middle and working classes, the Ministry of Finance at least works for Uncle Sam. Instead of placing funds in the home country of the Central Bank and the Ministry of Finance feed the enemies of Russia, investing in foreign Ts.B. and inconspicuously increasing expenditures on an armada of parasites (ministers, governors, who themselves award bonuses 8 times a quarter, deputies who have selfish interests in the Duma ...) in the regions and Moscow.

I have the honor. (15 clean calendars + 8 years old citizen)