Bronislav Omelichev: “History will not forgive ill-considered decisions”
- Dear Bronislav Aleksandrovich, almost your entire service was held in the Armed Forces of the USSR. Today, among a certain part of Russian society, it has almost become a sign of good form to indiscriminately blacken our past, especially the Soviet period. stories. It goes to the Soviet army, the one that in the popular song was called "invincible and legendary." What was our army like?
- I served in the 42 Armed Forces of the Year. He commanded a platoon, company, regiment, division, army, was chief of staff of the Leningrad Military District, served as chief of the Main Operational Directorate of the General Staff and first deputy chief of the General Staff. And all these years, I, my subordinates, commanders of the highest rank — we were all absolutely sure that, if necessary, the Armed Forces of the Soviet Union are able to accomplish the tasks that are set for them, are able to protect the borders of the country, the independence of the people in any moment and in any situation.
- Is there such confidence today?
- Often I am among my colleagues and ask them the same question: tell me, please, are you sure that if you need it today, if there is any serious regional conflict, are the Armed Forces able to protect the borders of the country, to prevent an invasion? In my opinion, unfortunately, there is no such confidence in the majority of managers of my rank. And this worries us, veterans.
- But и The Soviet army is much criticized ...
- Criticize those who know little or poorly remember how she was. We had a clear idea that the only ground grouping of our troops in Germany was such that it kept in suspense all NATO troops in Europe. But the troops were also stationed in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Poland; this does not take into account the forces and means within the districts. The troops were combat-ready, equipped, trained, equipped with the latest technology and weapons, with a well-established control system. NATO never had a chance to defeat the Warsaw Pact in a military confrontation. And no use of nuclear weapons for defeating the enemy we did not need.
It was no coincidence that a clear political line was spelled out: never to use nuclear weapons first. Today we do not have such a potential in the field of conventional weapons, and it is correct that the current military doctrine provides for the possibility to make a decision on the use of nuclear weapons in the event of serious threats to Russia.
- But, as we are assured, the army had to be reduced. Officials in the Russian Federation, however, became two times more than in the USSR ...
- The army, of course, needed to be reduced, but what happens in practice? We fire officers, break all the structures that provide, without realizing that it is impossible to fight without these structures. As a result, from a good big we got something small and incomprehensible.
- Former Finance Minister Kudrin was sorry for all the money for the army. Today, when he clearly showed himself as an “orange” figure, his policy towards the Armed Forces became clear.
- At best, this can be assessed as a lack of understanding of the primary task, and at worst - these are actions, we will say so, from some other voice. Late will invest money in the army tomorrow, if the war begins tomorrow. We need to invest today so that we can protect our homeland.
- Let us recall the story: in 1812, Napoleon, while he draped to Paris before others, nevertheless, created such conditions that about two thousand officers left Russia - from lieutenant to general and almost 15 thousand non-commissioned officers. That is, Napoleon retained the backbone of the commanding personnel, which allowed him to quickly restore the army and, in 1813, give battle to the Allied forces under Leipzig in the so-called “Battle of the Nations”. With him another two years had to fight.
- That's right, and now you remember how our group of troops withdrawn from the former socialist countries.
- It was like an escape.
- I still can not understand what word it can be called. The withdrawal of troops, especially our main grouping in the GDR, was carried out, to put it mildly, unorganized. They did not want to reckon with the opinion of specialists of the General Staff in the Kremlin. The Germans were ready to make huge concessions - even to leave part of our group in the eastern regions of Germany for a long time. Even the Americans did not object to this. We could still be there. We went to meet and in economic terms, came out with specific proposals. But Gorbachev did not respond to all these proposals. He passed everything. I said what kind of first-class divisions there were, and they were being led somewhere along the Urals, into the woods together with the technology ... And they were abandoned there almost to the mercy of fate. But the equipped military camps on the territory of Russia were enough for the withdrawn troops to provide the minimum.
- And now - the disruption of the defense order. Do you understand, in general, what is happening? How can this defense order be disrupted?
- It seems to me that the failure of the defense order is a political moment. And I would not like to comment on it.
- The consequence of some kind of political struggle ...
- Yes. I now can not understand how? If, say, the Ministry of Defense is not satisfied with the price, then the Ministry of Defense - the Minister specifically, I think, reports to the Supreme Commander: I will not and cannot place orders, because their value is higher than what my analysts calculated. And the ministry is silent. It means that the armament does not enter our army, but it does enter the armed forces of our probable opponents. Well, how to regard it? There is the Supreme Commander, who must firmly say to the industrialists: either for such a price you will supply equipment to the Russian armed forces, or tomorrow we will take your licenses away from you. Someone has to make a decision. Well, you can no longer tolerate this situation.
- As a matter of fact, is there a more important task in power than strengthening the state’s defense capability, combat capability and combat readiness of its armed forces?
- The armed forces, the army, and there are in order to perform the tasks that are historically set before the armed forces of any state - to protect the sovereignty and state integrity. By the way, our Constitution says: “Defense of the Fatherland is a sacred duty and obligation of a citizen of the Russian Federation.” And the citizens are both the president and the chairman of the government, and the deputies of the State Duma ...
- Kissinger said: a fool is he who does not hear the drums of war.
- This is the correct formulation of the question. Our government leaders are required to predict the possible development of the situation on 10 - 15 years ahead.
- It is very likely that these questions will arise earlier ...
- And the leadership of the country, and the leadership of the Armed Forces do not deny the dangers that arise in one, then in another region of the world. The foreign policy situation today is such that they began to talk about the war in the south. I do not rule out that it will take some time and will talk about the war in the east, in the south-east. And after all we already passed it. After the armed conflict on the island of Damansky for 15 years in the east, a powerful military group was created. Now this group has been greatly weakened, and there is practically nothing to reinforce it if necessary, there are no more troops before the Urals.
- What prevents?
- The reasons are many. I will cite one example. In our time, the main body that, so to speak, was concerned with the defense of the Fatherland, was the Council of Defense. It necessarily included the Minister of Defense, the Chief of the General Staff and all commanders of the armed forces. All documents on the country's defense, which were submitted to the Defense Council, were developed in the General Staff.
The Council included the Chairman of the Government, the Chairman of the KGB, the Minister of Foreign Affairs - in general, a solid organization. And when the issue related to the defense capability of the state was resolved, it was solved by professionals. Today there is not a single professional military in the Security Council! The Minister of Defense, with all due respect, cannot be called a military professional. And so it seems to me that today we don’t have such a body that could be closely involved in protecting the military interests of the state.
- Well, let's not sharpen ...
- I can not sharpen! The current Security Council has a very wide range of tasks: economic security, environmental, and nuclear security, etc. But we just said that the holy of holies is military security. So who is dealing with this security in our Council?
- It turns out, and ask no one?
- What was good about our old structure? It was built on the highest responsibility. I always remember my teacher Marshal Sergey Fedorovich Akhromeyev. Sometimes, he collected us and said: you know what, because it depends on us and what will happen to the Armed Forces, and from everyone the story will ask sooner or later. Who will ask the story today?
I am not a participant in the reform of either the country or the Armed Forces, and I believe that it is not up to the army to interfere in internal political processes. But the soul hurts because I gave myself all to serve in the army. Finished 10 classes, put on shoulder straps and removed them in 60 years. The state taught me: I graduated from the Frunze Academy, graduated from the Academy of the General Staff, - the state trusted me in positions of responsibility, and I had to bear a great responsibility. And we did not escape responsibility.
Now many people consider themselves professionals in the military field. We supposedly have nuclear weapons and, if we are unable to solve the problem with general-purpose forces, we will solve this problem with the possible use of nuclear weapons. This is a very dangerous path. Since the creation of nuclear forces, they have been and are a deterrent that did not allow the opposing side to even try to use these weapons against us. It should be clearly understood: if in modern conditions you use nuclear weapons, you will immediately receive the same answer. If we want to unleash a nuclear massacre, where there will be neither losers nor winners at all, then yes, apply. But I think that both our leaders and the leaders of other world powers will have the sense to refrain from using nuclear weapons. Therefore, we must proceed from the fact that the state must have armed forces that are capable of joint forces - land, air force, sea groups - to protect the interests of the country, that is, to fulfill the task for which they are contained. But it turns out this way: we spend a lot of money, but what do we have at the exit? You can't hide a sew in a bag, and if we talk about the comparison of the Soviet Armed Forces with the current Russian army, then, sorry, there is nothing to compare. Alas!
- That is, there was a decrease in the general level of training of troops? What is the main reason here?
- It could not happen. After all, how does an officer's maturity grow? General, no one is born. For nine years your humble servant commanded a platoon and a company. Nine short years, then ran for the soldiers. But you command a company - you understand a company, you command a battalion - you understand a battalion, etc. Today, it seems, there is no such thing as a platoon and a company as it was before. But in order to “ripen” to a level that allows you to think quickly, you need to command the regiment, be the chief of staff of the division, command the division, the army ... Now there is no division, the army too. Army management, I do not know how much, still remained.
- And this despite the widely publicized reform of the Armed Forces? Although some statesmen have already managed to make loud statements that, they say, all the "reformations" were completed successfully. True, one day, the Chief of General Staff, General Makarov, admitted that the reforms were not very well thought out ...
- The word “reform” itself implies such measures, which will significantly improve one or another structure. As I understand it: the leadership of both countries and the Armed Forces wanted to do something better than it was. But at first it is clearly planned, when to start the reform, when to finish, at what stages it should go through and what at the end we should have.
General Makarov has served in the Armed Forces for quite a long time, he is a true military professional, which means he should know what was expected to come as a result of the reform. Well, reform cannot go 20 for years in a row, there are no endless reforms. To the question - what do we want to get as a result of the reform? - Now for me the answer is no specific.
The reform, unfortunately, was reduced to the fact that the officer corps was mercilessly reduced. For a very long time the officers were deceived in the most real way, and the officers were obligatory people, they got used to the fact that if he promised something to the senior manager, he would definitely do it. Promises are coming, practical deeds are not. Naturally, there is still dissatisfaction with the service among the officers, because there is no clear understanding of what awaits a person at the end of the service and how this service will go.
- But now the officers significantly raised the salary.
- And the salary raised, and pensions. In the end, the leadership of the country and the Armed Forces saw the light. If they had not taken this step, the degradation of the officer corps would continue. Once, my salary — money in the military, for example, of a lieutenant and a colonel-general gave me the opportunity to live with dignity.
- There is now also a bonus system.
- I am totally against any premium money. Imagine: you were given a prize, but not to me. All other things being equal. And I wonder: why? We once had one principle of encouragement: the officer finished checking well - here is a valuable gift for you: a watch, an electric shaver, a receiver. Someone was awarded orders and medals. Someone conferred an extraordinary military rank. There were strong incentives. But - moral. And bonus? Today, the factor of subjectivity often works, which causes a split in the officer corps, respectively, and the general attitude towards the service does not improve.
Or take a housing issue. By 2010, they promised to provide all officers with housing, by 11, they promised, by 12, they promised, but I am sure that by 15, they would not fulfill these promises. And where does the Ministry of Defense build houses or buy them? Yes, where no one wants to live. They will build houses, and there are no schools or kindergartens there, and no one goes there. Apartments are empty for years. Is this a solution?
- But the structural changes did occur. Brigades appeared instead of divisions. That's just the equipment and weapons remained, predominantly old. Naturally, the combat capabilities of the new formations decreased significantly, and the tasks remained no less complex.
- In my opinion, when you made the decision to disband the divisions and create brigades, no one paid any attention to the questions you are talking about. Just mechanically done so. One of the reasons was the fact that the division is too large a military organism, it is difficult to manage, the brigade is more mobile, which means it is easier to manage, etc. After all, it’s difficult to manage any team, you need to constantly learn. The brigade, of course, is larger than the regiment, but it is much inferior to the division in terms of fire capabilities, and in maneuver.
A division is such a structure that has been tested by a vast experience of wars, especially the Great Patriotic War. Our division had the opportunity to use tactical nuclear weapons. It was a unit capable of independently fighting for three to four days, providing itself with material means. She could fight in two or three independent directions, the regiment in one. A brigade is not divided.
For three years I have commanded a full-blooded division. And he clearly imagined that, having received a combat signal, the division would go where it was ordered, and would fight for three or four days. The units were trained to operate in any setting, day and night, using a portable set of fuel, ammunition and other materiel. Indeed, in the course of hostilities, ammunition, fuel is required, to take the wounded away, to refuel equipment. Who will do it today? In the brigade there are no such means. And in general, in the Armed Forces, they are practically eliminated.
- What, there is no army rear? How to fight?
- Ammunition and fuel brigade will last no more than two days. Who will bring supplies, I do not know. After two days, the brigade will cease to fight.
- To whom do the brigades submit?
- For the most part, according to my data, the brigades are directly subordinate to the commander of the district troops.
- But will such a system be capable? How can a district commander manage each brigade?
- Apparently, he controls ... I do not know what the control scheme is. But it’s not for nothing that they say that the new is well forgotten old. In my native Leningrad Military District, army management is reviving, which previously existed along with two corps divisions, and all of our 12 divisions were part of either the army or the corps. Then all these divisions were disbanded, even the one that was stationed on the Norwegian border, which runs along the north, on the Kola Peninsula. They made a brigade there. And Norway is a member of NATO. And since we started talking about control, it has long been known that the most trained and well-armed army, if it is uncontrollable, turns into a crowd on the battlefield. In our time, great importance was attached to the management of troops. Starting from the battalion, command and staff training was conducted. The commander must feel his subordinates, subordinates must understand the commander. And so - to the very top, to the General Staff. I think that now there is no such thing as a command-staff training.
- After a five-day operation in Georgia in 2008, where, it seems, our troops performed well, they suddenly announced that the troops did not meet their objectives during this war, therefore we need military reform.
- The war with Georgia is very loud. Conflict! Reform went before that. But it was precisely this conflict that showed the military that they were leading the wrong direction.
- They say, then The mobile headquarters communicated with the troops.
- Efficiency of management was lost, and at the very top they were late in making a decision - this time. They rushed, but there is nothing to manage - these are two. All existing communications equipment at that time was either suppressed or unable to perform tasks. And rightly so, you say, mobile phone management has begun. Of course, this can not please anyone, and it was necessary to draw some conclusions. But one conclusion I make today: people fought as they were taught. They did not spare themselves, they carried out combat missions, not sparing their lives, but in order to perform these tasks with less losses, they needed to be cleverly guided by them — this was not enough. Reform had to start, based on such conclusions, and real military professionals, including the military minister of defense, should lead the reform.
- But in other countries civilians are appointed to the post of minister of defense, for example, in the same America. What is the difference?
- The difference in one thing - historically, that in Russia the defense ministry was headed by a military minister. Historically, in the United States of America, it is different. Yes, their defense minister is a civilian, but he doesn’t get into the essence of military construction, development and armament of the army, for this there is a committee of chiefs of staff headed by the chairman. These are military professionals of the highest standard, and the minister is involved in politics - in the matter of financing the armed forces and nothing more. Do we have it like that? Do we really have the Chief of General Staff to head the Armed Forces? And the General Staff is power, it is the focus of intelligent, trained people who constantly monitor and analyze the situation, control the development of the Armed Forces. If today the case was put like this, then maybe the reform would have been different.
The civilian minister, be he at least seven spans in his forehead, does not know the fundamental principles of life, life, construction, and prospects for the development of the Armed Forces, and cannot know this. Zhukov, Malinovsky, Grechko, Ustinov, and all the other ministers - these were military men who had grown up and knew the way the Armed Forces lived.
- What happens to the military education system?
- Our imitation of Western models in terms of training officers, especially American ones, broke the entire system of domestic military education. It can not be a professional to lead training for the Armed Forces. Our main personnel department was headed by the Deputy Minister of Defense, a member of the board of the Ministry of Defense, a man who served in the military for years of 35-40. He knew how to train officers, and, based on this, he built a system of training. Now the training of military personnel is headed by a woman ...
- That is, and here they will do things, and then they will have to return to the past again.
- Already freaked out. The training system for the Armed Forces has been disrupted. We get to the point that the lieutenants of the military school finish, and they cannot find a place. They come to the troops, instead of officer positions they are offered sergeants. For me, it's a tragedy. What kind of things are these? You first calculate how many officers you need, what categories. So much and cook.
In due time, we were proud of our military education. While on duty abroad in Canada, England, Sweden and other countries, I everywhere heard only admiration for the training system for officer personnel of the Soviet army. Our system was considered the best in the world. Abroad, we never felt defective. On the contrary, they always knew that our knowledge is enough to represent Russian officers with honor in any team.
- Was it worth it to introduce a contractual service system, to go for huge additional expenses, if our army had been a professional on 30 before that: officers, warrant officers, extra soldiers - these are all contract soldiers. And here - mindless imitation of the West, as well as the transition to the brigade system?
- Yes, the army on 30-35% consisted of professionals. The first serious conflict will bring everything back to normal. The brigade system will not take root, it will not take root ...
- Again, have to pay a lot of blood? ..
- What can I say? It is difficult to explain to our leaders that this system does not solve the main task, and it seems to me that they will very soon return to the divisional system. History will not forgive us of today's decisions, will not forgive.
- The feeling is that everything goes to war. Will they give us time for this military "restructuring"? Eight years of peaceful development will give? Only by 2020, we are promised everything - both re-equipment and modern equipment.
- So in fact we are already five years this promise. Let's go back to the speeches of our leaders and find there: put 2013% new equipment by the 70 year. Now these same 70% want to put already 2020-mu.
- What guides the developers of the reform?
- I do not know what they are guided. The main developer of military reform should be the General Staff, with the active support of the Supreme Commander and the government. I repeat, the main role in the reform should be played by the General Staff, and its opinion should be listened to. We do the opposite. Anyone who does not bear any responsibility is involved in decision-making on military reform.
- Somehow it is even incorrect to compare the Armed Forces of Russia with the combined forces of NATO - the comparison, of course, will obviously not be in our favor. Could NATO counterbalance be the CSTO, do you think?
- CSTO must be developed. It is necessary that this organization should include armed groups from each country capable of carrying out the tasks assigned to them. If there is a formal association, it should be filled with concrete troops. Unfortunately, today there are no troops in the CSTO that would solve some serious task, but NATO does. The CSTO is not the Warsaw Pact with its powerful groups.
“But recently, in connection with the Syrian events, a publication appeared in an American newspaper, the author of which, a journalist and military analyst, claims that Russia is ready for a world war if it starts in the south-east. How do you comment on this conclusion?
- I can’t comment on this author, because I don’t know what he took as a basis, speaking about Russia's readiness for a world war. But I will say: if aggression against Russia is committed, then Russia, naturally, whether it is ready or not, will defend its territory. She will fight. But for this it is necessary to increase the combat power of the army and fleet.
General forces in Russia are extremely weak. And it is necessary to develop all their components: the land grouping, and the naval, and the air force. There is a lot of talk now that the time for conducting major land operations has passed. What is the use of precision weapons now is the main thing, and in this regard, the role of the air force is growing at times. I do not mind. Indeed, it is possible to disable control points, some strategic facilities, factories, etc., but if the territory remains in the hands of the state against which you are fighting, you must first break up its grouping or at least throw it outside the borders of your state . One aviation this cannot be done no matter how many throw precision weapons.
I am surprised by some decisions that are made by our military leadership, including the leadership of the General Staff and the General Staff of the Air Force. For example: let's put all the aviation on several large aviation bases. This is despite the fact that we just talked about the availability of precision weapons from our probable opponents. The experience of the Great Patriotic War showed that during a special period, aviation should fly from the main airdromes to the aerodromes of dispersal, where runways, fuel and ammunition should be prepared. In this case, with the unleashing of aggression, some part of aviation will remain combat-ready. Nowadays it is with this calculation that we developed the airfield network. And if all aviation is concentrated on three or four bases, then, without any doubt, it is precisely on these bases that they will be hit, and then who will fly?
- In general, wherever you throw, everywhere wedge!
- Today, we are talking about the war, even our enemies. It will be painful and offensive if a lot of Russian blood is shed again. The army must be able to perform the tasks for which it exists. By and large, the army is designed for the sole purpose of protecting the territorial integrity of the state against external enemy encroachment by any means. If she is not ready for this, then we are wasting money. Well, tell me, is in this logic? Today, our Armed Forces, in my opinion, are not able to fully solve this main task - to protect the borders of the country.
Information