The following circumstances inspired us to write this article. Russian leaders sound positive assessments of the course and results of the reform of our Armed Forces. But at the same time, the number of criticisms on the same occasion of officers and reserve generals and retired experts is still not decreasing. Why is this happening? If everything is really so good, why do people who have given decades of military service or pay close attention to the problems of the army and fleet, so negatively perceive the changes taking place there?
But we decided to devote our material not to the consideration of the reform of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation as a whole, but to questions of military education, since this topic was repeatedly covered in the pages of the newspaper “Military Industrial Complex”.
On the one hand, the experience and knowledge of their country are ignored and, at the same time, someone else’s experience is blindly copied, clearly aimed at the collapse of military science and military education, reducing their importance for the defense capability of Russia. On the other hand, a decision has already been made, reductions, mergers and acquisitions have been carried out, the recruitment of cadets has been canceled, the number of layoffs in the faculty has been calculated in hundreds, and the pillars of military education have been relocated from the capitals to the outskirts. What can be changed now?
Only one thing - to stop the education reform and give professionals, taking into account all the comments made by the experts, to try to restore the lost positions. Because the continuation of the reform will not allow Russia to educate the galaxy of great military commanders, to raise great scientists, or to protect the country in the upcoming battles.
Not so smooth
The problems of military science and military education have been repeatedly considered: first at the round table in the State Duma under the chairmanship of State Duma deputy, member of the Committee on Defense Vyacheslav Tetekin, then at hearings in the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation. In the future, these issues were raised at a meeting of the Club of Military Commanders of Russia and, finally, analyzed at a meeting of the Committee on Defense of the State Duma of the Russian Federation.
Such an intensity of consideration of issues of military science reform and military education only underlines both the significance of this process and the fact that everything is not so smooth with the ongoing reform. So many professionals in their field cannot, military experts differ so greatly in their assessments.
In the course of these discussions, three very important positions are clearly outlined, declared by the heads of the Department of Education of the Ministry of Education, from which they are repelled in their work.
first - Civil education was taken as a basis, and the heads of the Ministry of Defense and the Department of Education do not understand the difference between military and civil education, adopting the Bologna Declaration of the EU countries, designed to promote the convergence and harmonization of European civil education systems.
Second - Once again, the leadership of the Department of Education acknowledged that there is no single document analyzing all reform processes, conclusions of military and civilian scientists, Chief of General Staff as the head of the commission for the reform of military science and military education and approved by the President of the Russian Federation.
The third - The approval of the leadership of the Department of Education: "Why train officers to the same higher education three times, these are huge costs for the state."
From the point of view of the modern theory of knowledge "the main purpose of specialized knowledge is to adequately reflect one's object, identify its essential elements, structural connections, patterns, accumulate and deepen knowledge, serve as a source of reliable information." Does the chief of the General Staff, as a leader responsible for military science and military education, really not know that strategy, operational art and tactics, which are included in the theory of military art as one of the constituent parts of modern military science, are inherently independent, indispensable and ununiteable? the definition of fundamental military specialties. Even the MAS for these specialties were always different. And for each of these specialties there should be a fundamental, separate, comprehensive military education.
And within five years, a cadet of “fundamental higher professional education and full military special training” is a bluff. Higher military education cannot be a “military training,” even a “special,” and even more so received during a three- and ten-month course.
What we have, do not store
Prior to the current military reform, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation had a three-tier military education system inherited from the USSR Armed Forces, recognized as the best in the world.
On the first level there was a military school, according to the civil classification of the university - an educational institution of higher vocational education. It gave fundamental knowledge through the faculties and departments of one main specialty (command - tactical) and one profile (unlike the institute) civilian specialty (operating engineer, or translator, or lawyer).
Such education allowed, without additional expenditure of funds and time, to the officer in any conditions of the situation to perform duties for three to five positions above the full-time position, moving both horizontally and vertically. However, even between the first and second levels there were also intermediate courses in the form of additional advanced training courses, for example, the Shot courses.
Let's take a quick look at how the professionalism of an officer in the army grew over time. Everything went from simple to complex, from organizing classes with a platoon, company, battalion in all subjects of training to obtaining and assimilating the knowledge and skills acquired in the course of company, battalion, regimental, divisional, army, groups of troops (district, front-line) tactical, operational and strategic exercises and training in various fields. And this is the first level of education.
Second level - This is a military academy, according to civil classification - a university, a higher educational institution that implements educational programs of higher and postgraduate professional education in a wide range of specialties (at least seven directions). For three years, the military academy gave fundamental higher military knowledge in several specialties (command-based, operational staff), training command and staff specialists.
The knowledge gained at the military academy made it possible to successfully master the tactical level (regiment), the operational-tactical level (division) and fruitfully work at the operational level (army), and, if necessary, successfully fulfill the duties of three to five positions above.
Existed in military academies and correspondence faculties, in which the officers studied independently on the job for a long time.
Third level - Military Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. For civil qualifications - an academy specializing in training in one area. Both in the Soviet and in the post-Soviet time, the Higher Military and Civil Engineering Service for two years trained the elite for the army and navy, as well as state structures. This category included generals from all power structures, senior officers of the General Staff, military diplomats and civilian leaders of regions, ministries and departments. The contingent of trainees, the orientation of training, the fullness of the training groups made it possible to let out from the walls of the academy highly qualified specialists in the fields of state and military administration, who knew how to strengthen the country's defense capability. How many civil servants are currently studying at the academy, how many deputies of both chambers of the Federal Assembly have learned and how many are planned to receive? There are no answers to these questions.
Foreign military personnel stood alone, who were fully trained at all three levels, and among them there were quite a lot of representatives from developed countries, and not only from third world states. How many such cadets and students now?
Fundamental knowledge gained by military leaders in the Soviet and Russian military schools allowed them to successfully solve any combat missions in any situation and to grow successfully through the ranks, in addition the country received civilian specialists who were knowledgeable about the state’s defense.
Thus, military science and military education, built up over decades and tested in battles and battles from the Civil War to the operation to force Georgia to peace, proved its advantages, its individuality, its national character - the character of the Winner.
In vain take a cue from America
For comparison, and very briefly: from which such supersystem is Russia's military education completely copied? Yes, with the US Army training system. For the sake of objectivity, it should be noted that a lot of positive things can and should be adopted, especially in connection with the modern automation of the educational process. But we must take only what is needed, and not stupidly copy. Copying is always unviable, dead.
There are no examples of victories over an adversary superior or equal in this American military education system, and this leaves its imprints.
first - replacement of officers for sergeants, as in the US Army. But 100 or 200 sergeants with training for almost three years will not fill the army with a sufficient number of specialists to the extent necessary, and they will not replace the officers in the Russian army, they will not change the mentality of the Russians. This was known from the very beginning of the experiment, but only now, three years later, we are going back to the old one, we are transferring non-commissioned officers to officer positions. The question arises: who figured out what damage was caused by this rash decision, starting from the prestige of junior officers and ending with the prestige of the army and the state? Do we have that every decision will be so easy to make and change?
Second - future military officers of the US Armed Forces entered military schools after receiving education in civilian universities. Military training took place in a little over two years. Further training of officers took place on ordinary courses with a training period of up to 12 months. True, all this was called their academy, and we have courses.
The third - in the USA there really are three military academies of the Armed Forces, which are the main educational institutions of the Pentagon: Military Academy at West Point, Naval Academy in Annapolis, Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. Training in these academies lasts four years and, according to the level of training of students, with a stretch, meets the criteria of military schools of the Russian Federation. However, in accordance with established practice, graduates of military academies receive a more privileged position in relation to other officers and are promoted more quickly. All the rest is military departments of universities, courses, schools, and colleges of various levels and purposes. We practically dispersed our military departments.
Fourth - The system of American military education includes the University of National Defense (DNA), which is overseen by the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States. This is an analogue of our General Staff Academy, which has been turned into a vocational school by the number of departments, the duration of training, and the number of students. Please note that the DNA was created only in 1976, more than 140 years later than the Russian Higher Military School of Civil Aviation, to "achieve success in professional military education and training of military and civilian specialists for senior political, command and staff positions."
The university consists of four colleges and one research institute. Training is carried out for one year, officers are accepted in the rank of not lower than the lieutenant colonel. Representatives of the State Department, the Ministry of Finance, the CIA, the National Security Agency and other agencies, as well as employees of private companies that work under contracts with the Ministry of Defense are also trained in DNA.
Instead of our 10 – 15 students of the Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation at the National Military College, organizationally part of DNA, up to 200 people are trained annually. These are cadres for top management of the US military and government agencies.
In total, around a thousand soldiers and civil servants are trained annually at the DNA. We have the same officers with the formation of the General Staff Academy in the entire General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation there will be no more than 10 percent!
And this list is completed by the theoretical component of DNA - the Institute for National Strategic Studies, which deals with scientific developments in the field of international relations, military policy and strategy.
Thus, a brief conclusion can be made: the main advantages of the Russian military school for unknown reasons have been removed in the course of the reform, and the dubious successes of the primary level of the American military school have been fully implemented.
The results of this reform of military education are left to wait quite a while.
Let us try to express our vision of the problems that have arisen, in our estimation, in the course of the reform of military education, and predict the future of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, or rather, the future of Russia, because semi-literate senior officers will not be able to accomplish their combat missions to protect the Motherland. And others, unfortunately, will not be able to prepare this system.
Let's start with main problemin the management of the military education system.
Before its reform, the chief of the General Staff was personally responsible for all military science and military education through the Center for Military Strategic Studies and the Military Scientific Committee of the General Staff. These were supra-specific scientific bodies that carried out the general management of the organization of military scientific research and inter-specific and interdepartmental research. The views of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation had their own military scientific committees and the Central Scientific Research Institute dealing with the development of armaments, the development of theory and practice, tactics and operational art of the corresponding type of Armed Forces.
The decentralization of military science and military education has now been carried out. There is no main thing - a centralized system of military science, and therefore a unified leadership. The military-scientific complex was crushed into several parts. Some scientific research institutes subordinated to the Military Scientific Committee of the Ministry of Defense, others - to the Deputy Minister of Defense. The remaining organizations, including the Center for Military Strategic Studies, the Institute of Military stories and a number of others, introduced into the VAGSH, having subordinated to the Department of Education. But how can he fulfill the direct duties of the chief of the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces?
In the absence of a coordinating role of the General Staff, today each department develops its own scientific complex independently, without taking into account the interests and advanced experience of other ministries, there are no joint interdepartmental studies. This is especially dangerous in the context of the growth of a wide range of not only external threats, but also changes in direction, increasing the volume of internal threats, when non-traditional methods and techniques are required to reflect them.
Second problem The further development of military science and military education is the question of developing for this new standards and approaches. And here the domestic three hundred year experience accumulated since the time of Peter the Great has been completely forgotten. After all, it so happened historically that Russia's military education has always differed not only from the civil system, but also from the military education of others, including the leading countries of the world. And its advanced character, importance, expediency have been repeatedly proved on the battlefields, starting with the battle of Poltava. It was not by chance that students and cadets from all over the world (and after the collapse of the USSR and from NATO countries) sought to study with us, noting the advantages of our military school.
Now the emphasis in the standards of military education is placed on the supposedly advanced experience of the United States and Russian civil science. According to the officials of the Defense Ministry of the Russian Federation, “these are the so-called third generation standards. They were developed at the Ministry of Defense with the participation of leading civilian higher educational institutions: Bauman Moscow State Technical University, MAI, Moscow State University, St. Petersburg State University, MGIMO, and other leading universities. A large part in the development of federal state standards was taken by defense industry enterprises whose products will be operated by graduates of military universities. ”
We do not question the professionalism of scientists and employees of respected universities, but why there are no military schools in this list. Where are the scientists of the Military Academy of the General Staff, other military academies, where the Military Scientific Committee of the General Staff, the academic council of the Ministry of Defense, who were to prepare an official document for the report to the Minister and the approval of the Commander-in-Chief? Meanwhile, it was on the basis of this document that the reform of military education should be carried out. Are we now going to train in military schools not commanders, but effective managers?
Third problem military science and military education - direct training of cadets and students in military specialties. And here new tasks are set: recruiting the army and navy with “qualified military specialists”, “dramatically increasing the level of graduates” and fulfilling the main task - “reaching a new quality of military education”. During the service and work, none of the authors had a chance to deal closely with issues of military education, but these tasks were, are and will be. A new, cardinal approach in their scoring is not visible.
From the foregoing, it turns out that earlier the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the USSR and Russia required competent military personnel, people with diplomas of two or three military universities, fully trained, able to apply their fundamental knowledge as intended. But aren’t such specialists necessary for Glavkverkha now? Personally, we have very big doubts about this.
It is urgent to correct errors
And now about the problems that one cannot but see when considering the results of the reform of the military education system.
First - the concentration of military schools, first of all, military academies of various profiles (commanding, engineering), and combining various types and types of troops in one place in one place and on the same territory can lead to the loss of all training, material and scientific in the first hours of armed conflict the bases, to the death of the teaching staff and cadets, the listeners while delivering targeted blows to them. And the fact that such objects will be included in the list of primary targets of attack, we have no doubt.
The second - the concentration of military schools and military academies in the so-called military-scientific training centers for the types of the Armed Forces - Ground Forces, Air Force and Navy not only lowers the status of the highest military education, de-identifies it, but also affects the further adaptation and social protection of military personnel after their dismissal from military service and employment in civilian work. And no additional three-month refresher courses will change that. After all, the new concept of the reform of military education does not provide for the elaboration of a question by the Ministry of Defense for mandatory employment of servicemen who have served deadlines or who quit due to other circumstances. But this is one of the significant benefits that can additionally attract high-class specialists to the army.
The third - Concentration of military educational institutions in the VUNC cannot, despite the measures taken by the NGS to approve the topics of scientific work (they were previously approved), have a positive impact on the development of military science in general and on the development of strategies and operational art of types and types of troops. This will soon lead to even greater lagging, both from the theoretical and from the practical side of the military science of the leading countries of the world.
The fourth - the withdrawal of military schools outside the city, especially Moscow and St. Petersburg, with the subsequent sale of capital territories deprives future military leaders of the cultural component of training and development. The US National Defense University is located in Washington.
Fifth - the educational process in military academies was not only in the interests of training students, scientific work was carried out, during which students best prepared for scientific and pedagogical activity became teachers or scientists in military and civilian research institutes, joined the ranks of the defense industry specialists. And this allowed science not to break away from practice, and the officers, coming to the research institutes and the defense industry complex, knew what the troops needed today and for the future.
Who will now replenish the staff of scientific organizations MO?
Sixth - The system of selection of candidates for military schools was destroyed due to the lack of recruitment of cadets for two years. We are not talking about the interrupted military dynasties, this damage to the system of training officers Russia is unlikely to be restored even for decades.
Seventh - the principle of basic approaches in the education and training of cadets has been violated. The principle of military education is being replaced by the principle of “teaching students”, and this will later turn into troops, which will move “without a system”, discuss orders to go into battle today or postpone until tomorrow. Having not felt the principle of the collective, being in the barracks, the officer will not be able to control the soldier, become a model for him, authority, will not be able to cultivate in him courage, resilience, the ability to sacrifice himself, devotion to ideals and the Motherland. And without this there will be no sustainability of the army, there will be no country. Giving the main priority in the recruitment and training of cadets to physical training, we prepare not competent officers, but executors of someone else's will.
Yes, and who determined who justified what is needed in the growing conditions external threats, open anti-Russian statements of Western politicians, declaring Russia the enemy number 1, increasing the internal threat of creating controlled chaos by conducting "orange revolutions" have the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation number one million military men?
Recall the words of an American political scientist and statesman Zbigniew Brzezinski: “Russia must be eliminated completely as a civilization, while remaining a single entity in a geographical sense. However, such a liquidation should not follow the path of dismantling - it is precisely on this path that disintegration inevitably awaits it, but should be included in the Atlantic civilization as a whole, freed from the slightest signs of independence and identification. ”
Our fate has been decided for us, the main duty of Russia and its people as a slave of Western civilization is to supply raw materials to the countries of the “golden billion” and be cannon fodder in the fight against the Muslim world and developing China, protecting the US and Europe from these threats. Thus, we have very little quiet time left.
So, it is necessary to immediately re-start the construction of military science and military education in the Russian Federation, taking into account the experience of the Soviet Union and Russia. And only such actions as one of the radical ways to correct the mistakes made can save the country.