Military Review

1 call service year: leave, how to eat, or increase the term? (Poll)

295

Do you think it is necessary to increase the service life of conscription in the Russian army?

Yes, it is necessary to raise, should serve 1,5 of the year - 687 (19.74%)
19.74%
Yes, it is necessary to raise, should serve 2 of the year - 1542 (44.3%)
44.3%
No, it is not necessary to increase, one year is enough - 592 (17.01%)
17.01%
Military service is not needed at all, the army must be professional, contract - 621 (17.84%)
17.84%
Other, in the comments - 39 (1.12%)
1.12%
Reforming the Russian army is a thing that has recently been discussed, perhaps, with far more rush than reforms in other sectors. Obviously, the resonant resignation of Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov at the same time with the manifestation of billions of frauds in the country's military department, fueled the public interest in the course of reforming the army. The post of minister, as is well known, was taken by Sergei Shoigu, who inherited not only scandalous corruption thickets in the Ministry of Defense, but also the unfinished reform itself, which needs either effective continuation and effective completion, or review of some of its positions, which, to put it mildly, are somewhat doubtful.



One of the reformational positions, constantly subjected to quite sharp criticism, is the reduction of the term of military service to 12-months. This decision was made at the beginning of 2008, after a rather long confrontation between those who advocated for such a decline, and between those who were clearly not happy with this idea. The fact is that the idea itself, which later became one of the foundations of the new approach to military service as part of the reform of the Russian army, had, as often happens, good goals. The authors of the idea, to which, incidentally, the first persons of the state also belonged, stated that it was such a period of service that would allow attracting a suitable number of young people to fulfill their constitutional duty. The idea of ​​reducing the duration of military service by conscription was based on the need to reduce the number of draft dodgers, let's say, with good intentions. They say that if someone does not wish to serve in the ranks of the Russian 2 army of the year, considering such a term too long, the state is ready to make sufficiently substantial concessions and reduce the length of service exactly twice. Intentions, of course, are good, but only everyone knows where the road usually paved with such intentions leads. This is eloquently shown by statistical indicators published by the Main Military Prosecutor's Office (Chief Military Prosecutor's Office): if in the 2007 year (before the introduction of innovations associated with a decrease in service life) the army of draft dodgers numbered about 130-140 thousand people, then this (2012 year) who "runs" from the draft board, has reached 235 thousands. In other words, the increase in the number of draft dodgers was about 100 thousand people over the last 5 years! The figure is truly impressive, and indicating that the change in the length of time a young man in the army has the status of a military recruiter does not correlate with the attractiveness of service for the so-called draft dodgers.
It turns out that the main task of reducing the service life for recruits was not fulfilled (at least at the current stage of the program to reform the army).

Let's not forget that the reduction in the length of service for those soldiers who had or have the status of conscripts meant a gradual transition to an increase in the percentage of contract soldiers in the army. For a full-fledged recruitment of the army with contract servicemen, the figure was about 430 thousands of servicemen. To date, the number of servicemen serving under contract in the Russian army does not exceed 200 thousand people (less than 47%). It turns out that the second reason for reducing the service life for recruits does not work to the full.

What is the matter? Where did the failure in the army modernization mechanism occur? Without addressing the corruption components that have recently scored the backbone in the work of the Ministry of Defense, one can note one of the main reasons for the difficulties in recruiting army units. And the reason for this is demographics. Today, young people who were born no later than 1994 are recruited to the army. In the 1994 year, according to Rosstat, 1,408 million were born in the Russian Federation. However, this indicator can not be called a demographic bottom. The fact is that such a level fell down to the 1999 year, and it was in 1999 that the record low birth rate was recorded in Russia - 1,214 million people. It turns out that for at least another five years, the Russian army will feel obvious negative manifestations of the demographic crisis of the 90s. And if the army will feel these manifestations on itself with its whole, sorry, skin, then it is hardly possible to cope with the need for constant rotation of the draft staff every year. It would have been possible if the idea worked with a multiple increase in the number of servicemen serving under the contract. But only here with the complete set of military units by contract servicemen today there are even more problems than with the complete set of their conscripts.

It turns out those who initiated a bill to reduce the service life in the army, did not calculate the likelihood of a significant impact of demographic changes in Russia on the configuration of the Armed Forces. If so, then it is more like our banal "maybe" when you wish for what you want. Like, yes, we knew very well that with the birth rate in 90's there was trouble, but we just wanted the best ...

As a result, such carelessness today brings the first negative fruits. In many divisions, the level of acquisition does not reach the 60% of the norm. Moreover, this state of affairs is not only in parts of the Ministry of Defense, but also in parts of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Border Troops of the FSB of the Russian Federation, and in other agencies that recruit on the basis of draftees (contract soldiers, by the way, too). An interesting trend is observed: the closer the military unit is to the federal center, the more problems its commanders face with completing separate units with contract soldiers. The reason for this is in the level of funding, because in many regions of Russia the monetary allowance of contract sergeant in 20-25 thousand rubles can be called quite acceptable, but in the same Moscow not every young man will want to sign a contract on the specified conditions. Solving the problem with the help of military personnel, who can be called internal Russian migrants (for example, came from Yelets or Saratov to sign a contract in Moscow) is also not easy. Compensation for renting Moscow housing alone can result in a pretty penny for the budget of the military unit ...

But the one-year military service life at the time was also justified by the fact that now, they say, our soldiers will be spared the need to carry out chores. Like, if someone has doubts that in a year you can master military equipment and all military wisdom, then these people must certainly drive such doubts with both hands, because now outsourcers will do all the "dirty" work for the soldier. That is, civil servants who wash for the soldier and the barracks, and clean the potatoes, and even armored personnel carriers with a tank will be repaired. Like, now for a year of service, conscripts will learn more than those who once served for 2-3 years, because the year will go exclusively to tactical, fire and other military training without “spraying” to clean the territory, washing equipment in the fleet and packing of vegetable stores. It would seem that this is also a good that should be made of modern conscripts-conscripts of trained and effective fighters. But, as always, it was smooth on paper ...

Outsourcing takes place only in exemplary parts, where journalists are often invited. However, in the majority of Russian military units, soldiers called up for annual service continue to devote to that same “dirty” work, from which they are supposedly released on paper, much more time than military training.

An ordinary stock officer (call spring 2011) R. Nikiforov (19 years), demobilized in May 2012, tells.

He served in one of the military units of the Russian Defense Ministry in the Tver region. For all the time of service in the military unit, civilian personnel observed only in the canteen (cooks and cook assistants). At the same time, the cleaning of territories, the park and economic work are carried out exclusively by conscripted soldiers. In the daily routine of the day (with the exception of the weekend) there were records of exercises with military equipment and weapons, the study of their material part, but in fact these classes were conducted extremely rarely. Yes, most soldiers are not particularly and sought to study the methods of warfare and other military wisdom.


An ordinary stock officer (call spring 2011) A. Penkov (23 of the year), demobilized in May of 2012, tells.

He began his service at the training center of the Internal Troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation in Moscow in the military unit 3792 (commander - colonel Viktor Derkach). The staff was engaged in patrolling the Moscow metro, the streets of the capital. Civilian personnel in the military unit worked in the kitchen, where they periodically sent assistants from among the conscripts. Cleaning, maintenance of equipment, repair of premises was carried out by conscripts. I cannot say that we did daily tactical training and exercises with weapons, the peculiarities of working with suspicious individuals in the subway or on the streets of the city. Fed well. About the new form for explosives just heard ...


These are two small examples of the fact that the Russian army structures (and this is not only the units of the Defense Ministry of the Russian Federation) are in the best case in a state of transition, when not all military units receive adequate funding for the use of outsourcing companies, which should have freed up their time on professional military training. After all, one can say as much as necessary that the Ministry of Internal Affairs is separate, and the Ministry of Defense is separate, and that the Ministry of Internal Affairs does not seem to fall completely under army reform. But in this case, this is a profound error, because Russian security is not only security from an external enemy. The war in the North Caucasus also demonstrated that the units of any power structures should be ready at any moment to solve the task set for them. And here it would be strange to begin to divide recruits into those who need more combat training while serving, and less who need it ...

It turns out that the designated benefit of the annual service clearly does not become a benefit in terms of the combat capability of the army itself, the effectiveness of all its structures and divisions. Moreover, the conscription service at the level of 12 months leads the commanders of military units to the constant need to puzzle over who he will be, forgive, plug the resulting gap after the dismissal of another group of draftees to the “demobilization”. After all, it often happens that it is necessary to “optimize” the options for work, and, to put it simply, expand the range of responsibilities of each of the military personnel in the conditions of a total under-set of personnel. Yes, and from their own pockets to pay to outsourcing companies for the fact that they took out the trash or cleared the ground from the snow, too, not everyone wants.
In general, a year of service for the recruit himself is certainly not bad, but so far the Russian reality itself, unfortunately (or, fortunately, for whom as), opposes it. After all, even in this case, most often the scripts written at the top on snow-white paper are not able to cover all the nuances of military service. Paper, it can endure, but in reality, everything is not so rosy, as described in the plans for the modernization of the country's defense.

That is why today there are more and more ideas that it is time to increase the service life at least until 1,5 years (if 1,5 will decide something in the conditions of 90's negative demographic echo). But even if we assume that our leaders will decide on the addition to the existing time frame of the service for at least six months, this can cause a huge resonance in society. After all, reducing is one thing, but increasing it is quite another. The decision will be extremely unpopular among the overwhelming majority of the population, which, by and large, are hardly concerned with personnel shortages by contract servicemen and non-compliance with the outsourcing regime of the troops. That is why the state is unlikely to want to start talking today about returning to the “old” service life, which is already confirmed by reports from the Kremlin. No one wants to make such a high-profile decision, even if all the reasons for the need to make such a decision are to be put on the shelves and get the draftees to memorize them before going to bed.

In general, many people understand that it is necessary for the army itself to increase the service life of the draft, but I want to drive such an idea into the legislative framework, and my mother does not want to…
Author:
295 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. collapse
    collapse 27 November 2012 08: 09
    +16
    The idea of ​​reducing the duration of military service on conscription was based on the need to reduce the number of draft dodgers, so to speak, with good intentions. Like, if someone does not want to serve in the ranks of the Russian army for 2 years, considering this period too long, then the state is ready to make quite substantial concessions and reduce the duration of service by half.

    Just like in a bazaar, you don’t want two years, go for a year, but just go please, in my opinion it looks something like this. They are thinking about how to reduce the number of draft dodgers, and the fact that combat readiness is falling is pushed into the background.
    1. Captain Vrungel
      Captain Vrungel 27 November 2012 08: 39
      +7
      The army must be professional. They fight not by number, but by skill. Gradually transfer to a contract basis. Urgent service, in any case, is a forced serving of the "sacred duty" with the calculation of compotes and meters of herring in anticipation of "a hundred days before the order."
      1. Samovar
        Samovar 27 November 2012 08: 58
        +16
        Quote: Captain Vrungel
        Urgent service, in any case, is a forced serving of "sacred duty"

        Now, unfortunately, yes, but not everywhere. But not only contract soldiers will have to fight, my opinion is that only a "peaceful" army can be a contract. There is no place for it in war (in a serious war, of course).
        1. Hon
          Hon 27 November 2012 09: 06
          -5
          The USA is the most warring country in the world, the army is contracted.
          1. olifus
            olifus 27 November 2012 09: 10
            +10
            Quote: Hon
            The USA is the most warring country in the world, the army is contracted.

            Give me at least one example of a major operation carried out by "the most belligerent army." to come to the states and close on the bases, you don't need a big mind.
            1. Hon
              Hon 27 November 2012 10: 53
              -6
              Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom (shock and awe), Enduring Freedom, Desert Storm, etc.
              Quote: olifus
              come to the state and close at the bases, a big mind is not necessary.

              For some reason, in the 94th, our generals did not have enough mind for this ...
              1. Region65
                Region65 27 November 2012 14: 43
                +5
                From the stories of the American military commanders themselves, the United States in the first years of the war in Afghanistan lost more killed than the USSR for all the time they stayed on that land. Corps carriers used to fly there several times a day. They do not know how to fight, they know how to tell it beautifully and beautifully intimidate .......
                1. Hleb
                  Hleb 27 November 2012 14: 56
                  +6
                  from the stories of the American generals themselves

                  Who was talking about this?
                  Carrier aircraft used to make flights there several times a day

                  Still go B-52 and to the eyeballs?
                  1. Region65
                    Region65 6 December 2012 18: 30
                    0
                    stupid question, I somehow did not remember the name and surname of this Mordovgorod, do I need to remember every feces? the same feces told (and showed the video) how they shot cars with civilians (children, women, and so on, fleeing the city) on the tracks in Baghdad and then pushed the journalist in front of them hiding behind their backs to see who was in the cars that were shot. True heroes, and if you are not their loafer (this is to say that if all the same from them you will continue to stupidly demand the name of that warrior from me) then look and find a video. By the way, the film was broadcast on the History channel and the film is not ours, it is American.
                2. Hon
                  Hon 27 November 2012 15: 00
                  +9
                  According to the ministries of defense of the United States and Great Britain, as well as the independent Internet site iCasualties.org, as of November 23, 2012, during the operation Enduring Freedom (Eng. Enduring Freedom), an international coalition force lost 3 troops. Most of the casualties are related to a military operation in Afghanistan, but the casualty figure for the US Armed Forces includes a number of US troops killed in the Philippines, Djibouti, and some other countries. Both combat and non-combat losses were taken into account.
                  The greatest losses were suffered by the USA (2 154), Great Britain (438), Canada (158), France (86), Germany (53)

                  In the USA, they treat losses differently than in Russia, they can ask for losses from the government.
                  1. Kaa
                    Kaa 27 November 2012 19: 40
                    +7
                    Quote: Hon
                    Both combat and non-combat losses were taken into account.

                    What about PMC losses? What should they be with such a contingent? “For example, more than 400 PMCs were involved in Iraq, the total number of their personnel was more than 200 thousand people, which significantly exceeded the number of US troops and their allies in Iraq. The number of private contractors in Afghanistan is, according to various estimates, from 22 to 30 % of the grouping of the US armed forces. The losses of these structures are at least no less than that of regular armies, but they are not taken into account in official statistics According to US media, the official losses of only Blackwater in Iraq are more than 1000 people. killed and 15 thousand wounded. However, according to the PBS TV company, the real losses of this private company since 2003, most likely, significantly exceed the official figures. "And in essence, the tasks performed are just" protection ":
                    "recruitment and management of American contingent of international police missions (DynCorp);
                    Baghdad Airport Security (Custer Battles);
                    Protection of Iraqi oil fields and pipelines (Blackwater Security Consulting, Erinys Iraq Limited);
                    safeguarding the energy system of Iraq (Hart Group);
                    guarding US embassies and guarding the President of Afghanistan (Triple Canopy);
                    escort of UN convoys in Iraq and Afghanistan (Kroll);
                    Army training for Iraq (Military Professional Resources) and Saudi Arabia (Vinnell Corporation);
                    the provision of military translation services (CACI);
                    Prison Guard in Iraq and Afghanistan (Titan Corporation);
                    minefield clearance and destruction of unexploded ordnance (RONCO, MAG, BACTEC, Armor Group, Minetech, EODT);
                    fire protection (Group 4 Falck);
                    Rear Logistics Services (KBR);
                    air reconnaissance (AirScans Inc., Eagle Aviation Services & Technology);
                    protection of sea vessels from pirates (Global Marine Security Systems). "-Anatoly Ivanovich Gusher - head of the Center for Strategic Development, member of the Scientific Council under the Security Council of the Russian Federation, retired major general, especially for the Internet magazine" New Eastern Outlook ".
                  2. Region65
                    Region65 6 December 2012 18: 31
                    -1
                    funny ........ firstly, in the United States they lie and hide even more than in Russia, and secondly - the losses of warriors are understandable, they don’t fight mainly hide in the bushes and where are the losses of PMCs? Do they do all the dirty work for the valiant American soldiers? where is their HUGE loss ?????
                3. Karish
                  Karish 27 November 2012 17: 12
                  0
                  Quote: Region65
                  from the stories of the American generals themselves — the United States in the first years of the war in Afghanistan lost more killed than the Soviet Union during its entire stay on that land

                  that is, 17000 people and no one except you knows about this. Damn you can certainly lie, but not to that extent. I understand . news reaches the Urals for a long time and in a distorted form (and even more so to Kamchatka) but not to the same extent laughing
                  1. Region65
                    Region65 6 December 2012 18: 32
                    0
                    look for information. about neighing from stupidity anyone can.
              2. datur
                datur 27 November 2012 23: 37
                0
                Hon, yeah belay compared to the operations you named feel -All previous world wars -so minor conflicts !!! laughing laughing especially those where you did not participate yes ,, invincible Americans ,, wassat ! Ё !!!!
                1. Hon
                  Hon 28 November 2012 08: 42
                  +1
                  After the Second World War there were only local conflicts, in most of which they were lit.
                  1. Hon
                    Hon 28 November 2012 09: 35
                    +1
                    why is not the word s prescribed ?! What are you afraid of offending American soldiers?
              3. Stefano
                Stefano 28 November 2012 16: 40
                +1
                Keep
            2. crazy_fencer
              crazy_fencer 27 November 2012 12: 10
              +1
              I would also like to remind you, on the basis of the lessons of which war the US Army switched to a professional basis. After Vietnam, just a moment. And before and during the war in Vietnam, they had the same general conscription.
              1. Hon
                Hon 27 November 2012 12: 50
                0
                So before all the armies were manned according to the draft principle, in many European countries it is preserved, mainly not at war
              2. Ascetic
                Ascetic 27 November 2012 13: 42
                +35
                Quote: crazy_fencer
                After Vietnam, just a moment. And before and during the war in Vietnam, they had the same general conscription.


                Ohhh! This is a favorite argument of liberals who have the same religious reverence for all American experience.
                However, it is worth bearing in mind the following: in the US Army, an ordinary soldier receives, upon entering the service, firstly, a one-time bonus - an average of about $ 20 thousand, although this amount can vary both in the direction of decrease and in the direction of increase, and secondly, the salary, which for the first four months is $ 1294.
                Imagine what will happen if each draftee in the Russian army is paid 40 thousand rubles per month plus 600 thousand at a time. Yes, the recruiting stations will not withstand the influx of people who want to pay off their debt to the homeland.
                But in these conditions it is IMPOSSIBLE. Because the economy is different, and the social priorities of Russia and the United States are completely different.
                And the second point. As soon as the American valiant contract army meets more or less serious resistance somewhere and suffers losses in serious, not even global, but in the local war game, the question immediately arises on the availability of reserves. who will go even for big money to death in some Bantustan for the incomprehensible interests of American democracy.
                One cannot but recall the speech of the disgraced American General Stanley McChrystal, the former commander of the International Forces in Afghanistan, who made a lot of noise this summer. McChrystal then stated that US Army needs to return to the return of the draft system, since the current US forces are not suitable for a big war - there are not enough reserves. As well as Obama's concept of the impossibility of waging two local wars simultaneously.
                Our main problem is not in the draft or professional army (we already have a professional army, mainly the Strategic Missile Forces, East Kazakhstan Oblast, Air Force, Navy, the main role is officers and junior specialists, contract soldiers), but motivation to go serve
                Not a year and a half, not two. Any year, what's the difference then? if there is no conscious motivation which no money can be replaced
                And before you increase the service life (and, in my opinion, demography will inevitably force it anyway), you will have to seriously work on return this motivation. Not only financially. And maybe not even so much.
                In the end, the desire to protect their homeland with weapons in their hands is natural for any normal man(and not the Geyropei likeness of the common man of the middle kind
                1. MakSim51ru
                  MakSim51ru 27 November 2012 13: 57
                  -8
                  Quote: Ascetic
                  Imagine what will happen if each draftee in the Russian army is paid 40 thousand rubles per month plus 600 thousand at a time. Yes, the recruiting stations will not withstand the influx of people who want to pay off their debt to the homeland.

                  Don’t tell me, for the Olympics in Sochi or for the Euro I don’t remember what they find in football, they find money. And without any damage to the social network.
                  Quote: Ascetic
                  As soon as the American valiant contract army meets more or less serious resistance somewhere and suffers losses in serious, not even global, but in the local war game, the question immediately arises of the availability of reserves. who will go even for big money to death in some Bantustan for the incomprehensible interests of American democracy.

                  Yeah, slaves must go into battle, which you can not pay without any ideology.
                  1. robinson
                    robinson 27 November 2012 14: 04
                    +3
                    Quote: MakSim51ru
                    Yeah, slaves must go into battle, which you can not pay without any ideology.

                    Gee, an old topic. They generally do not serve for money. Or how much do you value your life, or is there a mutilation? Actually, even the mercenaries are not paid much, for example, an ordinary foreign French legion gets about the same as a bus driver in Moscow.
                    1. Region65
                      Region65 27 November 2012 14: 49
                      +4
                      in PMCs (private military companies), some experts get 500 bucks a day ... and that’s not the point, just getting dibs and crap on the battlefield can send the commander tries and back to the enemy run to surrender ... question it’s really not about money, the question is motivation and internal principles ..... I recently wrote on classmates with one person, I saw pictures of him where he is in Iraq .. here and I ask him, they say you needed a Slav brother in Iraq ? for a foreign country (USA) to fight in a foreign country (Iraq)? but he’s stupid and can’t answer Che .. he just says, a gamble of youth ........ (he was in Iraq 2005-2006)
                      1. Karish
                        Karish 27 November 2012 17: 22
                        0
                        Quote: Region65
                        in PMCs (private military companies), some specialists get 500 bucks a day ... and that’s not the point, just getting dibs and crap on the battlefield can send the commander tries and back to the enemy run to surrender

                        The topic of mercenarism is not new. Among the mercenaries (work) only professionals fight, the idea is certainly difficult, but here mutual assistance and relations come to the forefront. There they are also perishing, heroic acts are also being committed. For many, money is not the main thing. If we take the Swiss guardsmen (the very first European mercenaries and still serve as such today), then there duty and devotion are elevated to the rank of absolute. To die is not a problem. to disgrace oneself is forever. It's time to move away from soviet propaganda.
                        We have repeatedly seen how the guardians covered the guarded one and took bullets for him. In the FEM - the same can not be? Why?
                        About the foreign Legion, Gurkov, etc. not even worth mentioning. Examples of their heroism and self-sacrifice have long been known.
                      2. robinson
                        robinson 27 November 2012 18: 47
                        +2
                        Quote: Karish
                        It's time to move away from soviet propaganda.

                        Speak pl. "Soviet propaganda", the essence does not change, and so many clamor.
                        But in fact: the fact of the matter is that the amount of bonuses does not significantly affect the combat readiness, just there is a type of people who like it \ acceptable. That's all. It’s just that there really are not a lot of such people standing, Russia cannot afford to count on this class.
                        Well, pay a lot of veins, so who is against it? After all, consumer demand. You can sell a lot of things to them later. Heh.
                        But you can’t buy courage for money, alas, well, or cheers!
                      3. Kaa
                        Kaa 27 November 2012 19: 47
                        0
                        Quote: Karish
                        About the foreign Legion, Gurkov, etc. not even worth mentioning.

                        I can not disagree with you:
                        “Legionnaires who served the contractual period received certain benefits when applying for work in France. It was believed that these people had been in the public service and brought benefit to society, and thereby atoned for all their past sins. Deserting from the Foreign Legion was common. However, such an act was severely punished by the French authorities. The culprit was threatened with imprisonment for up to five years. After that, he had to continue his service, receiving a salary two times less than what was supposed "http://www.rusamny.com/320/t03(320).htm.
                      4. MakSim51ru
                        MakSim51ru 27 November 2012 18: 19
                        +6
                        I’m interested in your logic. A military man who gets a decent salary (whether it is a conscript or a contract soldier) for his professionalism and the risk of being killed on the battlefield must necessarily crap on the battlefield. And based on this, the salaries of conscripts and contract soldiers should be minimal, supposedly they are fighting better.
                    2. Hon
                      Hon 27 November 2012 15: 06
                      0
                      Quote: robinson
                      an ordinary foreign French legion gets roughly like a bus driver in Moscow.

                      Not all legionnaires are at war, in addition, it all depends on the position held if the legionnaire is in the combat zone, the salary grows four times + various bonuses, as a result, an impressive sum runs up. But the legion is a regular formation, on the market the price of mercenaries reaches up to $ 25 thousand per month, depending on qualifications, employer, war and tasks performed.
                      1. Anthrax
                        Anthrax 28 November 2012 21: 03
                        0
                        And the average salary of a nurse in the USA is twice the salary of a lieutenant.
                    3. MakSim51ru
                      MakSim51ru 27 November 2012 18: 13
                      +2
                      I don’t understand something -You feel sorry for the soldier of urgent or contract service40 thousand rubles. per month? Personally, I do not.
                    4. Patos89
                      Patos89 28 November 2012 00: 38
                      -1
                      For info mercenaries pay 300 tanks per hour
                      1. Karish
                        Karish 28 November 2012 07: 50
                        0
                        Quote: Patos89
                        For info mercenaries pay 300 tanks per hour

                        Such money is not paid anywhere.
                      2. Patos89
                        Patos89 28 November 2012 12: 34
                        0
                        Read and it was said on many resources that mercenaries receive more money than soldiers, the difference is that mercenaries make for money and soldiers for their homeland and other goodies.
                        Blackwater warriors are not the only new services on the market. Drum from the UK reports that the number of convoy requests has increased tenfold over the past year. The head of the Drum, Peter Hopkins, provides teams of 4 to 8 people who board aboard ships in Port Said to land again in Oman or Mombasa. Four guards cost about 6500 euros per day plus travel expenses. They are armed, but at first they try to defend the ships with sound cannons and barbed wire.
                        http://www.warandpeace.ru/ru/reports/view/38587/
                      3. qwertynsan
                        qwertynsan 30 November 2012 15: 09
                        0
                        This is in what country do mercenaries pay so much and how many hours a day do they serve? 30 minutes a month and then run well
                      4. qwertynsan
                        qwertynsan 30 November 2012 15: 13
                        0
                        This is in what country do mercenaries pay so much and how many hours a day do they serve? for 30 minutes and then a month runs well 4500
                    5. cyberdamn
                      cyberdamn 28 November 2012 20: 28
                      0
                      Quote: robinson
                      for example, an ordinary foreign French legion gets something like a bus driver in Moscow.

                      Hello :)
                  2. Felix200970
                    Felix200970 27 November 2012 23: 44
                    -1
                    Quote: MakSim51ru
                    Don’t tell me, for the Olympics in Sochi or for the Euro I don’t remember what they find in football, they find money. And without any damage to the social network.

                    Do not forget mundiales and olympiads - one-time promotions lasting no more than 2 weeks. Even with a completely new infrastructure, they are much cheaper than the needs of the army.
                    Quote: MakSim51ru
                    Yeah, slaves must go into battle, which you can not pay without any ideology.

                    Attempts to switch to commodity-money relations in the army lead to its degradation and loss of combat effectiveness. Therefore, the correct answer is: "I am satisfied with this job"
                    1. Patos89
                      Patos89 28 November 2012 13: 37
                      +1
                      They steal even less and everything will be enough.
                      The Independent: key witness found in Magnitsky case found dead in UK
                      Such grandmothers steal and you say about 40 pieces, you can pay 400 if such theft is not
                    2. MakSim51ru
                      MakSim51ru 29 November 2012 00: 28
                      0
                      Quote: Felix200970
                      Do not forget mundiales and olympiads - one-time promotions lasting no more than 2 weeks. Even with a completely new infrastructure, they are much cheaper than the needs of the army.


                      The duration is really 2-3 weeks. And the preparation for 5-6 years of pouring money into objects that will then not be loaded even by half. There are plenty of examples of this. We go further, 1 million conscripts (I overestimate, of course, but for an even account) multiply by 40 thousand. We get 40 billion. A lot? At first glance, yes, but for comparison. In 2013, 549 billion for education, replenishment of the reserve fund of almost 373 billion rubles, Min. will receive 2350 billion rubles. And what can't they spend 40 billion on salaries? I won't believe in life ..
                      Quote: Felix200970
                      Attempts to switch to commodity-money relations in the army lead to its degradation and loss of combat effectiveness. Therefore, the correct answer is: "I am satisfied with this job"

                      Following the example of the 2 Chechen wars, I know that heroism and self-sacrifice among contract soldiers are no less than among conscripts, and there will be more professionalism. And motivation does not always come down to getting more.
                2. Hon
                  Hon 27 November 2012 14: 11
                  +1
                  Quote: Ascetic
                  The US Army needs to return to the return of the draft system, since the current US Armed Forces are not suitable for a big war - there are not enough reserves.

                  The US Army will burn the enemy’s reserve with white phosphorus and the amount will be equal.
                3. Samovar
                  Samovar 27 November 2012 14: 16
                  +5
                  Quote: Ascetic
                  But in these conditions it is IMPOSSIBLE. Because the economy is different, and the social priorities of Russia and the USA are completely different

                  Ascetic +!
                  More and more I notice that among the arguments in any topic, more often appear "And in America this way, but in America that way ..."
                  We are Russia, we have to think with our head. And the United States, with its "generosity", will soon go to the bottom of the world economy (although for me it’s better to go to the bottom of world history).
                  1. Hon
                    Hon 27 November 2012 15: 08
                    0
                    This is my fault cited as an example ov and that spun
                  2. Ascetic
                    Ascetic 27 November 2012 15: 28
                    +10
                    Quote: Samovar
                    More and more I notice that among the arguments in any topic, more often appear "And in America this way, but in America that way ..."


                    It’s just that a generation has grown up that is studying in our modern universities under Western programs, except in what you need to do, as in America nothing has been trained. An example here in America, all cosmonauts are civilians, let’s take off our shoulder straps or they have a DARPA which is independent of government officials, let’s do it and we will do it stupidly. Let's like Khrushchev with American corn without taking into account historical experience, traditions, economic and social conditions, geographical position and environment in the end.
                    They are absolutely sure that we need to adopt everything from the West, in particular from the USA, and then we will live as people and build a strong country like them, that our whole history is ridiculous and represents only mistakes, and therefore it needs to be cross out and remake yourself. Here and the whole ideology.
                    Just paraphrasing Professor Preobrazhensky maize you don’t need to read all sorts of liberal crap at night and not watch the vysery of science-like hamsters like Svanidze, Pivovarov,
                    Solovyov, Radzinsky and others like them on the "zomboyaschik"
                    Otherwise, the country will definitely come American CORN Plenty a la Khrushchev

                    Read sane fundamental things, for example, the Russian philosophers Berdyaev and Ivanov about which by zomboyaschik and in the media
                    you will not hear ANY SOUND. because their liberal Western ideology will be completely destroyed .. Then at least a little understanding will open up what Russia and the Russian people are, who are the same liberals and which way we should go.
                    1. Karish
                      Karish 27 November 2012 17: 29
                      +1
                      Quote: Ascetic
                      An example here in America, all cosmonauts are civilian

                      Far from all
                      Astronaut Choice

                      In January 1959, the following selection criteria were established:
                      age - less than 40 years
                      height - less than 5 feet 11 inches (1 meter 80 centimeters)
                      impeccable physical condition
                      education - a bachelor's degree in engineering or equivalent education
                      qualification - jet pilot
                      special education - completed training at the school of test pilots
                      flight experience - at least 1500 hours
                      In the first seven were selected:
                      Gordon Cooper Jr. - Air Force Captain
                      Virgil I. “Gus” Grissom - Air Force Captain
                      Donald K. “Deke” Slayton - Air Force Captain
                      Scott Carpenter - lieutenant of naval aviation
                      Alan B. Shepard Jr. - Senior Lieutenant of Naval Aviation
                      Walter M. Schirra Jr. - Senior Lieutenant of Naval Aviation
                      John H. Glenn Jr. - lieutenant colonel of naval aviation

                      Over the years, nothing has changed. the backbone of the astronauts are military personnel
                      Recruitment criteria for new flights (already after the shuttle program closes
                      The US space agency NASA for the first time since the closure of the manned shuttle program began a set of astronauts. Two vacancies are open so far. Among other requirements for applicants is the need to pass a test for knowledge of the Russian language.

                      It is expected that the new astronauts who are planned to be found in the ranks of the US military will become new crew members of the International Space Station. They will need to know Russian to communicate with their Russian colleagues at the Baikonur Cosmodrome, from where all launches to the ISS will now be made.
                  3. MakSim51ru
                    MakSim51ru 27 November 2012 18: 24
                    +1
                    Answered Ascetic I will answer you too.
                    To date, there are no financial problems preventing the transfer of the RF Armed Forces to service on a contract basis. Geopolitics? Yes. Personal interests? Yes, but not financial problems.
                    1. Hon
                      Hon 27 November 2012 18: 29
                      +4
                      How is it not? And the Amazons Serdyukov? Isn't that a financial problem?
                      1. MakSim51ru
                        MakSim51ru 27 November 2012 18: 55
                        +2
                        Within the ministry, yes. They would be under the tribunal and under the laws of wartime. Or return to the Criminal Code two articles - "undermining the country's defense capability" and "undermining the country's defense economy" And then as Zhvanetsky say - ... the court, Siberia.
                      2. military
                        military 29 November 2012 14: 34
                        +1
                        Quote: Hon
                        And the Amazons Serdyukov? Isn't that a financial problem?

                        these are "black holes" ... laughing
                    2. Karish
                      Karish 27 November 2012 20: 09
                      +2
                      Quote: MakSim51ru
                      To date, there are no financial problems preventing the transfer of the RF Armed Forces to service on a contract basis. Geopolitics? Yes. Personal interests? Yes, but not financial problems.

                      Money is far from everything. Changing attitudes toward a soldier is a problem. The presence of a mercenary army determines some other relations, an officer-soldier. A hired soldier - knows his rights (as well as duties) - for many in the Army this is a problem.
                      1. Hon
                        Hon 28 November 2012 08: 45
                        0
                        Border guards transferred to a contract and no problems
                      2. MakSim51ru
                        MakSim51ru 29 November 2012 00: 31
                        0
                        You are right, the social status of servicemen is also an important problem.
                4. Dikremnij
                  Dikremnij 27 November 2012 14: 17
                  +2
                  That's right, that's why the private military companies of the PVK are now breeding, which represent small professional armies of mercenaries, who carry out various kinds of operations for the money of the USA. I think that such companies will continue to develop, and the armed forces of many states will become mainly divided into self-defense forces and not numerous quick reaction forces.
                  As for the army, I propose my own option: to have units fully equipped with contract soldiers, the so-called quick reaction forces and to have a reserve in which to summon everyone for six months, that is, training, and then send them to a civilian, and if you want to remain on the contract, to retrain in training centers, and in terms of constant combat readiness.
                  To prove my theory, I propose to recall the Second World War, when for six months they managed to train officers, including pilots.
                  1. Region65
                    Region65 27 November 2012 14: 52
                    +2
                    in Russia, by the way, there is also a PMC (private or, as you said, a private) military company, but since Russia signed under one of the UN conventions and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation has an article for mercenaries, our PMC does not have the right to fight against one side or another ( because under that convention and our Criminal Code it is criminally punishable) it mainly performs work on mine clearance, training, escorting cargo and important lords ... by the way, the salary reaches up to 500 tanks per day (mainly for sappers).
                    1. Hon
                      Hon 27 November 2012 15: 10
                      0
                      Where did we get PMCs from? Putin only talked about the need to create them. Why then in Ossetia the Ministry of Emergencies was engaged in mine clearance?
                    2. Demon_Ex
                      Demon_Ex 27 November 2012 17: 12
                      0
                      The commander of a mobile group (Lieutenant Colonel) when working in areas of special danger (Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Niger, Iraq and Libya) as part of convoys and accompanied with a rate of $ 1600 per day. The commander of the department (Command Sergeant Major) bid $ 1100. Ordinary employee (Sergeant Major) bid $ 670. In other regions with a lower degree of risk, bets are cut in 2 times.
                  2. Was mammoth
                    Was mammoth 27 November 2012 22: 24
                    +4
                    Quote: Dikremnij
                    To prove my theory, I propose to recall the Second World War, when in six months they managed to train officers, including pilots

                    And how long did these young lieutenants live? There was no exit. So fast and cooked
                5. bart74
                  bart74 27 November 2012 16: 22
                  +3
                  I agree. Not about absolutely fuss and debate! The army should be professional in those parts (or in that part) where necessary. Strategic Missile Forces, Air Force, Special Forces, Navy, other formations and units of quick response and combat readiness. In other parts - as needed! Well, no coast guard under the contract! No need for cooks, stokers, etc. The same misuse of funds. Otherwise, the entire Army should be on draft with a term of 2 YEARS, with vacations, dismissal, average monetary allowance, so that it was enough for ice cream, beer, cigarettes in the bump. So that the soldier would not shoot cigarettes, but could feel himself as a man and sit in a cafe with a girl. What else is needed at age 19? If not pride in the country and for yourself? The officer corps MUST DECENTLY RECEIVE! Due to the fact that there will not be any monetary burden in the person of cooks and stokers. In general, an army without conscription is NOT an ARMY, ready to defend a country in the event of a global war, but a body of Mercenaries. THIS IS NOT EFFECTIVE! and history has proven it.
                  Summary: Service life - 2 years,
                  Professionals in units carrying out military service (Air Force, Navy, Strategic Rocket Forces and combat units of other combat arms) and rapid response units (special forces, reconnaissance)
                  1. Hon
                    Hon 27 November 2012 16: 50
                    +2
                    Quote: bart74
                    What else is needed at age 19?

                    At 19, you need a cayenne piston, a night club and a beautiful girl ...
                  2. Karish
                    Karish 27 November 2012 17: 33
                    0
                    Quote: bart74
                    An army without conscription is NOT an ARMY, ready to defend a country in the event of a global war,

                    agree
                    Quote: bart74
                    Summary: Service life - 2 years

                    Our girls serve so much laughing
                    Quote: bart74
                    Professionals in units carrying out military service (Air Force, Navy, Strategic Rocket Forces and combat units of other military branches) and rapid response units (special forces, intelligence

                    guys 3 years
                    Special forces 5 years, of which only the course of a young fighter - 18-20 months.
                    1. Hon
                      Hon 27 November 2012 17: 38
                      +1
                      And we have the number of special forces soldiers like your whole army
                      1. Karish
                        Karish 27 November 2012 20: 05
                        +3
                        Quote: Hon
                        And we have the number of special forces soldiers like your whole army

                        And probably even exceeds the population of Dagestan, but what's the point?
                      2. Hon
                        Hon 28 November 2012 08: 50
                        0
                        Quote: Karish
                        And probably even exceeds the population of Dagestan, but what's the point?

                        Sense was on August 8, 2008. And there is no war in Dagestan
                    2. MakSim51ru
                      MakSim51ru 27 November 2012 19: 03
                      +2
                      Quote: Karish
                      guys 3 years
                      Special forces 5 years, of which only the course of a young fighter - 18-20 months.

                      Well, sign a contract and pay normally. Or do you feel sorry for the money?
                      1. Karish
                        Karish 28 November 2012 07: 54
                        +1
                        Quote: MakSim51ru
                        Well, sign a contract and pay normally. Or do you feel sorry for the money?

                        And we have no problems with the appeal laughing
                      2. Hon
                        Hon 28 November 2012 08: 52
                        0
                        Only the warriors for some reason began to lose. Is it enough to compete with Iran?
                      3. Hon
                        Hon 28 November 2012 09: 37
                        0
                        Another question. And if these girls are captured what will they do?
                      4. Axel
                        Axel 28 November 2012 12: 01
                        +1
                        Same as with you
                      5. Patos89
                        Patos89 28 November 2012 12: 38
                        +1
                        +1 Rape threatens everyone
                      6. Hon
                        Hon 28 November 2012 12: 51
                        0
                        It threatens everything but for girls it is guaranteed 100%
                      7. MakSim51ru
                        MakSim51ru 29 November 2012 00: 34
                        0
                        Quote: Karish
                        And we have no problem laughing


                        I would venture to suggest that your material and social position as a conscript soldier is still higher than ours.
                  3. Felix200970
                    Felix200970 28 November 2012 00: 09
                    +4
                    Quote: bart74
                    The army should be professional in those parts (or in that part) where necessary. Strategic Missile Forces, Air Force, Special Forces, Navy, other formations and units of quick reaction and combat readiness

                    As I understand it, what is a professional army everyone has forgotten or seen enough of Merlican cartoons. After 3 years of service, any conscript becomes a pro (unless, of course, a clinical case). Contractors with a length of service of less than 2 years are as stupid, untrained sheep as conscripts. A normal fighter can be trained in 3 years. Acceptable - for 2. All that is less is a waste of time and sexual relations with the brains of commanders and fighters. This I responsibly declare from my own experience in training the units of the Ground Forces
                    1. studentmati
                      studentmati 28 November 2012 00: 27
                      +1
                      A very typical example of the effectiveness of the army on conscription is the DPRK army, with a service life of three to ten years. Otherwise impossible by definition. Physiology and mental abilities of a person will not allow to prepare a real fighter in a shorter time. (I do not take medications into account).
                      1. knn54
                        knn54 28 November 2012 22: 24
                        0
                        About 9 people have been serving in special forces-reservists for 100000 years. Try to poke around! As for the contractors, this is, whatever one may say, mercenaries (good on the offensive). And given the increased complexity of the equipment, we must return to Soviet standards — 2 years / 3 years in the navy. And increase the responsibility of officers. The experience of Kazakhstan is very interesting - they take the best. what happened in the USSR and the USA.
                      2. Hon
                        Hon 29 November 2012 08: 52
                        0
                        Quote: knn54
                        As for the contractors, this is, anyway, mercenaries

                        Then the officers are also mercenaries
                    2. MakSim51ru
                      MakSim51ru 29 November 2012 00: 37
                      +1
                      Quote: Felix200970
                      As I understand it, what is a professional army everyone has forgotten or seen enough of Merlican cartoons. After 3 years of service, any conscript becomes a pro (unless, of course, a clinical case). Contractors with a length of service of less than 2 years are as stupid, untrained sheep as conscripts. A normal fighter can be trained in 3 years. Acceptable - for 2. All that is less is a waste of time and sexual relations with the brains of commanders and fighters. This I responsibly declare from my own experience in training the units of the Ground Forces


                      This is because they come at 18 and don’t know anything, they don’t know anything and don’t aspire to anything. Just to serve .. But I would come in 25-27 with a normal education and experience, under a normal salary, and most importantly, voluntarily, you look and the result would be different
              3. Karish
                Karish 27 November 2012 17: 15
                +1
                Quote: crazy_fencer
                And before and during the Vietnam War, they had the same general conscription.

                Judging by your photo. during the Vietnam war (40 years ago) you were still a child, I mean that you probably have changed (both outwardly and wiser) Americans are the same.
            3. topwar.ruk-d
              topwar.ruk-d 29 November 2012 20: 01
              0
              Iraq 91st and 2003
          2. Samovar
            Samovar 27 November 2012 09: 25
            +9
            Quote: Hon
            USA is the most warring country in the world

            Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya - which of these fits the description of a large-scale war?
            1. Hon
              Hon 27 November 2012 13: 40
              +1
              Quote: Samovar
              Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya - which of these fits the description of a large-scale war?

              Remind me what large-scale warriors after the Second World War participated in Russia, and in general after the Second World War were large-scale warriors?
              1. Samovar
                Samovar 27 November 2012 14: 21
                +2
                Quote: Hon
                Remind me of what large-scale warriors after WWII Russia participated

                Did I say that Russia participated in them? No, I didn’t.
                In Russia there should be a mixed system of recruitment into the army (contract soldiers and conscripts). The contractors begin the war, the mobile reserve ends it.
              2. Region65
                Region65 27 November 2012 15: 03
                +5
                Russia is many more years than the United States and all these years it has been waging war (as we say in Russia that there is a war for each generation in Russia), so calling the United States the most warring country is not entirely correct and proper. At the same time, Russia where it stood for a millennium is still standing, but what will happen to the young US is still not clear))))))) and it is not a fact that the United States exported at least one war on its territory with an external enemy. and it’s not necessary to know the military history of Russia, it’s enough to open the law on veterans and see only the period of the so-called modern history (not including antiquity)
                Civil war: from February 23 1918 years to October 1922 years
                Soviet-Polish War: March - October 1920
                Fighting in Spain: 1936 - 1939 years
                War with Finland: from November 30 1939 of the year to March 13 of the 1940 of the year
                World War II: from 22 of June 1941 of the year to 9 (11) of May 1945 of the year
                War with Japan: from 9 of August 1945 of the year to 3 of September of 1945 of the year
                Combat operations to eliminate basmachi:
                from October 1922 to June 1931
                The fighting around Lake Hassan:
                July 29 to August 11 1938 of the year
                The fighting on the Khalkhin Gol River:
                from May 11 to September 16, 1939
                Fighting during the reunification of the USSR, Western Ukraine and Western Belarus: from September 17 to September 28, 1939
                Fighting in China:
                from August 1924 to July 1927;
                October - November 1929;
                continued list below
            2. Region65
              Region65 27 November 2012 14: 54
              +2
              it would be more correct to say "The most spoiling country in the whole world"
          3. Reddragon
            Reddragon 27 November 2012 09: 43
            +4
            Quote: Hon
            The USA is the most warring country in the world, the army is contracted.

            And against whom are they fighting?
            Israel also fights all the time, but what army?
            1. Hon
              Hon 27 November 2012 10: 56
              0
              Even if Israel makes a contract army, everyone will still serve, Jews often go to serve in the IDF without even living in Israel
              1. askort154
                askort154 27 November 2012 13: 36
                0
                Guys, do not confuse local wars with strategic ones. Moreover, Israel, as a state, would not exist long ago without the protection of the Anglo-Saxons.
                As for the US Army. not one strategic victory alone, she
                in his account does not have. (if I missed something, tell me).
                1. Hon
                  Hon 27 November 2012 14: 26
                  0
                  The Israeli army defeated numerically superior enemy forces that protected the alliance. For Israel, every war is strategic. If you do not take into account the Strategic Missile Forces, then the main violin in a large-scale war will be played by aviation, air defense, MLRS and OTRK
                  1. askort154
                    askort154 27 November 2012 15: 36
                    +1
                    Calling the border skirmishes of the 4 millionth micro-state ,, strategic wars is absurd. Survival in the camp of the enemy is more
                    psychology, rather than a strategic war, affecting the course of world events. Yes, the Soviet Union protected Arabs, but they are not warriors. Just ditched
                    our technique. Jews used namaz (when Arabs pray fanatically).
                    bombed all airfields, not one plane did not take off. The valor of the army is determined in the war with a worthy enemy, and not with a clear wimp.
                    1. Hon
                      Hon 27 November 2012 15: 52
                      0
                      For them, it is strategic because the existence of Israel itself is always called into question.
                    2. Karish
                      Karish 27 November 2012 17: 44
                      +2
                      Quote: askort154
                      Calling the border skirmishes of the 4 millionth micro-state ,, strategic wars is absurd.

                      so then strategic wars seem to have been gone for 75 years. and the people are at war and at war
                      Quote: askort154
                      Yes, the Soviet Union protected Arabs, but they are not warriors. Just ditched

                      And why the heck then roofed? There was nowhere to put money? They would say. We will not give weapons. our grandmothers aren’t wasting anything, all the same, you’ll lose everything. So no. 4 times on the same rake. All the same, probably on what they hoped. They even sent their troops.
                      Quote: askort154
                      Valor of the army is determined in a war with a worthy adversary, and not with a clear weakling.

                      We continue to believe in fairy tales. about namaz and the rest of the nonsense.
                      Although you are right, a victory in Abkhazia is really a victory (after all, the adversary was Great Georgia) laughing
                      How we love to crap on other people's achievements. That's right, like in an anecdote
                      The problem is not that my cow is dead, but that my neighbor alive.
                2. Region65
                  Region65 27 November 2012 15: 09
                  +2
                  even by the way, NATO during the bombing of Libya and KILLING (I will not name it differently) M. Gaddafi borrowed ammunition from Germany :) because Germany was in the murder of the country of Libya (because Muammar wanted Sarkozy owed money and not the chancellor of Germany) and this was limited supply of ammunition.
                  1. Karish
                    Karish 27 November 2012 17: 45
                    +1
                    Quote: Region65
                    even by the way, NATO during the bombing of Libya and KILLING (I will not name it differently) M. Gaddafi borrowed ammunition from Germany :) because Germany was in the murder of the country of Libya (because Muammar wanted Sarkozy owed money and not the chancellor of Germany) and this was limited supply of ammunition.

                    Is Germany already not in NATO?
                    1. Region65
                      Region65 6 December 2012 18: 19
                      0
                      where does it come from? the point is that in all of NATO, only Germany is provided with a militarily secured country. I’m talking about this .. what is the use of the rest of the US and sixes?
                3. Karish
                  Karish 27 November 2012 17: 37
                  +3
                  Quote: askort154
                  Guys, do not confuse local wars with strategic ones.

                  Do not understand . What do you mean, do not confuse? For Israel, all these wars were strategic. and for Argentina, the Second World War is local.
                  Quote: askort154
                  As for the US Army. not one strategic victory alone, she
                  in his account does not have. (if I missed something, tell me).

                  Asked to correct, correct.
                  War with Napoleon - Coalition Russia, England and I don’t remember anyone else
                  World War I (Russia in the coalition of England, France, Italy - the truth, with the help of the Bolsheviks, came off)
                  World War II (who was in the coalition to remind, you probably know yourself) And after that it seems that they didn’t even fight (except for Afghanistan, the result is known.)
                  1. Hon
                    Hon 27 November 2012 17: 46
                    0
                    And what is wrong with Afghanistan, we controlled the entire territory and left when we realized what to do there.
                    1. Karish
                      Karish 27 November 2012 20: 02
                      +1
                      Quote: Hon
                      And what is wrong with Afghanistan, we controlled the whole territory and left when we realized what to do there

                      The whole territory? Honor Gromov, as he agreed with Masood, so that they let him through Salang and let him calmly leave.
                      Gone when they realized what nefig do!
                      Now is it called that? And why did you enter and what goals did you achieve?
                      1. robinson
                        robinson 27 November 2012 20: 52
                        +4
                        Quote: Karish
                        Honor Gromov, as he agreed with Masood, so that they let him through Salang and let him calmly leave.
                        Gone when they realized what nefig do!
                        Now is it called that? And why did you enter and what goals did you achieve?

                        Well read me. They agreed with Massoud, as well as with a bunch of others, about the rules of existence, by the way, Massoud was deceived and practically destroyed his troops (as it turned out on his own head). I can tell you in detail about the southeastern regions of Afghanistan that were under complete control, even taking into account the "treaty" territories. but not the point. The bottom line is that both we and NATO came there to put "their boyfriend". So, after the withdrawal, ours sat for another 4 years and did not cough, and fell AFTER the Union and for the same reason. Karzai will sit for seconds after the withdrawal of NATO, I won't even think about it.
                    2. Konrad
                      Konrad 30 November 2012 22: 49
                      0
                      Quote: Hon
                      left when they realized what to do there nefig.

                      Nefig was there to climb! I remember how they buried the son of my comrade at work, I remember how the mother of the deceased boy shouted: WHOM SHOULD HE BE ???, when the military commissar was crucifying about "international duty". And how many thousands of such funerals were there throughout the country ...
            2. Dr. Pilyulkin
              Dr. Pilyulkin 27 November 2012 11: 01
              +3
              Quote: RedDragoN
              Israel also fights all the time, but what army?

              Remember how many Israelis themselves are in Israel and against what forces they militarily oppose. Then it will become clearer why there is a call in Israel.
            3. MakSim51ru
              MakSim51ru 27 November 2012 14: 03
              0
              Yes, Israel is fighting. And the draft army. But if you look closely, then half or maybe more Tzahal performs police functions. A conscription service is a necessity because of so many hostile countries of the neighbors
          4. IRBIS
            IRBIS 27 November 2012 10: 47
            +2
            And yet, the Americans are forced to use their National Guard in conflicts. She is constantly involved in various exercises, even international ones ("Baltops", for example). And nothing, I'm running pot-bellied farmers with managers and do not grumble.
            1. Hon
              Hon 27 November 2012 10: 58
              0
              Service in the National Guard is voluntary and combined with work in the main specialty.
            2. MakSim51ru
              MakSim51ru 27 November 2012 14: 05
              0
              And the US National Guard is recruited from volunteers, who have a number of benefits.
          5. NSG42
            NSG42 27 November 2012 11: 20
            +5
            Hon,
            Yes, they do not know how to fight. Money is evil, and only a fool for money will climb under bullets. The defense of the Fatherland and the interests of our Motherland in the world is the duty of every citizen of the Russian Federation. Everyone will go to the defense, and without any money. Only one thing is bad - our leadership of the country (which we have chosen) does not want to protect its people (it thinks only of itself). Look at veterans of the Great Patriotic War, invalids of wars, widows and families of the lost defenders of our Motherland, SHAME! And you need to serve 3 years to become a full-fledged man and fewer boys in the zones will be.
            1. Hon
              Hon 27 November 2012 11: 37
              0
              And who said that the contract because of the money serve? Officers also get paid. Who went into America as a wanderer, that one wandered and returned, who left as a peasant by a man returned.
            2. MakSim51ru
              MakSim51ru 27 November 2012 14: 08
              +2
              You will not be forcibly sweet. It is necessary to educate so that service in the Army does not seem to be a punishment. And to encourage those who serve. Including cash allowance. And how much is the salary of a conscript? God forbid that enough on the gateway.
              1. Hon
                Hon 27 November 2012 15: 12
                -1
                It’s not that you don’t need to serve, but that the year is enough
          6. baron.nn
            baron.nn 27 November 2012 11: 37
            +2
            Hon:
            They really never fought. Following the example of the second world contract army, you won’t get off ...
            1. Hon
              Hon 27 November 2012 11: 57
              -1
              The US will not come out of military conflicts, after the Second World War, our country also did not really fight.
              1. baron.nn
                baron.nn 27 November 2012 13: 11
                +2
                Hon:
                After the Second World War, our country still has not made up for the lost human potential. Therefore, it is better we don’t need such wars anymore! And the fact that states will not come out of conflicts is that you can still argue: what is the essence of the issue? That conscripts should not fight outside the great war. Professionals are at war with them, sitting in front of the monitor ... There are enough of them for this. But what will happen to them if, for example, Canada goes to war with them? Throughout their history, they never truly fought on their territory! WWII can not be considered, because they got involved in it when the ridge of Germany was already broken by Soviet troops.
                1. Hon
                  Hon 27 November 2012 14: 36
                  -3
                  Quote: baron.nn
                  conscripts must not fight outside the great war

                  The essence of the matter is that a big war is not expected, so the need for long-term military service falls.
                  Quote: baron.nn
                  But what will happen to them if, for example, Canada goes to war with them?

                  Nothing will happen because it will not work.
                  1. baron.nn
                    baron.nn 27 November 2012 16: 36
                    0
                    Hon:
                    So one year of urgency with subsequent fees should be enough for a trained mobilization reserve! In general, we are talking about the same thing.
                    1. Hon
                      Hon 27 November 2012 16: 50
                      0
                      I am in principle for the preservation of military service
              2. MakSim51ru
                MakSim51ru 27 November 2012 14: 10
                -1
                Quote: Hon
                The US will not come out of military conflicts, after the Second World War, our country also did not really fight.

                What does it mean to fight for real? Nine years of Afghanistan with the use of aviation and armored vehicles, isn’t there really fighting? Or two Chechen campaigns, or the war of 09.09.09/XNUMX/XNUMX?
                1. Hon
                  Hon 27 November 2012 15: 15
                  +1
                  This refers to the war with the use of enormous human resources and offensive weapons on both sides, when a single bombardment of the city erases the face of the earth and losses are calculated by divisions. By the way the war 08.08.08
          7. Ascetic
            Ascetic 27 November 2012 12: 44
            +15
            Quote: Hon

            The USA is the most warring country in the world, the army is contracted.


            mission of the Russian army - defend a large territory by all means and means. The mission of the American army is to export democracy in different parts of the world by active offensive actions. For this, they need a highly professional mobile army, and there are simply no external enemies for the United States at the borders, except for Cuba and Venezuela.
            Russia, whether you want it or not, you need to be ready for local wars and conflicts both on its borders and within the country, and for this you need a professional mobile army of "peacetime" capable of extinguishing these conflicts in a short time. burns out in the first days from its beginning, and then the question of a prepared mob reserve arises on the agenda, which, alas, with the departure of the older generation will be absent as a class without military training of young people, it does not matter whether it is a conscription system or a national guard on a territorial basis, but EVERYONE The MAN must undergo military training.
            1. Hon
              Hon 27 November 2012 13: 01
              -1
              In modern conditions, in the event of a global war, we won’t even have time to declare a mobilization; all living things will be burned out on earth, we need to rely only on local conflicts, and they need a mobile, highly professional army with high-tech weapons. In Israel, by the way, the army, although conscripted, even taking into account all the mobilization reserves, is not numerous, but they repeatedly defeated the enemy, who had numerical superiority both in the number of military personnel and in the number of reservists.
              With a cry of cheers, they no longer go to the bayonet attack.
              1. Samovar
                Samovar 27 November 2012 15: 01
                +1
                Quote: Hon
                rely only on local conflicts

                In the USSR, at one time, they also believed that there would be only global wars with tank armades. As a result, when they came to Afghanistan, it turned out that there was something to beat the spirits, but how to beat them was a question. I had to learn to fight in a guerrilla war, which was not prepared for before, and we had to study with blood. So the army must be able to act in any form of conflict.
                1. Hon
                  Hon 27 November 2012 15: 34
                  +2
                  NU fought with spirits competently and professionally, the Soviet special forces were prepared for partisan action and, as a result, skillfully opposed the partisans by ambushing caravans.
                  1. Samovar
                    Samovar 27 November 2012 16: 27
                    +2
                    Quote: Hon
                    NU fought with spirits competently and professionally

                    Do not forget at what price this literacy and professionalism went.
                    Quote: Hon
                    special forces were trained for partisan action

                    That's why he and special forces, but still the bulk of the fighting fell on the shoulders of motorized rifles and paratroopers.
                    1. Hon
                      Hon 27 November 2012 16: 55
                      0
                      Quote: Samovar
                      Do not forget at what price this literacy and professionalism went.

                      From the very beginning, command actions and tactics were right.
                      Quote: Samovar
                      That's why he and special forces, but still the bulk of the fighting fell on the shoulders of motorized rifles and paratroopers.

                      No, the main tasks were carried out by specialists, since the war was predominantly partisan.
                      1. Samovar
                        Samovar 27 November 2012 19: 47
                        +1
                        Quote: Hon
                        From the very beginning, command actions and tactics were right.

                        It can be seen.
                        The statistics of losses of the killed and wounded 1979-1985 (including non-combat losses) is the period of the most active databases.
                        1979 - 414
                        1980 - 7969
                        1981 - 6777
                        1982 - 9295
                        1983 - 7700
                        1984 - 4486
                        1985 - 8206
                        We learned to fight closer to the end of the war.
                        Quote: Hon
                        no, the main tasks were performed by specialists

                        Specialists were engaged in the destruction of caravans and reconnaissance, and the main type of struggle with dushmans became raids with the blocking and combing of villages and areas where bases were located, which were accessed by airborne forces with MS.
                    2. Captain Vrungel
                      Captain Vrungel 27 November 2012 21: 03
                      +2
                      Everyone in Afghanistan suffered the same. Everyone performed their task and worked for one result. The spetsnaz did not conduct partisan actions, because he acted more against the local "Afghan guerrillas" who have the support of the population and supply bases on their territory. The special forces carried everything on themselves and did not shine in the villages and auls, which could lead to the failure of the operation. DShG, DShMG, MMG, RDMG, RDG carried out pinpoint operations and provided conditions for effective actions of combined-arms units. In the chain from the autobat survivors to a simple motorized rifleman, everyone fulfilled their role and ensured success for each other. Someone above said "We controlled all of Afghanistan ... but we left." If all of Afghanistan were under control, no one would leave. No one can bring the freedom-loving Afghan people to their knees. History proves it. We have to fight not with the state, but with the nation, which does not tolerate foreign dictatorship on its territory.
          8. Region65
            Region65 27 November 2012 14: 29
            +3
            they have not won a single war, and they do not fight themselves, having occupied the territory, they are fenced off with concrete walls at their bases, they hide and fight "local purchased troops" and allies, such as Ukrainians in Iraq, and so on .... recently I saw an interview with one mozhdahed who is still fought with the USSR, he said so, "The Russians were real wars and soldiers, and these came, bombed, dug in and in burrows, the rest is done for them by others ... but why? but because, first of all, they are fighting not for their homeland, but for money :) secondly, because by nature such ... even if for the Motherland ...
            1. Hon
              Hon 27 November 2012 15: 18
              +1
              This is no longer a war, but partisan hemorrhoids when they mostly shoot in the back, so let someone else deal with him, the main thing is to take all strategic positions.
          9. beech
            beech 27 November 2012 15: 33
            +4
            a fully contracted army, like that of amers, will not suit us, due to the fact that it is not our mentality !!! In their country, in addition to the civil war and the war with the escalators, not a single war (except for cowboys from the wild west chasing Indians on the prairies), and we have the whole story painted in the color of blood, all our great history we fought, survived.
            We won the world one, not the allies, we played a key role !!! 1 world we won and not allies !!! We should be proud of this, and not be like the West.
          10. studentmati
            studentmati 27 November 2012 23: 44
            +2
            If you look at the contingent of these contractors, then this is a solid "limit", figuratively speaking. Failed in peaceful life "chelas" (I wanted to write personalities, but not in this case).
          11. Axel
            Axel 28 November 2012 11: 56
            -1
            In the US, the most efficient army
            Borders do not paint asphalt do not sweep and dachas are not built for commanders
            1. Hon
              Hon 28 November 2012 12: 02
              -1
              The most belligerent at the moment, yes, but the most efficient no.
          12. nerd.su
            nerd.su 29 November 2012 23: 19
            0
            Quote: Hon
            The USA is the most warring country in the world, the army is contracted.


            First, figure out if the US has enough "professionals" for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then express your useless thoughts!

            "About 4,4 thousand US National Guard servicemen have received summons in which they are ordered to appear at their bases. The drafted reservists will be sent to serve in Iraq. In general, in the near future, the US Armed Forces intend to call on 5,6 thousand reservists. In peacetime, the requirements for them are not too onerous - they usually serve only a few weeks a year, and not far from home and enjoy substantial financial privileges (for example, when entering college) "

            And if they had to grapple with China?
            1. Hon
              Hon 30 November 2012 09: 30
              0
              The United States has been sitting in two belligerent countries for ten years, while their bases around the world have been poked, and there are also soldiers now in the United States in active military service who are about 1,5 million people. not counting 350 thousand nat. guards and 325 thousand reservists + civilian personnel who perform the functions performed by soldiers in our army. The USSR army was huge, but how many military personnel were essentially sweepers and diggers.
              1. nerd.su
                nerd.su 1 December 2012 02: 46
                0
                Quote: Hon
                Now in the United States about 1,5 million people are in active military service. not counting 350 thousand nat. guards and 325 thousand reservists + civilian personnel who perform the functions performed by soldiers in our army

                You still didn’t count PMC employees as professionals there in bulk:
                “It was only recently that Washington was rocked by a scandal when it was revealed that contractors guarding all key government departments in the capital could not provide adequately trained personnel. Security guards at several key posts performed their duties negligently - some were caught watching porn sites in the workplace or just sleeping.
                A few days ago, it was reported that local security officials guarding the American embassy in Afghanistan are ill-trained, do not speak English, and some have ties to the Taliban, which puts US diplomats in that country at serious risk. "Http: / /www.meast.ru/article/vybor-okhrany-posolstva-ssha-v-irake-vozmutil-mnogik
                h

                Sweepers and diggers ... So the volume of "digging" and other construction work was enormous only for the two best armies in history: the Roman and Soviet. The mercenaries of Carthage lost and despite the courage of the citizens, the Roman conscripts razed Carthage to the ground and covered it with salt a meter so that nothing would grow. New Carthage - USA will face the same fate.
          13. commbatant
            commbatant 30 November 2012 22: 03
            0
            c 1974 of the year
            British from the 16th century
            Canadian since 1993
            for the period of World War 1 and 2, all of them introduced universal military duties ....

            but who told you that the Israeli army is shitty than the American, only because it’s on appeal

            it’s just that in the above armies the officer and sergeant corps are fully laid out in front of the soldiers, and not loaves of bread from the soldier’s canteen piz ... t and they don’t hit the snouts in the face ...

            if we now make an army of contract soldiers, many officers will not be able to control them, and from a professional point of view they will look flawed
        2. Igor
          Igor 27 November 2012 09: 34
          0
          Quote: Samovar
          But not only contract soldiers will have to fight, my opinion is that only a "peaceful" army can be a contract.


          Ogh! Only here the story does not agree with you, in all warriors they preferred professionals, not workers and peasants)))

          Quote: Samovar
          She has no place in war (of course, in a serious war).


          Ahahaha !!! I fell into a stupor)))))
          1. Samovar
            Samovar 27 November 2012 09: 57
            +10
            Quote: Igorek
            in all warriors, preference was given to professionals, rather than workers and peasants

            Tell me at least one large-scale war of the 20th century (by the way there were only two of them, you won’t get confused), which began and ended with a professional (contract) army.
            Quote: Igorek
            Fell into a stupor

            When professionals end and you need to patch holes with someone, here he comes. The contract is a deterrent army, its task in such a war is to hold out until the first mobilized reserves. And there is nothing funny - remember how many people remained from the pre-war composition of the Red Army by the end of the summer of 41.
            1. Hon
              Hon 27 November 2012 11: 00
              -5
              And how do you imagine a modern large-scale war? It will last forty minutes if it starts.
              1. crazy_fencer
                crazy_fencer 27 November 2012 12: 24
                +10
                This is another myth of human rights activists and complete nonsense. If Russia will be the object of the war, then potential aggressors (we will not point fingers) need its resources first of all. If only because any modern war is precisely for resources. And who will need them after a nuclear strike if they cannot be used for another 200 years? So everything will be completely traditional: with all the precision weapons, the infantry will still put the last point.
                1. Hon
                  Hon 27 November 2012 13: 04
                  -1
                  That is why there will not be a global and full-scale war, because everyone wants to live.
                2. Ascetic
                  Ascetic 27 November 2012 13: 11
                  +10
                  Quote: crazy_fencer
                  So everything will be completely traditional: with all the precision weapons, the infantry will still put the last point.


                  Therefore, they are developing their aircraft under the concept of BSU (quick global strike).
                  Strategic nuclear forces are destroyed by means of a WTO (in a nuclear-free or limited nuclear version - "pure nuclear weapons") and what has time to take off is intercepted by the global missile defense. Then the rapid deployment forces finish off individual hotbeds of resistance and take control (with the help of international peacekeepers, all strategically important objects for them, And here, like in a joke about Napoleon and Marshal Ney.
                  “First, sire, we didn’t have gunpowder. “Enough, you can’t continue.”. Who will fight when the personnel army burns out, if there are no trained reservists, who will arrange hell for the invaders on our land and with what weapons?
                  1. Hon
                    Hon 27 November 2012 14: 39
                    -4
                    You should develop video games, would be best sellers)))
                3. Dikremnij
                  Dikremnij 27 November 2012 14: 23
                  +4
                  It is rightly said that weapons of mass destruction are not a missile with a nuclear warhead, but a Kalashnikov assault rifle, because what other weapons in the world claimed so many human lives?
                4. Karish
                  Karish 27 November 2012 17: 48
                  0
                  Quote: crazy_fencer
                  . If only because any modern war is for resources

                  So then what does Iran want from us? We have no resources. some stones and camels. Minerals are practically zero. laughing
                  1. Hon
                    Hon 27 November 2012 17: 58
                    +2
                    Does Iran need you? Over the past 500 years, Iran has not launched a single war.
                    1. Karish
                      Karish 27 November 2012 20: 00
                      -2
                      Quote: Hon
                      Does Iran need you? Over the past 500 years, Iran has not launched a single war.

                      And now what? Is there a guarantee that the next 500 years will not untie?
                      1. Alver
                        Alver 27 November 2012 20: 17
                        +4
                        then, following the logic of yours, you need to break the pre-emptive strike in Switzerland!
                      2. Karish
                        Karish 27 November 2012 20: 36
                        0
                        Quote: alver
                        then, following the logic of yours, you need to break the pre-emptive strike in Switzerland!

                        Listen to the statements of Ahmadinejad + all their help to ther. Organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah.
                        Switzerland does not threaten us, neither orally nor sponsoring terrorists fighting against us.
                        By the way, following your logic, Russia fought with Germany 2 times over the past century. Why should they supply gas?
                        Ukraine fought along with the entire USSR, and pays for gas 2 times more than the Germans, and where is the logic? laughing
                      3. Hon
                        Hon 28 November 2012 09: 03
                        0
                        But Israel does not threaten, it acts, resorting to force methods where this was not necessary. So from whom does the constant threat end up?
                      4. MakSim51ru
                        MakSim51ru 29 November 2012 00: 42
                        0
                        Quote: Karish
                        Listen to the statements of Ahmadinejad + all their help to ther. Organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah.
                        laughing


                        Sunnis and Shiites together? The end of the world will come faster lol
                  2. nerd.su
                    nerd.su 1 December 2012 22: 45
                    0
                    Quote: Karish
                    So then what does Iran want from us?

                    A lot of пиthe rhetoric you have. Like Trotsky. That's all your linguistic and oratory resources are hunted ...
              2. Alver
                Alver 27 November 2012 20: 14
                +2
                nobody represents her in any way; everyone waits for a long time, but they fight as before, tanks, infantry planes, etc., and not for 40 minutes
            2. Igor
              Igor 27 November 2012 11: 57
              -3
              Quote: Samovar
              Tell me at least one large-scale war of the 20th century (by the way there were only two of them, you won’t get confused), which began and ended with a professional (contract) army.


              But what was Hitler’s non-professional army? When she defeated half of Europe and managed to kill 22 million people in the USSR, the USSR also had a professional army, when in 1945 they fought with the million-strong Kwantung army, they lost only 12 thousand people .

              Quote: Samovar
              When professionals end and you need to patch holes with someone, here he comes.


              That's it! It’s better to have a million professionals and five million snotty reservists than 6 million snotty reservists.

              Quote: Samovar
              The contract is a deterrent army, its task in such a war is to hold out until the first mobilized reserves.


              It is also the perfect army to attack.

              Quote: Samovar
              And there is nothing funny - remember how many people remained from the pre-war composition of the Red Army by the end of the summer of 41.


              I said that Hitler had a professional army, and if the USSR had territory the size of France, now they would go and throw ridges laughing
              1. Samovar
                Samovar 27 November 2012 12: 15
                +5
                Quote: Igorek
                And that Hitler was not a professional army?

                You confuse the concepts of experienced and professional. Who did she consist of? Of the same peasants and workers, in fact, have you heard about imperial military service? And if she passed half of Europe with victories, this proves that these peasants received sufficient combat experience and were able to fight.
                Quote: Igorek
                It is also the perfect army to attack.

                Just not for us.
                1. Igor
                  Igor 27 November 2012 12: 43
                  -2
                  Quote: Samovar
                  You confuse the concepts of experienced and professional.


                  But what is an experienced army no longer a professional army? Even to compare the American military companies, each time they get better and better, but they did not stop at the contract army and are moving with leaps and bounds towards its robotization laughing

                  Quote: Samovar
                  Who did she consist of? Of the same peasants and workers in fact


                  I know, as they say, they are not born warriors, they become warriors.

                  Quote: Samovar
                  Just not for us.


                  Do not want to fight for a place in the sun means you will live with ... laughing
                  1. Samovar
                    Samovar 27 November 2012 13: 04
                    +3
                    Quote: Igorek
                    And that an experienced army is no longer a professional army

                    Professional - in the context of this article - is a contract army.
                    Quote: Igorek
                    on a contract army and with leaps and bounds move towards its robotization

                    While there is someone from whom the money will be pumped out.
                    Quote: Igorek
                    in all warriors, preference was given to professionals, rather than workers and peasants

                    Quote: Igorek
                    warriors are not born, they become warriors.


                    Quote: Igorek
                    Do not want to fight for a place in the sun means you will live with ...

                    You precisely formulated the motto of amers in life ... good
                2. Hon
                  Hon 27 November 2012 13: 06
                  +1
                  Differences no professionalism determines first of all experience and preparation, the method of acquisition is secondary.
              2. Dikremnij
                Dikremnij 27 November 2012 14: 26
                +2
                But is a professional and contractor synonymous words, you can have a professional army of conscripts, this has been proved by separate parts and formations of the SA.
                I think no one will argue with me, the Red Army of the times of 1943-1945 was professional, but at the same time it was not contracted.
          2. Yura
            Yura 27 November 2012 16: 53
            +4
            Quote: Igorek
            in all warriors, preference was given to professionals, rather than workers and peasants)))

            So, here, let’s recall at least the recruits in Tsarist Russia who served for 25 years, than not professionals? And how did they fight? We are still proud. And when it became really hard, the people's militia and volunteers came to fight.
            1. beech
              beech 27 November 2012 17: 57
              0
              at all times in Russia there was a good army no matter how they waved their swords or fired from a rifle. A Russian soldier is the best soldier, but the scourge of the Russian armies always fell on the command and senior officials this mixture gave rise to stupid and insulting defeats: what could we not win in the Crimean war if the equipment was not at least inferior to the West? that we could not win Russian-Japanese if the command did not consist entirely of traitors, sold out and mediocre top commanders (R.I., Kondratenko and S.O. Makarov did not count) !!! Our defeats do not arise because we fight poorly, but because there is always confusion, hatred and a little betrayal. If a conflict happens (pah pah pah), then these soldiers conscripts will fight for their homeland! !!
          3. beech
            beech 27 November 2012 17: 48
            +3
            remember at least 1 in which Russia defeated by a hired army !!! How not to strengthen the army, but in the end it will turn out as always: the army holds the first blow, then the people come to its aid !!!
            1. Hon
              Hon 27 November 2012 18: 00
              +1
              Was there a mercenary army in Russia? Of course, we reserved for the services of mercenaries, but they always accounted for only a fraction of the total number of our soldiers
              1. beech
                beech 27 November 2012 22: 48
                0
                I exaggerated, but spending grandmas on it is an extra waste, the army of our state must be urgent, although this also should not be 100% for professional sergeants, tank crews, pilots ... are very necessary
                1. Hon
                  Hon 28 November 2012 09: 05
                  0
                  Quote: beech
                  but spending money on it is an extra waste

                  And nefig officers raise salaries, then we will save on providing Serdyukovskih madam more
        3. baron.nn
          baron.nn 27 November 2012 11: 36
          +7
          Samovar:
          There should definitely be an urgent service, every five years there must be a collection for the development of new equipment. And the core must be highly professional!
        4. MakSim51ru
          MakSim51ru 27 November 2012 13: 50
          +3
          Quote: Samovar
          Now, unfortunately, yes, but not everywhere. But not only contract soldiers will have to fight, my opinion is that only a "peaceful" army can be a contract. There is no place for it in war (in a serious war, of course).


          But for this there are military departments at universities. And in colleges and technical schools you can enter the initial military training. There are many options. But those who serve must be professionals
      2. tuts
        tuts 27 November 2012 13: 47
        +1
        for the selection of future professionals one year of conscription is the most
      3. beech
        beech 27 November 2012 15: 28
        +3
        Special units in the army should be, and they should be staffed really pros !! And conscripts will go to the infantry (but contract service sergeants should be). Everyone is talking about a professional army, the government is dreaming of a contract army, why do we need it? Introduce 1,5-2 years of service, engage in continuous combat training, and that's the professional army.
        She can cope with a local conflict, but in a major one her task is to hold out until the country rises and wakes up !!! If someone thinks that such ideas are wrong in the bud, then remember at least one war in which we entered completely prepared !!!
      4. vladimirZ
        vladimirZ 28 November 2012 18: 17
        0
        Russia, by virtue of its large territories, cannot afford to maintain only a professional army. Without the call of conscripts and military personnel in reserve, Russia will not be able to ensure its security. These are elementary truths.
        One must proceed from this whether some young people want to serve or do not want to. It is necessary to serve or Russia will not, there will be Chinese, Americans, Germans and other people greedy for Russia.
        Therefore, if the service life of 1 year does not provide, this is a condition, and the political need does not allow to return to the previous dates, it is necessary to go another way. Bring the total service life to 2 years, the old practice of conscription for military training. The only thing that needs to be changed is the order of service at military training camps, since the old training procedure is not needed either by the army or by military personnel, who bring only disorder into the army.
    2. baron.nn
      baron.nn 27 November 2012 11: 34
      +9
      collapse:
      The combat readiness does not depend on conscripts, who are essentially boys, yesterday’s schoolchildren! Emergency service is the preparation of a mobilization reserve in case of a major war. At least it should be. The first Chechen with the mass of dead conscripts only confirms my words! Professionals must fight. They will appear, and in large numbers, as soon as they are provided with truly decent living conditions. And the fact that there is no money for these purposes is nonsense. They still can’t calculate how much was stolen in the Defense Ministry under the old Minister of Defense ... Ideally, the army should be mixed. Fixed-term service 1 year, for every 5 years, monthly fees for three. Plus the core of professional warriors!
      1. Hon
        Hon 27 November 2012 12: 05
        +5
        Before the first Chechen soldier, they were practically not trained, there was virtually no such thing, the command was not really formed, there was no interaction and coordination between the units + the militants received information about our plans directly from Moscow, and that’s the loss. In Afghanistan, conscripts also fought, but conscripts of the Soviet army, the losses are comparable to the current losses of coalition forces.
      2. beech
        beech 27 November 2012 22: 53
        +3
        professional army ... blah blah blah ... in Chechnya big losses blah blah blah ..
        Large losses at the initial stage were due to uncertainty, later due to constant confusion + bandits spared (all kinds of moratoria ..) + all countries pressed on Russia (which also did not add accuracy and clarity) + they sold everything to bandits + the army was thrown (the equipment is always broken, the walkie-talkie is always discharged, something is missing, something is over ... the soldiers are like homeless, dirty, hungry cold) because of this, the supply suffered greatly, which affected the whole
        1. Hon
          Hon 28 November 2012 09: 07
          0
          So what I’m talking about. Even the deputies campaigned for the militants, and Kavalev personally personally tried to persuade our soldiers to surrender.
    3. askort154
      askort154 27 November 2012 14: 06
      +2
      It is necessary to radically change the program of military training in the army.
      It used to be 2 years, 33 rounds of Kalash, the rest of the household work and the construction of cottages to the generals. Now 1 year, the same 33 rounds and
      a broom instead of a weapon, that is, 1 year of service went to the kitchen and construction
      cottages. I understand that this is not the case everywhere, but ....... The best parenting in a family of children is parental behavior. How does the officer corps manifest itself, so
      his soldier’s squad will behave with, which will have to go into battle.
      1. Hon
        Hon 27 November 2012 15: 20
        0
        Yes, now in many parts it’s different, they are cooking intensively. Here Taburetkin brought all the same benefit.
    4. beech
      beech 27 November 2012 17: 58
      +5
      at all times in Russia there was a good army no matter how they waved their swords or fired from a rifle. A Russian soldier is the best soldier, but the scourge of the Russian armies always fell on the command and senior officials this mixture gave rise to stupid and insulting defeats: what could we not win in the Crimean war if the equipment was not at least inferior to the West? that we could not win Russian-Japanese if the command did not consist entirely of traitors, sold out and mediocre top commanders (R.I., Kondratenko and S.O. Makarov did not count) !!! Our defeats do not arise because we fight poorly, but because there is always confusion, hatred and a little betrayal. If a conflict happens (pah pah pah), then these soldiers conscripts will fight for their homeland! !!
      1. Hon
        Hon 27 November 2012 18: 04
        -1
        and the contract soldiers will fight wow !!!
    5. starshina78
      starshina78 27 November 2012 20: 03
      +4
      All this is due to the liberalism of the government. If the authorities wanted and would have taken measures, all the deviators would have served long ago, somewhere in Chukotka they would have guarded the Russian border. There is no need to lisp with them. Raid and they all went in formation. In my company there are a lot of young people with "Military cards", and of them about one third actually served, the rest are "limited fit." Such in Soviet times were sent to serve in the most terrible troops, they were not even trusted with weapons - the construction battalion! So send, let them build houses for officers. Service life is simply necessary - two in the army, two and a half, three - in the navy. Only in this case will you understand the service. I already wrote here in the comments about my service in the navy, I will not repeat myself, but service in the navy is one year. just not needed. Or fully contracted, or three years. Only in this case, our fleet will again be like in the good old days, and not the same as it was shit during exercises in Kamchatka.
      1. Hon
        Hon 28 November 2012 09: 10
        0
        Did the former president serve? Do the children of deputies and ministers serve? All served without exception in the union.
  2. Edya
    Edya 27 November 2012 08: 33
    +1
    Each decision has its Pros and Cons. It’s a little difficult for me to serve more or less in my answer.
  3. Joker
    Joker 27 November 2012 08: 34
    +9
    I am generally for a fully contracted professional army, but this is of course utopia. And so it seems to me that a year is enough if this year is hard to train, and not to fool around, what we are successfully doing. What kind of training can we talk about if our soldier doesn’t shoot at the training ground at all, or they will give an 3 cartridge, that’s all the training. And then they wonder how so, why we have such high losses, and because we need to teach properly, it’s quite possible to train a person well in a year, and if the army was normal, then you could then conclude a contract with him, but who needs all this?
    1. crazy_fencer
      crazy_fencer 27 November 2012 12: 20
      +1
      I agree. The army should engage in combat training, and not to give the thieving generals, and build warrant officers. And it turns out not the army, but one big construction battalion.
    2. MakSim51ru
      MakSim51ru 27 November 2012 14: 18
      +4
      To learn to shoot, yes, it is possible in a year. To teach to maintain and repair equipment, I doubt it.
      1. Hon
        Hon 27 November 2012 15: 22
        +1
        So, before and after two years, we couldn’t service equipment
        1. staser
          staser 28 November 2012 02: 14
          0
          And none of you are interested in how many years it takes to prepare a specialist in order to develop this technique? and how many years has it taken for him to learn to create a fundamentally new one?
          And now you can think about how much maximum this very specialist in the army should serve, so that this does not greatly affect his qualifications?
        2. MakSim51ru
          MakSim51ru 29 November 2012 20: 01
          0
          Quote: Hon
          So, before and after two years, we couldn’t service equipment


          A case from personal experience. An old servant is going to a demobilization, and the commander of the chord is to collect the Urals (the car is such a truck, who does not know. Everyone is joking).
          Yeah, waiting for demobilization - the engine should come from the repair plant. I came. On a pallet, washed and painted. Well, our demobilization is glad to try. No smoke breaks and breaks in the cold boxing. There is. Set. He greased it where necessary, poured it where it should. The battery drags itself. Puffs with joy. Well, everything is assembled. - it's time to start. Starter tyrk - myrk - no result. More and more. We checked everything 20 times, everything was as it should be. Does not start. You must take it off. They removed the engines, disassembled, and there, instead of the pistons, there were wooden chocks and a note all in the solarium - "EXCEPT BROTHER I AM HURTING TO DEMBEL." Draw your own conclusions.
    3. beech
      beech 27 November 2012 22: 59
      0
      And so it seems to me enough years
      Father spoke about the army, you get used to the year, you are going to year)
    4. staser
      staser 28 November 2012 02: 09
      0
      After 10th grade, we had fees in the military unit (according to the OBZh plan). I remember 5 days. All this time, the logs were longing for the sawmill (which was in the unit), but they walked with a machete, cleared the landfill. I want to emphasize - at that time we were students of grade 10!
      And they gave the machine gun three times - on the third day to disassemble / assemble, then they taught how to hold it, and on the last they gave at first 5 rounds for preparation, and then immediately 3 for evaluation!
      1. studentmati
        studentmati 28 November 2012 02: 11
        0
        Are you for or against extending the conscription service?
        1. staser
          staser 28 November 2012 03: 35
          0
          Personally, I am opposed to an increase in military service.
          In my opinion, the army should mainly consist of those people who really want to serve. As for the rest, it is probably better to think about the initial preparation at school - to teach them how to handle weapons, or sometimes send them to units, at least for an overview of acquaintance with equipment. And also take into account the fact that various simulators are being introduced.
        2. beech
          beech 29 November 2012 17: 22
          0
          I’m personally for it, because the year of service is garbage, because you can’t make a fighter in a year. I think one and a half will be enough, although my father served 2, and grandfather 3, in his call were those who served for the fourth year)) (Caribbean crisis and all that ... of course they didn’t let the experienced go) And there’s talk about a short-lived army of utopia. The main thing is to prepare, and not to cut grandmothers as a defense service !!!
          1. Hon
            Hon 30 November 2012 09: 47
            0
            Now, many special units that have not yet switched to a contract show excellent performance, but year-olds serve. You can train a fighter in a year.
      2. beech
        beech 29 November 2012 17: 20
        0
        lucky, that summer there was an explosion in the floss and therefore instead of a military unit we went to nature for training camps. They brought dofig with them, as a result, the first day was being established and on duty (our department was on duty), 2 days they suffered from garbage, 3 days were going to ... they were given a shoot from pneumatics))
  4. Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 27 November 2012 08: 44
    +6
    I didn’t choose a single answer - if you or your children serve, then it seems a pity for one year, and if for someone - then let him off like a tsarist 7 years!
    Of course, in one year a normal soldier cannot be trained, and, most importantly, with such a period, an army that is not operational turns out to be most of the year — and who needs such an army?
    1. borisst64
      borisst64 27 November 2012 10: 21
      +1
      Quote: Brother Sarich
      Of course, in one year a normal soldier cannot be prepared

      If you teach, then the arrow, machine gunner, grenade launcher, etc. (I do not take the posts that the ensign officer by default due to complexity) is realistic to prepare.
    2. Papakiko
      Papakiko 27 November 2012 11: 35
      -4
      1941-1942. clearly showed the defectiveness of the draft method of forming the Armed Forces.
      The Chechen events even more clearly demonstrated the otot stalemate.
      How long can you be engaged in "jerking the shutter", 1 year, 1.5 years, 2 years, is that the Defense of the State or Is it a DEPARTURE TIME?
      How long in THIS STATE will Future Men serve their time?
      UNIVERSAL MILITARY SERVICE. angry

      Born in a family GUILTY!
      From 1 to 3 years imprisonment at the age of 18-27 years. good drinks
      You can, by the way, and "for life" in "peace" time! wassat
      Contract-contract-contract for a decent payment!
      1. Hon
        Hon 27 November 2012 12: 33
        +3
        In 41, all armies were recruited according to the draft principle, and the soldiers did not show their inferiority, the tragedy was associated with an incorrect assessment of the enemy forces.
        1. Joker
          Joker 27 November 2012 13: 36
          0
          In 41, all armies were recruited according to the draft principle, and the soldiers did not show their inferiority, the tragedy was associated with an incorrect assessment of the enemy forces.

          Did the soldiers not show? They showed their poor preparation, but pulled everything out thanks to fighting spirit. And thanks to Stalin for the good start of the war, 20 times he was warned that there would be an attack but he stooped like a ram, and here you have unnecessary losses. And do not forget that we taught the Germans to fight. They pulled out the country only thanks to the Russian spirit and courage of our soldiers, who closed the embrasures with their breasts and went into suicidal attacks. But in the end, everyone just remembers Stalin, saying that he pulled out, grows numb, if not for the Soviet soldier, then he would hang out on some sort of steel post.
          1. Hon
            Hon 27 November 2012 14: 45
            +4
            The training in the Red Army was good, it was just not prepared for that, the tactics and strategy had changed by that time, and many of our commanders thought in the context of the civil and the First World War. At the same time, conscripts successfully defeated the samurai using the tactics of massive tank attacks, but the experience of the Finnish company was not taken into account. In addition, the surprise of the attack played an important role.
          2. Alver
            Alver 27 November 2012 20: 29
            +4
            were present at the moments when warnings brought him? or do you think that only an idiot could hold such a country in his hands and win the war and then restore the country? and it’s not easy to restore - the authority in the world was not like it is now, and how much he left his family of wealth, don’t enlighten, you informed him about our accounts
            no matter what he is, but the fact that he is an outstanding person is a fact
  5. patriot2
    patriot2 27 November 2012 08: 50
    +6
    For a year a soldier cannot be raised from a chick, the army should be 70-80% contractual, you need to be drafted for service up to 30 years and in three stages: at 20 years for 6 months, at 23-25 ​​- for 1 year, and at 27 -30 - for 6 months. Only then there will be a + result. But this is my personal opinion. And to take on a contract only those who have passed stage 1 - 6 months. and more
    1. Papakiko
      Papakiko 27 November 2012 10: 50
      +6
      In 40-43, for 1,5 years. survive a midlife crisis.
      56-60- for 3 years. run away from grandchildren
      75-80-for the years remaining before death (sprinkle with "sand" ice and free up living space for grandchildren)
      good
      And still pay a tax for it, such as Transport.
    2. leon-iv
      leon-iv 27 November 2012 12: 01
      0
      Now they’ll go to serve. Now I’ll quit my job for half a year. I have a project for many lyamov, etc., etc. I'm not talking about family. (Although you can escape a couple of months)
      Military service must end before going to work.
      1. MakSim51ru
        MakSim51ru 27 November 2012 14: 22
        0
        This is the minus of the conscription service. And they would sign a 3-year contract with him with a salary of 30 thousand, with indexation, with the provision of housing and not a bed. You look, and the service would have seemed more attractive. And most importantly, nobody pulls by force.
  6. Samovar
    Samovar 27 November 2012 08: 52
    +6
    IMHO, it is necessary to increase the service life to 2-3 years in the troops, where draftees deal with particularly complex equipment (tank, air defense, strategic missile forces, navy). For infantry, airborne, reconnaissance, 1,5-2 years will go. Of course, with enhanced training of soldiers in all methods of warfare; so that officers are interested in the preparedness of their wards. And if you stupidly increase the service life, then at least 10 years send to the army, there will be no sensible fighter from the draftee.
    1. Dr. Pilyulkin
      Dr. Pilyulkin 27 November 2012 09: 24
      +3
      It seems to me that in the troops, where conscripts deal with especially complex equipment, it is necessary to introduce a general contract. But in the troops, where special technical qualifications are not needed, leave a year. Because I do not see the difference for a year, one and a half or two to be engaged in "park and economic work." Read what the guys who have just served are writing.
      1. Samovar
        Samovar 27 November 2012 09: 28
        +10
        Quote: Dr. Pillkin
        But in the troops, where special technical qualifications are not needed, leave the year

        These troops are a harsh construction battalion ... wassat
      2. MakSim51ru
        MakSim51ru 27 November 2012 14: 25
        -2
        Quote: Dr. Pillkin
        It seems to me that in the troops, where conscripts deal with particularly complex equipment, a general contract must be introduced. But in the troops, where special technical qualifications are not needed, leave the year.


        Which troops do not have sophisticated equipment? And all that the services do not concern should be done by civilians - cooking, cleaning, communal services, etc.
        1. robinson
          robinson 27 November 2012 14: 49
          +7
          Quote: MakSim51ru
          And all that the services do not concern should be done by civilians - cooking, cleaning, communal services, etc.

          Can i ask you? On alert, any unit quickly shakes from a place of permanent deployment, because the place is known to the adversary and shot. This is an axiom. Who will feed the soldiers? I hardly imagine aunts of 150 kg each. the weight of those running after the messenger to the spare area. AND?
          1. MakSim51ru
            MakSim51ru 29 November 2012 00: 52
            0
            I usually don’t answer a question. But nonetheless. Somewhere somewhere you would have seen, along with military equipment, landing in, say, field kitchens along with soldier-cooks? No? Me neither. In Afghanistan, by the way, most of the attendants were civilians. And nothing worked perfectly. What is my respect to them.
            1. robinson
              robinson 29 November 2012 12: 41
              0
              Quote: MakSim51ru
              Somewhere somewhere you would have seen, along with military equipment, landing in, say, field kitchens along with soldier-cooks? No? Me neither. In Afghanistan, by the way, most of the attendants were civilians. And nothing worked perfectly. What is my respect to them.

              Of course I did. Conscripts assigned to the battalion worked in the regimental kitchen; in case of reaching the task, the cooks went out with the battalion and the field kitchen. And I don’t know who the majority of civilian service personnel in Afghanistan served, but the military worked in the kitchens of the ordinary units.
        2. dusha233
          dusha233 27 November 2012 19: 06
          +6
          I fundamentally disagree! The soldiers themselves must do the cleaning of the floors and other work, at least they will learn how to peel potatoes, wash the floors themselves, or sweep the area! Many people don’t even know what it is! And wash it yourself, not mothers and aunts ! This is often useful in later life. And this does not interfere with the main service.
          1. MakSim51ru
            MakSim51ru 29 November 2012 00: 57
            0
            Well then, they will have to choose what to learn so to speak. According to the schedule: Wednesday- cleaning potatoes on the regiment, Thursday- shooting, Friday-cleaning the parade ground ... And in the same vein. Just kidding, but understand me correctly: all that you list is outfits for the dining room and other distracting soldiers from normal studies, fire, tactical and technical.
    2. This is
      This is 27 November 2012 09: 27
      +4
      If we are talking about "sacred duty", then the different length of service suggests that someone is obliged more than another.
    3. Roman Skomorokhov
      Roman Skomorokhov 27 November 2012 09: 28
      +3
      In general, a plus, but with a hefty caveat. If you do so, will it not turn out such a parsley that they will smash into the infantry, and no one will go into tank or missile ones? Although the practice of the USSR, when in the army at 2 of the year, and in the fleet at 3 was. The question is motivation.
      1. Samovar
        Samovar 27 November 2012 10: 02
        +3
        Quote: Banshee
        is it possible to get such a parsley that will break into the infantry, and no one will go into tank or missile

        Roman, and military enlistment offices for what? It makes no difference who wants where, wishes of course should be taken into account and still need to be selected according to their physical qualities, but still the military registration and enlistment office itself must decide where to send to serve.
        1. Papakiko
          Papakiko 27 November 2012 10: 53
          0
          Oh yes, the commissar will decide! good
          You and You will cook dumplings, and You and You will be minced for dumplings.!
        2. Psyjoker
          Psyjoker 27 November 2012 11: 58
          +2
          The military registration and enlistment office solves only two questions - what to write to this healthy man with money in a booklet and how to catch that patient without money. Perhaps the most rotten thing in this entire military system.
      2. valerei
        valerei 27 November 2012 16: 55
        +7
        In our time - in the infantry was 3 years, and in the navy - 5 years and nothing, served. Why are these terms? Because the young staff was poorly educated and the army was many times larger than it is now and the demographic "hole" after the war was solid. What do we have now? The same, except for a large army. But the technical equipment of the army is beyond comparison. Therefore, one should serve for at least two years, moreover, it is precisely to learn to fight, and not to work on the farm, even if the part where you serve.
        1. Hon
          Hon 27 November 2012 17: 01
          0
          The tasks and goals of the Armed Forces are different, and the army is different.
        2. 416494
          416494 27 November 2012 23: 42
          +2
          Valery, I completely agree with you. I myself served as a submariner for 4 years. The army has always been both contract and conscript, only contract soldiers were called differently, but they were called super-conscripts. I also think that basically the army should be conscript, the service life is not less than two years, during this time you can prepare a full-fledged A soldier should only be engaged in military affairs, materiel and his specialty. At the end of his service, he wants to serve - signs a contract, does not want - goes to civilian life. Let there be contract soldiers in high mobility units. And all sergeants, foremen, etc. e. lower-level commanders, drivers of military equipment and technical personnel should be called up for retraining after a certain time, multiple of the renewal of equipment for its development. Then we will be ready for any surprises from our "friends". And the state must strictly monitor this.
        3. staser
          staser 28 November 2012 02: 38
          0
          Quote: valerei
          But the technical equipment of the army cannot be compared. Therefore, you should serve for at least two years, and it is precisely to learn to fight, and not to work on the farm, even the part where you serve.

          Everyone looks from their own perspective. I see that I work in the defense industry, our entire department consists of young specialists (only one guy). The organizations with which I have become and which work for the defense industry have practically such a situation - there are a lot of young people. And looking from this angle, I can say one thing - at least two years of service in the army can greatly affect some areas of the TECHNICAL EQUIPMENT of our army. And if it cannot be compared, then you need not to increase this service life in the army, but to think about the specialists who develop this technique. Moreover, these same specialists can develop technology so that it is understandable immediately, or in a less short time (there is such a discipline "human-machine interactions")
      3. Alver
        Alver 27 November 2012 20: 32
        0
        motivation - state of health and brains
  7. erix-xnumx
    erix-xnumx 27 November 2012 08: 52
    0
    How long is the first contract in the US Army or other NATO countries?
    1. Voin sveta82
      Voin sveta82 27 November 2012 09: 38
      +1
      and what to look at it then ?? if so interesting - get into the Internet and find there ..)) We must determine for ourselves .. taking into account all our features ... etc.)))
    2. Hon
      Hon 27 November 2012 11: 03
      0
      from three to six years. we have 3, 5, 7
  8. DYMITRY
    DYMITRY 27 November 2012 09: 31
    +2
    Question to the respected author: When was mobilization carried out in Russia ??? Why was this not reported anywhere? And judging by the fact that the author quotes the words demobilized fighters, there was still mobilization.
    1. Samovar
      Samovar 27 November 2012 10: 21
      +3
      Quote: DYMITRY
      When was mobilization carried out in Russia ??? Why was this not reported anywhere?

      This "mobilization" is carried out 2 times a year. April to July and October to December. It is called a call (spring or autumn, depending on the period). Those who are already 18 years old and who have had the courage to appear at the military registration and enlistment office are considered mobilized. Accordingly, those transferred to the reserve at the end of the service are considered demobilized. Something like that...
      1. Hon
        Hon 27 November 2012 11: 08
        +5
        Mobilization (M, mobilization deployment) (French mobilization, from mobiliser - set in motion) - a set of measures aimed at bringing the armed forces and state infrastructure to martial law in connection with emergency situations in the country or in the world.
        Demobilization (from the French démobilisation, dé - cancellation, mobiliser - set in motion) - the process of transferring the armed forces and economy of a state from martial law to peaceful. It is characterized by a reduction in the number of armed forces, the disbandment of headquarters, military units, institutions and organizations created in wartime conditions, the dismissal of personnel in reserve and resignation, and the return to owners of property seized during mobilization.

        It is necessary to distinguish between the demobilization and dismissal of military personnel who have been conscripted military service (in the USSR - military service). Both concepts differ both in the scale of the events and in the goals. In the Russian Empire, the USSR in the XX century, demobilization was carried out only three times - at the end of the Russo-Japanese, Civil and World War II. In the Russian Federation, after the collapse of the USSR, demobilization was never carried out, since mobilization was never carried out.
      2. DYMITRY
        DYMITRY 27 November 2012 11: 56
        +1
        Quote: Samovar
        Accordingly, those discharged to the reserve at the end of the service are considered demobilized.

        Below comrade Hon responded in detail.
      3. antiaircrafter
        antiaircrafter 27 November 2012 13: 38
        +2
        Samovar
        In accordance with applicable law, mobilization and appeal are completely different concepts.
  9. Voin sveta82
    Voin sveta82 27 November 2012 09: 36
    +2
    for a year a soldier .. only - just starting to get used to the service - and here he is in civilian life ...)))
    1. Dr. Pilyulkin
      Dr. Pilyulkin 27 November 2012 11: 08
      0
      The army does not need to get used to, but to learn. A year is enough to learn (I'm not talking about troops, where there are a lot of sophisticated equipment). But with studies, it is just in short supply. What only the guys who have served are talking about.
    2. Hon
      Hon 27 November 2012 11: 10
      +4
      So it is necessary to serve the contractors, conscripts receive the necessary training and form a reserve.
  10. Shkodnik65
    Shkodnik65 27 November 2012 10: 08
    +3
    It turns out that those who initiated the bill to reduce the life of the army did not calculate the probability of a significant impact of demographic changes in Russia on the configuration of the Armed Forces.


    Hello, we've arrived. Who doubts that the risks for the army have not been calculated ?! Yes, only commanders have a headache about these risks. It was a PURE POLITICAL DECISION. It is not for nothing that political scholars from the "committee of soldiers' mothers" credit Serdyukov with this law (on the transition to 1 year of conscript service) as a merit.

    [Quote]Compensation of renting Moscow housing alone can result in a pretty penny for the budget of the military unit ... [/ Quote]
    By the way, and not only in Moscow. At one time, as a commander, I shouted at the headquarters that it IS NOT possible to give the military town (isolated) to the municipality ... So what happened as a result? When they gave it away, they spent it very decently (the city took the town when it sucked everything from KECh to the maximum), there was nowhere for people to live (no official housing), they paid a lot of money for a lift, they went ... well, he knows where ... Here I don’t understand: where they saved and how now to return everything back.
    1. Papakiko
      Papakiko 27 November 2012 11: 19
      -4
      So the question is appropriate for you- Which ARMY is needed?
      Conscription-slave for 2 years or 5 months (May-September) MEGA-FIELD training courses, followed by selection-invitation to the CONTRACT?
      At the same time, limit the participation of "deviators" in the occupation of leading positions, positions, political life of society, etc.
      And for those who have served under the contract, all kinds of preferences are increasing. The French National Legion, as an example, can be considered.
    2. MakSim51ru
      MakSim51ru 27 November 2012 14: 28
      -1
      Quote: Shkodnik65
      Hello, we've arrived. Who doubts that the risks for the army have not been calculated ?! Yes, only commanders have a headache about these risks. It was a PURE POLITICAL DECISION. It is not for nothing that political scholars from the "committee of soldiers' mothers" credit Serdyukov with this law (on the transition to 1 year of conscript service) as a merit.


      You went too far soaring, if for you soldiers mothers are whores, then you can talk with you.
      1. dusha233
        dusha233 27 November 2012 19: 12
        0
        And you ask those mothers their sons served or they smeared them ?!
  11. zemlyak
    zemlyak 27 November 2012 10: 18
    +3
    A professional army is good for local conflicts, if you want an instrument of diplomacy and politicians. If there is a big mess under the arms and conscripts and contractors, there will be no time to think. Remember Count Potemkin: - Everything will be ours, and the snout is in the blood!
    1. Dr. Pilyulkin
      Dr. Pilyulkin 27 November 2012 10: 56
      +4
      If there is a big mess under the gun will go and those who did not smell gunpowder, who have flat feet and minus 8 and even 16-year-old boys. Like during the Great Patriotic War.

      Quote: zemlyak
      A professional army is good for local conflicts, if you want an instrument of diplomacy and politicians.


      A professional army is good anyway. Think about this word: "PROFESSIONAL". ARMY CONSISTING OF PROFESSIONALS, people who are PROFESSIONALLY engaged in military affairs.
    2. Hon
      Hon 27 November 2012 11: 12
      -5
      The big mess taking into account the development of offensive weapons will last about forty minutes.
      1. PROXOR
        PROXOR 27 November 2012 11: 51
        +3
        Hon,
        So to speak. A big mess is now unlikely with equal aspect ratios. Nobody wants to enter into a mess without confidence in their victory over the enemy (Otherwise, we would have already watched on TV, how the peddlers of "democracy" iron Iran). Everything else is just the systematic hammering of countries into the Stone Age, putting its infrastructure out of action. (By the way, the tactics of the Wehrmacht.)
        1. Hon
          Hon 27 November 2012 13: 36
          +1
          But Iran should increase the size of its armed forces, but we are in different positions. Even if Iran had no nuclear weapons and modern comprehensively developed air defense systems, aircraft, and high-precision offensive weapons were available, the probability of war would be very low, since in this case the US victory is not guaranteed, but the losses are guaranteed to be huge.
          1. PROXOR
            PROXOR 27 November 2012 14: 15
            +1
            There is another point in relations between Iran and Russia. I do not know literally, but there is evidence that we are connected with Iran with a very specific document from 1943. And in the event of an attack on Iran, they are obliged to help them. Although again. During the Iran - Iraq War, we took the side of Iraq.
            1. Hon
              Hon 27 November 2012 15: 26
              -2
              I doubt that the USSR was not friends with Iran, and it would be possible to score on an agreement if it existed.
  12. Ppsh
    Ppsh 27 November 2012 10: 19
    -4
    Our Constitution prohibits forced labor. And at the same time it forces the male part of the population to serve in the army .....
    My humble one - if a person does not want to serve - there is nothing to break him, he will not bring any benefit.
    The army should be VOLUNTARY, where people with an internal need for military service gathered.
    It is also necessary to prepare the reserve on a voluntary basis - to create training centers on the basis of DOSAAF, where young people could master military and related specialties for FREE.
    And who does not want to serve (or cannot, no difference) let him pay a tax of 50-100 thousand rubles. and sleeps calmly ...
    1. Papakiko
      Papakiko 27 November 2012 11: 02
      +1
      Who does not want to serve, he is on cutlets.
      The FRIENDLY army was remembered, and there were also volunteer battalions, regiments, divisions.
      The question is what happened to them?
      Why did the GUARDS appear?
      Suvorov, that he fought with the "volunteers", and did his "volunteers" have problems with SPIRIT and PATRIOTISM?
    2. Flooding
      Flooding 27 November 2012 13: 39
      +4
      Quote: PPSh
      Our Constitution prohibits forced labor.

      Quote: PPSh
      And who does not want to serve (or cannot, no difference) let him pay a tax of 50-100 thousand rubles.

      You contradict yourself. Not noticeable? Work hard, but let's get down to racket ...
      Military service is not coercion, but a duty enshrined in the same Constitution. And just one of the responsibilities. Because the law gives you not only rights.
      1. MakSim51ru
        MakSim51ru 27 November 2012 14: 32
        +1
        Quote: Flood
        You contradict yourself. Not noticeable? Work hard, but let's get down to racket ...
        Military service is not coercion, but a duty enshrined in the same Constitution. And just one of the responsibilities. Because the law gives you not only rights.


        And why should guys serve and give their lives from the age of 18, and to deputies only from 21?
        1. Blackscorp
          Blackscorp 27 November 2012 15: 11
          +1
          [
          Quote: MakSim51ru
          And why should guys serve and give their lives from the age of 18, and to deputies only from 21?


          This is another question, as I understand it here is a conversation about the term of service .... Now it seems they are discussing the question of raising the draft age to 21 years
        2. ramzes1776
          ramzes1776 27 November 2012 21: 12
          +4
          Quote: MakSim51ru
          And why should guys serve and give their lives from the age of 18, and to deputies only from 21?

          That's just what you need to take to the deputies and to the civil service after the obligatory two-year service in the army.
          1. MakSim51ru
            MakSim51ru 29 November 2012 01: 01
            0
            Quote: ramzes1776
            That's just what you need to take to the deputies and to the civil service after the obligatory two-year service in the army.


            And even better if after serving under the contract, when it is clear that he himself went to serve and did not catch a military commissar.
    3. Alver
      Alver 27 November 2012 20: 40
      +1
      Well, a person doesn’t want to serve and doesn’t need to - and he doesn’t want to study - also doesn’t go to school and doesn’t like to drive soberly - why force him to do this - let him decide what kind of car to drive him like that?
      1. MakSim51ru
        MakSim51ru 29 November 2012 01: 07
        0
        Quote: alver
        a person doesn’t want to serve and doesn’t need to - and he doesn’t want to study - also doesn’t go to school and doesn’t like to drive soberly - why force him to do this - let him decide what kind of car to drive him like that?

        In vain you distort. It's not about that. Just trying to prove that the decision to serve in the army should be made by the young man himself. And do not drive the orphans and the lame (as well as criminals, drug addicts, etc.) by force. And for the sake of seductiveness, the service should be smeared with normal living conditions and monetary allowance. And the military commissar will have a richer choice.
  13. tverskoi77
    tverskoi77 27 November 2012 10: 47
    +5
    In our army, the professional is not called those who can do specific things, but those who signed the contract)))
    Ah, I’m wondering: does the contract give confidence to the fighter, courage and courage?
    Or you just have to listen to Comrade Lenin: you have to study, study and study again; and do it.
    1. Hon
      Hon 27 November 2012 11: 13
      +2
      And whoever said that contractors should not be trained, training in the army is continuous.
      1. tverskoi77
        tverskoi77 27 November 2012 11: 48
        +2
        The fact of the matter is that if the conscripts do not have it, then the contract soldiers do not have it either. And the service life does not matter.
  14. kpox
    kpox 27 November 2012 10: 53
    +6
    I beg your pardon that I am here with my "jacket" snout in the personnel row. But still I will express it. What's the difference for a year or two to beat the thumbs (sweeping territories and other related work is good and necessary, but it should not be the main occupation of a soldier). In my opinion, it is better for six months to conduct REAL combat training of a conscript in specialized training centers and for another six months to hone skills, instilling in parallel love for the Motherland and the desire for work, than two years of stupid "putting things in order in the adjacent territory."
    1. dusha233
      dusha233 27 November 2012 19: 16
      +3
      So it was the first half of the year that everyone underwent training, and only then parted in parts!
  15. IlyaKuv
    IlyaKuv 27 November 2012 10: 57
    +5
    Some contractors cannot win a lot without a good reserve. My opinion is that the professionals are the elite of the army, and the reservists are its basis, otherwise it doesn’t, because you need to maintain contract soldiers, and for such a large country you need a lot of soldiers. So two years and at least you crack.
  16. IRBIS
    IRBIS 27 November 2012 10: 58
    +6
    The conscription service is the formation of a prepared and trained reserve. Quality training in a year? About nothing. Preparation in DOSAAF? It's funny, because the main strength of the army is discipline and the ability to obey orders unquestioningly. Can this be achieved in greenhouse conditions? "I want" - "I do not want", "I will" - "I will not" - this is the path of least resistance. A man still has something "must" and "must" in this life. Therefore - to serve, definitely! And, preferably, 2 years.
  17. Ilyukha
    Ilyukha 27 November 2012 11: 12
    -2
    Better yet, return the recruiting service to the 25-year-old serf, what difference does it make, which gentleman to serve, the landowner or the general.
    The landowners are gone, but the general cannot live without serfs, he does not like to pay very much. I know many officers who themselves do not know how to hammer a nail into the wall, they are used to what a serf conscript soldier does, and in civilian life they have one wish, out of habit, to find someone who is willing to serve for free. At the same time, getting a freebie is accompanied by a talk about "must, serve, protect, here I am in the army, etc."
    Times have changed, but the desire to use free labor is indestructible. And who will say that military service is not labor?
    And you have to pay for labor.
    And oh how I do not want to))
    1. Flooding
      Flooding 27 November 2012 13: 42
      +4
      Quote: Ilyukha
      And who will say that military service is not labor?
      And you have to pay for labor.

      Studying at school is also a job, you know ...
      So the flies are separate from the cutlets.
      1. MakSim51ru
        MakSim51ru 29 November 2012 01: 10
        0
        Something I don’t remember if I would build a cottage for the director at school and give money to teachers. Also do you know flies from cutlets separately please
        [
        1. Flooding
          Flooding 29 November 2012 10: 16
          0
          Quote: MakSim51ru
          Something I don’t remember if I would build a cottage for the director at school and give money to teachers.

          No need to tear my answer out of the general context.
          Read above:
          Quote: Ilyukha
          And who will say that military service is not labor?
  18. PROXOR
    PROXOR 27 November 2012 11: 14
    +8
    I just read your opus for a long time, but on this article I was hurt and decided to register.
    Dear - I, a citizen of the Russian Federation, did not undergo military service on urgent appeal ... so what? What have I lost? Even now I can disassemble and assemble a Kalashnikov assault rifle easily. And I shoot well and in dashes with enviable regularity I win prizes for my girlfriend. When I was to be called, it was 2000-2001. I otmazatsya, not for money, but succeeded. And my friend got there in 2002. Result: I fired a Kalashnikov assault rifle, and more than once, I think I shot 300 shots, I definitely have it. My friend has only 12 shots in 2 YEARS! This is normal? I will say more. He served in a unit near Nizhny Novgorod in the crew of the Tunguska air defense system. For all the time they trained professionally only 2 times, and those in the exercises.
    To summarize: in the light of the current situation in units where a conscript soldier, instead of initial military training, is engaged in: cleaning the territory, peeling potatoes and other duties not related to military training - this is a waste of time, at least a year, at least two, even ten. In order to perfectly master the tactics of battle, the management of complex vehicles (MBT, armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, etc.), the management of a complex of weapons, for example, on board a warbler for two years, it is clearly not enough, but more of a ruined career of future doctors, teachers, engineers, and so on. In new wars, those who are better trained win, and these are professionals - contract soldiers. We need to do an intensive course of initial military training for six months and that's it! Then the person will decide whether to connect his life under the contract with the army or already to benefit the state in the civil service.
    PySy: I did not serve and I do not regret. I regret one thing: I always dreamed of becoming a T-80 or T-90 commander, but these troops didn’t threaten me. Height 194 cm.
    1. Skavron
      Skavron 27 November 2012 12: 10
      0
      Prokhor, plus ...
    2. Shkodnik65
      Shkodnik65 27 November 2012 12: 13
      +11
      Let me give you some thoughts on Prokhor’s comment.
      Respected. I believe that you cannot really assess whether you have lost anything without serving in the army or have acquired something. You didn't serve there. Your example, that your comrade in 2002, for service, fired 12 rounds of ammunition confirms this. You just don't know what was in the army and navy at that time. But again, trying to evaluate. Or do you think that the "fathers-commanders" jammed the ammunition? Or they didn't like his personality. You can agree with me or not, but examples cannot confirm anything. And refute too. By the way (just for information) there are some categories of servicemen who do not need to shoot from AK all day long. They have completely different tasks. Shooting from a machine gun is not the main indicator at all, so you know.
      As for the notorious cuisine and putting things in order. Tell me, do your outsourcers bring order in your apartment? And cook food from a restaurant? You are a happy person! Happy for you. But I sweep the courtyard in front of the house myself, mowing grass, digging the ground. I clean the potatoes myself and make tea. And I work at the enterprise. So why is the conscripted soldier, for whom the barracks (and now a soldier’s dormitory) a temporary house, should not sweep the asphalt (parade ground) in front of this house, wash the floors in the cockpit or peel the onions in the dining room?
      Not everything is so simple in life and in the army in particular.
      Sincerely. soldier
      1. NSG42
        NSG42 27 November 2012 12: 33
        +1
        Shkodnik65 [EVERYTHING IS CORRECTLY SAID. SO MUST BE.
      2. PROXOR
        PROXOR 27 November 2012 12: 59
        -1
        Shkodnik65and yet I will answer. At all times, on the battlefield, the main task was solved by the RANGE infantry fighter. The one that shoots either three-rulers or Kalashnikov is important, the one that got up in the bayonet in the Second World War and in the second Chechen was, repeated, a case of close contact battle. Therefore, all the same, I’m talking specifically about infantry soldiers. Now about cleaning and so on. You either didn’t read it, or you didn’t understand correctly (my jamb, it didn’t mean so). For proper training of a reservist soldier, you need from 8 to 12 months. During this time, a conscript should not get out of training classes or from the training ground: shoot, interact with a platoon, company, battalion, division. If he is engaged in cleaning, cooking, and so on - when will he study, will it be? I’m wondering what your productivity in the kitchen for peeling potatoes or on the parade ground for snow removal or sheets after a morning march of throwing at 20 km for example, and vice versa, will be. From the morning the kitchen, the barracks, the parade ground, and in the evening, the night of teaching and so on.
        RESULTS: Russia needs a million-strong army of professional military personnel and a powerful military reserve. (History has repeatedly shown that there has always been a reserve in Russia).
      3. Hon
        Hon 27 November 2012 13: 53
        +1
        My neighbor in the Airborne Forces served immediately after training, where he practically did not learn anything and went to Chechnya.
        1. Hleb
          Hleb 27 November 2012 15: 20
          +1
          Here ... And when shooting above the ear begins, this sound of a bullet hitting metal, the rock of which you want to dig deeper into the rock ... This experience is much more important than a shot carriage in training, but even such firing is not enough in parts
          1. Hon
            Hon 27 November 2012 15: 43
            +2
            The soldier should have basic things and skills, the special forces were also not fired at, however the losses were much lower than in other units due to training.
            1. Hleb
              Hleb 27 November 2012 16: 00
              +1
              Well, since it’s not about specific units and arms of service, I’m talking specifically about training a fighter.
              it’s impossible to take as examples how often it was, especially in the first place, that the units were used for other purposes, right? You can’t cite the same Pskov boys as an example, or similar cases are also losses. By the way ... a lot of examples are not in favor of the special forces. When at the exit, conscripts simply did not stretch the loads in the mountains. When they blew up the head, they immediately tried to pull out the next ones. When leaving, they set up surprises on which the next group of colleagues from another detachment could blow up. A lot of examples. This is not to say that they are cooler than others, and besides century, especially during the first learning is there to fight and not Lad Camp, chastyah.I officers also were not always prepared to
        2. Blackscorp
          Blackscorp 27 November 2012 15: 21
          +1
          Quote: Hon
          My neighbor in the Airborne Forces served immediately after training, where he practically did not learn anything and went to Chechnya.


          And my friend also served in the Airborne Forces, in the Democratic Republic of Poland, so they were almost half a year in the unit, all the time in the field at the exercises, and only then Chechnya ... and they didn’t get out of their fields from the fields, either before or after Chechnya. .. So there are many different examples ....
          1. Hon
            Hon 27 November 2012 15: 44
            -1
            So that time was fun in 1994, not in all parts the soldiers were able to disassemble the machine
      4. Igor
        Igor 27 November 2012 14: 32
        -3
        Quote: Shkodnik65
        Your example, that your friend in 2002, for service, shot 12 rounds of confirmation. You just don’t know what was in the army and navy at that time. But again, trying to evaluate.


        Well, I served in the army and shot only 17 rounds, my friend who served in the 2009th shot 14 rounds)))

        Quote: Shkodnik65
        You can agree with me or not, but nothing can be confirmed with examples.


        If these examples are not isolated cases, but if there are a lot of them, then this is already an indicator.

        Quote: Shkodnik65
        there are some categories of military personnel who do not have to shoot AK all day. They have other tasks.


        That's right, but instead of performing their tasks, they are engaged in mopping, cleaning, etc., and they perform these special tasks as much as others shoot from AK laughing

        Quote: Shkodnik65
        Shooting from a machine gun is not at all the main indicator, so you know.


        Yes, yes, yes, the main indicator should be the presence of needles, threads and combs ( laughing ) in the host package when checking and God forbid you will not have them am

        Quote: Shkodnik65
        Tell me, do your outsourcers bring order in your apartment? And cook food from a restaurant?


        I don’t have it, but several thousand snouts do not live in my apartment. laughing

        Quote: Shkodnik65
        So why is the conscripted soldier, for whom the barracks (and now a soldier’s dormitory) a temporary house, should not sweep the asphalt (parade ground) in front of this house, wash the floors in the cockpit or peel the onions in the dining room?


        Then it will not be a soldier, but a cleaning lady, a cook.

        Quote: Shkodnik65
        And I work at the enterprise.


        But do you wash floors at the enterprise, cook for everyone, or do technicians and cooks do this for you?
      5. Dikremnij
        Dikremnij 27 November 2012 14: 53
        +1
        Any soldier in any army should be able to handle his weapons and it does not matter what kind of military-technical college he has. This was done so that any soldier could be put in the infantry system, and he coped with the task of the infantryman-shooter.
        The proof of this is the training of an officer who, in addition to his main specialty, is also a commander of a motorized rifle platoon.
      6. dusha233
        dusha233 27 November 2012 19: 22
        0
        totally agree 200%
    3. Samovar
      Samovar 27 November 2012 12: 53
      +1
      Quote: PROXOR
      PySy: I did not serve and I do not regret. I regret one thing: I always dreamed of becoming a T-80 or T-90 commander

      Similarly, but I regret that I did not serve. Also wanted a tanker (only a gunner feel ).
    4. Hon
      Hon 27 November 2012 13: 47
      -1
      Why serve two years? Practice has shown (not only Russian) that the year is quite enough to receive the necessary combat training. If taught correctly. And if you don’t train, then 10 years is not enough.
      1. not good
        not good 29 November 2012 02: 20
        0
        From the experience of my service I can say the following:
        - it’s not enough a year, for a year I got knowledge, but it’s still psychologically damp, with the second year, self-confidence comes, vanity leaves;
        -with the normal organization of the service, tidying and household work takes a minimum of effort and money. By the way, where in the galley 5-6 old people still have time to relax, a dozen dreschi are sewn up for a day without a break. There, where in 15min.4 grandfather barely notice the parade ground barely have time for 15 salag;
        -about the combat training -only on the conscience of the commanders, although if we were detained for 90 months for 2 months, we’ll go to unload the cars for this combat training;
        - about bullying is the same as with combat training.
  19. Psyjoker
    Psyjoker 27 November 2012 11: 24
    +6
    Do not increase, it will only get worse. The problem is not the service time! A simple sloppiness of officers and foremen. Instead of training, conscripts get the skills of cleaners and janitors.
    If you increase the time of service, then the soldier will be engaged in all crap for not a year, but two. Then the number of draft dodgers will increase by another good hundred thousand.

    My friend served in the Airborne Forces for a year and ended up in the normal unit. He only did what he rushed about at the training ground, went to exercises and jumped / shot. For a year he was trained quite well, and he even swayed to the size of the cabinet.

    So it’s possible to do the service for at least 10 years, but if instead of an assault rifle a broom is in your hands all the time, then a soldier will only be fighting an enemy barracks request
  20. leon-iv
    leon-iv 27 November 2012 11: 57
    +2
    So the people, and let’s think about which positions conscripts are needed?
    Obviously not for complex technical majors.
    For a year to prepare a motorized arrow? No problem. Easy installation operator? No problem. The question is how officers approach this. And in the event of a threat mobilization of the 1st stage will be carried out + cancellation of dismissal to the reserve. And you think whether the economy can afford such a waste. And how much not to provide soldiers how much to select workers from the economy?
  21. demonuga
    demonuga 27 November 2012 12: 11
    +2
    Served 2 years in 95-97gg. In the training I shot three times from AKM (I spent 33 rounds in total), in the military unit there were mainly outfits and work, so the soldier from me (in preparation) is weak.
    For 1 year it is necessary to teach young people to the maximum and fees should be so that they do not forget military science. Permanent Army - Contracted (for local warriors). And if a war (large-scale) happened, everyone who cherishes the homeland will fight.
  22. Lexagun
    Lexagun 27 November 2012 12: 20
    +6
    Do not shorten or increase the term of service. It is necessary to change the curriculum, increase the intensity. If you leave it as it is, then 3 years will not be enough. If you change the curriculum and training programs, then for the preparation of a mobilization reserve and 8 months will be enough. You cannot set any other tasks for the conscription service. But the sergeant should be made staffing and only then the problems with the branching of the reserve will not be so critical.
  23. Busido
    Busido 27 November 2012 12: 45
    +1
    "As you name the boat, so it will float."Captain Vrungel.
    That's the way it is in the army. With a paddle you can't figure it out. That year, then two. That beat, humiliate, then they send to the war, then they don't fill up the calories. If the head is empty and frail, what do you want from the "body"?
    You can add more, "you can't please everyone, just don't turn around."There is no stability, there will be no confidence. And since those who have "stability" the criterion of strength and power a priori, they cannot achieve it (then 1 year, then 2). Then take off the stripes, go to about ... there is no baggage, but into manure . This "boot" whine is already tired! Really! Really. 2 years, one year ... that there are no more serious worries? Do you want to protect the country? If you want honor and conscience to be true, and not a candy wrapper? Respect the charter and orders, both from above and from below, from general to private. And leave demagoguery to the descendants of the enemy.
    As long as we live in such a world around us, humanity will be a blessing only with power together. There is no other way.
  24. Normal
    Normal 27 November 2012 13: 02
    -2
    The problem of demography .... The problem of contractors ... The problem of outsourcing .... problems ... problems ...
    I will offer my own (of course, very amateurish) version of the solution to some of these problems.
    1. Universal Military Duty For All. With no exceptions. For women, including. (wait - wait, do not throw slippers).
    2. The service life of 1,5 is one year. (Yes, you wait ...) The first half-year is a peculiar NVP. Further division into service with weapons, service without weapons and outsourcing.
    For the first half-year, you can determine who will be needed where and who will be good for what. "Warrior" in combat units, special forces, etc.
    "Clever people" into operators of complex electronics, maintenance of aviation and missile technology, and so on. In general, where you do not need to personally hold weapons in your hands.
    Well, absolutely boobies (and there are not a few, he’s such) to the orderlies as a service staff, KECh. pigs, cooks, boilers and other, other. Outsourcing itself
    After the end of service, the first and second proposal for a contract, all sorts of benefits from the provision of land and free tuition at universities of choice to the opportunity to occupy state. posts.
    The third group on all four sides.
    To all who served the stamps of the corresponding color in the passport.
    Not serving at all - a loss of rights. Deprivation of the right to vote, hold government posts and jobs in enterprises with state ownership over 50%
    As well as the deprivation of the right to work in the media and promote your lifestyle.
    Of course, I understand that they will accuse me of utopianism. Well then, suggest a better option.
    1. Joker
      Joker 27 November 2012 14: 21
      +1
      Yes you are my tyrant wink
      Your plans are utopian in the sense that if you do so, rallies will take place throughout the country, so be sure and I myself would come out to rally against you hi no offense.
      Are we slaves or something? Fuck, I would let my wife go to the army or my daughter.
      And in general, with what fright did I owe someone? To begin with, my rights prescribed in the constitution and in the laws, start to fulfill, and then demand something. Where is free education, medicine?
      And then all only demand much, and no one wants to fulfill their duties. In general, in theory, why go to the army? To defend the homeland, not to clean the potatoes, you called the guys there, so create conditions for them to prepare and prepare with dignity, and not as it is now, even if you make an appeal for 50 years, it’s all the same zero sense.
      In order to train, you need to have an idea of ​​what kind of army we want to have and what we need to focus on. Therefore, I propose such a system.
      1) An appeal exclusively voluntary for a period of 1 year, having served the benefits of admission to universities and admission to military universities without exams, and upon termination of the provision of a contract for 5,10,15 years.
      2) Conducting military training in cities and villages once every six months for everyone.
      3) Introduction of NVP with 9 class in all schools
      4) Granting privileges to contract servicemen in the form of an 20% discount on housing and communal services, mortgage loans at 2% per annum and ordinary loans at 5% per annum, free second higher education in the military sphere, paid leave with payment of travel tickets, social security and insurance, payment of treatment in case of injuries, etc. at any hospital in Russia at the choice of a military man, in case of death, payment of all his loans by the state, for children of military personnel 1 a month a year rest in military patriotic camps.
      5) The government encouraged the self-improvement of the soldier, received the CCM boxing prize, received the category of shooting prize, as well as the passage of language courses at the expense of the state. Transfer to another position only with passing exams on knowledge and, accordingly, training in this specialty, all this is entered in a private matter. Let’s say there was a commander’s platoon, a good soldier, trying, at the 3-month training courses for the post of com. companies, courses passed, passed the exam, received a position, all this is a personal matter, each such passage plus a salary so that the soldier strives for study and self-improvement.
      7) Do not want to go to the army, but you must visit the 3 military gatherings in your city, and then do whatever you want.
      Bottom line: I think, subject to all the points, from those who want to join the army for a year, to unlearn at a military university and conclude a contract, it will be possible to fight off, but those who do not want to, well, do not want and do not want, there is little sense in such people, as I said Suvorov-grease for the bayonets, after the 3's training, they will be able to shoot, disassemble and assemble AKs, even if this is enough.
      GOOD SOLDIER - A SALTTED SOLDIER, when a soldier knows that everything at his place is good, his wife and children in his house, if he is wounded, healed, there is stability and confidence in the future, there is an opportunity to develop, then he will fight accordingly, I’m so I think.
      1. Normal
        Normal 27 November 2012 22: 53
        +2
        Quote: Joker

        Yes you are my tyrant
        No, I'm kind ... very kind, even too realist
        Quote: Joker
        rallies will take place across the country, so be sure and I myself would come out to rally against you
        Give up. There will be no rallies. No one will go anywhere. And you including (no offense)
        In the country, what the hell is going on, they are stealing without being embarrassed and not counting the stolen. The Caucasus is cutting Russians in a tram for demanding to pay for travel. Prosecutors ask the court to re-qualify the murder case into a lighter article and the court happily agrees, and the girls receive two years in prison for a hooligan. A fabulously wealthy thief will be under house arrest in an apartment of 13 rooms, but in Butyrka there are cells where there are 20 prisoners in 70 places and NOTHING - no one went anywhere. Of the entire community of commentators on this site, only I went to the rally, for which I was repeatedly abused by those who used to protest while sitting at the computer. So let's forget ...
        Quote: Joker
        Are we slaves or something? Fuck, I would let my wife go to the army or my daughter.
        No, we (so far) are not slaves, in any case legally. Slaves should not serve in the sun. Defense of the fatherland and, therefore, service in the armed forces is the duty of a free citizen
        And if citizens demand (and receive) equality, then you are welcome; in the sun there are many positions where to keep a healthy man, capable of running through the mountains with a gun, just insane waste. Especially with our demography. You can't force our women to give birth. They will give birth to one well and run around with him - "I gave birth to him for myself" And I think so: If you want to show off in 15 centimeter heels and in mini - deserve it. If you do not want to serve, give birth. They serve in Israel and nothing.
        Quote: Joker
        And in general, with what fright did I owe someone?

        But with such a fright that every citizen of the state must protect this state, otherwise there will be neither a state nor its citizens. There will be slaves of citizens of another state. I understand that you and I have already served mine, we are talking about young people.
        Quote: Joker
        To begin with, my rights prescribed in the constitution and in laws, start to fulfill,
        WHAT?! What are your rights?
        What is the constitution? Have you won these rights with weapons in your hands? Did you write this constitution with the blood of your enemies? Not? Well then, there’s nothing here ...
        So far, only Lemons and dozens of people not quite respected by the people go out and demand compliance with only one article of the constitution. Everything! No other business. And in order that your (and my) rights written in the constitution would not be violated, it is necessary to fight for these rights, to fight constantly. And not sitting at the computer, and there, in the squares and streets, Despite the dissatisfaction of the approvers and the arbitrariness of the authorities. Blood should not be afraid to be considered with your rights. And you:
        Quote: Joker
        Where is free education, medicine?
        Where, where, in p ........., sorry for the expression. Where is your willingness to demand that the government respect your rights.
        Sorry for the sharpness - it’s painful.
        Quote: Joker
        Therefore, I propose such a system.

        And here I am not at all against.
        I apologize again, all the best
    2. PROXOR
      PROXOR 27 November 2012 14: 30
      -1
      Your option is beautiful, but it fundamentally contradicts the basic law of the country — that is, the Constitution of the Russian Federation, where, among other things, a citizen of the Russian Federation has the right to self-realization, expression of opinion, and so on. Again: a person is born with a congenital heart disease or other disease that does not prevent him from living a simple life, but is not compatible with military service. At the same time, he can be an excellent nuclear physicist or mathematician for example, and what happens? Chill out Vasya. And our research institutes are losing a person who could make a huge contribution to the development of the domestic defense industry. And the last women in the army. The contribution of the nurse in the matter of rescuing a fighter from the battlefield, when the girls pulled out healthy men under fire, or did the minimum that saved their lives, IS ESTIMATED AND ETERNAL GLORY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But! The modern battlefield in local conflicts does not need such self-sacrifice. Not far off is the moment of development of mobile platforms that can creep to a fighter, drag him into the box and inside, a radio-controlled manipulator or manipulators will be able to provide all assistance to the wounded fighter. Other military professions I do not even consider. Maximum - as an intelligence analyst.
      1. Joker
        Joker 27 November 2012 14: 46
        +1
        I do not understand you, i.e. the fact that in my version I do not drive everyone into the army without exception, do I interfere with their right to self-realization? So you want to self-actualize, go serve, over how many total points I have described for them. A sick, crazy, etc. Well, excuse me, this is an army, not a sanatorium, judging by your logic, an employer violates the constitution by not accepting an employee who wants to be a nuclear scientist, but there is no knowledge, right? Well, here excuse me, everywhere there are requirements, exclusively healthy people should serve in the army, there is no place for a woman in the army. A nurse is not a military profession, you want to be a nurse go to honey. school and study, want to be a nuclear scientist go and study. But the path to the army is closed to you, do you want to serve, but health does not allow? So go work as a designer or developer of military equipment and technology, here you will make your contribution, they take patients there, if only they would do their work.
    3. Alver
      Alver 27 November 2012 20: 52
      -1
      that I read something similar in a science fiction novel (the film’s script was shot about star landing), and the writer agrees, in principle, as a scientist and a very wise man
  25. Alekseev
    Alekseev 27 November 2012 13: 03
    +3
    I agree with those who believe that before increasing (or lowering) the term of military service, one must be well aware of what urgent service is generally needed for. Read military history. after all, everything develops in a spiral: regular armies replaced armed peoples. now, apparently, again, a greater bias is necessary in the direction of the regular (roughly speaking, professional) troops.
    But to maintain such a "crowd" of "special heroes" not a single state, and even more so Russia, with its spaces, is not able to.
    So the call is needed to prepare the mob. reserve. For this, with a good organization, the work of the year is enough. In units of constant readiness in peacetime, the conscript has nothing to do. Except, there may be “ready-made” specialists (not yesterday's schoolchildren), cook-chauffeurs in the supply departments.
    And it is necessary to call only the worthy, not prone to betrayal on national and other grounds, crimes, quite competent.
    Benefits to them, status. It's simple, but there is no desire to serve the homeland. And, unfortunately, not only among draftees.
  26. killganoff
    killganoff 27 November 2012 13: 18
    +1
    Not less than 2 years, and for the Navy 2.5 - 3 years of service.
  27. Setrac
    Setrac 27 November 2012 13: 34
    +5
    Dear PROXOR, in the army they teach not only (and not so much) the ability to disassemble AKs, I knew how to handle AKs before the army, they teach in the army such things as: the ability to obey, unity of command, coherence, etc., the army is a powerful school of education. The fact that you have evaded military service suggests that you are not a patriot, your civil position is hostile to the Russian state.
  28. demonuga
    demonuga 27 November 2012 13: 44
    +4
    Quote: Normal
    Not serving at all - a loss of rights. Deprivation of the right to vote, hold government posts and jobs in enterprises with state ownership over 50%
    As well as the deprivation of the right to work in the media and promote your lifestyle.

    I agree, somewhere you have to do this with the draft dodgers
  29. robinson
    robinson 27 November 2012 14: 00
    +2
    First, Russia needs an army formed with the participation of conscripts. Why? I will answer:
    1. The best defensive armies of a country, such as the Israeli or Cuban, are formed upon conscription. References to some NATO armies are inappropriate, these armies do not defend, they attack, and at the same time weak ones.
    2. In the entire history of mankind, not a single country has been protected by a mercenary army.
    3. With a general conscription, everyone serves, it is no secret that often the best soldiers do not see themselves in the professional army, that’s how he came to defeat everyone and retire to the reserve.
    4. What is the career opportunity for a professional soldier? How many people would agree to this perspective? And, excuse the "quality" of these people? No, there are double basses that travel from one conflict to another, well, I like them, but they are few.

    And with regard to the service life, this is not important, a year is enough to prepare people for most specialties of the lower ranks. Here the demographic and other conditions are rather important.
  30. Pinochet000
    Pinochet000 27 November 2012 14: 44
    +1
    We need a comprehensive solution, the German (Bundeswehr) system, in my opinion, is optimal for us, when the number of draftees does not exceed 10% and these draftees go to the army at will. The system itself is designed in such a way that the draft component is the first stage of personnel selection, that is, during the time of military service, the commanders manage to look at their subordinates and recommend that they serve under the contract (second stage) for a period of 2 two years and only after the conclusion of the second contract (third step) the Bundeswehr soldier could participate in the database .... naturally, all this was reflected in monetary allowances and privileges ... I write from memory, therefore, there may be inaccuracies, but the essence is something like this .... of course, all this to process under our difficult conditions, but the modern army must be professional .... True, for this to work, you need the prestige of the army (work with youth) and money and will. My personal opinion.
  31. 26vova06
    26vova06 27 November 2012 14: 46
    +2
    I think that in our country there must be not only a contract army but also a draft army. At the same time, raise (return) the service life to 2 years ... well, 3 years - the fleet, aviation
    1. Pinochet000
      Pinochet000 27 November 2012 15: 05
      0
      Quote: 26vova06
      At the same time, raise (return) the service life to 2 years ... well, 3 years - the fleet, aviation

      Where to take people (conscripts)? Really a failure ...
      1. ramzes1776
        ramzes1776 27 November 2012 21: 41
        0
        Quote: Pinochet000
        Where to take people (conscripts)? Really a failure ...

        And 240 thousand supporters, and students-loafers at the end of the so-called military schools.
    2. ramzes1776
      ramzes1776 27 November 2012 21: 33
      +1
      Quote: 26vova06
      I think that in our country there must be not only a contract army but also a draft army.

      I liked the system that was before Serdyukov. In the divisions there were emergency regiments equipped with professional contractors and regiments equipped with conscripts (10-20% in peacetime) for servicing equipment, and other measures for maintaining units in combat readiness. In the event of a full-scale war when mobilizing these divisions turned into full-fledged combat units. And now, what can brigades do, for example, on the border with China?
  32. Andriuha077
    Andriuha077 27 November 2012 14: 51
    +4
    Military departments - after the army.
    State service - subject to successful completion of army training.
    Studying in the first place.
    A network of free health clubs.
    The right to bear arms.
    Regular fees to enhance and confirm acquired skills and high confidence.
    Tax credits corresponding to the possession of a military profession.
    1. Dikremnij
      Dikremnij 27 November 2012 15: 07
      0
      I think that if military departments are made after military service, they will go there, and the army needs not only reserve soldiers, but also reserve officers. In this case, you will either have to force the served boys to the military, as was often the case in the USSR, or make the military parallel to study for non-serving students (as it is now), but with compulsory service in the officer rank in the army for 6 months.
      1. Andriuha077
        Andriuha077 27 November 2012 15: 28
        -1
        But it will be exactly units, and not zeros - elephant officers.
        They will go as necessary to conditions adequate to the country's needs for them.
        Conditions are not provided - a situation of treason.
    2. Black
      Black 27 November 2012 15: 08
      0
      I agree with you.
    3. Alver
      Alver 27 November 2012 20: 59
      +1
      plus agree
  33. Region65
    Region65 27 November 2012 15: 04
    +1
    sorry continue the list
    from July 1937 to September 1944;
    July - September 1945;
    from March 1946 to April 1949;
    March - May 1950 (for the personnel of the air defense forces group);
    from June 1950 to July 1953 (for personnel of military units that took part in hostilities in North Korea from China)
    Fighting in Hungary: 1956
    Fighting around Damansky Island: March 1969
    Fighting in the area of ​​Lake Zhalanashkol: August 1969
    Fighting in Algeria: 1962 - 1964 years
    Fighting in Egypt (United Arab Republic):
    from October 1962 to March 1963;
    June 1967 of the year;
    1968 year;
    from March 1969 to July 1972;
    from October 1973 to March 1974;
    from June 1974 to February 1975 (for personnel of minesweepers of the Black Sea and Pacific Fleets who participated in the clearance of the Suez Canal zone)
    Fighting in the Yemen Arab Republic: from October 1962 to March 1963;
    from November 1967 to December 1969
    Combat operations in Vietnam: from January 1961 to December 1974, including for the personnel of the Pacific Fleet reconnaissance ships that solved the tasks of military service in the South China Sea
    The fighting in Syria: June 1967;
    March - July 1970;
    September - November 1972;
    October 1973 years
    The fighting in Angola: from November 1975 to November 1992
    The fighting in Mozambique: 1967 - 1969 years;
    from November 1975 to November 1979;
    from March 1984 to August 1988
    The fighting in Ethiopia: from December 1977 year to November 1990 year;
    from May 2000 to December 2000
    Fighting in Afghanistan: from April 1978 of the year to February 15 of the 1989 of the year
    Fighting in Cambodia: April - December 1970
    Fighting in Bangladesh: 1972 - 1973 (for the personnel of ships and auxiliary vessels of the Navy of the USSR)
    The fighting in Laos: from January 1960 to December 1963;
    from August 1964 to November 1968;
    from November 1969 to December 1970
    The fighting in Syria and Lebanon: June 1982
    Fighting in the Republic of Tajikistan: September - November 1992;
    February 1993 to December 1997
    Fulfillment of tasks in the conditions of armed conflict in the Chechen Republic and in the adjacent territories of the Russian Federation assigned to the zone of armed conflict: from December 1994 to December 1996
    Accomplishment of tasks during counter-terrorism operations in the North Caucasus region: since August 1999
    Fulfillment of tasks to ensure the safety and protection of citizens of the Russian Federation living in the territories of the Republic of South Ossetia and the Republic of Abkhazia: from 8 to 22 on August 2008
    and that's not all :)))
    1. Hon
      Hon 27 November 2012 15: 48
      +3
      Quote: Region65
      Fighting around Damansky Island: March 1969

      By the way, the Daman example of the superiority of technology over the crowd, when having the superiority in training, the border guards restrained the superior forces of the enemy and then they just burned them all in a hail.
    2. dusha233
      dusha233 27 November 2012 19: 40
      0
      Now, list the conflicts in which the United States participated and see the difference !?
  34. Mr77Bear
    Mr77Bear 27 November 2012 15: 18
    0
    What is the point of increasing the service life if soldiers are not even taught theories there?
  35. qwertynsan
    qwertynsan 27 November 2012 15: 40
    0
    A year is enough to teach the basics of military affairs, and only after that, I think the person himself will decide whether to join the professional army or go to the reserve. And for two years I myself served in 1984-1986, though in the construction battalion and they did not even give us weapons to the animals)) but I saw how others serve. At construction sites with senior officers, somewhere else. Why ask? Remember the Soviet slogan "Learning military affairs in a real way!" in my opinion something like this.
  36. Nicotine 7
    Nicotine 7 27 November 2012 18: 12
    +3
    2 years urgent, 5 years on contract, a veteran of 2 local wars ... I know that in the event of what I will be useful to my homeland!
    1. Sleptsoff
      Sleptsoff 27 November 2012 19: 44
      0
      This is what homeland, Argentina chtoli?))
  37. dld35057
    dld35057 27 November 2012 18: 54
    +1
    Definitely need urgent service. But only in training. He was called up to the training center - and a year is enough to prepare a fighter for the entire course of combat training. And this is kmb (the course of a young fighter) and a special one in vus. Yes, there is still enough time for everyone to get trained in the course of mechvods and wheeled and tracked vehicles, and not only so that the training would prepare combined arms specialists and when applying for a contract, people could occupy (vus) many different (free) positions (mechvod-gunner, grenade launcher, etc.). And on a reasonable basis - it is necessary to revise the course of combat training in training centers for 1 year. And prepare real fighters. Yes, of course there will be a transitional period when it will be necessary to call in the troops and in the training as a percentage. And honestly - a lot of guys after training will remain on the contract, but then to the troops in combat units.
  38. Sleptsoff
    Sleptsoff 27 November 2012 19: 43
    +1
    I’m certainly not an expert, but I think the year is enough to teach a person how to use weapons, to teach the basics of tactics and other tinsel, which will help him not quickly die on the battlefield, of course, provided that he studies all this time, and not sit down his pants in the barracks.
  39. Anti
    Anti 27 November 2012 20: 22
    -2
    Samovar
    only a "peaceful" army can be a contract. There is no place for it in war (in a serious war, of course).

    That's right, I have an opinion like yours ...

    We need a new law on military service with an extension of service for a period of at least three years, with leave for each year of service and cash allowance, in the amount of the minimum wage, depending on the qualification and ability of the soldier to raise wages.
    1. Sleptsoff
      Sleptsoff 27 November 2012 21: 03
      0
      Worker hands are now needed on a citizen and there is nothing for young healthy guys to marinate in the army for 3 years, for me, let the contract soldiers serve, there’s no big war anyway, and if there is a nuclear war, where the number of warheads will be decided, not the soldiers.
      1. Anti
        Anti 27 November 2012 21: 43
        0
        Guys must first swear allegiance to their homeland, become warriors, and then work in the civilian world can not be avoided.
        YaV in the near future is not expected.
  40. mazdie
    mazdie 27 November 2012 21: 20
    +2
    There are two options:
    1. Increase the density of training + mandatory fees every 3 years for a month.
    2. To increase the term of urgent service.
    1. Andriuha077
      Andriuha077 27 November 2012 22: 17
      0
      Weekly fees once a quarter to 25 years, six months to 45, and once a year further, if desired, for those who need rights to:
      1. Carrying civilian weapons.
      2. Tangible civil tax rebates.
      3. Entrance to the network of free state sports and fitness facilities.
      4. The right to work in a government agency.
  41. General
    General 27 November 2012 21: 25
    -3
    Increase service life by 4 years
  42. ramzes1776
    ramzes1776 27 November 2012 21: 38
    +3
    I liked the saying from the blog dragon_first_ru
    "A two-year conscript soldier with a 1974 Kalashnikov assault rifle, dressed in an overcoat and wearing tarpaulin boots and footcloths, who has experience in peeling potatoes and harvesting the parade ground, but at the same time well trained to fight under the guidance of an evil but professionally trained officer, will be much more effective than armed with AK-12 and dressed in the latest camouflage, but pampered by outsourcing and other humanization, mama's son, untrained due to the fact that those who could REALLY train him, some uncles and aunts (who themselves did not serve in the army for a day) was simply considered an unnecessary organizational and staffing unit. "
    Fully readable at http://dragon-first-ru.livejournal.com/39764.html
  43. Nicotine 7
    Nicotine 7 27 November 2012 22: 57
    +1
    Sleptsoff,
    There is only one homeland; residence is different.
    1. Sleptsoff
      Sleptsoff 28 November 2012 20: 18
      0
      And they say where he was born there and came in handy. You also write that you really miss your country and would very much like to come back but ... Such comments always touch me))
      1. Nicotine 7
        Nicotine 7 28 November 2012 21: 50
        0
        You don’t understand this, son ... well, perhaps over the years, although there are no guarantees either.
  44. Was mammoth
    Was mammoth 27 November 2012 23: 01
    0
    It seemed to me?
    There are three discussion groups:
    1. Serve a year or less. Better a fully contracted army. I think that this is not for Russia with its territory, resources, historical memory and the number of people who want to bite something.
    2. Serve for three years. In my bust for us. Although the modern experience of the children of Israel is worth a lot. The Israeli army is one of the most trained in the world. But they do not transfer to the contract army.
    3 I think that the majority in 1.5-2 years. I am also inclined to this opinion. It is possible to learn to disassemble-assemble an automatic machine faster, but the army not only consists of this.
    I don’t understand why contract soldiers are denied patriotism. The officers are the same contractors with a higher level of knowledge of military affairs and with a higher civilian. What - among them there are no patriots?
    I like it:
    Hon: "... when, having superiority in preparation, the border guards held back superior enemy forces ...." By the way, they served for two years then.
    Crazy fencer: "So everything will be extremely traditional: with all high-precision weapons, the infantry will still put the last point." I think so.
  45. Psyjoker
    Psyjoker 27 November 2012 23: 25
    0
    1. The contractor is the same conscript, only he is also paid money and benefits. He has no reason not to put a bolt on everything.

    2. "So everything will be extremely traditional: with all the high-precision weapons, the infantry will still put the last point" - but what will they put?
    IMHO, modern conflicts are conflicts of the big with the small. War goes when there is real income from it and resources can be cut down. Judging by the experience of Syria and Libya, it’s not even necessary to apply your hands. World wars are left behind, nobody needs them. There will be no income from them, only losses, and there is also the apprehension that they’ll give you a face and radioactive mushrooms. Who the fuck is it for? As long as we have a nuclear arsenal, not a single dog will climb here. Yes, and why? Liberastov and other shit in bulk, plant something ala Mechny or Yeltsin and all, the country is in your pocket.

    3. What are you all about the increase went wrong? Why, then, in some parts do officers prepare high-quality drugs, and in others - gouging, who have nothing other than a military-industrial college? How will TIME correct schools of learning? 98 Guards Airborne prepares excellent conscripts, others the worse?

    4. Nefiga women in the army do, let the children give birth. What does it say? The man is a soldier, the woman is the mother of a soldier. Let them give birth and raise normal defenders better, and do not come from the army with the jargon and manners of a drunk trucker.

    Citizens! No matter how we speak here, no matter how we think, the meaning remains the same. In order for conscripts to become soldiers, they need to be trained. TRAIN, and not drive to do all sorts of x **** th on sweeping and sawing wood, and then sculpt them in the VUS "rembat". We have parts where it is not the eggs that are scratched, there are, and we must take an example from them. 98 guards airborne troops hello!
  46. AlexMH
    AlexMH 28 November 2012 00: 40
    +1
    It is obvious that it is impossible to train a person to work perfectly on complex equipment in three months or a year. Therefore, increasing the service life to 1,5 years will not change anything except the number of draft dodgers, and the percentage of combat-ready formations will remain where it was. 2 years - yes, an infantryman can be trained in six months and then forced to serve one and a half. Tanker, anti-aircraft gunner, missile operator - no, especially considering that the army will then again go mainly to the poor and uneducated. Now, for example, my students say "It's easier to serve a year, then not to be afraid of the military registration and enlistment office all your life" - and 2 years is a completely different matter. In my opinion, the army should be professional, all the shouts "Oh, where can I find so much money" is speculation. They found them for raising salaries for officers, found for equipment, found for Serdyukovskie fun with girls, and found for contract soldiers. And let the urgent one serve for a year, then there will be a reserve like the National Guard in the United States, which are also never professionals, nevertheless, a reserve for a difficult time. Then, we must face the truth - we do not expect a big war, and we are not ready for it in principle, and the service life will not help here, and it is easier to send subunits entirely from contractors to small ones and do not suffer from remorse. We have capitalism, everything is fair - you get paid, you go to die for your Motherland in some Georgia. If you don't pay, you don't go, the enemy is not at the gate.
  47. Patos89
    Patos89 28 November 2012 00: 46
    -3
    25 years are necessary as under the king
  48. davoks
    davoks 28 November 2012 03: 42
    +1
    A contractor can only be someone who has passed an emergency. Not surprisingly, there are few contractors. MO should have decided a long time what kind of army they want - contract or draft. One does not fit with the other. And demography has absolutely nothing to do with it
  49. kostello2004
    kostello2004 28 November 2012 13: 50
    -1
    only 3 years and no more options, unless a contract
  50. spok
    spok 28 November 2012 14: 06
    +1
    if you didn’t serve then close the path to law enforcement agencies, etc.