Military Review

Correctly called - correctly understood

41
Today, the beauty of the military language has faded, and the meaning of the terms of strategy and operational art is either lost or distorted.


I addressed this topic (both verbally and in writing) more than once. The situation for the better, unfortunately, does not change. At present, both the management team and representatives of the widest public, military terms are used without any connection with their original meaning. It can be assumed that to a large extent by the respective authors and speakers this is done solely for the beauty and persuasiveness of speech. However, the meaning and the very essence of the terms go to the second, and even to the third plan. That's what comes out of it in practice.

For example, one power department was very fond of the word "grouping". In speeches and statements of the leaders of this structure of various levels in terms of frequency of use, this term is one of the first places. In a forest fire, a grouping; in a flood — a grouping; in an earthquake, again a grouping.

In the examples, it sounds like this: “In order to build up an emergency response relief group in ...”, “form a full-scale force grouping”, “create a grouping for flood relief”, “form a full-scale force grouping to eliminate a forest fire” and etc. At the same time, the groups “relocate” and “arrive”. The pinnacle of such creativity, perhaps, is the expression "the group is still working in an enhanced mode."

Correctly called - correctly understood

Have the authors ever wondered about such dashing expressions of what “grouping" really is and how to use this term correctly? Looks like no. For the grouping of troops (forces) is a combination of units, formations, units and subunits of various types of armed forces, combat arms, special forces and rear, combined into a certain system and deployed (located) in an appropriate manner, designed to perform tasks in an operation (battle) . They are created at theaters of military operations (strategic, operational direction or in a strip, district). Groupings of troops (forces) are distinguished: by types of armed forces and combat arms - grouping aviation, Air Defense Forces, missile forces and artillery, etc .; in scale - strategic, operational; by destination - main, shock, etc.

And how to use the term "grouping"? And something like this: “By the end of 30.10.2013, to create strike groups of troops in selected areas, changing the defending troops and occupying the initial areas for the offensive.

Grouping troops have:

  • on the direction of the main attack: 45 A, reinforced 69 MSD, 5 A (without AK 3), 53 AK, 10 and 25 ovdbr, the main forces of the arms of the armed forces, special forces and rear;
  • in the direction of another strike - 3 AK, reinforced 68 MSD and 28 Omsbr, part of the forces and means of the armed forces, special forces and rear. "

    Or at least like this: “To create shock groupings of the front troops into the combat area through the Main Caucasus Range, it is necessary to regroup the MSS - 4, Omsb - 3, corps and front set of formations and units of the armed forces and special forces (over 100 formations in total)” .

    Grouping cannot be formed or relocated. It is possible to form (dissolve, transfer to other states, relocate) only parts, connections, associations. Grouping cannot work in enhanced mode. Troops (forces, assets) or part of them may be on high alert levels, but certainly not a grouping. And do not mix in one bottle two completely different concepts - “grouping” and “combat and numerical strength” (this is in the part of the so-called group building). These are still different things. But in general, from the staff officers ’ignorance of this kind, the officers of the operators twist their ears into a tube and the Tactics pencils drop out of their hands in surprise.

    It remains only to rejoice that in the department, so fond of the word "grouping", have not yet reached the terms "operational construction" and "separation". You can not doubt for a second that even in this case we would witness amazingly stupid pearls.

    Why are there grouping. In fact, the disease of the thoughtless use of categories and terms of operational art and strategy has gone much further. And what is worse - the substitution of their meaning and content began, the invention of a new and more than ridiculous military language. And this contagion affects not only fans of the term “grouping”, but many other departments. And the military, by the way, not the least.

    In particular, very often we hear the phrase "another fighter has been neutralized in the North Caucasus." It is not clear what is neutralized? Wounded, killed, captured? With him held political studies? He joined the ruling Russian party? This is just one and a small example, when the meaning of an event is not visible behind a collection of words. But the picture as a whole is much worse than this phrase.

    Chemistry and military art

    In the words of a classic, you can safely talk about the sudden language revolution in the Armed Forces in the middle of the 90 history XX century. From our military vocabulary, somehow imperceptibly, little by little, simple and clear concepts went away - “cut”, “surround”, “crush”, “destroy”, “force unconditional surrender”.

    Instead, strong roots of streamlined and rounded Manilovian phrases appeared: “suppress any armed violence”, “end the war at the earliest possible stage and restore a just and lasting peace”, “create prerequisites for resolving the conflict through negotiation on acceptable terms”, “localize "," Neutralize "," stabilize "and, finally," oust. "

    Military Newspeak in recent years has developed literally leaps and bounds. These medical and chemical terms - “localization”, “neutralization”, “stabilization”, which at first glance have nothing to do with the theory of military art, simply broke into the oral and written statements of the Russian military and politicians. Troops orders and directives are tasked not to crush and destroy the enemy, but to “localize the conflict” (and it is envisaged that the conflict can be both internal and interstate). In the case of large-scale aggression, even “localization of the invasion area” is assumed, that is, it is only about limiting the place (scope) and the spread of hostilities of the aggressor’s groups. We note, it is not the environment that is envisaged, the enemy groups will be cut, the enemy will be crushed and captured in an extremely short time, but some incomprehensible localization.

    Modern theorists interpret this term as follows: “Preventing armed formations from entering the conflict zone and delivering material resources by land, sea and air in order to limit the spread of armed clashes at the place and time, reduce the intensity of hostilities and create conditions for the early resolution of the conflict.”

    First of all, what is the “prohibition of approach”? If we are talking about the operational-strategic reserves of the enemy, then the task for the troops should be put to defeat and, ultimately, to destroy the enemy's reserves, and not some abstract prohibition.

    Secondly, how can “limit the spread of armed clashes in place and time” be translated into normal military language? Troops to go to the lines of 0.00 NM and XY and go on the defensive? Or is there some other interpretation in operational directives and combat orders?

    Third, how should a commander or commander understand the expression “reducing the intensity of hostilities and creating conditions for the earliest resolution of the conflict”? A decrease in intensity probably means rare shooting (one shot per hour for example). And what, I wonder, can be the conditions? Indeed, in the course of hostilities with respect to the enemy, only two conditions are possible: capitulation and unconditional surrender. Or are there other, unknown?

    The infection of all kinds of verbal “innovations” has already deeply permeated the life and work of the Armed Forces and reached other power structures. However, such incomprehensible-vague tasks of the army and the fleet were not always set. As an example of guiding instructions to the troops, let us consider the words of Alexander Suvorov: “... the enemy does not like us, counts us for a hundred miles, and if from afar, then in two or three hundred or more. Suddenly we are upon him like snow on his head. He will feel dizzy! Attack what came with what God sent! Cavalry, start! Cut, if, drive, cut, do not miss! .. If, infantry, with hostility! .. Work quickly, soon, bravely, in Russian! .. In the final victory, cavalry, drive, cut! ”.

    You must agree that such formulations do not allow their double interpretation and do not put the subordinates at a dead end. And after more than two hundred years, drumming and singing of trumpets calling for an attack can be heard. Or, for example, the times are not so distant - an excerpt from the order of the Supreme Commander Marshal Stalin (March 1945): “... the troops of the 2 Belarusian Front after a two-week siege and stubborn street battles completed the rout of the surrounded enemy grouping and today, 6 March, the town of Graudenz, an important knot of the German defense in East Prussia, was completely captured ... ”

    Given the peculiarities of today's military vocabulary, this order would probably look like this: "... after two weeks of localization, they neutralized the surrounded enemy grouping and stabilized the situation in the city of Graudenz."

    The phrase “suppressing aggression” has recently come into fashion. This, according to the authors, means decisive use of various forms of struggle and countering the aggressor, up to and including the demonstration of military force in combination with political-diplomatic and other means to stop a planned or begun act of military aggression at its early stage. At first glance, everything is logical, with the exception of "the termination of an act of military aggression at its early stage." To translate this, God forgive me, nonsense into the language of operational directives and combat orders is almost impossible.

    Language transformations have already gone too far to be considered just a bad joke. How, for example, in our time can be interpreted some tasks of the Armed Forces? As an example: “... in the event of armed conflicts and in wartime — localization and neutralization of border armed conflicts by combat-ready troops (forces) ...” This is an excerpt from the State’s Military Doctrine, among other things. So localization is a more than neglected case.

    It is well known that combat orders in the Armed Forces are carried out in the same way as they are set. An extremely clearly and categorically formulated task, which does not allow its ambiguous interpretation by the performers, is a guarantee of the subsequent victory. If, on the other hand, combat orders and operational directives to formulate, while using the words “termination”, “suppression”, “localization” and “neutralization”, it is difficult to expect success in battle and battle.

    Keyword of the decade

    To such, perhaps, can be attributed the word "reflection". Despite the fact that today the threat of a large-scale war has not emerged from the area of ​​hypothetical military dangers, everyone is ready (more in words, of course) to repel aggression, and in all possible areas, from land to space. “Reflection” in general becomes the cult term of domestic military science at the junction of the XX – XXI centuries.

    This, apparently, a direct result of mental stagnation 60 – 80-ies and the perestroika unrest. At the turn of 80 – 90-x was ordered to consign to the offensive operations. Troops, headquarters, universities, research institutes have stopped exploring and mastering attacking actions. Even terms such as “defensive weapon"," Offensive weapons "," defensive formations and units. In academies and colleges, the study of predominantly defense was imposed, and the offensive was assigned almost a secondary role.

    The rather brief epoch of “new thinking” has long since faded into oblivion, but the legacy of this harmful time in the army, which is surprising, remains. Only in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation did they think of harnessing the cart before the horse — to put defense in the charter documents ahead of the offensive. If we turn to foreign experience, the defense in the governing and statutory documents is ahead of the offensive only in the Bundeswehr of the Federal Republic of Germany - and for obvious reasons.

    This is far from a trifle, as it seems to many military leaders, and still misinterprets the material and the spiritual ratio on the battlefield. It looks like an elementary rearrangement of the places of the items is a major psychological mistake: in the subconscious mind, each commander begins to postpone: first defend, defeat, repel the enemy, and then go on to the offensive. Thus, the initiative, determination and involuntarily submission to the will of a possible enemy are deliberately shackled. One of the consequences of the dominance in the military theory and practice of defensive sentiment, of course, was the decisiveness of aggressiveness necessary in every officer and general (in the normal sense of the word).

    Other power structures

    According to the law of communicating vessels, the military newspeak reached other security agencies, including the internal troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. For example, how are the internal troops going to extinguish an internal armed conflict? It goes something like this: “The purpose of using military force to curb an internal armed conflict is the earliest normalization of the situation, the restoration of law and order, public security, the provision of necessary assistance to the population and the creation of conditions for resolving the conflict by peaceful means.”

    The goals are certainly noble and clear. But how to achieve them, by what methods and means, so that “the earliest possible normalization of the situation” occurs? We are talking about a region covered by an armed rebellion, where blood is flowing in streams and any delay multiplies the number of victims. How to be? Shoot quietly, lightly to bomb, to kill nebolno, incendiary means to use, but at the same time seriously and do not burn anyone or anything? Let us return once again to the words of Suvorov: “... We must attack !!! Melee weapons - bayonets, sabers! Crumple and take away, without losing a moment, conquer all, even unimaginable obstacles, follow on the heels, exterminate to the last man! .. Do not run into the house, the enemy asking for mercy, spare, unarmed not to kill, do not touch young women ... "

    One of the secrets of Suvorov's victories in this lies in the extremely clear statement of combat missions. Indeed, in the words of the Russian military genius everything is clear to both the ordinary and the general. If so the orders were given to the troops and forces involved in suppressing the actions of armed separatists, we would hardly have known many of today's troubles.

    In the formulation of “new type of tasks”, a bizarre mixture of elements of a political settlement and measures of a purely military nature is observed, and both of them are deprived of the necessary rigidity and determination. As is well known, palliatives in armed conflict only lead to a rapid deterioration of the situation and subsequent defeat. Unfortunately, there are already examples in modern Russian history.

    What to do? Steel will, hard hand and an iron broom to clear the military language from the malicious and meaningless layers of the last years. Return to his life-giving sources. Other security agencies at least refresh their knowledge of strategy and operational art and stop mindlessly using military terms. Grouping of service dogs, hydrants and fire trucks on the directions of the main and other strikes not to create.
  • Author:
    Originator:
    http://vpk-news.ru/
    41 comment
    Information
    Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

    I have an account? Sign in

    1. andrei332809
      andrei332809 23 October 2013 18: 55
      +7
      the language of the team should be concise and understandable, should not allow double interpretation. so it’s better than the great and mighty ... the mat is hard to come up with. wassat
      1. zart_arn
        zart_arn 23 October 2013 19: 07
        12
        But swearing is no better than the illiterate layers that are mentioned in the article. Applying it wherever you fall, you turn into a primitive Neanderthal. I am not against mate when it is necessary to express emotions more strongly and only in this case I justify its application.
      2. domokl
        domokl 23 October 2013 20: 00
        +9
        Quote: andrei332809
        the language of the team should be concise and understandable, should not allow double interpretation. so it’s better than the great and mighty ... the mat is hard to come up with.

        Speech in the article is a little about something else. The teams are just preserved unchanged ... It is difficult to come up with something new on-Step, for example.
        The author is completely right. With the arrival of power jackets and MOs, the language turned into a surrogate. Illiteracy and lack of staff culture led to the emergence of orders for nothing ... It seems that something is written and indicated, but how to do it is not clear. But you can always say either I ordered here and won, or vice versa. The commander is stupid, did not correctly understand the clear order.
        1. Col.
          Col. 24 October 2013 15: 25
          +5
          Quote: domokl
          The author is completely right. With the advent of the power structures and MO of jackets, the language turned into a surrogate.


          I totally agree! The last "real" MO was Marshal Sergeev. But already for 10-12 years "commanders" have been sitting on Znamenka, who not only "did not finish academies", but do not even have an elementary military education! They, of course, have professional deputies, assistants, etc., but nevertheless, there are simply shameful cases! For example, one document was presented to Serdyukov for his signature. He read it fluently and asks: "Something I didn't understand, but what has the BBC got to do with it?" They politely explained to him: "This is not the BBC, this is the Air Force!" And there are more and more such "specialists" in the Armed Forces, even among regular officers. And all because the professional language was taught mainly in the Academies, where officers entered after several years of service in the troops, and from positions not lower than deputy. squadron commander, battalion commander, ship commander and their peers. And now the academies have been reduced to the level of ordinary schools and almost all the teaching staff have been dispersed. Even in Soviet times, not every officer knew, for example, that "intelligence", "intelligence" and "intelligence" are not at all identical concepts. Or, for example, "defeat", "crush", "suppress", "weaken", "incapacitate" - are also different concepts, as a result of the misuse of which in the text of the Order (or military order), a large military ( naval) operation! There are many such examples! I would compare a literate military language with the language of doctors. Wrong formulation can be fatal. And it's not a joke. I went through a big school in the field of development, coordination, adjustment of combat, planning, accounting and reporting, reference and assessment and other documents and therefore I know what I am saying ...
      3. MIKHAN
        MIKHAN 23 October 2013 20: 01
        0
        Mat is great and powerful in Russian! It clearly fits into the brain (even if someone does not understand the Russian language ..) This is a type of telepathy)) wassat I rarely use this mighty myself ..but if ... then everyone immediately understands ... And in the Army this is, in my opinion, the Most Important Charter! (But the main thing is to the point and briefly!)
        1. MIKHAN
          MIKHAN 23 October 2013 20: 32
          +4
          minus for (even if someone does not understand the Russian language ..) but this is true .. I didn’t want to offend anyone .. The Russians often start to think what’s what on the mighty and great .. At the expense of the Charter in the Army, I’ve wrongly blurted out sorry ..
      4. Civil
        Civil 24 October 2013 06: 32
        0
        Author, tipun to your tongue 30.10.13/XNUMX/XNUMX has not yet arrived
      5. Max_Bauder
        Max_Bauder 25 October 2013 15: 00
        0
        The author is unfortunately right in the fact that now these phrases may be misinterpreted, and all because generals and other junior chiefs of staff are simply afraid to take responsibility for their orders.
        This is from the Stalin era, when they could not just put in shame and shoot family for expulsion for mistakes, this does not mean that Stalin is a direct villain, it’s just such a time, the country is in mortal danger, otherwise the generals cannot be made to act more decisively . But what is surprising is that the generals were not afraid then to take responsibility, in case of success they were promoted, more troops were trusted, in case of failure they themselves fired, were bolder or something.
        And now there is no such threat to the bosses, but they are still afraid to take responsibility, what kind of cowardice is this ?! So the words come up with a double hypocritical interpretation, so that in case of failure, to blame subordinates, they say they misunderstood. Like this.

        There was a good American film "The Rule of Fight" starring Samuel Jackson, in the film his hero, a colonel, led the operation to rescue American "ambassadors" in a Middle Eastern country, during the operation a crowd gathered near the embassy, ​​where there were children, women and old people, and the militants also start shooting at the Americans, wounding two military men, then the colonel, himself participating in the operation, gives the order to return fire to kill. As a result, having shot the crowd, the Americans are saved. But upon the return of the colonel, they are judged, under pressure from the public, the higher ranks naturally "hang all the dogs on him," as if he gave the order to destroy the unarmed (?!) Crowd. In court, the prosecutor will ask:

        - What order did you give?
        the colonel will say: - kill these maserfaker (s)
        then the prosecutor will show photos of mutilated children, and women:
        - these maserfakers?
        Colonel: - yes! these!

        then at the end of the film they will prove that the crowd had weapons, this will be done by his friend, also a military man, and the colonel will be acquitted.

        What is the essence of the film? it is clear that in reality Americans will never be judged for killing strangers. But here it is shown, the first how a person can take responsibility and the second that militants or other enemies can hide behind the bodies of women, old people and children, or they will shoot at you.
        Remember how in the "9th company" an Afghan goldfinch shot from a Kalash at our soldier when he felt sorry for him, or "Savior", where the goldfinch approached the checkpoint so close (the soldiers also regretted not shooting) that he threw a grenade there and filled up five people, or in the movie "Checkpoint," a Chechen goldfinch was hitting an antipersonnel mine with a hammer when the Russians entered the house. Like this. We must be ready for such events.

        War is a dirty thing; there is no honor there. If earlier officers could be killed without humiliating, now they’ll shoot when you sit in the toilet and they will not even let you finish the last thing, like that.

        I consider the orders, no matter how bad, inhumane they seemed, if they save the soldiers from death, they must be given clearly and be fulfilled as well. So grandfather Suvorov was right: if, cut, with hostility. Otherwise, do not stick in there.
    2. kaktus
      kaktus 23 October 2013 19: 00
      +1
      "The disposition was very complicated and difficult"
      Leo Tolstoy, "War and Peace"
    3. taseka
      taseka 23 October 2013 19: 02
      14
      Call the bandits not "formations", but bandits! The RF Army is not "Feds", but the Armed Forces of the country!
      1. domokl
        domokl 23 October 2013 20: 02
        +4
        laughing And tolerance? In general, it has been absorbed for a long time, back in school years, if ours, then a scout, and if not ours, then a spy ...
      2. Toporkoff
        Toporkoff 24 October 2013 12: 09
        0
        Call the bandits not "formations", but bandits! The RF Army is not "Feds", but the Armed Forces of the country!

        It is impossible, a negative image is formed in a person's mind, think about the associations with "bandits" and "formations" ... a useful book on this topic "Manipulation of consciousness" by Kara-Murza.
    4. zart_arn
      zart_arn 23 October 2013 19: 03
      +4
      I completely agree with the author, the military language is losing its former beauty, in fact, like the technical one, and others too. In literary Russian, too, there are many illiterate layers. Alas, this disgrace cannot be corrected with an iron hand and a nasty broom. It is important here that "native speakers" of this language strive for skillful and competent use of it. Without this, it will be like in a cartoon: "Darkness! It's a bubble gum!"
    5. alone
      alone 23 October 2013 19: 03
      +3
      the command of the officers should be clear and correct. so correct that any subordinate, regardless of the degree of literacy, should understand it.

      but sometimes the mat helps)) this is a fact. those who do not understand in simple words, immediately delve into the essence.)) laughing
    6. Anatole Klim
      Anatole Klim 23 October 2013 19: 25
      +5
      Well, what kind of military language could be expected from a furniture maker who in the report read the BBC as BBC, Shoigu is also not a military man, Puchkov had a military school behind him and the academy did not notice stupidity behind him.
    7. Metlik
      Metlik 23 October 2013 19: 36
      11
      The higher a person ascends the ladder of power, the stronger the rule applies to him: the more complex and incomprehensible definitions you use, the less people will realize that you are incompetent. As a visual aid, I would like to show the stuffed Gorbachev.


      Language is not only a way to transmit information, it is a tool of thinking.
      For example: in Russian there is no word to win in the singular of the future tense. I will never say - I will win - this is stupid. From the point of view of the logic of language - victory is possible only by joint efforts. If we want to be Russian, we need to keep the language from clogging.

      In the days of doubt, in the days of painful thoughts about the fate of my homeland, you are my one support and support, O great, powerful, truthful and free Russian language!

      P.S. We would learn from Onishchenko, that's who every word is worth its weight in gold.
      1. folds
        folds 23 October 2013 23: 20
        +8
        Quote: Metlik

        For example: in Russian there is no word to win in the singular of the future tense. I will never say - I will win - this is stupid. From the point of view of the logic of language - victory is possible only by joint efforts.

        That's just lovely and not an example! Thank!!

        True, there are subtle points. I won - it doesn’t sound silly. I will defeat him too. That is why our language is beautiful - the imagery and richness of options that are difficult to master for those who do not speak it from childhood.


        Not mine, before the author - I bow:
        "This is a difficult Russian language.
        Before us is a table. On the table is a glass and a fork. What are they doing? A glass is standing, and a fork is lying. If we stick the plug in the countertop, the plug will stand. Those. are vertical objects, but are horizontal? Add a plate and a pan to the table. They seem to be horizontal, but stand on the table. Now put the plate in the pan. There she lies, but stood on the table. Maybe there are items ready for use? No, the plug was ready when she lay.
        Now a cat climbs onto the table. She can stand, sit and lie. If in terms of standing and lying it somehow creeps into the “vertical-horizontal” logic, then sitting is a new property. She is sitting on the pope. Now a bird has sat on the table. She sits on the table, but sits on her feet, not on the pope. Although it seems to be standing. But she cannot stand at all. But if we kill the poor bird and make a scarecrow, it will stand on the table. It may seem that sitting is an attribute of the living, but the boot also sits on the leg, although it is not alive and has no priests.
        So, go and understand what is worth, what is lying, and what is sitting. And we are also surprised that foreigners find our language difficult and compare it with Chinese. "

        “Try to explain to the Frenchman why the glass is on the table, the fork is, and the bird is sitting on the tree.
        With a glass and a fork, I immediately deduced the theory: that which is more vertical than horizontal - it stands; that which is more horizontal than vertical - it lies. My theory immediately crashed on a plate - it is more horizontal than vertical, but worth it. Although, if you turn it over, it will lie. Immediately on the move, another theory is deduced: the plate stands, because it has a base, it stands on the base. The theory immediately breaks into rubbish about a frying pan - it has no reason, but it still stands. Wonders. Although if you put it in the sink, then it will lie there, taking at the same time a more vertical position than on the table. This suggests the conclusion that everything that is ready for use is worth it. (At this point I want to say vulgarity.)
        But here we take one more thing - an ordinary children's ball. He is not
        horizontal and not vertical, while completely ready for use. Who will say that there, in the corner, the ball stands? If the ball does not fulfill the role of a doll and has not been punished, then it still lies. And even if it is transferred to the table, then on the table (lo and behold!) It will lie. Let's complicate the task - put the ball in a plate, and the plate in a pan. Now we still have the ball (in the plate), the pan is still (on the table), the question is, what does the plate do?
        If the Frenchman listened to the explanation to the end, then everything, his world will never be the same. Plates and pans appeared in it that know how to stand and lie - the world came to life.
        It remains to add that the birds are sitting with us. On a branch, on a windowsill, and even on a sidewalk. A Frenchman will draw in his imagination a titmouse sitting on a branch at the fifth point and swinging its legs in the air, or a homeless crow sitting with its legs outstretched and wings spread out at a metro station. "Russians - you are crazy!" - the Frenchman will say and throw a textbook at you. "
      2. nov_tech.vrn
        nov_tech.vrn 24 October 2013 16: 37
        0
        please the people, show the scarecrow of Gorbachev, otherwise we only have the consequences of his verbal diarrhea.
    8. makarov
      makarov 23 October 2013 19: 38
      +7
      Wonderful, relevant, and timely material. Respect to the author. Aki opened up an urgent topic. I wish you one, so that the ignoramuses read and listen to the above.
      1. folds
        folds 23 October 2013 23: 23
        +3
        They don’t need .. They know better than us how to localize groups and reduce the intensity of clashes ..
    9. Algor73
      Algor73 23 October 2013 19: 44
      +7
      The fact is that the reason lies much deeper. From school, children use buzzwords that wander from universities, and further into life. On television, on the radio, in newspapers - one clutter of language. Swearing has become almost the norm. The main thing is that everyone (teachers, teachers, etc.) consider this the norm. The purity of the language is no longer even in the philologists themselves. Alas, the Soviet system, which condemned such slangs, probably already has no return.
      1. Egoza
        Egoza 23 October 2013 21: 01
        +1
        Quote: Algor73
        From school, children use buzzwords that wander from universities, and further into life.


        The record from my point of view is the following: There is an exam in computer science, theoretical question "the device of the computer's RAM." The answer of one of the students: "The computer's memory consists of elements called TRIPPER !!!". Out of amazement, I ask again: "How, how?" And I hear the answer at the highest volume level: "Trippers !!!" (c)
    10. piter-tank
      piter-tank 23 October 2013 20: 08
      +7
      I teach tactics at VVUZ. At the "battalion-platoon" level, for now, everything remains "the old-fashioned way" - to advance there, to destroy the enemy there and by some time to seize the border. Krivotolkov is not allowed.
      1. zub46
        zub46 23 October 2013 23: 56
        +4
        My grandfather Andrey served in the cavalry in the First World War before being wounded. If they listened to his performance (later he was a priest), how great sounded the commands: "Regiment, picks for battle, sabers out! Attack march-march !!!" Classics of the genre. If out of place - sorry, I joked a little.
    11. MIKHAN
      MIKHAN 23 October 2013 20: 11
      +4
      Quote: Algor73
      The fact is that the reason lies much deeper. From school, children use buzzwords that wander from universities, and further into life. On television, on the radio, in newspapers - one clutter of language. Swearing has become almost the norm. The main thing is that everyone (teachers, teachers, etc.) consider this the norm. The purity of the language is no longer even in the philologists themselves. Alas, the Soviet system, which condemned such slangs, probably already has no return.

      Russian language has many faces slangs come and go And the Russian mat is eternal ..! I’m not a fan of the mat, the ear cuts when women swear and the girls are jarring me at all .. the little boys in the yard (snotty) mat rewind (sometimes I bark from the balcony (what are you doing ..) In childhood I remember the word obscene someone could say from the boys and grab by the ear and take to the police .. These are the things (but you need to fight with obscenities .. This is an extreme language, but by no means not everyday ..)
    12. vlad0
      vlad0 23 October 2013 20: 17
      +2
      Once you look at our military doctrine, everything becomes clear. Even the word "enemy" was removed. Well, the dominance of Serdyukov's jackets and short skirts in the headquarters did their job. Do we have a lot of types and types of Armed Forces officers who graduated from the General Staff Academy?
    13. stranik72
      stranik72 23 October 2013 20: 20
      12
      I think the meaning and logic of the Russian mat in this case, most vividly illustrates the philosophy of accuracy, multiplicity and conceptuality of the great and powerful.
      1. MIKHAN
        MIKHAN 23 October 2013 20: 46
        +3
        Ha ha ha So I think if it was written instead of (bl ...) "please" ... The screw would have been torn off a long time ago! wassat Of course, they don’t write such things in museums, they all know that you can’t just touch it, but in this situation I would definitely touch the screw (but the inscription is specific and short, like what will happen to you if you touch ..) Immediately respect and respect .. laughing
      2. Yon_Silent
        Yon_Silent 24 October 2013 07: 20
        +1
        Thanks so much for the picture! And the article is good and necessary, the author, my respect. Beautiful idle talk is just a noise that prevents us from understanding each other. Appreciate concise people)))
    14. Thirsty for wind
      Thirsty for wind 23 October 2013 20: 53
      +2
      Many of the examples given by the author fit well into the category: "He spoke a lot and colorfully, but didn't really say anything"
      In certain situations, all sorts of press secretaries often use this move.
      You need to speak, but to say either nothing or impossible. So twist the noodles.
      Feint is not new at all, I agree on the main point, this is not a "language" for a commander, let alone a strategist.
    15. Andrey Peter
      Andrey Peter 23 October 2013 20: 54
      +1
      Today the language is littered with many foreign words that not even everyone understands. Against this background, of course, the mate is more understandable. But where does the army or naval or other troops language. I noticed that even in the same services, but different in territoriality, some terms are different, nevertheless, when they meet, everyone understands each other. Well, if we have "managers" in the military departments, then this is not the problem of the people, but the leadership who appoint them, and what? To teach them Russian too? wassat
    16. Andrey Peter
      Andrey Peter 23 October 2013 21: 10
      +3
      Yes, I also want to add. In my opinion, this all came along with the bitter (I don’t want to write this surname with a capital letter). That is who the "master of words" was - could talk for hours, but then everyone wondered, but what was he talking about?
      1. Ezhaak
        Ezhaak 23 October 2013 21: 21
        +2
        Quote: Andrew Peter
        then they all thought, but what was he talking about?

        It used to appear. The economy must be economical, oil is oily, and fat is greasy. laughing
        1. Col.
          Col. 24 October 2013 16: 04
          +1
          Quote: Hedgehog
          The economy must be economical, oil is oily, and fat is greasy.


          First, not "oil", but "oil" (with one "n").
          Second, "Thrifty Economika "is normal, but" economical economymiya "- that's stupid. Don't confuse the words!
    17. Ezhaak
      Ezhaak 23 October 2013 21: 18
      +2
      I have addressed this topic (both verbally and in writing) more than once. Unfortunately, the situation is not changing for the better.

      It is tantamount to the inclusion of Americanisms in the Russian language, but all right, if they have no analogues in Russian. but there is a substitution of the available words by Americanisms. So in the above example in the article. And I like it so much, why do not I have the right to call it that?
    18. Genur
      Genur 23 October 2013 21: 42
      +3
      "In general, it is purely tentative," said our physics teacher, when we, schoolchildren, "swam" answering his questions.
      1. folds
        folds 23 October 2013 23: 39
        0
        Well, yes, but if you look at it from below - then it is more visible than from the side :)))
    19. My address
      My address 23 October 2013 21: 46
      +4
      Yes, and higher faces are different.
      VVP and LADIES really love the word "DEMAND", which they did not know about fifteen years ago, why they do not like "REQUIRED" and "REQUIRED"? What about "BURNING" instead of "BURNING"? And as for an iPhone, sometimes you can't even understand half, a solid "SUPERVISER" with a "MERCHENDIZER", damn it. Well, purely a boy of ten. And they will not poke his face with his face in violation of the law on the purity of the language.
    20. Grbear
      Grbear 23 October 2013 21: 48
      +5
      I do not remember who said that words were given to us in order to hide thoughts. But this is someone from the East or a Jesuit. But in terms of verbiage, we overtook any eastern vizier. Adding to this "congruence" with "latent tolerance" and covering ourselves with a "trend", we got a newspeak behind which, at best, is illiteracy, and more often - a desire to deceive.

      A professor once told me: "A teacher who cannot explain his subject in Russian words does not know him."

      Special terms for professionals only. Everything else is at home GREAT. Otherwise, it’s just FORMAL.
    21. Yun Klob
      Yun Klob 23 October 2013 21: 53
      +2
      The Spartans spoke briefly and clearly, it is time for us to reject verbiage as a relic of marasmic times.
    22. Mikhail m
      Mikhail m 23 October 2013 22: 06
      +4
      Well, the Ministry of Emergencies wants to create a group - and let the kids add up. But for tolerance in orders in the army - to break off his ears regardless of shoulder straps (or lack thereof).
    23. DPN
      DPN 23 October 2013 22: 32
      +6
      Quote: GrBear
      A professor once told me: "A teacher who cannot explain his subject in Russian words does not know him."

      Special terms for professionals only. Everything else is at home GREAT. Otherwise, it’s just FORMAL.

      This is what our two great lawyers of the gdp and the ladies are doing.
    24. DPN
      DPN 23 October 2013 22: 37
      +1
      This is all from the 90s.
    25. Lesnik
      Lesnik 23 October 2013 22: 38
      +5
      Actually, I understand why in these so-called "operational directives (orders, etc.)" the jibs of the upper headquarters use this Aesopian language, namely in order to maximally secure the person who signed it, remove from him responsibility for making decisions, and even more so for its execution, and shift this responsibility directly per performer
      You brought magnificent samples of pearls from the military bureaucracy and I would like to quote -
      “Stopping any armed violence”, “ending the war at the earliest possible stage and restoring a just and lasting peace”, “creating the prerequisites for resolving the conflict through negotiations on acceptable conditions”, “localizing”, “neutralizing”, “stabilizing” and, finally , Oust.

      In medical and chemical terms - “localization”, “neutralization”, “stabilization”, at first glance, having nothing to do with the theory of military art. By orders and directives, troops are no longer tasked with defeating and destroying the enemy, but “localizing the conflict” (and it is envisaged that the conflict can be both internal and interstate). “Localization of the invasion area”,
      Directly imperishable military bureaucracy hi
    26. Lesnik
      Lesnik 23 October 2013 22: 41
      0
      Quote: Forestman
      Actually, I understand why in these so-called "operational directives (orders, etc.)" the jibs of the upper headquarters use this Aesopian language, namely in order to maximally secure the person who signed it, remove from him responsibility for making decisions, and even more so for its execution, and shift this responsibility directly per performer
      You brought magnificent samples of pearls from the military bureaucracy and I would like to quote -
      “Stopping any armed violence”, “ending the war at the earliest possible stage and restoring a just and lasting peace”, “creating the prerequisites for resolving the conflict through negotiations on acceptable conditions”, “localizing”, “neutralizing”, “stabilizing” and, finally , Oust.

      In medical and chemical terms - “localization”, “neutralization”, “stabilization”, at first glance, having nothing to do with the theory of military art. By orders and directives, troops are no longer tasked with defeating and destroying the enemy, but “localizing the conflict” (and it is envisaged that the conflict can be both internal and interstate). “Localization of the invasion area”,
      Directly imperishable military bureaucracy hi

      Abramovich's lawyers are resting laughing
      1. Civilian
        Civilian 24 October 2013 00: 00
        +2
        This can happen with deadly regularity for everything else only in one case - when the drafters of the order have very little interest in its results. When, for example, an owner in a business really needs something, he takes the literate manager and a lawyer by the scruff of his neck, and understanding and clarification of various circumstances occurs very concretely and very quickly in the process. In this case, the owner will transfer the most important thing himself, to just anyone. But when management decisions are developed "around the corner" - in the offices of oligarchs, clubs, or even outside the country, then only such games arise.
    27. Lesnik
      Lesnik 23 October 2013 22: 46
      0
      here is another example of brevity
      inscription in the general locker room in Kharkov
    28. Tyumen
      Tyumen 23 October 2013 23: 02
      +2
      This fogging from Vietnam has gone, I think. Then the generals called napalm "soft charge",
      carpet bombing "defensive reaction", concentration camps "strategic villages", and the whole war
      was called the "appeasement program." Even the name of this language was - Vietlish, Vietnamese
      English. "One village so stubbornly resisted the pacification that it still had to be destroyed."
      This could be read in the newspaper.
    29. dropout
      dropout 23 October 2013 23: 07
      +1
      Somehow we go astray. The article is not about words, much less about non-normative vocabulary.
      It's about the semantic load of military terminology and orders. To this day, I bastard with "FORCED TO PEACE".
    30. Civilian
      Civilian 23 October 2013 23: 22
      +3
      I recently spied on former colleagues on the Arctic shelf. I have not read the entire discussion. I paid attention only to the words, it seems, Zinchenko about "hide the island." Wrangel Island with the Ushakovo base was actually "hidden" on Yandex and Google map search engines, and at the same time the Mendeleev Ridge with the Victoria coast in Antarctica. But this is a war, and we're talking about staff matters. So, they said that there are basically three spaces: 1. Creation of meanings. 2. Translation of meanings. 3. Use of meanings. In my opinion, many modern problems with the distortion of meanings are associated with the fact that one very important revolution was not noticed. Media magnates, organizers and specialists from the BROADCAST space came to power. And they, like any newly emerging power, by and large do not care how the transmitted meanings were created, and what happens there when used.
      I would like to hear what experts from the GRU think about this (as things are in China, he will soon overtake all others in all directions).
    31. maxcor1974
      maxcor1974 23 October 2013 23: 34
      +6
      To the author, plus, plus, and again plus. Somehow, at the beginning of the two thousandths, during a business trip to the border with sunny Georgia, we receive an order: to prevent the entry of bandit formations into our territory from the adjacent side, while trying to give out our location and not to jeopardize the personnel. That's what it was said! And how to do this? But after such orders, the Great Russian obscene could not do.
    32. Asan Ata
      Asan Ata 24 October 2013 00: 15
      +3
      It was just nice to read, thanks!
      Unfortunately, the "literates" are serious fighters for power. The verbal delirium began Humpbacked, an illiterate journalist, an unprincipled politician, simply. His "start", "Azeybardzhans" and so on simply cut the ear. Then EBN tried in this field.
      Indeed, love for the people is, first and foremost, the desire not to dishonor their people.
    33. Humen
      Humen 24 October 2013 05: 54
      +1
      Quote: Metlik
      We would learn from Onishchenko, that's who every word is worth its weight in gold.


      Onishchenko is generally our most effective weapon in the international arena =)
    34. kartalovkolya
      kartalovkolya 24 October 2013 06: 42
      +5
      The subversive activity of both external and internal enemies begins with the substitution of concepts and the meaning of terms. This is especially harmful in the military field: if Marshals Zhukov, Rokossovsky, Vasilevsky and other military leaders localized, neutralized and forced fascist Germany to peace, then it is not known where ended the Second World War and no matter what losses our people suffered! The stupidity of the nouveau riche has no boundaries! It is rightly said that the "jackets" have corrupted the culture of military terms and their meaning. Well, what can we say if people who have not completed initial military training are appointed to the highest positions in the system of military schools, and after all, the foundations of the culture of the military language and a deep understanding of military terms and their meaning are laid there! what we have!
    35. Nayhas
      Nayhas 24 October 2013 13: 36
      +2
      Sick, you can’t say better ... Newspeak appeared not now and not under Gorbachev. What is it for? To cover crime, stupidity, mediocrity, wild incompetence. It’s impossible to grab the official using the newspeak, because Newspeak allows you to interpret what you say at the moment.
    36. sha20289145
      sha20289145 24 October 2013 17: 25
      0
      Military vocabulary should not be "littered" with everyday and "slang". It should be standard. Standard-Military. Terms and definitions. Non-normative vocabulary in military affairs should not be permissible. An example is medical or electronic terminology.
    37. mithridate
      mithridate 24 October 2013 18: 52
      0
      it’s a vicious practice to appoint a minister who is previously unfamiliar with the military as defense minister