Military Review

Losers developed a national security strategy

79
Recycling the main document on ensuring national security of Russia is meaningless - you need to create a new


The strategy of the national security of the Russian Federation up to 2020 of the year was approved and put into effect by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of 12 of May 2009. The document was discussed violently. Experts pointed to his serious shortcomings, in total, many far from flatter opinions were heard about him. However, it entered into force. More than four years have passed. Why, all this time, the leaders responsible for the national security of the country, justifying one or another, sometimes very controversial steps in this direction, did not rely on the provisions of the adopted Strategy?

Since 2009, quite significant events in the field of ensuring national security have taken place in the Russian Federation (it suffices to mention at least the “Serdyuk reform” of the Armed Forces). At the same time, few people recalled the main document defining the development of all subsystems of the state relating to ensuring national security. In order to understand this phenomenon, it is necessary to determine whether the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation before 2020 (Strategy) fully complies with the requirements for such documents.

Any strategy is a guiding document used in the practice of managers at various levels. Its definitions and provisions should be extremely specific, exclude double interpretation and be applicable in the practice of management.

From this point of view, probably, the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation should be analyzed.

Incorrect definitions

First of all, the Strategy lacks a clear definition of the system of threats to the national security of the country and their sources. In the role of threats here are the problems of state development in various fields.

Losers developed a national security strategyMeanwhile, the general provisions of the Strategy define the threat to national security - direct or indirect possibility of causing damage to the state and society. That is, it is about the possibility of implementing the process of causing damage. The definition in this respect is quite correct.

The definition of a threat to national security necessarily corresponds to the definition of its source. In this role are the objects that organize and implement the realization of the threat as a process of harming the state and society. Accordingly, the essence of national security is to prevent or neutralize the threat by influencing the source of the threats.

The results of the implementation of any of the threats, as a rule, manifest themselves in various spheres of society. Therefore, it is fundamentally wrong to base the classification of a system of threats on the spheres of public life, as was done in the Strategy. All the more wrong to put in the role of threats to the problems of social development.

When building mechanisms for neutralizing threats, it is necessary to distinguish the fundamental triad: the source of the threat — the threat — is the result of its realization. Unfortunately, this is not observed in the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation before 2020. In it are mixed in one pile and national security, and the livelihoods of society and the state.

Virtually nowhere (with the rarest exception) the Strategy does not identify sources of threats, at least at the level of a set of criteria by which they can be identified.

Why this is not done is not entirely clear. This is probably due to the fact that among the most dangerous sources of threats to national security, Russia would have to name some very influential structures and figures both in politics and in our economy.

As a result, the directions of ensuring national security proposed in the Strategy by spheres are built according to the principle “ascertaining a drawback - a list of measures to correct it”. Such an approach has nothing to do with ensuring national security, but relates to the development of specific areas of society.

There are many examples of this on the pages of the Strategy. Sometimes the proposed measures look ridiculous.

Thus, in the section “Improving the quality of life of Russian citizens”, it is proposed to create conditions for combating threats to national security to maintain healthy lifestyles, stimulate fertility and reduce mortality. This is the responsibility of the national security forces. How they should do this, especially in terms of increasing fertility, is not clear. Unless to use the mobile brigades consisting of strong contract soldiers.

It is also proposed to improve the “system of protection against unemployment”, to create “conditions for involving people with disabilities in the workplace”. How can the Armed Forces, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the FSB do this?

The responsibilities of the national security forces according to the Strategy include the improvement of public-private partnerships, as well as the preservation of cultural and spiritual heritage and even the availability of information technologies. Which organization from the national security system is responsible for this is not specified in the Strategy. Probably FSB. True, it is not quite clear how she will do it.

In the “Economic Growth” section, the national security forces are given the overall task of supporting state socio-economic policies. But they must fend off and neutralize threats, and in no way participate in economic activity or its support. This is a function of completely different state, public and commercial structures.

Among the most important measures to ensure national security in the field of culture, we find "recognition of the primary role of culture for the revival and preservation of cultural and moral values." I would like to know who objects to this and what prevents you from immediately recognizing it at the highest level?

At the same time, practically nowhere are indicated measures aimed precisely at preventing threats to national security by influencing the sources of these threats or eliminating the conditions for their realization.

Wrong goals

The absence of well-defined threats to national security and their sources led to incorrectly defined goals of ensuring national security by area.

Thus, in the paragraph “National Defense” it is stated that the strategic goals in this area are to prevent wars and conflicts, as well as to implement strategic deterrence. The purpose of repelling the outbreak of military aggression, if it could not be prevented or contained, was not included.

In the paragraph “Economic growth”, the goal of national security indicates Russia's entry into the list of the five leading countries. Such a situation may be included in the Concept or Strategy of economic development, but not in any way into the National Security Strategy.

The strategic goals of the actions of the national security forces in the field of science, technology and education, such as developing state scientific and technological organizations or increasing social mobility, the level of general and professional education of the population, cannot be considered correct. This applies to other areas of government and society.

The same can be said with respect to all other paragraphs, which define the goals of ensuring national security for other spheres of the country's life. The very classification of spheres of national security, adopted in the Strategy and based on the classification of spheres of social activity, is incorrect. It must be based on threats, that is, mechanisms for causing possible damage and their sources.

Based on this, only three main areas can be distinguished in national security. In terms of the terms adopted in the Strategy, this is national defense, state and public security.

Inaccurate definitions

The key definitions given in the first section of the Strategy “General Provisions” are also incorrect.

Thus, national security is designated as a state of protection of an individual, society and the state from internal and external threats, which allows to ensure constitutional rights, freedoms, decent quality and standard of living of citizens, sovereignty, territorial integrity and sustainable development of the Russian Federation, defense and security of the state. Such a definition cannot be considered correct for the reason that as a goal (state of protection) it also includes an instrument to achieve it - state defense.

The system of ensuring national security (forces and means) is also incorrectly defined. The system of forces and means will become only after they are organizationally and technically combined with common management systems and comprehensive support with the appropriate organizational design.

The definition of the concept “means of ensuring national security” also looks strange. They are reduced only to technical, software and other means, telecommunication channels used to collect, form, process, transmit or receive information about the state of national security and measures to strengthen it.

According to this definition, the whole variety of means through which national security measures are directly implemented, in addition to collecting information about the situation, are not included in this concept. In particular, the entire armament system of our Armed Forces does not apply to the means of ensuring national security. Then what does it refer to?

The Strategy defines that strategic deterrence is carried out using the state’s economic capabilities, including resource support for national security forces, by developing the system of military-patriotic education of citizens of the Russian Federation, the military infrastructure and the management system of the state’s military organization. It is clear that the above set of strategic deterrence measures are far from complete. Moreover, it does not contain his main tools at all, and the development of the system of military-patriotic education in general does not belong to strategic deterrence.

At the same time, the most important strategic deterrence measures, such as, for example, maintaining the strategic nuclear forces and the general-purpose forces of our Armed Forces in their combat-capable state, are absent in this definition. There was no place in it and information methods of influence on competitors. Meanwhile, today it is one of the most effective tools of hidden aggression capable of causing the hardest damage to our state.

It should also be noted that in the Strategy the development of various documents is submitted as one of the measures for solving the tasks of national security. In particular, by developing a system of fundamental policy documents, it is planned to implement a long-term state policy in the field of national defense.

Even the highest-quality preparation of documents will not lead to the progressive development of the state’s military organization, in particular, the Armed Forces. Practical measures are needed. Documents are just a tool for organizing them, nothing more.

There are many such incidents in the text of the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation before 2020. It is impossible to consider everything within the framework of the article, and it is not necessary

The Strategy essentially lacks any acceptable set of measures to ensure national security. It does not contain the intention to achieve certain goals, the main stages of its implementation and the priorities and principles underlying it. There is no here a complete assessment of the current state of the national security system, as well as its desired appearance, which should be achieved by the end of the Strategy’s term. But without this, it is impossible to formulate and define a set of interrelated measures to develop this system and, accordingly, the main stages and priorities of its construction and improvement.

In its current form, the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation can in no way be used as a guide for the practical activities of government bodies. It actually does not determine anything. Therefore, probably, its role in ensuring the national security of Russia and the development of state institutions for its support, in particular the military organization, does not manifest in any way.

Virtually the entire text of the Strategy needs radical revision. Completely necessary to change its structure. Thus, it is simply not meaningful to recycle this crucial document - it is necessary to fully develop anew.

Today they say a lot that we need professionals in the management system. Very correct formulation of the question. The text of the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation before 2020 of the year is a confirmation that its developers are clearly not professionals in the field of national security.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/
79 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. AVV
    AVV 11 December 2013 15: 20
    21
    So what is the problem? Let the excellent students develop this strategy, submit it for discussion, at least on this site, everyone will consider it, evaluate it, and make their conclusion !!!
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 11 December 2013 15: 34
      41
      We have a problem with this. Even if the excellent students will develop the strategy, the losers will still approve and amend. hi
      1. INTER
        INTER 11 December 2013 16: 05
        +4
        Quote: Ingvar 72
        We have a problem with this. Even if the excellent students will develop the strategy, the losers will still approve and amend.

        I agree))))
        1. 0251
          0251 11 December 2013 16: 34
          +1
          Even somehow inconvenient to read this article. Must be ashamed of it. Where were our learned men from military academies, institutes, the Ministry of Defense and others who are responsible for the birth of this document of state importance. About re-equipment and Reform can be discussed if there is no fundamental document. Explicitly framed the President of the Russian Federation.
          1. iConst
            iConst 11 December 2013 17: 40
            +8
            Quote: 0251
            Explicitly framed the President of the Russian Federation.

            Like, waved not inadvertently? laughing
            1. varov14
              varov14 11 December 2013 20: 04
              +4
              Just random people, random documents, in random timelessness.
          2. The comment was deleted.
            1. Lesnik
              Lesnik 12 December 2013 00: 08
              +3
              IMHO, I'm wildly sorry, but as far as I understood from the poverty of my mind, the "National Security Strategy" is a strategic document and we can only expect from it a step-by-step guide to action, let's just say - "narrow-minded people."
              The "National Security Strategy" is an open document and no one in their right mind will write there about specific measures of influence!
              This is not a "battle order" laughing
              Summarizing what I said - I actually did not understand what you dear so outraged about?
              1. iConst
                iConst 12 December 2013 00: 33
                +1
                Quote: Forestman
                and no one in their right mind will write about specific measures of influence there!

                And no one is waiting for action.
                Strategy defines goals, ideally, their priorities.

                There is a concept of a "strategy tree" - this is when goals of the highest level are detailed at a lower, intermediate one.

                Well, on the fingers: Strategy: keep the neighborhood under surveillance. The goal is to get to the roof and watch. Tactics (decision) - to climb the stairs on the roof. The intermediate task is to get a ladder - a solution (tactics): buy / steal / craft ... I see?
                1. Lesnik
                  Lesnik 12 December 2013 00: 50
                  +1
                  Quote: iConst

                  And no one is waiting for action.
                  Strategy defines goals, ideally, their priorities.


                  quote myself
                  The "National Security Strategy" is a document of a strategic orientation and one can expect from it a step-by-step guide to action, so to speak - "narrow-minded people".

                  I did not clearly express my thought?

                  Well, on the fingers: Strategy: keep the neighborhood under surveillance. The goal is to get to the roof and watch. Tactics (decision) - to climb the stairs on the roof. The intermediate task is to get a ladder - a solution (tactics): buy / steal / craft ... I see?

                  Are you talking to me? laughing
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. iConst
                    iConst 12 December 2013 12: 40
                    +1
                    Quote: Forestman

                    I did not clearly express my thought?

                    You object in this regard (to the author?) - but he did not have any expectations of action.
                    He says (and I agree) that the document is crude, hastily done or made by an amateur or worse.

                    This is an ambiguity: to whom is your postulate addressed. IMHO - not the topic.
                    Quote: Forestman
                    Are you talking to me?

                    And FIG knows him - Ostap suffered .... laughing
                    1. Lesnik
                      Lesnik 12 December 2013 23: 10
                      0
                      Quote: iConst
                      You object in this regard (to the author?) - but he did not have any expectations of action.
                      He says (and I agree) that the document is crude, hastily done or made by an amateur or worse.


                      I probably don’t know how to express my thoughts briefly and clearly (although I was taught winked) Well, if the first time I did not explain it clearly, I clarify WITH THE AUTHOR I DO NOT AGREE !!!!

                      Quote: iConst
                      This is an ambiguity: to whom is your postulate addressed. IMHO - not the topic.

                      I will explain the term IMHO:
                      The abbreviation IMHO is used mainly to indicate that some statement is not a generally recognized fact, but only the personal opinion of the author, and he does not impose it on anyone. Often it also indicates that the author is not completely sure of the correctness of his statement. Corresponds to the introductory word “in my opinion” or “in my opinion”:

                      And FIG knows him - Ostap suffered .... laughing

                      I don’t know whether you were carrying or not, I was not present laughing
                      1. iConst
                        iConst 12 December 2013 23: 48
                        0
                        Quote: Forestman
                        I probably do not know how to express my thoughts briefly and clearly (although I was taught to winked) well, if the first time I explained it is not clear then I clarify WITH THE AUTHOR I DO NOT AGREE !!!!

                        Yes, it’s clear, it’s clear that ... Baba Yaga is against laughing
                        Only the disagreement (did you also learn to understand the first time?) Is off topic: take two - the author does not talk about activity.

                        Quote: Forestman
                        I will explain the term IMHO:

                        It can be easier - In My Humble Opinion - in my humble opinion ...

                        Quote: Forestman
                        I don’t know whether you were carrying or not, I was not present

                        The final dull discordant chord ... I am disappointed ... leave, nasty! lol
                      2. The comment was deleted.
                      3. Lesnik
                        Lesnik 13 December 2013 00: 05
                        0
                        Accept my sincere apologies - did not think koment removed again sorry
                      4. iConst
                        iConst 13 December 2013 11: 12
                        +1
                        Quote: Forestman
                        Accept my sincere apologies - did not think koment removed again sorry

                        Yes, and not at all. I'm a good goose too. laughing

                        We are not so serious. wink

                        And in general, it’s nice to argue with a person for whom a common opinion is not a dogma.
                      5. Lesnik
                        Lesnik 13 December 2013 20: 44
                        0
                        Thank!. drinks ..
                      6. iConst
                        iConst 13 December 2013 23: 01
                        +1
                        With a drifter! drinks
                      7. The comment was deleted.
              2. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. nickname 1 and 2
        nickname 1 and 2 12 December 2013 09: 03
        +1
        Quote: Forestman
        This is not a "battle order"


        that's right! and what you need to call them! USA, EU, etc. ? so we are trying to live in peace with them!

        or should we provoke them to VOY? what can you do we have no "chorus", in many countries they sing along with them!

        Always used to ........ Mom to take? to be more cunning to be!

        something like this....
  2. pahom54
    pahom54 11 December 2013 17: 52
    +7
    for 0251
    Military men do not predominate in the development of the National Security Strategy, but take part, this is not a military doctrine. The national security strategy consists of many areas. and the dominant one is ECONOMY. There will be a normal economy - from here both demography, as a component of national security, and an increase in the well-being of the people will flow, which ideologically should translate into patriotism and the DESIRE to protect the national interests of their homeland.
    But in general, I almost agree with the author of the article, it seems that the Strategy was written "for the people" - that is, as an excuse from the same people, that is, we care about other things ...
  3. DPN
    DPN 11 December 2013 18: 58
    +4
    It seems that the pundits were fulfilling the task set by Serdyukov, and he himself was carrying out the installation of the government.
  4. Blackgrifon
    Blackgrifon 11 December 2013 19: 02
    +6
    Quote: 0251
    Where were our learned men from military academies, institutes, the Ministry of Defense and so on,


    Who said they were related to the development? This is the result of the work of "effective managers".
  5. pint45
    pint45 11 December 2013 20: 42
    +2
    Pundits have long been in the grave, half the scientists drank themselves or left over a hill, and romantics got to power with a big road
    1. alone
      alone 11 December 2013 22: 51
      +1
      Quote: pint45
      Pundits have long been in the grave, half the scientists drank themselves or left over a hill, and romantics got to power with a big road


      not romantic Pavel, but romantic thieves and crooks from the highway)))
  6. Starksa
    Starksa 11 December 2013 21: 01
    +2
    losers just go to study at the academy, because there is no sense in them. why so yes because. Well of course I don’t exclude a certain percentage of really excellent students
  7. Nina Czerny
    Nina Czerny 12 December 2013 13: 11
    +1
    Yes, the fact is that only liberals from the HSE and the mediocre circle of Medvedev are involved in writing such documents.
  • 0251
    0251 11 December 2013 16: 34
    -2
    Even somehow inconvenient to read this article. Must be ashamed of it. Where were our learned men from military academies, institutes, the Ministry of Defense and others who are responsible for the birth of this document of state importance. About re-equipment and Reform can be discussed if there is no fundamental document. Explicitly framed the President of the Russian Federation.
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 11 December 2013 16: 50
      +7
      Quote: 0251
      Where were our military scholars


      And they do not have ministers of military education. Exactly since 2001. So asking is no one.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. military
      military 11 December 2013 17: 09
      +9
      Quote: 0251
      Explicitly framed the President of the Russian Federation.

      whom?...
      Approved and enforced by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of May 12 2009 year.

      Prime Minister, of course, was not in the know ...
    4. Andrey57
      Andrey57 11 December 2013 17: 52
      +8
      Where were our learned men from military academies, institutes, the Ministry of Defense and so on?

      It's not about them, if correctly formulated this very strategy. then we would have to consider Chubais of all stripes, Siluanovs, Nabiullins and iPhones, including, as a direct threat to national security ... that's why they made a salad request
  • Yarik
    Yarik 11 December 2013 17: 39
    +4
    We have a problem with this. Even if the excellent students will develop the strategy, the losers will still approve and amend.

    Not in the eyebrow, but in the eye! Well defined. Plus.
  • Rus2012
    Rus2012 11 December 2013 18: 13
    +3
    Quote: Ingvar 72
    We have a problem with this. Even if the excellent students will develop the strategy, the losers will still approve and amend. hi

    . laughing
    most likely it was written by the pros, BUT each instance and "groups of influence" made their own amendments based on their goals and corporate interests. As a result, we have what we have - toothless, disoriented bullshit, which in practice is impossible to apply ...

    This does not mean that the vaults of influential structures do not contain completely concrete and unambiguous pieces of this concept. It's just that if you take and put them all together, you get such a jelly ...

    We also have a tolerant society: call them thieves, these 3,14 gifts, the third enemies of humanity ... all are white-fluffy. But some are more equal than others ...
    1. iConst
      iConst 11 December 2013 18: 38
      +3
      Quote: Rus2012
      most likely it was written by the pros, BUT each instance and "groups of influence" made their own amendments based on their goals and corporate interests. As a result, we have what we have - toothless, disoriented bullshit, which in practice is impossible to apply ...

      This does not mean that the vaults of influential structures do not contain completely concrete and unambiguous pieces of this concept. It's just that if you take and put them all together, you get such a jelly ...

      How exciting! Direct primer to the script ...

      Nonsense.
      For example, in a strategy, software is mentioned once casually ...

      Meanwhile, in our computerized age, the presence of the absence (with such a case of good programmers!) Of a national OS - sorry, says a lot. And first of all, about the brainlessness / venality / ... (choose to taste) of the government.

      Not only is this billions of dollars in the pocket of our main partner, it is also a threat: at least dependence on a foreign "uncle".

      Here are the Chinese who made their OS - not just in words they reinforced their security. Now All sorts of ephes and small-sized ones scribble a stub of a paw swallowed in anger.

      And they opened an MFP - about 50 jobs and each iMac 22 ".

      Not sickly so - a hundred pieces for a candy bar! Already M $ "vents" would cost four times cheaper.
      1. Rus2012
        Rus2012 11 December 2013 20: 50
        +2
        Quote: iConst
        And meanwhile, in our computerized age, the presence of the absence (with such a case of good programmers!) Of a national OS - sorry, says a lot. And first of all about brainlessness / venality/ ... (to taste) of the government.

        What am I talking about?
        Each group is lobbying its interests.
        Those. for example, as soon as the conversation about the national social security system comes in, the howling of the Liberman-dermocrats begins, about brainlessness, backwardness, lack of national equipment ... etc. etc.
        At the same time, men are never-NEVER a decision that is not beneficial to themselves will not be carried out. They at the level of instincts catch utility / non-utility specifically for themselves of one or another choice. From this point of view, they are fucking optimizers and efficient employees. Another thing is the interests of the state and the people ...
        1. iConst
          iConst 11 December 2013 21: 05
          0
          Quote: Rus2012
          Each group is lobbying its interests.
          Those. for example, as soon as the conversation about the national social security system comes in, the howling of the Liberman-dermocrats begins, about brainlessness, backwardness, lack of national equipment ... etc. etc.

          Each group / fraction / ... lobbies the interests of commercial groups.

          But, to be honest - what are we doing - sitting on the forums and grumbling. And, by the way, in due time Matvienko suggested at the elections to demand from the official a social contract: a document, what and in what time period he undertakes to do.

          DinAmit - either brehat or does not know how. Nafig - "second" number is taking his place - his opponent, who lost to him in the elections.
  • timer
    timer 11 December 2013 23: 13
    +1
    The article once again confirms the obvious fact that the current rotten power head is not able to develop more than one strategic and tactical plan for the country. Or takes the plan from behind the hill, and without understanding, realizes it through the stump of the deck (example of the USE), or develops such nonsense that the hair stands on end on a soft spot! How long will we, people, endure this power?! Or did we ourselves write to them in lackeys? Maybe someone wrote down, I do not!
    1. iConst
      iConst 11 December 2013 23: 51
      0
      Quote: timer
      hair on a soft spot stand on end!

      Yes! Sitting then is extremely uncomfortable!

      laughing
  • ziqzaq
    ziqzaq 11 December 2013 23: 38
    +1
    Quote: Ingvar 72
    Even if the excellent students develop the strategy, the losers will still approve and amend

    Not losers, but effective managers .... Although what can I say, the same thing ......
  • dmitrich
    dmitrich 12 December 2013 04: 28
    0
    yeah, all the fools are one i'm smart.
  • Nina Czerny
    Nina Czerny 12 December 2013 13: 02
    0
    The problem is that lads will never trust anything to excellent students.
  • Sosland
    Sosland 11 December 2013 16: 26
    +7
    At this point in time, the main threat to national security is corruption (you do not need to be an excellent student to understand this), in my and not only my opinion, NOTHING really effective in the fight against this has been undertaken, and is not being undertaken. You can take as many "strategies" as you like, good or bad, who implements them, for what pay and who will be responsible for their implementation, and most likely for their failure. Until this evil is equated with high treason (in fact, this is treason), we will look for "excellent students" who will write to us, justify, tell and calculate how much it will cost, and as a result, there is no one else to ask for. Do not misunderstand me, I am not for many years of "planting", etc. etc. it is necessary to create an intolerant atmosphere towards such figures of any level, a person going to a "bread" place should understand what will be under the microscope both before taking office and after, and this position should speak of crystal honesty, and he will be honored with respect and happiness.
    PS I apologize for the confusion.
  • Asgard
    Asgard 11 December 2013 16: 31
    20
    There was such a strategy, it seems Gubanov was trying to imagine it, the most intelligent and professional person .....
    These two "shortcomings" did not allow insisting on their vision of strategic development ....
    I already wrote somewhere that this is a degradation strategy, a normal, adequate person would not have signed this ....

    As well as accession to the WTO and a number of "laws" ... among the last ones that were especially memorable, taxes for individual entrepreneurs were increased 2 (two)) times, while the share in the country's taxes is -0.2% ...

    Recall Libya, there were practically no taxes, the territory is 10 times smaller than Russia, the population is 6 million. and one gas pipe across the Mediterranean to Italy ... gasoline-1 ruble, the minimum salary is 30 000 rub. You buy an apartment-1.5mln.r, marry-600.000r, you buy a car-50% is paid by the state ... NO metals, chemical raw materials, gold and jewelry even in the form of the brains of People (well, they don’t have space)))
    We look at Russia23 gas pipes outside the country minimum salary-5 000r, light, gas, gasoline, as in the United States and even higher))) you get married, you buy a car, take a loan at 20%, give birth to a child, wait three years, promised))) taxes are the highest ... how as if the state is not using THE RICHES OF THE HOMELAND at all))
    + oil (it is extracted much more than in Libya)) metals, coal, fertilizers ....

    Here you are, where was the correct strategy (but for this they kill and the Bear Cubs are betrayed with the tacit consent of "Abramovich's friend"))
    1. A.YARY
      A.YARY 11 December 2013 16: 50
      14
      Vladimir hi
      light, gas, gasoline - like in the USA

      And since the beginning of summer, 50 kW per person per month!
      With the "damned geebnekomunyakhawk"
      Water-0rub0kop
      Penny light
      The rent is ridiculous
      We have built with our own money the whole UNION everything we use now for the sake of our own enrichment, defective managers and rip off the people!

      WHAT IS X-AM NATIONAL SECURITY?

      All defective on a shovel, and the budget will already be multiplied by two!
      All strategic industries-nationalize and profit a hundred times higher!
      All the way to the mines with a brood!
      Emigrants ! I will repeat-Э migrants at least in what generation we are in their homeland!
      And all the scales that they thought they were breaking up into simple truth, no IDEAS! But it’s necessary to sprinkle something and have written it. There are not many bones of meat!
      1. military
        military 12 December 2013 09: 54
        +1
        Quote: A.YARY
        There are not many bones of meat!

        this is because the "strategists" have long gone fat ...
    2. sledgehammer102
      sledgehammer102 11 December 2013 18: 34
      -7
      Quote: Asgard
      As well as accession to the WTO and a number of "laws" ... among the last ones that were especially memorable, taxes for individual entrepreneurs were increased 2 (two)) times, while the share in the country's taxes is -0.2% ...

      What tax was increased 2 times?

      Quote: Asgard
      Let us recall Libya, there were practically no taxes there, the territory is 10 times smaller than Russia, the population is 6 million and one pipe with gas through the Mediterranean Sea to Italy ... gasoline-1 ruble, minimum wage-30 000r. You buy an apartment-1.5mln.ru, marry-600.000r, you buy a car-50% pays the state ... NO metals, chemical raw materials, gold and jewelry even in the form of the brains of People (well, they don’t have space)))

      And where is this Libya now ?? the country was gouged by its own people, in spite of all the gingerbreads that Gaddafi handed out to them, it would be better if C-300 were bought from Russia more and would not have thrown us.
      Quote: Asgard
      in Russia ... the highest ... as if the state does not use the RICHES of the HOMELAND at all))

      And what are our highest taxes? in the USA and Germany, for example, 50-60% ...

      Quote: Asgard
      + oil (it is extracted much more than in Libya)) metals, coal, fertilizers ....

      Do not you think that it is necessary to count per capita, and not by the total volume? If we divide all oil revenues by 143 million, it turns out that everyone will receive 45 000 rubles a year.
      1. DPN
        DPN 11 December 2013 19: 07
        -1
        Syria followed the path of the USSR. It was also ruined by the intelligentsia, promising the people great benefits, like ours.
      2. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 11 December 2013 19: 15
        10
        Quote: sledgehammer102
        And where is this Libya now ?? the country was gouged by its own people,

        People? What kind of people? Did the people bomb too? fool
        Quote: sledgehammer102
        And what are our highest taxes? in the USA and Germany, for example, 50-60% ...

        And we have 13% + 34% UST = 47. Plus, add VAT, which is included in the price of each product, plus excise taxes that sellers shift to the consumer, also calculate the property tax, money bought is already taxed. And in the end, our taxes are not so small as you deigned hi .
        1. Andriuha077
          Andriuha077 11 December 2013 20: 40
          +4
          Taxes, say?

          Serdyukov A.E. Head of the Federal Tax Service (2004 — 2007), Minister of Defense (2007 — 2012).

          Federal Tax Service - Federal Tax Service of Russia

          And nothing to do with it ...
      3. pint45
        pint45 11 December 2013 22: 16
        +1
        Vobschem pennies and if you calculate correctly will be more.
  • Muadipus
    Muadipus 12 December 2013 19: 12
    +1
    Eh, Stalin is not on them ((
    1. iConst
      iConst 12 December 2013 20: 48
      +1
      Quote: Muadipus
      Eh, Stalin is not on them ((

      And Lavrenty Palych! Think what you say! (with) laughing
  • makarov
    makarov 11 December 2013 15: 58
    +4
    "Today there is a lot of talk about the need for professionals in the management system. The question is very correct ..."

    If the author is a great dock, so take and name the specialists, why do you "ride your ass" in front of the people?
    Probably wandering, anyhow what didn’t happen.
  • major071
    major071 11 December 2013 16: 03
    +8
    How they should do this, especially in terms of increasing birth rates, is unclear. Unless to use mobile teams consisting of strong contractors.

    Where to apply for fertility increase? Already skiing, ready!
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 11 December 2013 19: 17
      +1
      Quote: major071
      Already skiing, ready!

      Do not ski need to be smeared. wassat
  • horoh
    horoh 11 December 2013 16: 15
    +2
    Strategy nat. security is just right (who is sitting in the government ????), if the strategy was really right, then we urgently need to raise the industry !!! And this is a terrible dream for those who are in power. Hence the losers.
  • kaktus
    kaktus 11 December 2013 16: 19
    0
    "The general task of supporting the state socio-economic policy. But they must fend off and neutralize threats, and not participate in economic activity or its support. This is the function of completely different state, public and commercial structures."
    The only thing that comes to mind is anti-raider operations.
    About the birth rate and employment of "people with disabilities" - no words hi
  • Ivan Pomidorov
    Ivan Pomidorov 11 December 2013 16: 29
    +2
    Article + for the thoroughness and attempt of a systematic approach.
    But I would really like to continue the banquet.
    Those. the problem has been voiced, but the distance to approving another, more correct, version of the strategy is very difficult.
    It is necessary to develop the right strategy, organize its wide discussion, interest the party, individual politicians, and profile leaders in this.
    It should be understood at the same time that all programs and strategies (well, or most) are compiled with us (as well as throughout the world) with the aim of participating in their implementation (at public expense, of course).
    Therefore, the evening is unlikely to be languid, especially if the budget for the strategy has already been allocated or is supposed to be distributed.
    This is serious political work. With a serious economic effect.
    True, these lands have already been divided after the elections to the State Duma in the formation of specialized committees and the appointment of their leaders.
    However, widespread public discussion can bear fruit.
    If the idea turns out to be worthwhile, it may interest either the authors of the current strategy, or their opponents, or the country's leadership, which I also admit.
    But for the hope of success, an alternative project should be very good.
    And yet, I would not begin to stick the labels of "poor" on the authors of the now approved strategy.
    It is better to draw them into allies, or give an idea if you are interested in modernizing the strategy.
    If the goal is PR and pick up points, then you can call up, but it’s somehow vulgar,
    and does not correspond to the level of the problem, as it seems to me. request

    But thanks to the author for a clear, systematic approach, anyway!
    Victory in a battle begins with a battle plan.
  • romanru4
    romanru4 11 December 2013 16: 30
    +7
    The threat to national security is the extinction of the Russian population. All other threats are negligible compared to this and are only secondary.
    Nobody succeeds in stopping this extinction process. The gradual replacement of the Russian population in Russia by other ethnic groups will inevitably lead to the collapse of the country. None of the ethnic groups existing in Russia need such a large territory, once developed by the Russian people.
    THE DECREASE OF THE RUSSIAN POPULATION - THERE IS THE MAIN THREAT TO RUSSIA!
    1. sashka
      sashka 11 December 2013 16: 40
      +3
      LOSS OF THE RUSSIAN POPULATION
      Decrease in common sense. Indeed, WE are all sane. Is there a contrary? Then where are such stupid thoughts.
  • Andriuha077
    Andriuha077 11 December 2013 16: 31
    +3
    What kind of "defenses" can collaborators develop?
    1. ia-ai00
      ia-ai00 11 December 2013 21: 43
      +1
      In short, as long as the country is run by oligarchs, everything will fall apart to the delight of the AMers and gayRope. Conclusion - we must get rid of the thieves-traitors to Russia! Having robbed the entire people, having appropriated all the natural resources of the Russian Land, the country is leading to final collapse. So it is better to "demolish" them than they are - the country. Immediately arrest all the snickering friends ..., imprison them for life, and involve professional PATRIOTS in the government of the country, not "wallets".
      1. Muadipus
        Muadipus 12 December 2013 21: 56
        0
        and to attract professional PATRIOTS to governing the country, not "wallets".
        ))))) thanks, smiled. )))

        In Soviet times, there was such a cartoon

        A fairy tale is a lie, but a hint in it, a good lesson for a good fellow!
  • sashka
    sashka 11 December 2013 16: 34
    +2
    You're not right. These are not losers. Forecasters and iPhones. Morons in one word .. And you choose them. Where is the logic.
  • yurii p
    yurii p 11 December 2013 16: 38
    +2
    "The national security strategy was developed by the Losers" ..... I am afraid that not Losers, but traitors and traitors, in the light of the latest press reports about Serdyukov, "he may be amnestied in honor of the day of the Constitution of Russia." and more cynically on a public holiday.
    1. sashka
      sashka 11 December 2013 16: 45
      +3
      Serdyukov "he may be amnestied in honor of the day of the Constitution of Russia
      Well, a mosaic or a puzzle is now fashionable to say. It is not the face that is revealed, but the ESSENCE
  • Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 11 December 2013 16: 41
    +5
    Analysis of the text of the national security strategy shows what its authors developed. with an eye on the foreign "partners", with the thought: God forbid that the overseas "partners" would not get angry. There is no security in the text of the "Strategy ..." There is a fresh, vague, vague text to the limit in the spirit of the Plenums of the CPSU Central Committee. Americans do not stand on ceremony with us. Directly, in their strategy, they state in plain text: Russia is in the group of US enemies. We should have such a strategy as well. And it should begin with the words: the United States is Russia's most likely enemy. And the current "strategy" is from the evil one ...
  • Committee
    Committee 11 December 2013 17: 09
    0
    Unclear. Somehow a couple of years ago it was announced about the transition from a defense strategy to an offensive one with all the ensuing consequences. Whether this is true or not is still unclear. The "offensive" strategy is in some ways more profitable - hands are free.
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 11 December 2013 17: 18
      +1
      Quote: Committee
      As a couple of years ago, it was announced the transition from defense to offensive strategy

      Russia has no reason to start wars. We have enough territories and natural resources. We would not lose it.
  • Boris55
    Boris55 11 December 2013 17: 10
    +4
    The strategy national security developed by the losers

    Or maybe they developed it only for their nationality, but we did not understand, each thinking about his own laughing
  • iConst
    iConst 11 December 2013 17: 16
    +3
    ABOUT! As I read (tried - a very muddy syllable) this Strategy, I thought the same thing.

    These are not poor students - they are people who have lost the habit of working. And they deal with their problems. And here - here, the task is to draw up a document! So they "gave birth" in agony ... laughing
  • Keeper
    Keeper 11 December 2013 17: 25
    0
    To be honest, the strategy is very normal!
    Those who want to know how to implement this strategy - in most cases - spyons)))
    Friends! This is not a recipe for a secret dish ?! This is NATIONAL SECURITY !!!! And to America, everything that poses a threat to national security is simply destroyed !!!
    Believe the old fox, the strategy was developed by very wise and competent people, and the secrets of its implementation are kept far beyond simple thoughts.

    And the birth rate in our country is gradually improving ...
    1. iConst
      iConst 11 December 2013 17: 58
      +3
      Quote: Keeper
      Those who want to know how to implement this strategy - in most cases - spyons)))

      You are confusing goals and means. No one talks about as it will be done.

      But should be voiced that must be done.

      Quote: Keeper
      ... and the secrets of its implementation are kept far beyond mere reflection.

      Like - where are we with the pork snout ...? Yes, looking at some fortunes of power, I sometimes wonder - are they adequate? And the tales - like you, the mob, have not yet grown up to an understanding of state tasks ...

      LIE - met and closely saw "figures". A huge number of limited ones, with a lazy brain swollen with fat ...
  • Keeper
    Keeper 11 December 2013 17: 30
    +1
    PS If you know system algorithms - you can destroy any system ...
    Non-systemic solutions sometimes become the only way out of crisis situations (which are often formed from the outside by our "friends") ...
  • iConst
    iConst 11 December 2013 17: 30
    +2
    I also want to add that the strategy, despite being an abstract document, must still have assessments of the current state and set quantitative goals for a certain time line.

    This is like a development plan, compare:
    1. increase the turnover of the enterprise (ni-h-ohm)
    2. by the end of the year to increase the turnover of the enterprise (already something, but also niachom: a penny or two?)
    3. by the end of the year, increase the turnover of the enterprise by two times compared with the past (Here it is more or less)

    Otherwise it is "filkin's letter". So is the Strategy ... request
  • iConst
    iConst 11 December 2013 17: 53
    +3
    Recycling the main document on ensuring national security of Russia is meaningless - you need to create a new

    Still, I think, you need to shake the whole code of laws and throw out half, and systematize and rewrite the other. The legal side is the basis for all matters.

    Someone from the great times of the Roman Empire said: the more laws in the country, the less order. This is what we have.

    This is nonsense: the law and guidelines for its application! The law must speak clearly and unambiguously. Our leaders, contrary to common sense, are trying to regulate everyone whose lives - well, it’s not nonsense!

    Most of the norms of relationships of the human community are based on moral and ethical principles. And here, it turns out - the law does not specifically regulate this - it means ncp .. be. for everyone. Because society is decomposing.
  • VADEL
    VADEL 11 December 2013 18: 07
    +3
    Why is it so soft- TWINS? It is necessary directly and openly mediocrity, saboteurs and givers!
    1. iConst
      iConst 11 December 2013 18: 09
      +3
      Quote: VADEL
      Why is it so soft- TWINS? It is necessary directly and openly mediocrity, saboteurs and givers!

      Fuckers, definitely ..! (with) laughing
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • ia-ai00
    ia-ai00 11 December 2013 18: 28
    +4
    Everywhere there is the same problem: - competent specialists were "squeezed out" by the managers who came to the leadership of the country, who do not have the slightest experience and knowledge, but a lot of complacency, arrogance and ambitions, in which in their eyes there are only $$, so they push through, " "their delirium in the LIFE of an entire country, which is why this country is in a fever all the time, and unfortunately, NOT ONE" Chr ... - the "innovator" has never answered for anything, and I'm afraid that they will get away with IT ALL ...
  • Stinger
    Stinger 11 December 2013 18: 32
    +1
    If Serdyukovites wrote, then the greatest danger is to identify the writers. There is only one consolation; nobody pays attention to these scribbles. The main thing is to guard the pipe from unwanted elements. The rest is trivia. And if anything, then on the command "Take care of your pince-nez, Kitty", suitcases in hand and go.
  • Strashila
    Strashila 11 December 2013 18: 48
    +3
    In our country, things are confused, such as developing something and developing budget money for something ... basically it is developing money and only .... they gave something real to the mountain or didn’t give something that’s irrelevant, as a rule does not apply ... the main thing is to use the money ... and more.
    1. iConst
      iConst 11 December 2013 18: 50
      +2
      Quote: Strashila
      the main thing is to make money ... and more.

      I want it too! laughing
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • Yarosvet
    Yarosvet 11 December 2013 18: 48
    +6
    Dvochniki? Nude ...
    1. not good
      not good 11 December 2013 22: 58
      +5
      Yarosvet plus! This quote posed before any article about the government makes the discussion completely meaningless.
  • vasiliysxx
    vasiliysxx 11 December 2013 19: 19
    +2
    What is the main thing to do in the strategy? Stop calling rats partners because of which our main hemorrhoids are in the Country, and behave as impudently as they do.
  • voliador
    voliador 11 December 2013 19: 22
    0
    It is also proposed to improve the “system of protection against unemployment”, to create “conditions for involving people with disabilities in the workplace”. How can the Armed Forces, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the FSB do this?

    And how, in due time, the Belomorkanal was built.
  • bubla5
    bubla5 11 December 2013 19: 23
    +1
    And if there was a will to create this document, maybe there is a piece of paper again, and what is written in it, no one delved into and no desire to delve into
  • Sterlya
    Sterlya 11 December 2013 20: 04
    +4
    "Today there is a lot of talk about the need for professionals in the management system. The question is very correct. The text of the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation until 2020 is a confirmation that its developers are clearly not professionals in the field of national security."
    The trouble of Russia. Professionals are needed everywhere. when some stool is the Minister of Defense. etc.
    It’s not even professionalism. most importantly, a person should understand the essence of the issue, the goal. Ways to achieve it, taking into account existing opportunities.
    So far in Russia I do not see a strong change in the direction that professionals come to responsible positions. not seeking to fill pockets at the expense of the state.
    Agree. there will be no economic growth in Russia. until there are adequate people thinking about increasing growth. There are no unsolvable problems. but officials who are not just helping growth, but rather completely hinder this
  • sergey261180
    sergey261180 11 December 2013 22: 10
    +5
    This strategy is the next blah blah blah promise for dumb masses for 4 hours of airtime. The real strategy is in their heads and it is very simple: we’re sawing a budget in our own pocket, we sit as long as possible, hanging noodles on our ears. If luck suddenly turns away, we pack our suitcase and knock over the hill, since everything is already prepared there.
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 12 December 2013 00: 31
    +3
    Traditionally, the country's development strategy was determined by the party leadership, miscalculated by the State Planning Commission, and communicated to the military regarding them. The people at the next congress outlined the direction and speed of movement. Now all this is gone, but the habit of not calling a spade a spade a spade has remained, I’m sure there is a closed part of the documents where everything is more specifically described. The problem is that the management doesn't care about all these plans. Part of the program is traditionally utopian and not realizable, part is erroneous, part is no longer relevant for one reason or another. The security of our country now depends not so much on the quality of plans as on the quick and accurate reaction of specific people in the country's leadership to the actions of the main opponents, and they are known to everyone and are not particularly hidden. I will allow myself an analogy, which may not be true: the 90s - 1941, 2000 - 2010 - 1942. Now we are encircling the 6th Army, whether it turns out whether or not it is not yet clear, but in any case, the Kursk arc is still ahead, and only then the spring of the 44th. But after the victory, you can make plans. To argue about their quality, improve, build life on them.
    1. Lesnik
      Lesnik 12 December 2013 00: 34
      +2
      I agree with you - "the main thing is of course ahead"
  • Known who
    Known who 12 December 2013 03: 15
    +1
    In my opinion, the threat to national security mainly comes from the current government of Russia, which is not able to establish high-tech production and rolls the country to the state of a raw materials appendage. It is the government that organizes corruption, the government, with funds from the reserve fund, develops the foreign economy and evades solving problems!
  • Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 12 December 2013 13: 40
    +3
    And, the "guarantor" then signed this bullshit. Which once again proves: either he is as "smart" as those who wrote this nonsense, or, all this is written for the sake of form, so that our "sworn friends" in the West do not particularly arise about the "aggressive", "terribly scary "," KGB "Russia. Well, but they will be guided in real life quite differently. I hope for the second, but I do not dismiss the first either.
  • iConst
    iConst 12 December 2013 20: 51
    +1
    In short, guys - I propose this strategy to a file, write another one ourselves, approve and implement ... Come out to be built!

    laughing