More cannon fodder, good and different

Raising the draft age to 30 years is justified by the interests of the state’s military organization. Hot supporters of this “forced” measure are either people whose children are reliably protected from military service, or supporters of keeping the armed forces in their previous form, that is, industry lobbyists. Suddenly, among them was the Minister of Education and Science Andrei Fursenko.

Attempts to call under the gun, which is not even always available in the units, have acquired some desperate forms: preparations are under way for yesterday's war. And if what war is waged, it is against the economically active part of the population.

The arguments of the parties are well known. The army lacks ... recruits, and it acts mechanically and at any price expands the basis of conscription. If it goes on like this, they will soon be calling not in the fall and spring, but all year round. The cancellation of deferments left rural schools without teachers, and small children without fathers. The increase in the draft age is motivated, including by Minister Fursenko, as follows: in the modern army should serve adults who understand something in life. Thus, the Soviet concept of “army is the school of life” is abolished (and in fact it is a means of socialization for young people from the provinces and national republics, sometimes learning the Russian language, albeit adjusted for abusive breeze). In this logic, it is necessary to call in, starting from 40 years - comrades who are already tired of life will gladly diversify their dull everyday life with years of male fraternity. No hazing, and in general it is a kind of fishing or hunting ...

Opponents of all this diverse activity of the military industry lobby proceed from other considerations. It was necessary to carry out the reform of the army in time, to transfer it to a professional basis, the money that could have been spent on this was already unknown for what. The army of recruits corresponds to the state of an agrarian, even non-industrial society, to say nothing of post-industrial society. Today, tearing off students and working even for a year of service means impoverishing the economy, saving economically active citizens from the knowledge and skills acquired and useful in the national economy.

The second point of view has not only an economic, but also a moral and ethical rationale. The modern army has not got rid of the functions of the institute, degrading human dignity and dangerous to the life and health of citizens. There is a technical justification: if a modern army should be completely differently equipped, recruits can hardly master new-fashioned military equipment in a year; in the present circumstances, even professional officers are unfamiliar with the new technology, what to say about some graduate student-philosopher with glasses, called upon a gun, more precisely, an automaton, which he is barely able to assemble-disassemble. Unless, of course, this machine gun shoots and if it succeeds at least once, looking up from the clay of construction work and shovels, it cannot be used as intended, and in many parts there is nothing to do with the combat training. The army is so ruined that even the measures for its humanization do not look quite humane. If a soldier dying of idleness also has a weekend, he potentially turns into a socially dangerous element - there is nothing worse than unoccupied time.

No matter how much they drove into the army, not catching young people, appealing to patriotic feelings, or reducing their lifespan, everything is empty. A modern young man who wants to get an education, work and live in accordance with the standards of a post-industrial society will not join the army. Depending on the talents and the purse of the parents, he will either leave the country, or receive a white ticket for money, or hide from the radar of any official structures. A strange situation, when young people are forced to go underground and lead an asocial lifestyle, if only they are not swept up by the armed forces.

Any measures to expand the base of appeal will be ineffective, because the call itself is outdated as a class. Against him, a large part of the people relating to boys of military age, leads the war. The war that the state is losing. Loses the economy. Losing country. What is all this for? In order for lobbyists of preserving the army in its Soviet state to receive the amount of cannon fodder required to continue its existence?

Military reform was one of the few that tried to really start. The pension reform failed, which could have put the distributional economy on its head and become a source of long-term money. The education reform has more or less progressed, and in this the great merit of Minister Andrei Fursenko is still the process of introducing the Bologna system and the national exam is clumsy, but it is going on. The army reform stalled. When there is no reform, the old unreformed institution falls apart. If an institution falls apart, those who live in it and at the expense of it try to preserve the ruins at any cost. The most powerful lobbying resources are involved in the process of preserving the ruins. And, most likely, Andrei Fursenko was forced to compromise, as he went to him, after resisting for several years, in the matter of introducing the foundations of Orthodox culture in schools.

Compromises in reforming backward spheres are expensive. In the future they will cost even more. Exactly this happens with protracted. The same will happen with military reform: there will be no more recruits, and the army will lag behind modern standards, including human ones, by several generations.

For some reason, it seems that the Minister of Education and Science understands this deep down. And even the Minister of Defense ...