Military Review

Army of the People

175
What we need and what we don't


Russia needs a large army, including the conscription-oriented, war-oriented in the traditional sense. You can not repeat the mistakes of the West, even if they seem to someone advanced experience.

The idea that the classic army versus army is a thing of the past has become almost a commonplace in recent years. It is almost an axiom to say that there will never be a large-scale tank battles ". At the same time, the proof is essentially one: there have been no such battles for a long time. To put it mildly, unconvincing.

In fact, the situation is just the opposite: the classical war has not just not gone away anywhere, its significance only increases. As the experience of recent years shows, high-tech and network-centric warfare is the next stage in the development of the classic war. Its form is even more often taken even by oatmeal. As for the newfangled concept of hybrid warfare, it is clearly false. Hybrid war is synonymous with war in general, nothing more. This is described in detail in the article “High-Precision Shooting”.

Numerous shots from Iraq and Yemen confirmed what we all guessed, but were afraid to say out loud: "Abrams" and "Bradley" burn and explode from an ATGM hit no worse than T-72 and BMP-2. At the same time, all the current wars in Ukraine, the Middle East and Africa have confirmed that, no matter how well the armor burned (regardless of where it was made), it is absolutely impossible to do without it. She does not even have any purely theoretical substitutes. What, too, could guess. During the Second World War, over one hundred thousand tanks were destroyed, but one conclusion was made from this fact: tanks need as much as possible and as good as possible. Since then, nothing has changed in this regard.

The thunder of fire, sparkling with the brilliance of steel


Recent military conflicts have shown: it's time to get rid of fetishization aviation, which became another common place after Desert Storm and Yugoslavia-99. The months-long operations of the air forces of the European NATO countries in Libya did not produce essentially anything, although several thousand high-precision munitions were spent, and the enemy had no air defense at all. Gaddafi managed to overthrow only with the help of a special operation. In civil wars in Ukraine and Syria, government troops have a monopoly on the use of aircraft, but this did not help them. Both formally had more than 500 combat aircraft and helicopters, but still Soviet-made, extremely worn out and vulnerable to ground air defense. Therefore, the Ukrainian Air Force dried up after four months of the war, although the Syrian still fly, their influence on what is happening is very limited. And even the Russian aviation has not yet provided a radical turning point, it only saved Assad from an imminent collapse. More modern aircraft of the NATO-Arab coalition, allegedly fighting against the “Islamic Caliphate,” also did not ensure victory over this terrorist entity (however, they most likely did not intend to). Numerous and very modern American-made aircraft of the “Arabian coalition” (the United States itself F-15 and F-16 are much older than those of Saudi Arabia and the UAE) killed several thousand civilians in Yemen, but still have not defeated the Howsites (although the war has been going on for eight months already) and their own ground forces did not save from very serious losses in people and equipment. Of course, it does not follow from all of this that aviation is useless. It’s just that wars are not won by her alone. They are won, as before, on earth.

In connection with all this, we need to forget forever the once very popular thesis that the Russian army should be "small, professional, focused on combating international terrorism under the guise of a nuclear umbrella." Fortunately, we did not have time to set foot on this suicidal path and become like Europe, which voluntarily deprived itself of military force, having decided that there would never be a major war. In fact, the Russian army, as always, should be large, conscription (or rather, mixed) and focused on the classical war, and in all azimuths. A nuclear umbrella, of course, is absolutely necessary, and at the same time it is no guarantee against anything (but this is a separate topic). The anti-guerrilla and anti-terrorist war must be waged on its own territory by internal troops (otherwise it is not clear why they exist at all). The Armed Forces must also be able to carry out such operations (especially the Airborne Forces, special forces and front-line aviation), but this is by no means their main task.

Fortunately, Russia did not have time to get sick with “aviation fetishism”, so there is no need to cure it. The ground forces remain the basis of our usual forces. They should have a lot of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles on tank chassis. That is, it is necessary to develop the Armata family, sacrificing Kurgan and Boomerang for it, which are not necessary, has already been mentioned (Armatam on sanctions). Artillery, including reactive, remained the god of war, which was confirmed by the events in Ukraine, so it should also be a lot. Aviation provides ground operations, rather than replacing them. One can only rejoice at the fact that she gets the most valuable combat experience in Syria, where she does it.

As for high technology and network-centricity, here Russia has the “advantage of backwardness”, that is, it has the ability to take into account other people's mistakes. In particular, to realize: quality in no case does not cancel or replace quantities, and ammunition should not be comparable in price to the target. The main thing is that we do not need high-tech and network-centricity to turn a war into a computer game and “beating up babies”, that is, many times weaker opponents, but for a war with our own kind - armies also large, high-tech and network-centric. It is for such extremely difficult and cruel wars that personnel must be trained. At the same time, it is necessary to maximally develop and improve those classes of weapons in which we are the strongest and which will give us a very large asymmetric advantage in a high-tech war — ground defense and EW facilities (and in the Navy, submarine fleet). In general, it is very important not to copy any of the main potential opponents, but to be asymmetrical in relation to them, developing already existing advantages.

There is such a profession


In connection with all this, it is impossible not to touch upon the eternal question of manning the Armed Forces with private and junior command personnel. There are four options here: recruits, contract soldiers, mercenaries, volunteers. In the overwhelming majority of cases, regular air force recruits and recruits are recruited by recruits and contract servicemen, private security companies are recruited by mercenaries, and irregular formations leading to pastors are volunteers.

Army of the People


The level of combat training in the first place of these categories are, of course, mercenaries ("wild geese", "dogs of war"). They are the true professionals of military affairs. As for the other three categories, it is impossible to rank them by level of combat training, it all depends on the specific cases and conditions. In terms of motivation in the first place, of course, volunteers who go not only to serve, but to fight, and for the idea. The motivation of the mercenaries is also very high, but they fight solely for money, that is, you can simply outbid them, which is dangerous. The level of motivation of conscripts should also be high, they give a debt to the Motherland (although not always their self-perception is such). At the last place is obviously contract soldiers who come to serve for money. It is to serve, to get the money, but not to fight, at the risk of dying (why then money?). Mercenaries are consciously taking the risk of death because of a specific psychological device, for contract soldiers it is completely different: they are not going to die. Higher will be the motivation of the contractor, who previously served on conscription. Of course, one should not forget that only with the help of the recruiting system can a significant mobilization reserve be created in the country in case of a major war, especially when it comes to external aggression.

Frames from Yemen, demonstrating the defeat of Saudi columns by Housits, even cause some bewilderment: did the Saudis learn to fight at all? Needless to say, the Saudi army is “professional,” that is, completely contractual. We have before us yet another confirmation that such armed forces have neither motivation nor training, and always lose in battle, unless they have overwhelming numerical strength and, most importantly, technological superiority over the enemy, like the US military. However, the Saudis and their allies in the “Arabian coalition” also have absolute numerical and technological superiority over the Hosts. But it does not help, because the Saudis are “professionals”. Volunteers who are not very good with equipment are fighting against them, but they are excellent with motivation. On the other hand, the conscript Syrian army, which has now become de facto volunteer-recruiting, demonstrates simply phenomenal resistance in a terrible civil war.

If a country is at war or considers the probability of war to be high, then it can only have a draft army. It is obvious. Having canceled the call for purely populist considerations (even under Yanukovych), Ukraine returned to him immediately after the civil war broke out in the country. The call in Ukraine is not very successful, which is due, to put it mildly, to the difficult psychological state of society, but partly offset by the presence of volunteers. As a result, the combat capability of the Ukrainian army turned out to be much higher than could be expected, on the basis of the disastrous state to which the four previous presidents of the country brought it. Lithuania has restored the call, considering a high likelihood of an attack by Russia. In this case, it does not matter how right the Lithuanians are in assessing the likelihood of aggression, talking about the fact that if a country prepares to actually fight, the army should be a conscription. Moreover, such an army is truly popular and it is natural for democratic societies. Today we have two examples of referenda on the principle of manning the Armed Forces. They were held in 2013 in Austria and Switzerland, which are certainly not threatened by external aggression. Nevertheless, in both cases, the population voted to retain the draft. And in Norway, out of the general European trends, the same 2013 introduced an appeal even for women.

Due to the noticeable improvement in the internal situation in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, we have talked about the need to create a “professional army”, which, fortunately, has almost stopped recently. It became finally clear: the army must be mixed. In this case, it is necessary to finally come to the conclusion that only those who served a full year on an appeal, and then passed a rigorous selection, can become a contractor.

It is also necessary to deliberately seek understanding: the military profession is fundamentally different from all others in that it implies the obligation to die by order of the Motherland. Each potential contractor must be extremely clear about the fact that it is for this readiness that the Motherland undertakes to pay him enough good money. Therefore, the contractor can not choose his duty station in the country or abroad and has no right to refuse to participate in hostilities. Failure to comply with the order should lead at least to immediate dismissal from the Armed Forces under a defamatory article without any payment and without the right to a new contract, as a maximum - to a military tribunal.

The latest military conflicts have once again confirmed that the "professionalization" of the army is more or less equivalent to its elimination. Such an army becomes a kind of simulacrum, which will not withstand a collision with any serious opponent.

The principle of manning the armed forces is still of very high importance because the psychological factor in the war remains the most important. For the same reason: only the military profession implies the obligation to die.

Accordingly, if citizens of a certain country are absolutely not ready to die for any idea, that is, the armed forces and society as a whole are not ready for any serious losses, then there is practically no army. Because it is impossible to apply even for defense.

Due to a significant increase in the standard of living, a decline in the birth rate and domination of the ideology of hedonism, postmodernism, tolerance and political correctness in society, it was such a disaster that happened to almost all European countries. If during the Cold War they were forced to engage in serious military construction, after it ended, the Europeans convinced themselves that there would be no more conflicts, only the “fight against terrorism” and peacekeeping and police operations in the underdeveloped countries remain. Therefore, there was a total transition from conscription armies to contractual ones, the strongest reduction of armaments and equipment intended for waging classical war, as well as military expenditures in favor of social ones. With a general reduction in military budgets, there was a significant increase in the cost of maintaining personnel, because even in peacetime, people are ready to serve only for very large sums of money, and in the military - for huge, but at the same time so that they should not be killed in any way. In addition, modern equipment and precision-guided munitions have become very expensive, so Europe is able to acquire them in microscopic quantities and is not at all ready to lose. The fact that half a century ago was considered an expendable material, now has become literally worth its weight in gold. As a result, Europe has now ceased to be a real military force. The reorientation from the classical war to the “fight against terrorism” has led to the fact that European armies can neither wage a classical war nor fight terrorism. Once again, we are seeing this now, when France (a nuclear power!) Is simply unable to fight alone against the “caliphate”, while the rest of the EU member states categorically refuse to help it.

The United States has enormous military potential, and the psychological readiness of society for war is higher there. Nevertheless, albeit with a noticeable lag, America is moving along the European path described above. In particular, the Pentagon has already officially announced that the United States will no longer conduct any ground wars, even limited ones such as the Iraqi or the Afghan. Is that a special operation. The combat capability of the armed forces of Turkey is quite large (since this is not a European country), but Ankara is playing a very complex geopolitical game, recalling its membership in NATO only when it is convenient for it.

Victims of worship


For all these reasons, the “strongest military bloc in the world” has become a purely virtual quantity. Its total potential is formally very large, although it continues to steadily decline, but it is useless - the alliance is ready to apply it only if it is not intended to imply resistance and losses. Moreover, the point of no return is clearly passed - after all, it is impossible to break down the existing psychological attitudes in Western societies and no one is going to do that. On the contrary, the aforementioned postmodernism, tolerance and political correctness in today's West have become the same "only correct doctrine" that Marxism-Leninism was considered in the USSR.

All this was perfectly confirmed by the Ukrainian crisis. Anti-Russian hysteria in the West has become primarily a reflection of panic. NATO was very seriously afraid of Russian aggression, realizing that they were unable to repel it. However, no real efforts were made to change the situation. Both in 2014 and in 2015, NATO continued its general cuts in armaments and military spending. Not a single new military program has been adopted, not a single new military unit has been formed. “Measures to protect Eastern Europe” with the transfer to the region of several infantry battalions or even companies on a rotational basis (so that the “warriors” do not overstrain in the “front-line zone”, that is, in Riga and Warsaw taverns) are frankly grotesque.

Russia on paper is much weaker than NATO, but in fact stronger than the alliance. Our qualitative and quantitative lag in armaments and equipment is by no means as great as is commonly believed, but superiority is on our side in some components. Especially considering the fact that in the last three or four years, Russia has been producing more technology than all NATO (including the United States). The main thing is that the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation can be really applied, and on very significant scales and in wars of any type. Society and the army itself is quite psychologically ready for this. That is, Russia has a power tool at its disposal, NATO does not.

As a result, as events in the Caucasus, Ukraine, and Syria showed, if someone (even “unrecognized”) chose Russia as its ally, then he is guaranteed real help and protection in a critical situation. If a country or an opposition group chose NATO as its ally, then it is guaranteed to be severely beaten by Russia, with the complete absence of help from “the most powerful alliance in stories».

The author is not engaged in propaganda, he only states the obvious facts. Continuing in the world, including in the post-Soviet space, the cult of NATO is more and more like a religious one. Precisely because it directly contradicts the obvious facts. However, this cult has very experienced priests. Not only in Washington and Brussels (their motivation is obvious), but also in Moscow (our leadership really needs an external enemy as a scarecrow for the population). But it should be noted: continuing to talk endlessly about NATO military might, our country is thus increasingly harming itself. As the same examples of Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria show, not only ordinary people, but also people in authority, often think in myths and cliches, not facts. Inflating the NATO myth, Moscow itself is pushing toward NATO some countries that, if they were looking into the truth, could become our allies.

In recent years, Russia has suddenly and abruptly switched to a new geopolitical quality, since it is ready to use power tools, unlike the weakened "hegemon." At the same time, there is no need to flatter yourself - the transition to a new quality is primarily due not to our successes, but to the gross mistakes of the West. The big danger is that our traditional undisturbed "Western Centrism" can lead to the repetition of their mistakes, which we will take by inertia as the "best practices of civilized countries." You can’t sacrifice quantity for the sake of quality and most importantly a normal army for the sake of a “compact professional”. We must not forget that the most expensive army for the country is the one on which they save. And in general, you can’t invent your next “only right doctrine” contrary to common sense.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/28380
175 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Uran
    Uran 9 December 2015 20: 51
    10
    NATO can only civilians bomb in Syria, hospitals, schools and more, while Russia bombed Isil. Russia would have dealt with the ishil without NATO. because NATO only helped the development of terror around the world!
    1. Reserve officer
      Reserve officer 9 December 2015 21: 00
      40
      "our leadership really needs an external enemy as a scarecrow for the population"

      This enemy really exists. And underestimating the enemy always leads to very disastrous consequences.
      1. dauria
        dauria 9 December 2015 21: 31
        28
        In the last place are obviously contract soldiers who come to serve for money.


        So, in the Soviet Army, officers and warrant officers are in last place? People actually "signed a contract" for 25 years, received money for the service and the rest ... laughing
        the contract is completely different: they are not going to die

        I will tell you a secret that in the war, too, no one wants to die and is not going to. belay

        As for the "best", "worst", remember the saying "For one beaten two unbeaten give"
        1. AnpeL
          AnpeL 9 December 2015 22: 01
          11
          it seems not a bad article, but in conclusion by the author:
          Inflating the NATO myth, Moscow itself ...

          still in vain. This is not a myth, a threat exists. Rather, on the contrary, not everything is as careless as it seems.
          1. 34 region
            34 region 9 December 2015 22: 26
            +1
            Fanning the NATO myth ... Russia is tearing into the world economy! We fan the NATO myth, we would do everything ourselves, and not pray for partners. Well, so who do we feel threatened? Rogozin? Medvedev? ...
            1. _Vladislav_
              _Vladislav_ 10 December 2015 09: 45
              +5
              This enemy really exists. And underestimating the enemy always leads to very disastrous consequences.

              NATO is a very motley audience. Three categories can be distinguished here:

              1. Adventurers are like the USA, Great Britain. Historically, NATO countries did not experience serious danger due to the separation of their territory (or large distance) from the main theater of geopolitical events, from the continental part. These states have their own psychology. The psychology of some impunity.

              2. Germany is a country that can and knows how to fight, but is far from seeking to do this (it’s not looking for problems what’s called), due to the fact that the country has reached a certain economic, technological level that allows it to comfortably exist in the current political situation.

              3. All the rest - here you can select a couple more subcategories:
              a) Civilized - which peacefully exist, since there were no great successes in military affairs, and there is no need to look for problems in principle. (Italy, Spain, and PT)
              b) Uncivilized - who, due to historical dissatisfaction, are trying to realize their ambitions and prove something to Russia. (We will not show with a finger)

              P.E. as you understand this whole audience, to take it like this and instantly put it under arms is very difficult. Many do not want this at all and will not do it. Many are in NATO solely to be protected by America. Why Germany is a separate category. Well, imagine that you made repairs in a new apartment and bought new furniture, and you are offered to arrange a shootout in it with a neighbor. In particular, the United States is calling for this.

              PS
              I deliberately do not include Turkey on this list. I generally think that Turkey is an extra link in NATO. And psychological (this is not European civilization), and indeed in principle. Europe does not need Turks; America needs them exclusively as a bridgehead.
              1. OlegLex
                OlegLex 10 December 2015 18: 00
                +1
                I agree with your findings, with the exception of Turkey. America refers to the Turks as simple Mujahideen, and this is their mistake. Yes, Turkey is the only country ready to fight now and immediately and that's why Europe is afraid of it and at the same time hold on to it, it would be naive to believe that three yards of money and opening borders for the Turks is a payment for refugees, it is a payment for fear of possible war, the payment for what exactly the Turks would fight with us. Wait, they will pay them something else, especially if the sanctions against Russia are lifted.
                And I liked the article, albeit not much pretentious, but it was written correctly and the conclusions are correct.
        2. oldseaman1957
          oldseaman1957 10 December 2015 00: 51
          +4
          Quote: dauria
          So, in the Soviet Army, officers and warrant officers are in last place?
          - Not at all! The author has a little "forgotten" the mentality of the Russians, the patriotism of the officers. And in this case, the pilots in Syria are also contract soldiers, but the hope is 100% on them!
        3. Ermak
          Ermak 10 December 2015 07: 03
          +1
          So, in the Soviet Army, officers and warrant officers are in last place? People actually "signed a contract" for 25 years, received money for the service and the rest ... laughing

          The Soviet Army had an ideology, the very "core" of which the author practically did not mention.
          Today, our time simply obliges us to unite all of us with this “core.” Fortunately, our Russian history is so rich in victories, and if only people stir up these roots and set a goal where to direct all the power, the whole spirit of the Russian man (it is better, of course, in advance, and not then when trouble is on the doorstep) I think we will not only build the strongest army, but also populate Mars, and the "leftist" will be eliminated by itself or will help to be eliminated.
        4. dog1965
          dog1965 10 December 2015 10: 07
          +1
          Comparing contract soldiers and conscripts, the author apparently has in mind not officers, but sergeants and privates (such, after all, also serve in the contract army - even among the Kapelevites, not all were officers). They are in the majority and pull the heavy strap of the war. And the officers ... "There is such a profession - to defend the Motherland." If they are educated on such masterpiece films, then fame and recognition will be provided to them.
      2. Nick
        Nick 9 December 2015 21: 59
        +6
        Quote: Stock Officer
        "our leadership really needs an external enemy as a scarecrow for the population"

        This enemy really exists. And underestimating the enemy always leads to very disastrous consequences.

        Khramchikhin is Khramchikhin. He can’t stop kicking like a country leader. And the rest he is, perhaps, right.
        1. Dilshat
          Dilshat 9 December 2015 23: 49
          +2
          1. Well, to kick it is not that, but to kick it before resuscitation, many would not refuse its "liberal" part. 2. The advantage of backwardness is not the advantage of which should be much. 3. The fact that a professional army and a contract army are two big differences, we knew before ...
      3. Tersky
        Tersky 9 December 2015 22: 06
        +3
        Quote: Reserve officer
        This enemy really exists. And underestimating the enemy always leads to very disastrous consequences.

        As well as his revaluation ...
        1. Nick
          Nick 12 December 2015 22: 39
          +1
          Quote: Tersky
          Quote: Reserve officer
          This enemy really exists. And underestimating the enemy always leads to very disastrous consequences.

          As well as his revaluation ...

          Caution is never superfluous.
      4. 34 region
        34 region 9 December 2015 22: 20
        +9
        Here you have verbiage! We have not only an external enemy, but also an internal one. But it is considered not to be. Look at the experience of the collapse of the USSR or today Ukraine. What? Have NATO tank columns been on our roads? What will the reserve officer say?
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 9 December 2015 23: 03
          +4
          Quote: Region 34
          We have not only an external enemy, but also an internal
          This is one and the same enemy, just different forms.
      5. cniza
        cniza 10 December 2015 08: 00
        +3
        Quote: Stock Officer

        This enemy really exists. And underestimating the enemy always leads to very disastrous consequences.



        There should be a call and then we will have a reserve, without a prepared reserve, V.S. shrink very quickly ...
      6. The comment was deleted.
    2. kodxnumx
      kodxnumx 9 December 2015 21: 50
      +2
      Quote: Uranus
      NATO can only civilians bomb in Syria, hospitals, schools and more, while Russia bombed Isil. Russia would have dealt with the ishil without NATO. because NATO only helped the development of terror around the world!

      I’m sure these thoughts and technologies were introduced in the EU by the United States, it’s more convenient for competitors to have no armies, since it’s profitable for the USA, then a hundred uphill is not beneficial for us, it means there’s a lot of mother’s land in Russia and it’s 800.000 thousand to defend Well, not just the army! 1.200.000 at least with weapons I think things are not so bad, but the call is needed, as well as the conference!
    3. Uran
      Uran 9 December 2015 22: 17
      -1
      Vladimir Putin's bombers "are striking stunning attacks on ISIS positions in Syria. Over the past three days, about 2 shells have been dropped on terrorist-controlled points.
    4. akmalinin
      akmalinin 9 December 2015 23: 02
      0
      Sorry, we’re not looking at the topic # radio lives do musicians populate themselves, want to PR themselves?
      1. yuriy55
        yuriy55 10 December 2015 01: 34
        +2
        The author does not advocate he only states the obvious facts. Continuing in the world, including in the post-Soviet space, the cult of NATO more and more resembles a religious one.


        The facts now are:
        NATO is compensating for its fading weakness by increasing its membership. At a time when the Russian Federation is alone on the battlefield. It is very difficult for her not so much to fight as not to feel support from her comrades. We simply, as always, refute the saying: "one in the field is not a warrior" ...

        How is the NATO cult similar to the religious one? And the fact that they believe in its "indestructible power", but no one has seen this power in reality ...
        soldier
  2. gla172
    gla172 9 December 2015 20: 52
    16
    "Abrams" and "Bradley" burn and explode from getting ATGMs no worse than T-72 and BMP-2.
  3. venaya
    venaya 9 December 2015 20: 52
    12
    Russia on paper is much weaker than NATO, but actually stronger than the alliance

    God forbid that this is actually so, we need not only to hope but also to contribute in every way to this.
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 9 December 2015 21: 43
      +3
      On the other hand, the draft Syrian army, which has now become a de facto volunteer draft, demonstrates simply phenomenal stability in the hardest civil war.
      There is no real civil war there. There is a very clear external aggression. Enough of the Western propaganda clichés from one to the other.
      1. 34 region
        34 region 9 December 2015 22: 34
        +3
        As for civil war or aggression, this is how to say it. So we had a kind of civil war? It seems to be. And there were foreign troops. So what was the war like? Civil or repelled aggression? If they repelled aggression, then why did they fight among themselves?
    2. NEXUS
      NEXUS 9 December 2015 21: 55
      +4
      Quote: venaya
      Russia on paper is much weaker than NATO, but actually stronger than the alliance
      God forbid that this is actually so, we need not only to hope but also to contribute in every way to this.

      We have a stronger land component, but no sea component. Most of the money allocated to the defense industry is pushed into the Navy. Unfortunately, aviation is also far behind (these are conclusions without nuclear arsenals).
      Sincerely. hi
      1. Onharon
        Onharon 9 December 2015 22: 01
        +2
        The United States simply cannot do without a fleet, it makes sense for them to have a huge army purely for their continent.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 9 December 2015 22: 05
          +2
          Quote: Onharon
          The United States simply cannot do without a fleet, it makes sense for them to have a huge army purely for their continent.

          Exactly so. But we also need an oceanic fleet. Two-thirds of the surface of the earth's sphere is water. But with the fleet we are not very good so far. But slowly we begin to build ships, while of small displacement, and then you will see that we will grow up to the Leaders.
          Best regards hi
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 9 December 2015 23: 07
            +2
            Quote: NEXUS
            Two-thirds of the surface of the globe is water

            Haven't you read Mahan Alfred's The Role of Naval Forces in World History? If not, I highly recommend it - in detail and intelligibly explains why the refusal to develop a powerful Navy leads to very big problems.
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 9 December 2015 23: 32
              +3
              Quote: Dart2027
              Haven't you read Mahan Alfred's The Role of Naval Forces in World History? If not, I highly recommend it - in detail and intelligibly explains why the refusal to develop a powerful Navy leads to very big problems.

              So I say that the ocean fleet is NECESSARY for us.
              Best regards hi Special thanks for the advice. I will definitely read it.
      2. aksakal
        aksakal 9 December 2015 22: 26
        +1
        Quote: NEXUS
        We have a stronger land component, but no sea component. Most of the money allocated to the defense industry is pushed into the Navy. Unfortunately, aviation is also far behind (these are conclusions without nuclear arsenals).
        Best regards
        in the part of the fleet I cannot but agree. But in terms of aviation - I disagree with "STRONG". There is some lag, but it is not critical. Look, when we read three parts about helicopters from a professional literally the day before yesterday, he clearly laid out everything there - the Russians have almost everything, yes, somewhere the thermal imager gives a "picture" worse, but there is no graininess either ... Note, this lag in mainly in the part of avionics and avionics, in the electronic filling, the aircraft themselves as such, when comparing their flight characteristics, are not at all Worse. In short, there is some lag in aviation, but this lag is not characterized by the word "STRONG". I would not advise any American aircraft (with the same skill of pilots) to meet in battle once at a time with that SU-30 or SU-35, and the upgraded versions of the MiG-29 or MiG-31 are not sugar for the enemy at all.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 9 December 2015 22: 39
          +1
          Quote: aksakal
          But in terms of aviation - I disagree with "STRONG". There is some lag, but it is not critical.

          And I'm not saying that it is critical. And speaking STRONGLY, I meant that we are lagging behind, first of all, in the creation of new aircraft systems and their further production. 20 years of idleness is not so easy to cover with “one leap.” Moreover, the lag and quantitative This issue (I'm talking about aviation) is quite significant. Although, again, it is necessary to take into account the professionalism of the flight personnel in the compartment and the arsenal, etc. There is a big gap in AWACS planes, and not everything is good with regard to drones and UAVs. Mattresses already have an attack UAV on the deck of an aircraft carrier, and everything is just being developed here.
          In general, in this matter we still have to plow and plow.
      3. 34 region
        34 region 9 December 2015 22: 41
        0
        Nexus! Well, you give a pancake! The USA is surrounded by oceans on the left and right. We have a north pole in the north. At us the rod is now from the west or from the south, sometimes from the east. When did the north attack us? We need to restrain the earth basically. Do you often attack the USA? Mostly they hunt robbery. 21st Century Pirates. They need aircraft carriers to nightmare different Aboriginal people. Why do they nightmare them? Yes, so that they are not rich. It is forbidden to them.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 9 December 2015 22: 46
          +4
          Quote: 34 region
          Nexus! Well, you give a pancake! The USA is surrounded by oceans on the left and right. We have a north pole in the north. At us the rod is now from the west or from the south, sometimes from the east. When did the north attack us? We need to restrain the earth basically. Do you often attack the USA? Mostly they hunt robbery. 21st Century Pirates. They need aircraft carriers to nightmare different Aboriginal people. Why do they nightmare them? Yes, so that they are not rich. It is forbidden to them.

          laughing That is, to lock up in Eurasia and not to jerk? Our land is on par, but the fleets are still completely seamed. And to be called a full-fledged world power, you need a strong fleet, which at present is not only a military force, but also a political tool. Volleys from the Caspian have shown this popularly.
          Best regards hi
          1. 34 region
            34 region 9 December 2015 23: 49
            +1
            And who will support the fleet around the world? Can I find out? Do we have many naval bases abroad? Download provisions, fuel, ammunition, make repairs?
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 9 December 2015 23: 53
              +4
              Quote: 34 region
              And who will support the fleet around the world? Can I find out? Do we have many naval bases abroad? Download provisions, fuel, ammunition, make repairs?

              And this is called-returning what we gave back in the 90s. And we will have to return and restore it all, whether we want it or not. I repeat, WITHOUT A STRONG OCEANIAN Navy OF RUSSIA, DO NOT BE A COMPLETE WORLD POWER OF FORCE.
              Best regards hi
      4. Military Builder
        Military Builder 10 December 2015 05: 28
        +1
        they need a powerful fleet to hang off the Russian coast, and stir up water in Asia and Africa
    3. dorz
      dorz 9 December 2015 22: 07
      +1
      Quote: venaya
      Russia on paper is much weaker than NATO, but actually stronger than the alliance

      God forbid that this is actually so, we need not only to hope but also to contribute in every way to this.


      Russia has an overwhelming advantage over NATO countries in Europe in the quality and quantity of nuclear weapons.
      1. n.kolesnichenko
        n.kolesnichenko 9 December 2015 22: 30
        +1
        But will have to fight only in Europe?
  4. S-cream
    S-cream 9 December 2015 20: 52
    +6
    Probably, it should be considered that in our country - the army is the army, vocation, service, and in NATO - the type of activity, business, work.

    And so, the eternal: "Strength is in truth."
    1. Snake AAA
      Snake AAA 9 December 2015 21: 40
      +7
      Russia needs an army, and this is without discussion, and there must be an appeal for conscripts, because the army is a good school of life, so that our youth do not become tolerant and not forged like in Europe !!! Russian soldiers are first and foremost liberators! Russia, thank God and our ancestors, has a large territory and in which case it needs to be protected !!!
      1. S-cream
        S-cream 9 December 2015 21: 52
        +1
        Correct: First of all - the defenders. Liberators - in the second.
      2. 34 region
        34 region 9 December 2015 22: 44
        -1
        Unfortunately, AAA Serpent, not every nerd can be a soldier, and not every soldier is a nerd. Minimum losses will be with professionals. In my opinion there are even tests for the suitability of being a soldier. Who can throw off the topic.
        1. Snake AAA
          Snake AAA 10 December 2015 00: 46
          +3
          You can’t serve with a machine gun, serve in the rear, alternatively or in a factory, but you need to serve so that you break away from your mother’s tits and become a man in your life and not a plant that is afraid to even sweat!
      3. Stanislas
        Stanislas 9 December 2015 23: 39
        +2
        Quote: Serpent AAA
        the army is a good school of life
        But one year is not enough, two years is better.
    2. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 9 December 2015 22: 07
      +2
      Quote: S-cream
      Probably, it should be considered that in our country - the army is the army, vocation, service, and in NATO - the type of activity, business, work.

      And so, the eternal: "Strength is in truth."

      Honestly, I did not understand, is it such humor or a mockery?
      In 1941, Hitler would occupy Moscow if it were closer to the border at least 200 km. Strength is not true. Strength is power. How many empires built on power existed, how many peoples lost their national identity, where is the truth?
      1. S-cream
        S-cream 9 December 2015 22: 42
        +1
        No, not a mockery, in any case. A drop of pathos, perhaps.

        And about empires built on power, where are they now? The same Ottomans, the same Mongols, the same Romans.
        In fact, only China, India, Russia - not aggressive civilizations - can boast of a fair amount of longevity and at the same time preserve themselves, their own uniqueness and originality. Given the natural development, of course.

        Well, about 1941 and 200 km - history does not know the subjunctive mood, does it?

        And about the fact that strength is in truth, speaking poetically, this is only part of the question "what is strength", as well as part of the answer.
      2. ava09
        ava09 9 December 2015 23: 36
        +1
        Quote: Алексей_К
        Strength is not true. Strength is power.


        Sufficiently capacious understanding of power and truth, especially since their relationship cannot be expressed in one phrase. True statement: "Power is power." I agree, we need to be strong. When are we strong? When we become ourselves, we turn to Russian roots, to the wisdom of our ancestors. What does the experience of ancestors teach? JUSTICE! That is, "With the Truth in Osti." It means with unbending truth. Conclusion: Strength is strength, but it can only be acquired by becoming just. Otherwise, we will have to accept the morality of the Zionists and Anglo-Saxons, which automatically means death for a Russian.
      3. Weyland
        Weyland 10 December 2015 01: 59
        +2
        Quote: Алексей_К
        In 1941, Hitler would occupy Moscow if it were closer to the border by at least 200 km.


        And what would happen? Napoleon in 1812m occupied Moscow. Of 600-the thousandth "Great Army" from Russia managed to escape only 20 thousand ...
      4. The comment was deleted.
      5. NEXUS
        NEXUS 10 December 2015 19: 54
        +1
        Quote: Алексей_К
        Honestly, I did not understand, is it such humor or a mockery?
        In 1941, Hitler would occupy Moscow if it were closer to the border at least 200 km. Strength is not true. Strength is power. How many empires built on power existed, how many peoples lost their national identity, where is the truth?

        Here it is true today. I don’t want to write anything, look there everything has already been said.
  5. The black
    The black 9 December 2015 20: 53
    +4
    Undoubtedly, over the past few years, the power and prestige of the Russian army has increased significantly. And this is the merit of Putin and Shoigu. Now it’s very prestigious to serve in the army. The competition in military schools is frantic. I don’t know where, but we have a problem urging ...
    1. S_last
      S_last 9 December 2015 21: 54
      +3
      do not worry so this is what "Draftee" MO writes about this

      For many years now, recruits have been worried about one question: “how much do they serve when drafting for military service?”. The unrest in this regard is not unfounded, since the State Duma Defense Committee submits for discussion a proposal to increase the service life. ABOUTthe lack of ordinary military personnel served as the basis for such a proposal. In addition, in their opinion, the term of service in the army for 1 year does not provide sufficient opportunities for the training of specialists of the required level.

      However, the proposal put forward by the legislators was rejected by the President of the Russian Federation, all the more so since he alone had the right to make a final decision on this issue. During his speech at a meeting of a board of the Ministry of Defense, Putin categorically denied extending his service life. Consequently, the recruits will have to serve not the one and a half year proposed by the deputies, but 12 months left unchanged.

      At the same time, the head of state noted the fact that 100% manning of the army with ordinary and sergeant staff will be carried out by increasing the prestige of service in the armed forces on a contract basis.

      so serve another, everything will be fine
    2. 34 region
      34 region 9 December 2015 22: 49
      +3
      The black! Do not forget about salary and social guarantees. On a citizen, this is not to smoke. Therefore, they flee from poverty to social security. Such an escape from poverty. I accept the cons. You can not be greedy.
    3. sa-ag
      sa-ag 10 December 2015 07: 45
      +1
      Quote: Black
      . Competition in military schools is frantic.

      I wish there was such a thing in engineering specialties, otherwise the next bias in education is only because the military’s salary has grown, there are no goals as such, where more money goes there
  6. izya top
    izya top 9 December 2015 20: 56
    15
    Infantry always puts an end to any war
    1. ALEA IACTA EST
      ALEA IACTA EST 9 December 2015 21: 34
      10
      Quote: izya top
      Infantry always puts an end to any war

      ... in close collaboration with the rest of the armed forces. yes
    2. Terrible_L.
      Terrible_L. 9 December 2015 21: 40
      +1
      the infantry is the queen of the fields, and the gods of war are artillerymen)
      1. saygon66
        saygon66 9 December 2015 23: 32
        +1
        - "Let the force artilleryman in the combat crew ...
        - Shot - do not be proud! Things are in the infantry! (WITH) soldier
      2. Stanislas
        Stanislas 9 December 2015 23: 46
        +3
        Quote: Scary_L.
        infantry - the queen of the fields
        I thought corn ...
        1. Weyland
          Weyland 10 December 2015 02: 03
          +1
          Quote: Stanislav
          I thought corn ...


          Confused about the title! corn is the queen of the fields, not the queen! laughing
        2. The comment was deleted.
    3. 34 region
      34 region 9 December 2015 22: 51
      +1
      Imagine! Izya infantryman steeper than aviation, artillery and tanks! Fill everyone in one hat! wassat
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. basmach
    basmach 9 December 2015 21: 03
    15
    So I just want to remember: - "About how many wonderful discoveries we are Preparing the spirit of enlightenment And experience is the son of difficult mistakes And the genius of paradoxes is a friend!" Oh really. bright thoughts begin to appear about the manning of the army.
    But already 15 years later, after the introduction of the "professional" army, the experiment was declared unsuccessful. I wrote in the comments for a long time about the unsuitability of such an army for war (and got a minus, and to hell with them). But what such an army is good for is to restore order within the country. It is useful to read Machiavely's "On the State" chapter on the army in general and mercenaries in particular. Over the past centuries, the essence of mercenaries has not changed - only the name - there were mercenaries - became contract soldiers.
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 9 December 2015 21: 48
      +3
      Over the past centuries, the essence of the mercenaries has not changed, only the name, there were mercenaries, they became contract soldiers.
      No, the question of terms and definitions must be approached very clearly and unambiguously. And the terms "mercenary" and "contractor" are different concepts. Besides, there is a strange use of the term "contract soldier". As if the military personnel do not pay salaries, allowances and other payments. But only "contract soldiers".
    2. strannik1985
      strannik1985 9 December 2015 22: 29
      0
      To begin with, specify the conditions of the last transition from the draft principle of recruitment to voluntary, perhaps a number of questions will disappear.
      More than a strange conclusion, given that the US army is one of the most belligerent on the planet (the thesis that these wars "do not count", since the enemy is weaker, to put it mildly, is dubious, for the SA Afghanistan was a serious lesson, although formally the forces of the Mujahideen and the OKSV are not comparable).
      What do you think the RF Armed Forces have been doing (and are doing now) in Chechnya? And the Russian Imperial Army during the events of 1905-1907? Didn't they put things in order on their territory?
  9. The comment was deleted.
  10. Ros 56
    Ros 56 9 December 2015 21: 04
    +7
    I absolutely agree with the author. A war is considered to be won if the civil administration was entrenched in the territory after the soldiers. And if you have the most modern aircraft, drones, missiles, without tanks, armored personnel carriers and mother infantry, the territory cannot be considered mastered. Earth must be cleaned. The gunners have not forgotten you, otherwise you’ll be offended. Well, everything is dominated by everything, as it is written by the son in the photo (Strategic Rocket Forces), missile troops - any target is close
    1. KBR109
      KBR109 9 December 2015 22: 08
      +2
      Do you want to go to America? Go to the Strategic Missile Forces! laughing
      1. Weyland
        Weyland 10 December 2015 02: 07
        +3
        Quote: KBR109
        Do you want to go to America?


        - Dad, how long does it take to fly to America?
        - 20 minutes!
        - Can not be! Vaska said that he and his mother flew for 10 hours!
        - I said - 20 minutes, a maximum of -21! I really know for sure - that I, in vain, served in the Strategic Rocket Forces ?! laughing
  11. ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 9 December 2015 21: 11
    +2
    Preparation, high organization and equipment with the latest technology - this is the guarantee of victory in a modern war.
    1. ava09
      ava09 9 December 2015 21: 56
      +7
      Quote: ALEA IACTA EST
      Preparation, high organization and equipment with the latest technology - this is the guarantee of victory in a modern war.


      The slogan from the parade ground of some unit or from the speech of the educator-political worker? Until there is a "stove" it is pointless to start "dancing" with such banners. And "stoves" - united by common goals and ideology of the people, NO. And as you know: "The people and the army are one." Before proceeding to the correct, but far from basic actions, it is necessary to create a basis: People - Army - Victory, and for this it is necessary to clean up the "Augean stables" left by the Trotskyists who came to power with the arrival of Gorbachert and Drunkard.
    2. 34 region
      34 region 9 December 2015 22: 59
      0
      And why does everyone bypass the issue of private business in the war? How will he behave? Here is a private factory bombed. Who will restore it? Or maybe a private trader will decide a disadvantageous war and surrender everything that the enemy can? After all, the main thing is to keep private business! What if the enemy offers more to stop production? Why is no one looking at this side? Feels here are some hard workers! We don’t need money, come on!
      1. saygon66
        saygon66 9 December 2015 23: 58
        0
        - It is quite possible that in the event of war some of the "freedoms" of entrepreneurs will be suppressed in the bud ... The actions of persons harming combat readiness can be equated with treason to the Motherland - with all that it implies! I may be wrong, but in the XNUMXst and XNUMXnd World Wars there are no examples when the entrepreneurs of the warring parties worked for their own and for others ... "Neutrals" - perhaps ...
  12. strannik1985
    strannik1985 9 December 2015 21: 13
    +3
    I read, I meet familiar turns of speech, who is this ?! Khramchikhin!
    It would be nice for an author of dozens, or even hundreds of articles on military subjects, to know that the Russian Armed Forces are equipped with contract servicemen only after or during military service, which primarily consisted of units and formations of constant readiness, in particular grouping of troops in Chechnya (where, lo and behold, the possibility of dying is much higher than in Russia in general), as well as units and formations of the airborne forces.
    Passage that the employees of PMCs were potential traitors. Offer the RSB-Group employees, for example, to take such a step, be very surprised at the reaction. Even in deep antiquity, when truly mercenary armies were commonplace, the concept of "corporate loyalty" was no exception.
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 9 December 2015 21: 53
      -1
      Even in deep antiquity, when truly mercenary armies were commonplace, the concept of "corporate loyalty" was no exception.
      Moreover, if the then mercenaries were put in a situation where there was only one choice - fight or die, they arranged such battle-machachi that it would be better if the enemy gave them the opportunity to dump. And there were such situations completely in the framework of contractual obligations. For example, offhand: the Venetian mercenaries during the capture of Constantinople by the Turks.
      1. saygon66
        saygon66 10 December 2015 00: 09
        0
        - Perhaps the author meant the following: The state that won the tender can use the services of hired units! Ideology is secondary ... Change the side after the conclusion of the contract, definitely shit in your pocket! There is some kind of business ethics!
        - In one of his books, F. Foresight, who knew mercenaries from the inside, said that a mercenary working only for the love of money is bad and does not live long!
  13. Alekseev
    Alekseev 9 December 2015 21: 14
    +2
    There may be some inconsistencies in the article, but the main ideas are correct.
    The main thing is the recognition that the modern armed forces of such a state as the Russian Federation should, as at the beginning of the 20th century, be able to become an "armed people." Those. have a mob. stocks of conventional weapons, equipment, trained commanders and fighters.
    The word contract itself is somewhat alien.
    It would be more accurate to call soldiers and sergeants of this category as previously super-conscripts. The main thing is not how to name, but that the military service would be for all military personnel life choicesrather than a hike for earningsas in the "north".
    1. KVIRTU
      KVIRTU 9 December 2015 22: 38
      +2
      For "life choice" you need a perspective, as they say now "social lift", ie. housing, pension, salary. Possibility of free study at universities in absentia. Where is it? During the "Crimean Spring" communicated with contract soldiers of the Airborne Forces, 100 rubles. per day, + rations in a beautiful box. And the boys' eyes are burning, in the smoking room they only argue about the methods of landing in 2,3,5 streams from the 76th.
      1. Alekseev
        Alekseev 10 December 2015 06: 59
        0
        Quote: KVIRTU
        For "life choice" you need a perspective, as they say now "social lift", ie. housing, pension, salary. Possibility of free study at universities in absentia

        That's right!
        And all this is now being done to one degree or another. Somewhere it is better (salary, housing, "humanization"), somewhere worse (pension, order of service with the prospect of becoming an officer, training, issues of military discipline and order).
        But here the questions of educating the patriot, and since childhood, are largely missed.
  14. Nymp
    Nymp 9 December 2015 21: 14
    +3
    It is necessary to build up the military power of the country. The rate of armament of China itself is an order of magnitude higher than ours. Recently, we have been exporting more equipment than for our own aircraft.
    1. S_last
      S_last 9 December 2015 22: 07
      -2
      Well, you directly found with whom to compare, with China, this is the first economy in the world. Therefore, their economic opportunities are an order of magnitude greater and the rate of armament is an order of magnitude higher.
    2. 34 region
      34 region 9 December 2015 23: 05
      0
      For export, this is purely for the currency. Such a non-interest bearing loan. Sell ​​domestically this is probably loans at crazy interest rates. And the MO did not have such money. And so the receipt of currency, taxes, replenishment of the budget and finally the order of the Ministry of Defense. It’s a bit difficult of course. Well, who is easy now?
  15. Vladimir 1964
    Vladimir 1964 9 December 2015 21: 18
    14
    I read the article with interest, I agree with the author. It was only somewhat surprising that the author ignored the fact that only the "conscript" service is capable of creating a mobilization resource, without which the defense of our vast Motherland is a priori impossible. As I think so, colleagues. soldier
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 9 December 2015 21: 38
      +8
      The devil is in the details, the last time "to war" the reservists were called upon when troops entered Afghanistan (according to the peacetime state, 70% of the wartime state), but it turned out that due to the long stay in the reserve and the absence of mobilization fees with the assigned personnel the quality of the recognized staff. Immediately after the entry of the troops, the assigned personnel had to be sent home.
      The "partisans" are often very bad with motivation, he himself had the "luck" to be convinced of this. Many go to the exercises with the aim of taking a good walk, and given the rare training sessions, the quality of reservists is low. How will such a reservist react to the opportunity to be somewhere in Syria, to fight for a year or two for the interests of the state?
      1. S_last
        S_last 9 December 2015 22: 08
        -4
        Any citizen of Russia will gladly serve another year in Syria. Everyone will understand this by reading the comments here.
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 9 December 2015 22: 16
          10
          Something during my service in Chechnya, I did not see a massive influx of volunteers, the conscripts with a small percentage of K / s were taken out of the active phase of the Second Company, then the former were gradually replaced by the latter. But this is a war in their own land, with an obvious enemy.
          1. S_last
            S_last 9 December 2015 23: 07
            0
            But agree, judging by the comments, half the country will volunteer.
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 10 December 2015 05: 54
              0
              Chatting do not toss bags.
    2. 34 region
      34 region 9 December 2015 23: 10
      -2
      And how can a call help the Navy and the air forces? Is it possible to get an extra class pilot or destroyer captain in a year? Sank the ship, shot down the plane. What to do with draftees of the Navy, VKS? There is no ship, no plane. Where to call them?
  16. TOR2
    TOR2 9 December 2015 21: 18
    +8
    Russia needs a large army, staffed including by conscription

    And you need not just to call, but to select for the call.
    1. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 9 December 2015 22: 32
      +6
      Quote: TOR2
      And you need not just to call, but to select for the call.

      I do not agree with you. In 1945, when the Germans began to lack the population for fighting, the Germans began to create a militia, which included elderly men and school-age children.
      And as a result, the militia did not help much, because the militia lacked full combat training.
      I believe that the entire male population of the country, except for obviously unsuitable for fighting, should undergo military training, at least in the ability to hold weapons, accurately shoot from them, overcome fear, be able to dig in, provide first aid to a wounded comrade, it will be useful for yourself .
      Israel is doing great - in conditions of constant tension in the Middle East, even women are ready to fight for their freedom and are fighting really, and not just sisters of mercy and signalmen.
      In the USSR in the 50th years in schools there was an initial, simplified military training, I myself in the 4th class shot from a small stick, not from pneumatics, but from a real small stick at a target. I remember how a teacher, an officer, told how to lie down, how to charge, how to put a rifle to your shoulder, aim and how to shoot, and shot.
      1. KBR109
        KBR109 9 December 2015 22: 55
        +2
        Alexei, imagine that NVP was present in Soviet schools until the beginning of the 80's. I was taught by the grandfather who commanded TB during the assault on Berlin!
        1. Raven1972
          Raven1972 10 December 2015 01: 26
          +5
          Quote: KBR109
          Alexei, imagine that NVP was present in Soviet schools until the beginning of the 80s

          Igor hi Actually, until the 90s, I graduated from the 89th school and no one canceled the NVP with us - both they fired and the drill was and the UPC studied with Lka ... soldier And to this we must add that many were engaged in a shooting club (for ridiculous pennies), went to different sports sections, in addition to that, they studied at DOSAAF in the RTSH, a driving school, etc. (from the military enlistment office - generally free of charge) ... hi
          1. Military Builder
            Military Builder 10 December 2015 05: 50
            +1
            I want to add, I also graduated from high school in 89, nobody was going to cancel the camp, and besides, in the 9th grade there were 2-week fees in May, and in the 10th grade 5-day fees, in my opinion there were only 3 days in 10th grade
            1. Raven1972
              Raven1972 10 December 2015 13: 10
              0
              We didn’t have it at 9m, but at 10m there were 5 day ones, apparently it depended on the leadership hi
        2. Aleksey_K
          Aleksey_K 10 December 2015 23: 06
          0
          Quote: KBR109
          Alexei, imagine that NVP was present in Soviet schools until the beginning of the 80's. I was taught by the grandfather who commanded TB during the assault on Berlin!

          Not always. I finished school in 1966. So in the 60s, there was no military training. After a while, the CWP was reintroduced when they realized that it was not future soldiers who were leaving schools, but rags. Of course, I will give an unimportant example, the film "We are from the Future 2", when young people who are completely unprepared for war go to the front, especially Ukrainian nationalists. They simply could not fight at the beginning of the film, and only by the end of the film did they finally realize that they had to fight skillfully, otherwise death.
  17. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 9 December 2015 21: 20
    14
    There are sensible thoughts.

    Apollogetam "distance wars"who believe that the soldiers only need to operate the joysticks; that the exceptional will attack Aboriginals with cruise missiles and aerial bombs unrestrictedly, need to be reminded periodically of how things are."

    The size of military budgets matters, but far from absolute. Under no budget will a war against a nuclear power end in victory - until they invent some kind of chain reaction depressor.

    In particular, the statements of the militarists that NATO’s GDP is allegedly 20 trillion touches. dollars, and the population is 800 million people, while Russia supposedly has less than 2 trillion and 140 million people - supposedly this is the guarantee of victory.

    But, in fact, it only means that the aggressors will suffer большие loss in population and economy.
    This is especially true in Europe, where 500 million people are literally sitting on each other's necks. They don’t even need to aim at them - the main thing is that the wunderwafel should fly somewhere in Europe.

    Fear of retribution when the living will envy the dead, this is the only thing that stops God-chosen savages.
    1. KAV
      KAV 9 December 2015 23: 13
      +1
      So briefly / succinctly and well described everything! Respect! Oh ... Respect! )))
    2. The comment was deleted.
  18. Nik22
    Nik22 9 December 2015 21: 20
    +4
    Accordingly, if citizens of a certain country are absolutely not ready to die for any idea, that is, the armed forces and society as a whole are not ready for any serious losses, then there is practically no army. Because it is impossible to apply even for defense.

    So why do we need such an army?
    1. 3officer
      3officer 10 December 2015 03: 05
      +1
      By the way, the key point is sensitivity to losses. You can compare the quantity and quality of military equipment, the effectiveness of ammunition among potential opponents as much as you like. But as recent events in Syria have shown, it is the issue of personnel losses that causes the greatest excitement. The first victim was a soldier whose death suicide was the official version. Instantly, a wave broke out in the media, various versions of relatives, rumors, etc. For comparison, Iran lost several hundred (units participating in the conflict on the side of Assad), I don’t have accurate information about the reaction to this in Iranian society, but I can to assume that it is less painful. Fear of loss causes the refusal of ground operations (in contrast to countries with lower living standards and its value as such), not only of Western society, but also of ours. After the deaths appear, the streets will be filled with pacifists, human rights defenders etc., making such operations fatal for future political prospects The leadership of the country. To victims of local conflicts (especially outside the Russian Federation), the attitude is unacceptable whether it will be a different issue in the classic army-to-army war.
  19. Furious bambr
    Furious bambr 9 December 2015 21: 24
    0
    And who says that we need such an army? Quite the opposite - call, contract service, etc.
  20. Mixweb
    Mixweb 9 December 2015 21: 25
    +7
    And even the Russian aviation has not yet provided a radical change, it just saved Assad from a quick collapse
    Here I do not agree with the author. Our aviation just provided a turning point in the war. Now the initiative belongs to the Syrian army
  21. aba
    aba 9 December 2015 21: 29
    +5
    Great article! Plus from the heart!
    History shows that there have always been biases: we will crush with tanks, then we will cover with missiles, and America is threatening with its entire fleet, even Belarus. The army has always been and is the totality of all the arms of service!
  22. cap
    cap 9 December 2015 21: 31
    +5
    Good article. These words and conclusions, but to God’s ears.
    The struggle is not only on the fronts but also in the souls of future generations.
    To wage war, a cohesive society is needed. There are continuous holes on this front.
    And the enemy, no matter how you call him, is awake hi .
    1. olimpiada15
      olimpiada15 9 December 2015 22: 55
      0
      Quote: cap

      To wage war, a cohesive society is needed. There are continuous holes on this front.
      And the enemy, no matter how you call him, is awake hi .

      The correct assessment of the article,
      I will add a little: on this front the enemy is going to defeat us and is making a lot of efforts to make society disunited. The information front is active, even if the relationship is "partnership".
  23. moskowit
    moskowit 9 December 2015 21: 32
    +1
    The author absolutely correctly describes the current state of the army. Accents are absolutely right. Article plus.
  24. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 9 December 2015 21: 33
    +4
    I like the slogan of the times of the USSR: "If you want to get to the USA, go to the Strategic Missile Forces!" The army in Russia is now stronger and more skillful, and, I think, much more prestigious than a few years ago. And it is still quite conscription. If you are engaged in combat training, and not endless outfits and pleasing "grandfathers", a year will be enough to master even complex specialties - such as an operator of MANPADS and ATGM, a mechanic-driver of a tank or an infantry fighting vehicle, etc.
    You just have to study and play sports (in the sports camp). I am familiar with this not by hearsay. You can have a sufficiently trained draft army with a service life of 1 year, with two conscripts - autumn and spring. Yes, the draft army is expensive, permanent study, beginners - breaking equipment, confusing left and right, not knowing how to march ... So maybe it’s not worth learning to march, peel potatoes and paint fences?
    If memory serves, in the Israeli army there is no drill training - and this does not affect its combat effectiveness.
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 9 December 2015 22: 11
      0
      But at the same time, a conscript soldier serves 3 years, in peacetime, ordinary rank-and-file reservists are called up for 54 days of military training for three years, junior commanders for 70 days, and officers for up to 84 days in the same period. In the event of an emergency, the Minister of Defense has the right to extend the deadline.
      On average, an Israeli by three years of military service spends two to three years at a training camp (so-called "milouim").
  25. Massik
    Massik 9 December 2015 21: 35
    +9
    For a good army, you need to have a strong economy, and this has not been seen for twenty years. There is nothing to say about the mobile reserve ...
    1. Mountain shooter
      Mountain shooter 9 December 2015 22: 02
      +3
      In Russia, it is customary to cry about our bitter share. And in public. Let's look around. Fifteen years ago, the new Lada were considered for happiness. Now not every new foreign car is considered prestigious.
      Fifteen years ago, to go on vacation to a THREE-STAR hotel abroad - there was enough talk for a year, and not everyone could afford it - but now give five stars, nothing less.
      I don’t want to talk about clothes, gadgets, food. Take the rise in the cost of housing. He didn't come from anywhere. If there is effective demand, the price rises. Demand slowed down - and prices "shrank".
      This is a response to the claim that for twenty years you have not seen a strong economy. And what is it like here? IMHO, Russia has never exported so much food, engineering products (including, of course, weapons), but not only.
      And the devaluation of the ruble, nicely fitted to the "sanctions" - IMHO, was conceived a long time ago, and the goal was to reorient consumption to the domestic product, and to develop the production of this product. What we are now seeing. And the country, accordingly, is becoming more and more truly INDEPENDENT from exports and external conditions.
      Very successfully sanctions turned up. Otherwise, it would be difficult to explain to the people why ...
      Yes, simply because oil of 100 did NOT DEMAND any production from the country at all, everything could be bought abroad. And then the oil price "drops" - and yeah ... Lethal outcome. With the union once rolled, why not repeat the "tracing paper"?
      1. 34 region
        34 region 9 December 2015 23: 15
        -5
        Mountain shooter! 22.02. What did you want to say?
      2. Massik
        Massik 10 December 2015 15: 46
        0
        In Russia, it is customary to cry about our bitter share. And in public. Let's look around. Fifteen years ago, the new Lada were considered for happiness. Now not every new foreign car is considered prestigious.

        Fifteen years ago, to go on vacation to a THREE-STAR hotel abroad - there was enough talk for a year, and not everyone could afford it - but now give five stars, nothing less.
        20% of the population ??? My official income is 15400 rubles and reading the above is simply ridiculous to me, having a car bought for 15000 rubles ...
        I work to ensure the country's defense capability and somehow you absolutely do not notice the above. Yes, I didn’t go to pump oil and gas, trade junk or move laws, someone should do the same and simple work, and not just bosses. What are you talking about?
        I don’t want to talk about clothes, gadgets, food. Take the rise in the cost of housing. He didn't come from anywhere. If there is effective demand, the price rises. Demand slowed down - and prices "shrank".
        This is a response to the claim that for twenty years you have not seen a strong economy. And what is it like here? IMHO, Russia has never exported so much food, engineering products (including, of course, weapons), but not only.
        And the devaluation of the ruble, nicely fitted to the "sanctions" - IMHO, was conceived a long time ago, and the goal was to reorient consumption to the domestic product, and to develop the production of this product. What we are now seeing. And the country, accordingly, is becoming more and more truly INDEPENDENT from exports and external conditions.
        Very successfully sanctions turned up. Otherwise, it would be difficult to explain to the people why ...
        Yes, simply because oil of 100 did NOT DEMAND any production from the country at all, everything could be bought abroad. And then the oil price "drops" - and yeah ... Lethal outcome. With the union once rolled, why not repeat the "tracing paper"?
        What? Independent ??? Really ??? Right now, close the border with a large iron lock, including the valves on the pipelines, and let's see what kind of "Independence" we have, her mother!
        There is nothing to say about agriculture, close the border now and a third of the population will have nothing to eat. Medicine! We collect children from the country for treatment, the state does not have money to heal! Education! Children are kept at school until 3 o’clock in the afternoon and they can’t answer basic questions, before they studied for a maximum of one hour and absorbed much more ...

        I don’t know how for you, but for me, INDEPENDENCE is when a country can live in absolute isolation without depending on external factors in any way.
  26. Amateur76
    Amateur76 9 December 2015 21: 37
    +5
    I believe that the military, the pros should judge the war. It is the professional ratings that are most interesting to read. The Anna-News report looked with great interest. We can put pressure on the IG arbitrarily, but if the officers
    Saa will go home for the weekend, then the only way to defeat ISIS is SS20. Pardon Assad.
    1. S_last
      S_last 9 December 2015 22: 16
      0
      It just looks strange to us, but for them, in principle, it's normal. The Germans during the Second World War gave each soldier leave every six months, even in the year 45. Just such an attitude towards people. They believe that a person needs to move away from the war, stay with relatives, children and make new ones. And here is Syria, they have two at their house, three have wives and a bunch of children, they need to see them. War is a war that lasts 2 years, but you have to live.
      1. saygon66
        saygon66 10 December 2015 01: 20
        +1
        - Here, by the way, about the holidays: Military conscripts of the SA (like all citizens of the Union) had the right to annual labor leave! This right was universally "fucked up" by commanders ... Vacation was considered an encouragement (not a constitutional right), provided that the soldier had no "flights". A couple of penalties - and no vacation ... Moreover, in the event of any emergency in the unit, those to whom it was granted could also lose ...
  27. ava09
    ava09 9 December 2015 21: 41
    +8
    (C) Society and the army itself are quite psychologically prepared for this (C)

    Such statements must be made with greater caution. What does the author mean by mentioning "society"? Modern Russian society is so heterogeneous that it is pointless to use this term without specifying who you mean. Whom does the author mean by "society", the oligarchs-conquistadors, the officials-embezzlers, the destroyed middle class, the poor working people or the growing army of the unemployed marginalized? These are completely different concepts and they cannot initially form a consolidated society capable of fighting external threats. And the Armed Forces, as you know, are the mirror of society.
    1. S_last
      S_last 9 December 2015 22: 21
      -1
      very concise and precise
    2. 34 region
      34 region 9 December 2015 23: 19
      -1
      Consolidation of society! Oligarchs, grandfathers, hardworking spirits! Hurry up consolidation! Here ava09.21.41. Tooting. But how many think about this?
  28. dmi.pris
    dmi.pris 9 December 2015 21: 44
    +1
    The author greatly underestimates aviation, speaks of "fetishization" ... In some ways, he is right, indeed the actions of aviation against small, scattered groups showed weakness .. But in the event of a conflict with a large army, aviation will have a key role and it is necessary to develop this direction in every possible way and everything connected with this is avionics, metallurgy, composites, engines.
    1. 34 region
      34 region 9 December 2015 23: 23
      -2
      crying Is the big army ISIS? What does a large army mean? Hire the poor for three pennies and send them to die. Is this a big army? Will the management be offered loot? What aviation will help here?
  29. Gunther
    Gunther 9 December 2015 21: 48
    +1
    .... we must forever forget the once very popular thesis that the Russian army should be "small, professional, focused on the fight against international terrorism under the guise of a nuclear umbrella."

    I think “a small, professional, focused on the fight against international terrorism under the guise of a nuclear umbrella” should be replaced by "professional, focused on protecting the Motherland, using all available means".
    And what do the Israeli comrades think, well, if tomorrow the war and the insidious Iran thinks of controlling Israel, they will trample a tank pig, or, peasant (hatchet), will cover the opponent with a nuclear umbrella?
    PS
    I am convinced that only Russian citizens should serve in our army, migrant workers in the role of contract workers are a vicious way, it is easy to imagine in what situation they will score for the contract.
    1. 34 region
      34 region 9 December 2015 23: 25
      +2
      And ordinary children in our army must certainly serve the children of oligarchs! This will greatly inspire our soldiers! Are you against
  30. proletarian
    proletarian 9 December 2015 21: 48
    +5
    I put the article "FAT" minus, the author seems to be correctly pointing out the shortcomings, but at the same time he proposes to abandon the contract servicemen, who, by the way, constituted the "elite" in the Airborne Forces, the Marine Corps during the life of the USSR; yes, a contract soldier serves for money like any a professional, be it a turner, a welder or a nuclear physicist, but the fact that the number of contract soldiers in the Russian Army is increasing does not mean at all that the army will become purely professional, compact.
    Before writing an article, the author should take a closer look at what VVP, Shoigu and other competent persons voiced, namely: Contractors are the "core" of the army because during the "conscription" it is not possible to turn a simple "civilian" into a professional.
    That is, in the event of a threat of war, contract soldiers will take on the training of volunteers, draftees, mobilized and ordinary civilians, as well as take command positions in the created units; and a big request not to forget that they will take the first most massive blow.
  31. 31rus
    31rus 9 December 2015 21: 49
    +2
    Dear, the article is excellent, everything seems to be correct, it is only necessary to put everything written into practice, only my opinion is 1 year for draftees
  32. Karavan-150
    Karavan-150 9 December 2015 21: 50
    +4
    The US Army cannot defeat even civilians armed with Kalashnikovs, and they think that they can compete with the Russian army only because they have a lot of money. Money will not fight for them. Everything is decided by the fighting spirit, which the American army does not have and never had. Remove the toilet paper from the satchel from the American soldier, and he is already unfit for combat. And anyone can shoot civilians around the world, even with their eyes closed.
    1. Gormenghast
      Gormenghast 9 December 2015 22: 11
      -1
      Remove the toilet paper from the satchel from the American soldier, and he is already unfit for combat.


      Even worse - to take the anal lubricant from the fighters; there is already definitely no fighting capacity left. laughing
    2. saygon66
      saygon66 9 December 2015 23: 41
      +2
      - Aha! "Fighter! They don't wipe their ass in our Army!" How much can you talk about toilet paper ?!
  33. potalevl
    potalevl 9 December 2015 21: 53
    +3
    I agree with the author, but I will bring my own five cents. For the Army of the People to exist, it is necessary that the head of state be from the people and for the people. Remember the history of the creation and formation of the Army of the Russian State. For the sovereign creator came the sovereign destroyer, and so on along the spiral of history. So, here, as in the song of "LYUBE": "everything depends on God and a little on us." This is our life.
  34. newcomer
    newcomer 9 December 2015 21: 55
    +4
    honestly, the general arbitrariness of the article is correct, but the separate theses are, to say the least, controversial. if the author insists on the war of the army against the army, then how can he argue about the sacrifice by the Kurgan and boomerangs for the sake of Almaty? each fruit has its own place in the garden. thus, in a large-scale army “ground” operation, how to dispense with military equipment for mother infantry? the author’s dissatisfaction with the aircraft technology of “old, Soviet arbitrariness” is not clear. Did not this technique prove its superiority over the firing super_puper. Naturally, no one here is going to exchange the army with special brigades. and in the same vein, army men should naturally have all types of equipment for all types of military operations. maybe I'm overly attractive, but the author, in my opinion, for the sake of developing a gawful line of thought (by the way the right one) went a little over with the technical side.
  35. VB
    VB 9 December 2015 22: 04
    +1
    Very correct and timely article. Only in manning the army does not need to be fenced off, it’s enough to remember the manning of the imperial army with its institute of conductors and sergeant-sergeants-super-conscripts of non-commissioned officers, and to equip the army on call for two, and the fleet for three years. We’re not going anywhere. And surely, NVP in schools and develop and promote DOSAAF.
  36. Woodman
    Woodman 9 December 2015 22: 07
    +4
    To have a large army, you need to have a large population. So, to ensure the security of the state it is necessary that uh .... in general you need to give birth more)) Much more)))
  37. rfv0304
    rfv0304 9 December 2015 22: 17
    0
    I think that the article is correct, albeit in many respects controversial. The fact that the Russian Armed Forces are developing is very good and correct, but something else is bad. Mobilization training is at a very low level. And if work (mobilization) is still being carried out in the units (personnel), then in civilian life it is in complete rubble. This applies both to the task and training (in the troops) and to the selection after transfer to the reserve and to prepare mob. resources that are needed. What can I say, even the registration and mobilization of "reservists" is a problem, especially in a big city.
    In short, with wartime mobilization, it is very likely that there will be the same "order" as at the beginning of the Patriotic War. But then there was a single impulse, a single idea. And now I very much doubt that everyone will "rush" to give their lives for the oligarchs and their sons and other smaller new capitalists.
    In any case, without properly organized mobilization work, it will again be very very bad, especially in the initial period!
  38. atamankko
    atamankko 9 December 2015 22: 20
    +3
    The army that came out of the people and fights for its people wins.
  39. jungler
    jungler 9 December 2015 22: 21
    0
    Bravo Khramchikhin! Respect. Finally, not a boy’s words, but a military husband ... Interestingly, he didn’t command a company or regiment? I didn’t just say WHAT ... for such a right army there should be an appropriate POLITICAL leadership - setting adequate tasks to protect the interests of the Motherland and not neglecting the geostrategic interests of the COUNTRY for the sake of rotten tomatoes, wealthy tourists from Moscow and / or stolen people (Miller, oligarchs - ay ???) gas and other ... resources. However ... capital is cosmopolitan (K. Marx) and ... dominates in the Russian Federation. Why the heck to Capital SUCH army and President ??? The Khalif for an hour (5 years) thinks of himself as a darling and after the presidency he is not going to stay with his overcoat, chrome boots and in the old jacket ..
  40. saygon66
    saygon66 9 December 2015 22: 35
    0
    - The division into contract soldiers and mercenaries seems rather speculative ... Since in Russia (and earlier in the Soviet Union) the word "mercenary" is rather abusive, the essence of the matter was covered up by the polite "contract soldier". It is, rather, a play on words ... The fighter signs a contract (employment agreement) defining the duties to be performed for the agreed payment. The difference, apparently, is assumed in the following: Who is the employer - the State or some kind of Private company, and the latter, taking into account the Russian specifics, is nothing more than a terrible tale of the Interior Ministry's Grandmother. There is only one point - service for money!
    - Not everything is so simple with the conscript army ... A conscript goes to serve either because of "like everyone else" or "Motherland is in danger" ... In today's Russia, the concepts of Motherland and State are diverging further, and are losing their identity - hardly anyone wants to go on the attack, shouting "For democracy, for the Rothenbergs!" The present Army can be considered a people's army, but the existing system can hardly be called a people's one! Here either it is necessary to utterly protect the brain of the draftee, or a really common misfortune must happen, which puts every citizen before a choice - to fight, or to die! This is roughly the motivation for the example of the Syrian Army.
    - The division into "conscripts" and "volunteers" is also unclear ... It turns out that a conscript is a person who is forcibly serving military service ... What can you expect from such a "forced soldier"?
    - It seems to me that all this casuistry: "conscript-mercenary" should be put to lawyers ... The work of the military should be adequately paid, the requirements for the performance of official duties should be as strict as possible, and it is in peacetime when other motivation is weakly involved. A highly qualified military man - a professional must have an appropriate level of income, and as a result, based on current realities, a high social status.
    - In one thing, the author is undoubtedly right: a soldier must be ready to die, fulfilling his official duty ... And to cultivate such readiness, in principle, is realistic ... Suffice it to consider the experience of the French Foreign Legion - "Soldiers! You came here to die ... And I will lead you to where they die! "(C) Unfortunately (and maybe fortunately) few are capable of this ... It is difficult to imagine a whole people ready for total self-sacrifice ... But all the more honor for a few !
    1. Stanislas
      Stanislas 10 December 2015 00: 14
      +1
      Quote: saygon66
      It turns out that a conscript is a person who is forcibly serving military service ... What can you expect from such a "forced soldier"?
      In 1945 they won the war.
      1. saygon66
        saygon66 10 December 2015 00: 52
        -1
        - I will not deny this fact ... But! State sample 1945 - something other than Russia of the 2000s! And the trouble was the same for everyone - there was a question about the existence of the people as such ... Even if we take into account the ideological changes in the history of that period! In general, this part of the post refers to clarifying the terminology ... In my understanding, service in the Army cannot be based on any form of coercion! Only consciously and strictly voluntarily! I faced the "soldiers of failure" at one time ... smile Volunteers (contract soldiers, mercenaries) - Nashefsё!
        1. Just BB
          Just BB 10 December 2015 07: 44
          +2
          In my understanding, service in the Army cannot be based on any form of coercion! Only consciously and strictly voluntarily!


          Of course, the current position of the people in the country and the terrible stratification of society do not contribute to a "conscious" approach to army service, but ...
          A number of legislative conditions for the subsequent life of an individual who does not understand the need to acquire a military specialty could "push" to understand the need to "acquire the skills of a defender of the Fatherland" - such as a ban on weapons: hunting, sports, etc. worker "(it is a shame, however, for the category" technical ", but apparently it meant" auxiliary worker "), etc. - to create the conditions for "motivation is precisely the business of the state, for it is empowered to think about protecting the people from the enemy.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Weyland
      Weyland 10 December 2015 02: 15
      0
      Quote: saygon66
      conscript - a person who is forcibly serving military service ... What can you expect from such a "forced soldier"?


      If 1945 is "too long ago" for you - ask current Jews. CHSKH, "draft" IDF - one of the most combat-ready armies in the world!
      1. saygon66
        saygon66 10 December 2015 02: 47
        +1
        - The Israelis have no alternative ... either "every citizen is a soldier" or - kirdyk! We (I don't know who to thank) don't have such an extreme yet! From my own experience I can say: It is much easier to work with people who voluntarily come to the service than with those who serve "out of the way"!
  41. IAlex
    IAlex 9 December 2015 22: 40
    0
    It would be time for the author to stop eating the miracle mushrooms at public expense ...

    I looked very fluently, amused me with all my heart, in particular:


    In connection with a noticeable improvement in the internal situation in the RF Armed Forces, we are talking about the need to create a "professional army", fortunately, recently almost stopped.
    - in my opinion this is not due to improvement, but due to the fact that the official grandmothers have already stolen and there is no money left to pay for professionals, and there are a lot of free laborers. Those. such a cheap excuse before the court for embezzlement ...

    It is also necessary to purposefully seek understanding: the military profession is fundamentally different from all the others in that it implies the obligation to die by order of the motherland.


    Those officers (captains and majors) whom I saw recently, i.e. last Friday - these are officers from military acceptance, more cowardly than civilian women, lazy and dumb, Zadornova should write about them ...
    I don’t know how in combat units, but if so, then complete slag. So it seems to me that the GDP is trying not to use against decent countries in size, the army because everyone will see it inside ...

    Failure to comply with the order should lead to at least immediate dismissal from the Armed Forces under the defamatory article without any payments and without the right to a new contract, at the very least to a military tribunal.


    Well, in Russia, all who owe something to someone forgive. As a matter of fact, these same officers from the acceptance are constantly late for work, lose their forms, put the sticks in everyone’s wheels, and kick the kickbacks ... These will only carry out the orders ... I would say the military mafia has its own laws of functioning.

    The latest military conflicts have once again confirmed that the "professionalization" of the army is more or less equivalent to its elimination. Such an army becomes a kind of simulacrum, which will not withstand a collision with any serious opponent.


    Something I didn’t notice her death when the professional American army butchered Iraq, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. Moreover, only a sado-maso stupid person will run up to get his face in return, if you can have fun typing and calmly rob ...

    For all these reasons, the “world's strongest military bloc” has become a purely virtual dimension. Its total potential is formally very large, although it continues to decline steadily, but is useless - the alliance is ready to use it only if resistance and losses are not implied.


    Yes, it is noticeable, since the 1991 desert storm, such a helpless scarlet flower ...


    Russia on paper is much weaker than NATO, but actually stronger than the alliance.


    But in fact - is it after taking pills with LSD?

    As a result, as events in the Caucasus, Ukraine, and Syria showed, if someone (even the “unrecognized”) chose Russia as his ally, then he will be guaranteed real help and protection in a critical situation.


    Sadam Husey, Milosevic, Cubans, Syrians - they will confirm this ...


    Damn, where did so many insane articles on VO become? Is it just a trendsetter, from the Ukrainian ward No. 6, did patients scatter across Russia, for lack of dough in Khokhlostan for their treatment?
  42. Calter
    Calter 9 December 2015 22: 48
    +2
    In terms of combat training, in the first place of these categories are, of course, mercenaries ("wild geese", "dogs of war"). They are the true professionals in military affairs. As for the other three categories, it is impossible to rank them according to the level of combat training, everything here depends on specific cases and conditions. From the point of view of motivation, in the first place, of course, are volunteers who go not just to serve, but to fight, and for the idea. The motivation of the mercenaries is also very high, but they fight exclusively for money, that is, they can simply be outbid, which is why they are dangerous. The level of motivation of draftees should also be high, they pay back their debt to the Motherland (although their self-awareness is far from always true). In the last place are obviously contract soldiers who come to serve for money. It is to serve in order to receive this money, but not to fight at all, at the risk of dying (why then money?). Mercenaries are at the risk of death knowingly because of a specific psychological structure, for contract soldiers it is completely different: they are not going to die. The motivation of the contractor who had previously served on the draft will be higher.

    Sounds like a couch expert. Did the author even serve in the army? Motivation of conscripts is much lower than volunteers, with a similar level of training. A significant part of conscripts in the army is against their will, this already determines their obviously low morale.
    Contractors come to serve the motherland not for money (otherwise what is the difference between them and the mercenaries?), But come to defend the homeland like professionals. And, of course, they want to receive normal money for this, because the workload on the military is high.
    1. S_last
      S_last 9 December 2015 23: 19
      +1
      To be an expert, it is not necessary to understand something, the main thing is to speak and write more clever words. So the author does so.
  43. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 9 December 2015 22: 51
    +2
    The higher the monkey climbs the tree, the better its butt is visible
    (Adamovich; "The Punishers")

    Climbing to the top of the food chain, ameroids will fall farthest; in the event of any war, minke whales, accustomed to eating deliciously and sleeping sweetly, will be ten times worse than everyone else. So - well, fight for real.
    Euro-Neanderthals, by the way, too.

    PS

    Belarus Adamovich deserves the Nobel Prize in literature incomparably more than Aleksievich; so - by the way.
  44. S-17
    S-17 9 December 2015 22: 52
    0
    In general, you need to work with a potential fighter from a civilian position (since a person comes to any army from there), i.e. need an Idea! In Russia, already at the genetic level, the main idea is the Motherland and collectivism. And when a Russian person enters the army, this is even more strengthened and is confirmed, so to speak, already "documented" by an oath, hence, as a consequence of this - the origin of the whole code - Russian Officers / Russian Soldier, etc.
    In the West, initially, the values ​​are different - consumption and individualism, and by and large - the lack of a collective idea, hence their weak fighting ability with an equal adversary. And if you look at the history, then the Western armies were more or less combat ready, just in the presence of an idea (close to our idea of ​​the Motherland) - Napoleon, Hitler, etc.
    Well, in general, I hope I understood the idea hi
  45. Per se.
    Per se. 9 December 2015 23: 04
    +1
    At the same time, it is necessary to finally come to the conclusion that a contractor can only be one who has served a full year on conscription, and then passed a tough selection.
    Maybe the word "contract soldier" should be replaced with "extra-conscript", as it was in the Soviet Army? Finally, how optimal is one year of urgent generally for conscription? With universal conscription, the size of the army depended on the term of military service, not to a small extent, the decrease in the service life after World War II was dictated by the need to reduce the army. Nevertheless, many admit that one year is clearly insufficient for a modern army. How to find the optimal service life, so that the size of the army fits into the design, and the service life is sufficient, and you can choose those fit for physical and moral indicators? The solution is seen, paradoxically, in increasing the conscription service life to 3-4 years, with universal conscription for all, but with the division of conscription service into the army itself, where the best would be selected, and civil, where, after the "course a young fighter "would be enrolled in all other persons of draft age, including girls. Army service would give benefits and bonuses to those who served, civil service would involve working off for the army fund, for the maintenance of those who serve in the army. Also, civil service could take place in defense enterprises, or in structures serving the army. At the same time, a conscript soldier would have high-quality training and would be much cheaper than a "contract soldier", and the civil service would replenish the military budget with deductions from enterprises from conscripts of the civil service, or their working off in the interests of the Ministry of Defense. Add to this contactees (super-conscripts), where they are really needed, and you get a strong, balanced army. In addition, there will be no need to catch deviators and lose the potential of those who are not fit for military service in health.
    1. S_last
      S_last 9 December 2015 23: 28
      0
      It is written beautifully, perhaps it should be so, but alas, now it sounds like Efremov’s fantastic novels
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 10 December 2015 07: 07
        +1
        Quote: S_last
        but alas, now it sounds like Efremov’s fantastic novels
        With the development of socialism in the right direction, the fantasy novels of the communist writer Efremov, most likely, would come true. Now they want to make money on everything, on military equipment, on the army itself (it is enough to remember "sucking"), in addition, the bourgeoisie does not need the unity of the people and the army, for their selfish motives. Nevertheless, the division of conscription service into army and civil, with an increase in service life up to 3-4 years, is beneficial both under socialism and under capitalism. In any case, such a division is inevitable in a war, when some were at the front, while others worked at the front. This is the optimal scheme for the participation of the entire society in the defense of the Fatherland, and it should be taken as a basis from the time of peace.
  46. Russian Uzbek
    Russian Uzbek 9 December 2015 23: 05
    0
    "" realize: quality in no way cancels out or replaces quantity, and ammunition should not be comparable in price to the target ""
    we have realized it during the Second World War!
  47. Gardener91
    Gardener91 9 December 2015 23: 14
    -3
    Yeah, extend maternity capital.
  48. olimpiada15
    olimpiada15 9 December 2015 23: 23
    +3
    The guys should come up to the call ready, primarily physically, but better harmoniously developed, which is done not in a month, but from birth.
    Raising the younger generation is a joint task of parents and the state, as it was in the USSR: what the parents could not give was given by the school.
    And now all the sections and circles have made paid, that's what harms upbringing. Children should not be left to their own devices — they should be busy and busy with interesting and useful things, and not sit at a computer or worse. You can not give all the education to parents, not all teachers. And, if the country needs to have many children, then we must understand that parents physically do not have enough time for elders, when there are still very small children in the family, and they have to work more to provide for a large family.
    Throw away the western model of minimal education, and raise a strong, healthy, intelligent generation, otherwise we can’t defend our country.
  49. iouris
    iouris 9 December 2015 23: 27
    +3
    The idea is considered in isolation from the social nature of society in the Russian Federation and its qualitative and quantitative parameters. The USSR was a socialist state of the whole people, therefore the definition "Army of the people" reflected the natural situation. There could be no other army in the USSR. The Russian Federation is a backward (in the capitalist sense) country, in which the gap in the level and quality of life between the "top" 1-2% and 90% of the rest of the population is crazy by the standards of Europe. At the same time, in absolute terms, the standard of living of these 90% is also very low. It is the "top ten thousand" who are interested in the mercenary army. Low efficiency of the economy, most likely, will not allow to feed, arm and train the "people's army". The army is a mold of society, so we need to start with the transformation of society. Until then, we have what we have. Before embarking on the creation of the "Army of the People", it is necessary to create a self-sufficient, people-oriented state, overcome the demographic crisis, and stop the degradation of many branches of social life. RF is a part of Russia. About 300 million live in the USA, 500 million in the EU. The population in Turkey and Poland is already comparable to the population of the Russian Federation. And what will happen in 5, 10, 15, 30 years?
  50. Bjorn
    Bjorn 9 December 2015 23: 28
    +6
    The article is good, he himself served 2 years in the SA. Military specialty reconnaissance machine gunner, closes in the reconnaissance group. Then everyone served and despite the fact that PCBs and household works were exhausting, thanks to the young officers, platoon commanders whose lieutenants were burning eyes, we received good combat training. To serve in the army was the norm, even more so, those who did not serve were not even despised, but ... A saying - and you have me square, that you did not serve in the army? think remember?
    But the enemy should not be underestimated. I’m looking at them here - exercises after exercises, run, shoot, learn to disguise themselves, now the Amer’s technicians have been fired at firing ranges. In addition, they are all regulars in gyms and shooting galleries in civilian life. They have their own weapons at home and are already equipped at the assembly point. Getting ready.