Michael Delyagin: It Seems That Own Army Is Accepted by Management of RF as a Threat

- Michael Gennadevich, on occasion of recent February, 23^rd, whether a figure of the Minister of Defence Serdyukov is not a mockery over idea of the Russian army?

- Well, Defender of the Motherland Day is nevertheless the Soviet Army Day, the Russian army has slightly different history. Personality of the Minister of Defence and its tireless activity making impression of realized destruction of the army shouldn't cover a key problem of last - absence of any distinct military doctrine. The Russian military men till now have no answer to the main questions of any army...

- Yes, it's not clear who the potential opponent is. Who should the army protect the Motherland from?

- As well as what exactly the army should protect? Who is its ally - in particular, whether Kazakhstan (as well as other states of Central Asia entering CSTO) and Belarus are military allies of Russia? It is clear that defense within borders including Belarus and Kazakhstan and also their resources qualitatively differ from the defense only within the borders and with resources of modern Russia. These variants demand different approaches.

To what military operations the army should be prepared? The army of the USA, for example, according to the old military doctrine should provide strategic nuclear restraint and conducting two local wars simultaneously. The Russian army doesn't have such requirements and consequently is in condition of uncertainty.

- What follows then?

- Absence of distinct and unambiguous answers to these questions does the mere statement of the question what resources, what weapon and what internal structure is necessary to the Russian army senseless. However, information about delivery of means of dispersal of demonstrations and suppression of disorders to the army causes sensation of preparation of its reorientation from reflection of external threats on suppression of citizens of own country with insufficiently enthusiastic ways of thinking.

On the other hand, sharp increase in financing (from 116,3 billion rbl. in 1999 to 1,3 bln. rbl. in 2010 and prospective 2,1 bln. rbl. in 2013) at quite obvious blasting of defensibility (under the open data of the Russian military analysts, fighting capacity of grouping of the Russian armies in the North Caucasus after a victory over Georgia decreased for two years more than quarter - in the course of "military reform") makes impression of transformation of army in "a milk cow" of corruption. It seems that existence of the Russian armed forces is not the way of country defense but only an occasion to waste huge budget money which can feed corrupted persons of all colours "to the full".

- What about "there is such trade - to protect the Native land"?

- The Russian ruling party, as it could be understand, doesn't need the Russian army basically as the force providing defensibility of the Native land, especially in the presence of plurality of this concept among elite. Having deduced own actives and even families abroad, representatives of this party, as much as it's possible to judge, are sincerely convinced that "if something happens", they will be protected by armies of NATO or Switzerland but not by the Russian army: they simply don't connect their future with "this country" which they master using almost rotation team method.

For this very reason there is no even in theory, even as statement of question answer to terrible technological challenge of the USA and the West as a whole accruing from year to year. In particular, the American armor can destroy our tanks from the distance they will fail even to hit the Americans. The American planes constructed on the base of "stealth" technology having till now no analogs in the world are invisible to radar. By means of remote devices of night vision the American soldiers can in real-time mode deeply in the rear observe opponent and attack it remaining unnoticed. Our country which experts were the first who created and tested fighting pilotless planes doesn't produce them but is even compelled to buy them in Israel - at the time when developed countries can't imagine conducting of military operations without them. The plane with forward-swept wing S-37 "Berkut" created in Russia 13 years ago, renamed later in S-47 should have given enormous impulse to the development of pilotless aircraft in Russia. After all a person physiologically isn't capable to stand up overloads appearing at maneuvering of S-37, it, apparently, predetermined development of remote control system - but the Russian management preferred simply to close the project. The American submarines can by means of high-sensitivity sensor controls find out almost every ship in the world ocean remaining thus in safety. The American rockets can reach every target with such accuracy that, according to experts, after Russia will not be capable to strike punishment blow after the first American blow.

- Once we had the most powerful in the world nuclear underwater fleet...

- The Russian fleet of nuclear submarines was reduced to 9 units. We have only two bases where squadrons of strategic bombers are placed, at that in case of unexpected attack they will appear defenseless. Mobile systems "Topol-M" almost don't leave hangars which are at gunpoint of the Americans - however in case of their launch probability of their interception by the American ABM seems high enough.

Thus in Russia there is even no idea of the structure stimulating technological progress, similar to Advanced Research Project Agency of the Pentagon (notorious DARPA).

Thus, there's no reason to celebrate Defender of the Fatherland Day in Russia: modern Russian army, as you can see, is being consistently destroyed by the country leaders. Today it is efficient even less and lags behind potential opponents even more strongly, than soldiers' regiments in the beginning of XVIII century. Owing to ossification of institutes and formation of specific (including corruption) culture of management it simply isn't subject to reforming.

- If it's a sentence to the army or to the whole country?

- After recovery of the Russian state it will be necessary to create modern army anew, "from zero", using remained efficient components of Armed forces and to form new military culture n it. It will be necessary to close today's army gradually transforming it into a hospice for generals and "effective managers".

Send by mail

Print