Dr. Victor Kamyshanov (Russia)
International Federation for Peace and Conciliation
|
P |
rocess of transformation in the world community puts new and new
questions about of East and Central European countries’ development. Modern
world besides the global changes in the social and political developments has
to put in new way the problem of security. Growth of the problem of terrorism,
its move up from the personal and local level to the national security and
stability threat named now as the “catastrophic terrorism” – all this is linked
inseparably with answer to the question – what is the role of the Army in
modern world? It is especially important for our modern world that constantly
changes its political and alliances frames. The examples are the permanent
enlargement of NATO and creation of the Armed Forces in the newly established
states. First of all it influences the wide post-soviet space that includes not
only vast Eurasian territories of the CIS but equally Baltic, Central, Eastern
and Southern Europe and Balkans. At the
same time the question is put what is the societal reaction to the swift
changing conditions under which the Armed Forces are to act and how great and
adequate is the level of the potential threat and the challenge to the peace to
the tasks that are assigned for these forces by the democratic transformations.
|
P |
rocess of formation of independent states as a result of the fall out of
the Soviet Union has complicated the number of problems in interrelation
between the Army and the Society. Russia with its deep rooted in history
traditions of relations of the Army and Society has faced sharpening of a
number of conflicts that called the Armed Forces to be involved in direst
operation leading to the human casualties.
One of the most
serious problems of democratic processes in Russia is considered to be
interrelations between Army and Society. The consideration of the problem is
splitted in two parts.
The first one is
related to the quite acute problem of conscription and
alternative service
as it is defined by the Constitution. This is the question of implementation of
Constitutional demand for direct citizens’ participation in the defense of the
Society (State) by conscription and the right for the alternative service. Both
constitutional norms are the subject for harsh contradiction of those who are
influenced by the draft to the military service, including their families and
relatives and those who are responsible for the national defense system.
Other part of the problem is the reforming of the
Russian Armed Forces.
Here the discussion is of more professional character and reflects mainly the
ongoing political struggle in the country.
Both parts of the discussion have to be seen through the general concept of the national security.
In the country the discussion goes along with different analytical
approaches that exist in the international community. It mainly sees it through
the prism of the military heritage of the Soviet epoch.
Quite often the European intellectual community restricts analysis of
the processes ongoing in Russia mainly by the soviet period of the country’s
existence. And this restriction is one of the reasons of crippled understanding
of the ongoing processes in Russian society.
First of all it is related to the nature of the relations of the Army
and Society. It is fair to say that the description[1]
of these relations as of double character is correct. On one side it is functional,
and on the other – socio-political. This characteristic is universal. In Russia
its importance is felt more vividly due to the national-political and
socio-economic reasons for formation and development of Russian statehood, that
in many aspects is not identical to the social paradigm of the society.
Despite substantial changes in Russia the functional composing element of the Army is
secondary in relation to the social paradigm of the society that continue to
dominate all the post soviet space although it was seriously deformated.
The half a year that separates us from the tragic events on September 11th
, 2001 demonstrates the characteristic example of existing contradictions in
functional and socio-political perception of the national security both in the
Russian society as well as in its military composing element.
The process of formation of relation to the security reflects the dual
perception of the role and place of military structures (Armed Forces) in
solving socio-political problem. The first peak of public comprehension is
refereed to the number of the terrorist acts and blowing up the living houses
in Moscow in 2000. So the “1109” was for Russia the second passing through the
complicated period of understanding the correlation between national and
personal security. This stage demonstrated the serious preoccupation by
personal security and in lesser form was associated with problems of the
external threat.
Today the situation is changing. It is because the standing point that
is used by the analysts that define the descriptions of the character of the
relations between the Army and society is false. This is due to its strong
ideologisation. This is referred first
of all to the devaluation of the military component in the life of the Armed
Forces. By analyzing this problem one have to differentiate what is related to
the Armed Forces as functional public component of the system of the state
power and the Army as the system reflecting the development of the social
structure of the society. The definition process of this difference in public
opinion is a complicated one. It is equally difficult among professional
militaries.
The discussion in the society on the existing system of conscription and
creation the alternative service is related to category of the development of
social structure of society.
The increased demand to the professional abilities for the one joining
(conscribing) Armed Service have changed its value in public opinion. Due to
this the Army needs professionally trained servicemen.
The level of technological development of modern Armed Forces shrinks
the possibilities for a pre military training of the conscripts. So comes up
joint aim of both political and military elite to make a mechanism for ensuring
the Armed Forces with professionals. Meanwhile the assessments of politicians
and military are not coincident, hence comes the desire to draft graduates from
civil higher school in order to have professional selection as well as
increasing desire of the military to make a professional army.
Looking into the results of analyses of the western experts on the
subject one have to note that they concentrate their attention on some
ideological reason of the mass conscription to the Armed forces.
Controversy of these theses is obvious. The Russian army always was a
mass army due to a number of reasons. First of all it is due to the necessity
to defend the lengthy land frontier and multinational character of the
country’s population. Historical experience of the peoples of Russia proves
that those uneager to have their own Army will have above them the foreign one.
The representatives of Civil society in this conditions conduct an
instinctive defense against the Armed Forces attempts to take out of civilian
sphere the most professionally trained part of the population nor realizing the
full extend of the possible outcome for this confrontation that may lead to the
result different from those put into the concept of alternative service.
Increase of the external threat even evaluated as a virtual one brings valuable
corrections to the content of this discussion in Russia.
That is why it seems unjust to say that the Army of that nature is based
on the ideological strive for a control over population or on strive to rely on
a socio-political preconditions of a threat as a natural external surroundings.
The existence of the threats is always multivalent and includes social,
geographical, political, economic and ethnic factors. Decrease of the level of
real external threat naturally creates conditions for putting the question if
it is necessary to have conscription as at present. This phenomena is not
specific only for Russia due to the fact that “national security and this is
the great lesson of terrorist attack on September 11th 2002 that at
the epoch of translocal threats it becomes not only national”[2]
However Russian and international community has no real estimation of
extent of existing or possible threat. Russian situation has its own
specificities. This is first of all lack of clear cut state vision of political
tasks of the Army, its social functions and the chart of the threats that shall
be the ground for its transformation. The existing military doctrine adopted
when V.Putin has already become the President of Russian Federation doesn’t
clarify this situation either.
Consideration of general political relations in Russian society, it
equally relates to the Army, as an inseparable part of the Society, should be
based upon the understanding of the existing in the society alternative vision
of the situation. The following point of view reflects far from single vision,
limited, marginalized evaluation of the situation: “…the future of Russia is
under question mark. We have suffered the heavy defeat from the alternate,
rival civilization. It has definite repercussions. We lost “cold war”. It
doesn’t matter if it was due to the use of force or managed by ruse, due to the
competition in economy or in the ideological warfare. Our enemy defeated us.
It’s natural that winners have no plans to provide Russia with any future. This
is not because «bad boys» did defeat us. The victor is a victor! It doesn’t
matter bad or good. Under this historic circumstances – of despair and sorrow –
there always those enjoying the privileges of collaboration and those who doesn’t
subdue.”[3]
This conterstanding (opposition) may be a real source for transformation
of Russian society taking into consideration modern global challenges. But it
also may be the powerful detonator of social outburst. The history proves that
any outburst in Russia due to its power deeply penetrates to the social
substance of the world development.
Does the world interested in late scenario? The recent events in the world demonstrate that Russia, its
Society is challenged anew and again. This leads to the strengthening of
opposition of those standing in extremes: of collaboration and patriotic
isolation/ Paradox of the present leaders of those elites, both in the light
and in the left is that they repeat each other on the field of radical
nationalism. It is not consolidating but eroding still enough stable substance
of the public consciousness, that keeps Russia from more serious quakes.
Modern Russian society by experiencing negative consequences of liberal
reforms by Freedmen has the potential to transfer this negative reaction on
those positive elements of economic reforms by Keynes which are more clear for
the collectivists by its substance Russian society. Due to this the state
regulation of economic and socio-political processes meets the increasing distrust
to existing constructive elements of the liberal market.
How do these processes influence the role and place of the Army in
society?
Analysis of the passed decade (1991-2001) of the inexistent state logic
and liberal reforms demonstrate the appearance of the conditions for
marginalizing persons and structures that possessed serious experience of
waging combat operations. So as the soviet society of the times of the war in
Afghanistan (US at the times of the Vietnam war) the Russian society faced the serious
problem of “civilizing” (bringing back to civil life) the psychology of
militaries forcefully being retired from military service.
Thrown away to market developed by the anarchy reforms that inherited
all the negatives of the late “perestroyka” and early “eltsysn’s
democratization” the retired middle rank officers and warrant officers were
facing the choice: to die as they had no experience to merge with civil life
(it demanded serious physiological and professional retraining) or to look for
adequate response to the challenge the meet from the state. It is necessary to
mind that military were prosperous social strata in the late Soviet Union.
Here we mind that serious cuts in the Army that the Soviet Army faced
during its withdrawal form the countries Warsaw treaty and then in the period
of its transformation into multiple Armed Forces if NIS, including creation of
practically new Armed Forces of Russia.
The sharpening of a number of hot beds of tension in the former Soviet
State became possible due to the continuous increase of economic
contradictions, growth of nationalistic self-determination process at the
post-soviet space as well as due to the appearance of unclaimed layer of
professionally trained militaries that were ready to offer their capabilities
on the free market of new democratic states. It is worth to remember the
professional background of Dudaev, Moskhadov who participated in bringing up
the military-criminal potential in Chechnya.
To really evaluate the danger of this process of marginalizing the professional military it is necessary to make a special research/ The politicians åðå öóêó taking fast decisions in the beginning of the 90th have no idea about this phenomena and had no idea about consequences of opening this “Pandora box” by declaring market approach to the military reforms.
At this period Russian society has demonstrated an important ability to
“swallow military ambitions” of military leaders. IT should be considered as
important achievement to adopt socially such persons as Gromow, Nikolaev,
Vorob’iev, Lebed’, Kulikov by integrating them into the political system.
However quit a number of former military who possess the same ambitions
at the broad post-soviet space. First
of it is related to such a persons which has a combat operations experience, as
general Gratchev.
In the society also exists diametrically opposing reflection of the
influence of the military on the national security decision-making issues. So
the poll in Georgia shown that 57 per cent were of the opinion that Russia
would not agree with the presence of USA in Georgia, 40 per cent considered
that there would be calm reaction. The others were of no opinion.[4]
As a result the interest to the professionals among militaries was paid
by criminal structures that in different ways integrated and continue to
integrate them.
SO the problem of the relations between the Army and the Society is
reflected also in solving not only the conscription problem but also in the
process of demobilization of the Armed Forces in accordance with existing
economic conditions that are characteristic to the modern Russia as well as in
meeting those socio-political demands that are expressed by demobilized
professional militaries.
The problem of this social layer in Russian continue to be very acute by
last 15 years. Process of reforming the Armed has offered no solution. It means
that level of security and social stability in the Society may be maintained
only if the professional militaries will be able to realize their professional
ability within the Armed Forces. In this case the democratic control over the Military Sphere the model law of
which wad adopted by the CIS Parliamentary Assembly and passing its
consideration in Russian State Duma.
It is Government that elaborates concept of Military Reform in Russia.
The document will be presented by July 1 to the President so that on the basis
of this concept the programme for stage by stage transfer of the Army to the
contract scheme should prepared by 2003. This programme foresee schedule and
expenditures for practical steps that put an aim by 2010 to minimize conscript
and to make the basics of the Armed Forces of Russian Army as professional one.
Due to this the internal political market in Russia faces quite serious
bargain to get control over the future development of relations between the
Armed Forces and politically active part of the population. It relates to the
necessity to analyze the Russian policy in relation to NATO and USA,
particularly that part that deals with the problems of the strategic stability.
The plans have been criticized not only by politicians but by military
also. The right-wing parties – SPS (Union of Right Forces) and YABLOKO
(G.Yavlinskiy party) as well as president of the Military Sciences Academy
Makhmud Gareev consider that the Army may be fully contract already by 2004. At the same time they offer
to keep part of the Armed Forces and another Force structures still formed by
conscription.
This discussion is mixed with evaluation of external political relations
of Russia with European and US partners, first of all in the view of inevitable
enlargement of NATO. Possibilities of Russia to influence this process are
small nevertheless it is necessary to analyze seriously the policy of Russia in
relation to NATO and US referring first of all to the ensuring strategic
stability in the world.
This problem is linked with general changes in military-strategic
relations in the world after the II WW. The modern system of relations is based
upon the substantial treaty basement that is the reason of complexity in
realization of many reformist ideas that Russia faced recently.
The very example of such conflict in society is reaction to the
political debate between the USA and Russia was the NABMD.
There are some political forces that stand for development of relations
with present USA administration on the “blank sheet” basis. They have the
opinion that Russia should defend “real long-term interests of Russia instead
of a chimera of the struggle of a multipolar world”. The way the problem is
formulated creates additional tension, as there is no public consent on
defining the long-term interests in global world.
There is no single-polar world today but the treat of this forceful
formation exists. There is no need to reject that world is facing the attempt
of the USA to dominate it. In this content the countries of the North Atlantic
alliance are not equal partners in this process. Their function is to provide
logistic for the main actor.
Informational leaking on new approaches of the US to the concept on
nuclear armament use, and Russia is among targets, are contradictory to those
from the military-political ideology that has exploited the public opinion of
Russia and other CIS countries in between 1985 and 2000.
This is opposed not only by Russia but as well by such influencing
countries as China, India, and majority of the countries members of the UN
although their military potential is incomparable to that of the US.
May be this is the reason why the basic potential of common sense is
still prevailing and main tendency of the worlds development is multipolar
world.
It is reflected in strengthening of economic and political position of
mane states and integrative institutions, in improving the mechanisms of
multilateral management of international processes.
That is why the Military Doctrine of Russian Federation is oriented to
the positive transformation of the international situation. However some events
are alarming as it was said by I.Ivanov, Russian Foreign Minister: “if the
information is real it may cause feelings of regret and concern not only by
Russia but by whole world community and …destabilize and complicate the
situation.”
The transition to the new stable model of the security is possible on
the basis of equal integration of the Eastern European countries in transatlantic
security system. Today NATO and WEU represent this structure first of all
jointly with such political structures as EU and Council of Europe.
Contemporary situation demonstrates objective preconditions for
transformation of existing security system. This approach is based upon formed
differences of tasks that have been solving by the countries of the former
Eastern European Block in providing their national security.
If to look into the definition of differences in existing relations
among the former Warsaw Treaty countries and the relations as they develop
today between the Eastern Europe and NATO it is necessary to analyze the
“leader-supporting” system within any military-political alliance.
Quiet for a long time Russia has played the leader system force in the
sphere of military-political relations for ensuring the solution of national
and regional security. As a result of loosing this position by Russia in the
beginning of the 90’s of the last century the Eastern European countries faced
the dilemma either to use neutrality statue as example of Austria and Finland,
or to substitute the leader for ensuring national security issue. The processes
that developed around Yugoslavia have played the catalysis role to influence
the decision–making in favor of NATO as substitute for leader’s position.
Here it is important to mind that this solution was influenced not only
by political motives but very pragmatic aims. The military elite in these
countries was interested to solve this problem promptly in order to preserve
its highly privileged position and material benefits of this social layer of
the society
Following this the solution of the problem to create “an identifiable”
model of relations between the Army and the Society (or better to define “of
the army in the society”) in the period since the end of the Cold war[5]
till now have to be defined as palliative.
The support of this process was generally based on identification of
NATO as a Western Europe and the socio-economic landmarks in defining the
public position on this subject. Military-political composing element played
here a subordinate role if not to speak about its purely ideological function.
At the same time the sociological research proves that Russian society
still continue to be suspicious about international military-political
cooperation of Russia.
23% of respondents consider that Russia’s joining NATO would be a
geopolitical mistake. The same quantity consider that Russia will lose if joins
NATO. The most popular was position to negotiate the conditions before joining
NATO – 30 %. 13 % consider NATO as strategic partner. 12 % look on joining NATO
as an attempt to weaken the US and only 6% are sure that immediate joining NATO
is necessary condition for development of Russia because of its weakness.[6]The
same apprehension is reflected in Military Doctrine of Russia where it is noted
that discrimination, suppression of rights, freedoms and legal interests of
Russians in foreign states Russia considers as one of main external threats to
its security. So in this statement the consequent adherence of Russia to peace
is combined with determination to defend interests of Russian citizens both in
the country and abroad.
At the same time the global developments demand to have absolutely new
approaches tj the understanding of the concept of the security in 21st
century. It is a mistake to look at in only trough the prism of “international
terrorism” as well as trough the permanently used in the West the postulate
that “Russia will remain the constant source of threats”/ It is more
deadlocking then productive way. It ensured the ideology of NATO enlargement
but failed to strengthen security.
The researchers have no immediate solution for the problem/ It is
because the intellectual debates are waged within the rails of old conceptual
theories standing not far from ideology of “cold war”. “International
terrorism” is the abortive phenomena of «cold war» that just prove that
international community has no answers to the challenges of world global
development: how the individual security will be provided?
Development of the social component in relations between the Army and
the Society in coming future still will be grounded on the overcoming the
physiological heritage of “cold wad syndrome”.
Here one has to differentiate the problem of the Eastern Europe and
Russia. Military social layer in Eastern Europe represent mainly separated
institute[7]
from the society. In Russia it is integrated in the societal system of
interrelations. This difference in reality is the reason for the conflict
between the “cosmopolitan” part of Russian society represented by the human
right organizations and “patriotic” composing element that exactly consider
Army as one of the branches of institutionalized social system.[8]
Due to this the military (army serviceman) is associated in Russian
society with certain system of hierarchy relations and following the rules of
established discipline. So on mental level the Army is the institute of
upbringing of certain personal characteristics such as self-control,
self-discipline that equally called for civil life as well as in military
service for ensuring the solution of national security tasks.
Russian society always was considering the Army as a jumping-off place
to the future, to the civil society. On social level the Army was providing the
person with preferences for getting higher education, for employment to the
better job, for ensuring better conditions for professional upgrading. This
psychology is preserved even outside the former soviet Union. Here is worth to
refer to the example provided in the interview of a US Navy serviceman,
descendant from Ukraine, to the Russian TV aboard US aircraft carrier during
initial stage of the antiterrorist operation against Afghanistan. He was considering his service only as
possibility to provide necessary material resources for further education on
professional promotion outside military service.
Such approach naturally is in contradiction to the task to be
implemented by the Armed Forces as a structure that has to fight the war. Here
in defining the difference between the social and military function of the army
one sort out difference between the Conscription Army and Professional Army. In
between these poles there is a place for a Contract Army that leaning to the social
(economic) composing element then to the professional war-fighting function.
In this context the problem of transformation of strategic concept of
the Army in contemporary conditions should be considered.
The Conscription Army thus becomes the part of civil control over the
elite layer of the Army that bear the militaristic spirit due to the assigned
task to conduct or to be ready to conduct war-fighting.
Conflict between «social» and «professional» army emerges due to some
reasons: political, social, but mainly as a result of technological changes in
the Army. Following this the changes of social values stimulate not the
insurance of national security as a unified complex of socio-economic and
political values but of the military-industrial complex that in existence of
military-political tension finds the ground for internal development and
improvement of military power.
This approach is defined in the thesis about the negative influence of
“sociality” of the institutional organization of the army on functional
war-fighting composing element of the Armed Forces.
Following this the war-fighting function of the Army should be
considered as the outcome of the realization of the aim to ensure the national
security: the objective demand to defend national territory.
Here comes up the problem of the correlation of the national security
and national interests, which by its character are broader then the national
borders. Conflicts come up when limits of national interests are crossing each
other. It leads to the more serious consequences if under such crossing the
national security borders are crossed as well by the sphere of the opposing national
interests.
Why do we speak now about increasing tension in military-political
sphere? This is because these spheres cross the borders of national security.
So the solution of the problems is in the demarcation of these zones. The “cold
war” times provided us with necessary experience. There are certain grounds
that laid down in definition of these principles that may give proper perspectives
for development of relation between the Army and Society as in certain
countries as in securing global integrative processes. It is very important in
forming international understanding what are the limits trespassing of which
will lead to military confrontation. Such activities as they were in
Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, in NABM case, as well in some other fields of
military political relations create opportunities for changing society balance
in defining what shell be the level of war-fighting potential and when comes
the moment for transforming the war-fighting readiness into combat operations.
Here comes one more element: the interrelation between the globalization
and legitimization of military (humanitarian) intervention. This problem of
general nature. It should be seen through the lengthy process of preparation of
washing away the role of national sovereignty by changing social and economic
values.
The first who feels the outcomes of that process are the military
structures that starts alarming the society. It then moves to the preconditions
of authority of the Armed Forces as an instrument of national security defense.
This deviation in public evaluation of the situation creates opportunities for
certain political forces to use the Armed Forces as the only body able to solve
the mounting bulk of social problems.
Here the speed of consolidation of these ideas is in direct proportional
link to the existence of defense tradition from the external threat in the Society.
For the countries who experienced external protection of their national
security it goes slower then for those whose historic memory is strongly and
emotionally become revived for reaction on warding off. Russia is the country
of this nature. And the Armed Forces were playing the role of Nation-Builder
due to its bigger organization, energy and effectiveness in getting thing done.
Some countries and Russia first of all consider the Army as inseparable
functions of Nation-Builder and National Defense. The role of Regime
Defense is subordinate. In the Soviet time the Armed Forces enjoyed
practically this statute only once – while supporting the arrest of L.Beria in
1953. In other cases due to its ideological force as Nation-Builder and
National Defense neither the Army nor the Armed Forces was a supporting
instrument in solving internal political problems.
Following this the
concept of the peacekeeping role of the Army as of a social institute is controversive.
When speaking on the Normative role of the Army the parallax of notions
“Army” and “Armed Forces” happens. Some normative functions may be assigned to
a certain structures extracted from the Army. In such cases this parts of the
Army are being transformed from institutional task to defense national security
(National Defense) into the Task Force of the Armed Forces. In such cases
qualitative and quantative parameters are different. The characteristic example
is the participation of the Armed Forced in conducting operation against
terrorist in Checnia. There the Army was not involved at all, the Armed Forces
were used in the limited period of time. Even this limited involvement was
opposed internally both in the Army and in the Society.
That is why the
Internal Forces, special task forces and kontraktniki [9]
are being used
there during the major part of the operation. The kontraktniki due to the lack of tradition of
using the mercenaries in Russia for combat operation have contributed a lot to
the creation of problems while waging antiterrorist operations. That is why
looking in to the problem of civil control in the Army for Russia it is
important to study real consequences of using kontraktniki in real military operations where
the high level of risk and discipline is demanded.
The level of
danger of the modern armaments demands well-organized system of control. This
axiom was realized a long ago by members of the Nuclear Club. They worked out a
number of mechanisms of mutual control and verification for the nuclear
armaments first of all foreseeing exclusion of uncontrolled use of nuclear
weapon. Well know “nuclear cases” of the Presidents became an inseparable part
of modern political midge. More complicated and less controllable situation
with biological and chemical weapons, uncontrolled dissemination of which was
demonstrated by the scandal in post sending of anthrax in the US as well as by
permanent exploitation of low level of production control in campaigns against
Iraq. .
So it is obvious
that technological breakaway of the Armed Forces represent a substantial danger
not only external but internal also.
However these
types of weapons are well known, approximate volumes and characteristics of
their deployment are accessible. The mechanisms of prevention of its use are
developed and ratified by international community.
At the same time
the scientific and technological progress is on the way. New discoveries are
appearing and focused in the attention of creators of new types of weapons. The
process of information flow is increasing. It is less controlled due to
liberalization of international scientific communication. New knowledge is
quickly and easily transmitted from one scientific center to another. Not all
of them are accessible to national and international control.
The modern level of technological development
under the secrecy of such institution as the Armed Forces, first of all Professional
Armed Forces, allows the invention and production of such types of the weapons
that stands far beyond the common understanding of existing danger of the
armaments.
This is new
problem that seriously threatens international security and stability. The
further professionalisation of the Armed Forces, their separation from the Army
and the Society are part of this process. That is why the Power, the Society,
and the Civil Society in particular should make proper evaluation of possible
consequences while advocating its own separation from the Army as a social
institution.
[1] As defined in the background paper
[2] Ulrich Beck “Silence of words and
political dynamism in society of global risk. /Internationale Politik 12-2001
(Russian Edition), Published by German Embassy inMoscow.
[3] Alexander Dugin, interview to the
press-center of ÑÌÈ. Ru
/07.03.2002 (Russian Information Internet site). See also www.Eurasia.com.ru
[4] Web site of the News agency “Prime
News” March 12.03.2002.
[5] For the moment we live aside the
very definition of the “end of Cold was” as majority infrastructure elements
still persist in contemporary world.
[6] Kmnews.ru March 12, 2002
[7] Eastern Europe has more developed
traditions of military elite with creation of its own social structure. Mainly
it is reflected in the history of public development of Poland and Hungary as
compared to the Bulgaria or Czechnia that also explains different speed of
movement towards NATO while enjoying approximately equal level of public
evaluation of the problem.
[8]
Here we should have in mind long history of national tradition of
military structures in Russian society: streltsy (military men in time of tsar
Mikhail – father of the Peter the Great), Cossacks, military settlements,
existence of certain paramilitary casts – custom servicemen, frontier men,
firemen, railway servicemen and other that are defined by high level of
self-organizing and self-discipline.
[9] Kontraktniki – those soldiers who signed a contract to join combat operation for
remuneration. At the same time in Russian and Soviet Army it is a special
institution of contract forces that are involved in implementation of logistics
for the Army (communication, medical staff and others). The contract service is mainly
common for women if the military service.