Raising the draft age to 30 is justified by the interests of the military organization of the state. Ardent supporters of this "forced" measure are either people whose children are reliably protected from military service, or supporters of preserving the armed forces in their previous form, that is, industry lobbyists. Unexpectedly, among them was the Minister of Education and Science Andrei Fursenko.
Attempts to call under arms, which are not even always available in the units, have taken on some desperate forms: preparations are underway for yesterday's war. And if any war is being waged, it is against the economically active part of the population.
The arguments of the parties are well known. The army is not enough … recruits, and it operates mechanically and at any cost expands the basis of the draft. If this continues, they will soon be called not in autumn and spring, but all year round. The cancellation of deferrals left rural schools without teachers and small children without fathers. The increase in the draft age is motivated, among other things, by Minister Fursenko as follows: adults who understand something in life should serve in the modern army. Thus, the Soviet concept of "the army is a school of life" is canceled (and in fact, a means of socialization for young people from the provinces and national republics, sometimes - teaching the Russian language, albeit with an allowance for an abusive breeze). In this logic, it is necessary to call from the age of 40 - comrades who are already tired of life will gladly diversify their dull everyday life with a year of male brotherhood. No hazing, and in general it's a kind of fishing or hunting …
The opponents of all this diverse activity of the military branch lobby proceed from other considerations. It was necessary to carry out the reform of the army on time, to transfer it to a professional basis, the money that could be spent on this has already been profaned, no one knows what. The army of recruits corresponds to the state of an agrarian, not even an industrial society, let alone a post-industrial society. Today, tearing off students and those who work even for a year of service means impoverishing the economy, relieving economically active citizens of the knowledge, competencies and skills acquired and useful in the national economy.
The second point of view has not only economic, but also moral and ethical justification. The modern army has not got rid of the functions of an institution that humiliates human dignity and endangers the life and health of citizens. There is also a technical rationale: if a modern army should be completely differently equipped, recruits will hardly be able to master newfangled military equipment in a year; in the current circumstances, even professional officers are unfamiliar with the new technology, let alone some graduate student-philosopher with glasses, called up for a gun, more precisely, an automatic machine that he is barely able to assemble and disassemble. If, of course, this machine gun fires and if it succeeds at least once, breaking away from the clay of construction work and a shovel, it is used for its intended purpose, otherwise in many units the soldiers and combat training have nothing to do. The army is collapsed to such an extent that even the measures to humanize it do not look entirely humane. If a soldier dying of idleness also has a weekend, he potentially turns into a socially dangerous element - there is nothing worse than unoccupied time.
No matter how many people were driven into the army, no matter how many young people were caught, no matter how much they appealed to patriotic feelings, no matter how much the service life was reduced - all this is empty. A modern young man who wants to get an education, work and live in accordance with the standards of a post-industrial society will not join the army. Depending on the talents and wallet of his parents, he will either leave the country, or receive a white ticket for money, or hide from the radars of any official structures. It is a strange situation when young people are forced to go underground and lead an asocial lifestyle, if only they would not be swept into the armed forces.
Any measures to expand the base of the call will be ineffective, because the call itself is outdated as a class. Against him, most of the people related to draft-age boys are waging a war. The war that the state is losing. The economy is losing. The country is losing. What is it all for? For the lobbyists to preserve the army in its Soviet state receive the amount of cannon fodder required to continue its existence?
Military reform turned out to be one of the few that tried to actually start. The pension reform has failed, which could have put the distributive economy on its feet and become a source of long-term money. The education reform has advanced more or less, and this is the great merit of Minister Andrei Fursenko - after all, the process of introducing the Bologna system and the national exam is clumsy, but it is going on. The army reform has stalled. When there is no reform, the old unreformed institution falls apart. If an institution falls apart, those who live in it and at the expense of it try to preserve the ruins at any cost. The most powerful lobbying resources are involved in the process of preserving the ruins. And, most likely, Andrei Fursenko was forced to compromise, as he went for it, having resisted for several years, in the introduction of the foundations of Orthodox culture in schools.
Compromises in reforming backward areas are costly. They will be even more expensive in the future. This is exactly what happens with long-term construction projects. The same will happen with the military reform: there will be no more recruits, and the army will lag behind modern standards, including human standards, by several generations.
For some reason, it seems that in the depths of his soul the Minister of Education and Science understands this. And even the Minister of Defense …
