On January 29, 2013, at a meeting with the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu presented a document that is a plan for the defense of Russia. According to Shoigu, the plan was “shaken” by representatives of 49 different departments, departments and ministries. The Minister of Defense claims that this document has worked out all the most important details that relate to the defense of Russia for the next decade. At the same time, Sergei Shoigu makes it clear that this is not at all an ossified document, the points of which should be understood as the most real dogmas, but quite a working structure, designed for both additions and adjustments depending on the current situation.
This meeting with Vladimir Putin was attended not only by the head of the country's military department, but also by the chief of the General Staff, Valery Gerasimov.
It should be noted that a few days before the presentation of the defense plan to Putin, a meeting was held at the Academy of Military Sciences, in which Sergei Shoigu was directly involved. At this meeting, he outlined the problem associated with the growing military threat to Russia. The Minister of Defense said that, despite all the advances that have occurred in the global humanitarian sphere, military force still plays a major role in both the economic and political life of the planet. Shoigu stressed that for Russia in a number of areas, serious dangers emerged in the form of local hot spots. And, as we know very well, any individual hot spots with the active influence of outside forces can easily turn into a single hotbed of confrontation with Russia, as happened in the North Caucasus at one time.
Based on this, the head of the military department declares that Russia must have the entire arsenal of means and capabilities that will enable the country to respond to any challenges. For this, according to Shoigu, we need effective Armed Forces, methods of control over them, modern weapons, new military equipment and high-quality trained personnel.
Valery Gerasimov, speaking at the meeting, uttered an even more poignant phrase, which was that the possibility of a large-scale war is very high today. You need to be ready to defend the interests of the Russian Federation at any time. The Chief of the General Staff said that he sees the centers of instability as the greatest danger for Russia, as he put it, along the perimeter of our country's borders.
Based on this, a special strategy for maintaining the combat capability of the Russian army was formulated, designed for the short, medium and long term. Obviously, the fundamental points of the strategy are included in the very plan for the defense of Russia, which was presented to the Supreme Commander-in-Chief.
Now it is worth paying special attention to the words of the Minister of Defense and the Chief of the General Staff of the country that the greatest threat to Russia's security lies in the presence of hot spots along the perimeter of the country (and, obviously, both on the external and internal sides of its borders). One of the most unstable regions in this regard (historically it happened) is the Caucasus. This region at different times (and the present time is not exclusive) was a real powder keg, the explosions of which led to instability not only directly in the Caucasus region, but also on the territory of, say, Greater Russia (including the Russian Empire).
Today the Caucasus is a territory that at any time can be used by interested persons as a hotbed for destabilizing the situation in the Russian Federation.
If we talk about the new history of the country, then since the beginning of the 90s they tried to play the Caucasian card with maximum destructive efficiency. The Chechen campaigns actually led to the fact that a real representation of extremist forces from all over the world appeared on the territory of Russia, which was actively supported economically and politically by those who today stubbornly call themselves supporters of the idea of the integrity of states under the flag of democracy. However, the guise of what was called democracy and the protection of human rights in the North Caucasus was hidden under the bandage of ultra-radical jihadists who pecked grain from the well-known feeders today.
Russia then could well be left without part of its territory, which would inevitably lead to the beginning of total fragmentation, forming more and more "feudal principalities" on the map.
But, fortunately, Russia did not remain without its territories. With all the appalling state of the army in the mid-nineties, when servicemen were forced to work in auto repair shops or "bomb" them in a taxi to feed their families, Russia managed to survive. Russia, bogged down in Western loans with draconian interest rates; Russia, which, with all its desire, could not assemble even a couple of dozen combat-ready formations equipped with modern technology and weapons; Russia, which was playing an import game called "a new cloudless democratic life", no matter how pathetic it may sound, was able to remain an integral state without actually having allies. Unrestrained information bullying in the media (including domestic ones), constant condemnation of actions in Chechnya by foreign politicians, an endless series of manifestations of pressure on the country through economic levers … the country collided during the conduct of those same North Caucasian military campaigns.
Obviously, that time was just ideal for the supporters of the idea of dividing Russia into separate, warring with each other, parts. It seemed that all that remained was to make a control shot, and Russia would crumble. Didn't fall!..
Did the plans dissolve after that to turn Russia into separate rags for those for whom a single state from the Baltic to the Kuriles is like a thorn in a soft spot? Of course not. The world events of the past few years show what methods are being practiced today in order to turn entire geopolitical regions into hotbeds of chaos. Libyadivided into parts, raging Egyptbloody Syria - these are examples of how the red-hot steel ball of global "democratization" is rolling around the world.
It would seem that these countries are far from Russia, and therefore they have nothing to do with the statements of Shoigu and Gerasimov that border "military fires" are especially dangerous for our country. However, in fact, the world today is quite closely intertwined and only one link of general stability and security that has dropped out of big geopolitics can provoke the unwinding of a destructive mechanism anywhere in the world. It is obvious that to this day there are enough politicians-adventurers in the world who are ready to achieve their goals through, among other things, the unleashing of armed conflicts in separate territories.
August 2008 conflict South Ossetia This is a vivid confirmation. What has become the desire of an individual Caucasian politician to put a laurel crown on his head is difficult to rationalize. Attacks on civilians, the killings of peacekeepers, open segregation along ethnic lines - these are some episodes in the solution of the so-called South Ossetian issue. And again - a colossal informational, or rather, a disinformation blow to Russia, which for a long time shook both Russia and the whole world, and ultimately led to a backlash that tore apart Georgia into parts.
For obvious reasons, this conflict is still far from real settlement. Where are the guarantees that someone from the outside will again not want to play the Transcaucasian card in order to push their heads against the peoples who have lived side by side for centuries?.. There are no guarantees, and therefore these guarantees must be formed on our own. It is not worth asking for trouble, but there is no need to act as a geopolitical amoeba either. Good-neighborly ties are good, but good-neighborly ties are even better if there is more than just soft power. After all, soft power multiplied by quite tough power is the best cement for productive relationships in the modern world. Someone calls this "saber rattling." However, it is better to once "just for every fireman" clang the bolt warningly than to get a new Libyan scenario or "third Chechnya" later. Hard? Perhaps, but this is the truth of life, and it is better to perceive it as it is.
Continuing to talk about the "hot" Russian perimeter, one cannot but touch on the hot topic Nagorno-Karabakh … Today this topic is being discussed at a meeting of the Azerbaijani and Armenian delegations in Paris with the mediation of France, Russia and USA … The Iranian ambassador to Azerbaijan added an additional acuteness to the discussion of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue in absentia. He stated that Iran only supports a political peaceful settlement of the conflict, but at the same time it is unambiguously inclined towards the idea that Nagorno-Karabakh should be, the quote: "returned to Azerbaijan." These words caused applause in Azerbaijan and indignation in Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia itself. It is obvious that the words of Ambassador Mohsun Pak Ayin may lead to another round of tension between Baku and Yerevan. And any negative relations between these countries are certainly not in Russia's hands, because they (negative relations) can lead to new bloodshed in the region, which, in turn, can use third forces to destabilize the situation, including in the south. Russia. Does this play into the hands of Iran? - A big question … But someone definitely plays into the hands …
We must not forget that the situation around Russia remains quite tense not only in the Caucasus. There are other border regions, where the situation only outwardly looks quite peaceful, but the outward appearance is often deceiving … One of such territories is South Kurils, to which he has long dreamed of having a hand Tokyo … And, based on this, the strategy of protecting the borders of Russia should take into account the tense geopolitical situation and on Far East too. Here and Beijing knows his business … Any indulgence can lead to negative consequences for the country, which future generations will have to disentangle, which would clearly not be desirable.
But there are other territories associated with Russia, the situation around which is far from idyllic. Take the Arctic, for the resources of which a large-scale confrontation between the world's leading players may already begin. Losing the Arctic for Russia means losing the future.
Based on all of the above, it is safe to say that the security strategy and defense plan of Russia appeared clearly in a timely manner. At the same time, I would like to believe that this plan really reflects the interests of the country's citizens and will be implemented without agony and rushing out of the fire and into the fire.
