The reform of military education is likely to come to this result.
The following circumstances prompted us to write this article. Positive assessments of the progress and results of the reform of our Armed Forces are heard from the lips of Russian leaders. But at the same time, the number of critical statements on the same issue by reserve and retired officers and generals, experts, is still not decreasing. Why is this happening? If everything is really so good, why do people who have given decades of military service or pay close attention to the problems of the army and navy perceive the changes taking place there so negatively?
But we decided to devote our material not to the consideration of the reform of the RF Armed Forces as a whole, but to the issues of military education, since this topic was repeatedly covered on the pages of the “VPK” newspaper.
On the one hand, the experience and knowledge of one's own country are ignored, and at the same time, someone else's experience is blindly copied, clearly aimed at the collapse of military science and military education, lowering their importance for the defense capability of Russia. On the other hand, a decision has already been made, reductions, mergers and acquisitions have been carried out, the recruitment of cadets has been canceled, the number of dismissals in the teaching staff is calculated in hundreds, the pillars of military education have been relocated from the capitals to the outskirts. What can be changed now?
There is only one thing - to stop the reform of education and let the professionals, taking into account all the comments made by the experts, try to restore the lost positions. Because the continuation of the reform will not allow Russia to either educate a galaxy of great military commanders, or raise great scientists, or defend the country in the upcoming battles.
Not everything is so smooth
Problems of military science and military education have already been repeatedly considered: first at a round table in the State Duma chaired by State Duma deputy, member of the Defense Committee Vyacheslav Tetekin, then at hearings in the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation. Subsequently, these issues were raised at a meeting of the Club of Russian military leaders and, in conclusion, analyzed at a meeting of the Defense Committee of the State Duma of the Russian Federation.
Such intensity of consideration of the issues of reform of military science and military education only emphasizes both the significance of this process and the fact that not everything is so smooth with the ongoing reform. So many professionals in their field, military experts, cannot differ so much in their assessments.
In the course of these discussions, three very important provisions are clearly outlined, declared by the heads of the Department of Education of the Ministry of Defense, from which they start in their work.
First - civic education is taken as a basis, and the heads of the Ministry of Defense and the Department of Education do not at all understand the difference between military and civilian education, taking as a basis the Bologna Declaration of the EU countries, designed to promote the convergence and harmonization of the systems of civil higher education in Europe.
Second - once again, the leadership of the Department of Education admitted that there is no single document with an analysis of all reform processes, the conclusions of military and civil scientists, the Chief of the General Staff as the head of the commission on the reform of military science and military education and the reform plan approved by the President of the Russian Federation does not exist in nature.
Third - the statement of the leadership of the Department of Education: "Why teach officers the same higher education three times, this is a huge cost for the state."
From the point of view of the modern theory of knowledge "the main purpose of specialized knowledge is to adequately reflect its object, to identify its essential elements, structural connections, patterns, to accumulate and deepen knowledge, to serve as a source of reliable information." Is it possible that the Chief of the General Staff, as the leader in charge of military science and military education, does not know that strategy, operational art and tactics, which are part of the theory of military art as one of the constituent parts of modern military science, are inherently independent, irreplaceable and non-combinable in terms of definition of fundamental military specialties. Even VUS for these specialties have always been different. And for each of these specialties there should be a fundamental, separate, all-encompassing military education.
And getting a cadet within five years of "fundamental higher professional education and full military special training" is a bluff. Higher military education cannot be "military training", even "special", and even more so obtained in the course of three- and ten-month courses.
What we have, we do not store
Prior to the current military reform, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation had a three-tier military education system inherited from the USSR Armed Forces, recognized as the best in the world.
On first level there was a military school, according to the civil classification of the university - an educational institution of higher professional education. It provided fundamental knowledge through faculties and departments in one main specialty (command - tactical) and one profile (as opposed to an institute) civilian specialty (maintenance engineer, or translator, or lawyer).
Such education made it possible for an officer to carry out duties three to five positions above his regular position, moving both horizontally and vertically, without additional expenditure of funds and time, in any conditions of the situation. However, between the first and second levels, there were also intermediate ones in the form of additional advanced training courses, for example, the Shot courses.
Let's take a quick look at how the professionalism of an officer in the army has grown over time. Everything went from simple to complex, from organizing classes with a platoon, company, battalion in all subjects of study to obtaining and mastering knowledge and skills acquired in the course of company, battalion, regimental, divisional, army, tactical groups of troops (district, frontline), operational and strategic exercises and trainings of various profiles. And this is at the first level of education.
Second level Is a military academy, according to civil classification - a university, a higher educational institution that implements educational programs of higher and postgraduate professional education in a wide range of specialties (at least seven areas). The Military Academy provided fundamental higher military knowledge for three years in several specialties (command - operational and staff), training specialists in command and staff profile.
The knowledge gained at the military academy made it possible to successfully master the tactical level (regiment), the operational-tactical level (division) and work fruitfully at the operational level (army), and, if necessary, successfully perform official duties three to five positions higher.
There were also correspondence faculties in military academies, in which officers studied independently without interruption from service for a long time.
Third level - Military Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. For civilian qualifications - an academy specializing in training personnel in one direction. In both Soviet and post-Soviet times, the VAGSH trained the elite for the army and navy, as well as state structures for two years. This category included generals from all power structures, senior officers of the General Staff, military diplomats and civilian leaders of regions, ministries and departments. The contingent of trainees, the focus of training, the number of educational groups allowed to graduate from the academy walls highly qualified specialists in the spheres of state and military administration, who know how to strengthen the country's defense capability. How many civil servants are currently studying at the academy, how many deputies of both chambers of the Federal Assembly have completed their studies, and how many are planned to be admitted? There are no answers to these questions.
Foreign servicemen stood apart, who were fully trained at all three levels, and among them there were quite a few representatives of developed countries, and not just third world countries. How many such cadets and listeners are there now?
The fundamental knowledge gained by military leaders in the system of the Soviet and Russian military schools allowed them to successfully solve any combat missions in any conditions of the situation and successfully grow up the career ladder, in addition, the country received civilian specialists who were knowledgeable in matters of state defense.
Thus, military science and military education, built for decades and tested in battles and battles from the Civil War to the operation to force Georgia to peace, have proved their advantages, their individuality, their national character - the character of the Winner.
In vain we take an example from America
For comparison, and very briefly: from which such supersystem was the military education of Russia completely copied? Yes, from the training system of the US Army. For the sake of objectivity, it should be noted that a lot of positive things can and should be adopted, especially in connection with the modern automation of the educational process. But you need to take only what you need, and not stupidly copy. Copying is always unviable, dead.
There are no examples of victories over a superior or equal enemy in this American military education system, and this leaves its mark.
First - replacement of officers with sergeants, as in the US Army. But 100 or 200 sergeants with training for almost three years will not fill the army with a sufficient number of specialists in the volume that is necessary, nor will they replace officers in the Russian army, nor will they change the mentality of Russians. This was known from the very beginning of the experiment, but only now, three years later, are we returning to the old one again, we are transferring sergeant positions to officer positions. The question arises: who calculated the damage caused by this thoughtless decision, from the prestige of junior officers to the prestige of the army and the state? Do we have that every decision will be so easy to make and change?
Second - future officers of the US Armed Forces entered military educational institutions after receiving their education in civilian universities. Military training took a little over two years. Further training of officers took place in ordinary courses with a training period of up to 12 months. True, they called all this academies, while ours called courses.
Third - in the United States, there really are three military academies of the Armed Forces, which are the main educational institutions of the Pentagon: the Military Academy at West Point, the Naval Academy at Annapolis, and the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. Training in these academies lasts four years and, in terms of the level of training of cadets, it is a stretch to meet the criteria of military schools of the Russian Federation. However, in accordance with established practice, graduates of military academies are given a more privileged position in relation to other officers and are promoted faster. Everything else is military departments of universities, courses of various levels and purposes, schools, colleges. We practically dispersed our military departments.
Fourth - the system of American military education includes the National Defense University (UNO), whose work is overseen by the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces. This is an analogue of our Academy of the General Staff, turned into a vocational school in terms of the number of departments, the duration of training, the number of students. Please note that the UNO was created only in 1976, more than 140 years later than the Russian VAGS, to "achieve success in professional military education and training of military and civilian specialists for higher political, command and staff positions."
The university has four colleges and one research institute. Training is carried out for one year, officers with the rank of lieutenant colonel at least are accepted. The UNO also trains representatives of the State Department, the Treasury Department, the CIA, the National Security Agency and other agencies, as well as employees of private companies performing work under contracts with the Ministry of Defense.
Instead of our 10-15 students from the Academy of the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces, up to 200 people are trained annually at the National Military College, which is organizationally part of the UNO. These are cadres for the senior leadership of the US military and government agencies.
In total, about a thousand military personnel and civil servants are trained annually within the walls of the UNO. In our country, officers with the formation of the General Staff Academy in the entire General Staff of the RF Armed Forces will have no more than 10 percent!
And the list is completed by the theoretical component of the UNO - the Institute for National Strategic Studies, engaged in scientific research in the field of international relations, military policy and strategy.
Thus, a short conclusion can be drawn: for unknown reasons, the main advantages of the Russian military school were removed during the reform, and the dubious successes of the primary link of the American military school were fully implemented.
The results of this reform of military education do not have long to wait.
Extra people?
Let's try to express our vision of the problems that have arisen, in our estimation, during the reform of military education, and to predict the future of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, or rather, the future of Russia, because semi-literate officers-leaders will not be able to fulfill the assigned combat missions to defend the Motherland. And this system, unfortunately, will not be able to prepare others.
Let's start with the main problem, consisting in the management of the military education system.
Before its reform, the Chief of the General Staff was personally responsible for all military science and military education through the Center for Military Strategic Research and the Military Scientific Committee of the General Staff. These were supraspecific scientific bodies that carried out general management of the organization of military scientific work and interspecific and interdepartmental research. The services of the RF Armed Forces had their own military scientific committees and the Central Research Institute, which were engaged in the development of weapons, the development of theory and practice, tactics and operational art of the corresponding service of the Armed Forces.
Decentralization of the leadership of military science and military education has now been carried out. There is no main thing - a centralized system of military science, and hence a single leadership. The military scientific complex was split into several parts. Some research institutes were subordinated to the Military Scientific Committee of the Ministry of Defense, others to the Deputy Minister of Defense. The remaining organizations, including the Center for Military Strategic Studies, the Institute of Military History and a number of others, were included in the VAGS, subordinating to the Department of Education. But how can he fulfill the direct duties of the Chief of the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces?
In the absence of the coordinating role of the General Staff, today each department develops its scientific complex independently, without taking into account the interests and advanced experience of other ministries, there are no joint interdepartmental studies. This is especially dangerous in the context of a growing wide range of not only external threats, but also a change in direction, an increase in the volume of internal threats, when unconventional methods and techniques are required to repel them.
The second problem further development of military science and military education is the issue of developing new standards and approaches for this. And here the domestic three-hundred-year experience, accumulated since the time of Peter the Great, is completely forgotten. It so happened historically that the military education of Russia has always differed not only from the general civil system, but also from the military education of others, including the leading countries of the world. And its advanced character, significance, expediency have been proved more than once on the battlefields, starting with the battle of Poltava. It is no coincidence that listeners and cadets from all over the world (and after the collapse of the USSR and from NATO countries) sought to study with us, noting the advantages of our military school.
Now the emphasis in the standards of military education is placed on the supposedly advanced experience of the United States and domestic civilian science. According to officials of the RF Ministry of Defense, “these are the so-called third generation standards. They were developed at the Ministry of Defense with the participation of leading civilian higher educational institutions: Bauman Moscow State Technical University, Moscow Aviation Institute, Moscow State University, St. Petersburg State University, MGIMO, and other leading universities. Enterprises of the military-industrial complex took a large part in the development of federal state standards, the products of which will be used by graduates of military universities”.
We do not question the professionalism of scientists and employees of respected universities, but why there are no military educational institutions on this list. Where are the scientists of the Military Academy of the General Staff, other military academies, where is the Military Scientific Committee of the General Staff, the scientific council of the Ministry of Defense, who were supposed to prepare an official document for a report to the minister and approval by the Supreme Commander? Meanwhile, on the basis of precisely this document, a reform of military education should have been carried out. Are we now going to train not commanders at military universities, but effective managers?
The third problem military science and military education - direct training of cadets and students in military specialties. And here new tasks have been set: recruiting the army and navy with "qualified military specialists", "dramatically raising the level of graduates" and fulfilling the main task - "reaching a new quality of military education." None of the authors in the course of their service and work had the opportunity to closely deal with the issues of military education, but these tasks were, are and will be. There is no new, radical approach to their scoring.
From the foregoing, it turns out that earlier the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the USSR and Russian Armed Forces needed competent military personnel, people with diplomas of two or three military universities, comprehensively trained, capable of applying their fundamental knowledge to their intended purpose. Doesn't the Supreme Commander-in-Chief need such specialists now? Personally, we have very big doubts on this score.
We urgently need to correct mistakes
And now about the problems that cannot be overlooked when considering the results of the reform of the military education system.
The first - the concentration of military schools, primarily military academies of various profiles (command, engineering), and the unification in one educational institution of various types and branches of troops in one place and on one territory can lead to the loss in the first hours of an armed conflict of all educational, material and scientific bases, to the death of the teaching staff and cadets, students when targeted blows are applied to them. And we have no doubts that such objects will be included in the list of priority objects of attack.
The second - the concentration of military schools and military academies in the so-called military scientific training centers for the branches of the Armed Forces - the Ground Forces, the Air Force and the Navy, not only lowers the status of the highest military education, depersonalizing it, but also affects the further adaptation and social protection of servicemen after their dismissal from military service and civilian employment. And no additional three-month retraining courses will change that. Indeed, the new concept of the reform of military education does not provide for the elaboration of the issue by the Ministry of Defense on the compulsory employment of servicemen who have served the deadline or are leaving for other reasons. But this is one of the essential benefits that can additionally attract highly qualified specialists to the ranks of the army.
Third - the concentration of military educational institutions in the VUNC cannot, despite the measures taken by the NSH to approve the topics of scientific work (they were previously approved), have a positive effect on the development of military science in general and in the areas of development of strategy and operational art of the branches and arms of the armed forces. This will soon lead to an even greater lag, both theoretically and practically, from the military science of the leading countries of the world.
Fourth - the withdrawal of military educational institutions outside the territory of cities, primarily Moscow and St. Petersburg, with the subsequent sale of the capital's territories, deprives future military leaders of the cultural component of training and development. The US National Defense University is located in Washington DC.
Fifth - the educational process in military academies was not only in the interests of training students, scientific work was carried out, during which students who were most prepared for scientific and pedagogical activities became teachers or researchers in military and civilian research institutes, joined the ranks of defense industry specialists. And this allowed science not to break away from practice, and the officers, coming to the research institutes and the military-industrial complex, knew what the troops needed today and in the future.
Who will now replenish the staff of scientific organizations of the Moscow Region?
Sixth - the system for selecting candidates for military schools was destroyed due to the lack of recruitment of cadets for two years. We are not talking about interrupted military dynasties; this damage to the Russian officer training system is unlikely to be restored even for decades.
Seventh - the principle of basic approaches in the education and training of cadets has been violated. The principle of military education is being replaced by the principle of "teaching students", and this will later go to the troops, which will move "without formation", discuss orders to go into battle today or postpone until tomorrow. Without feeling the principle of the collective, being in the barracks, an officer will not be able to control a soldier, become a model for him, an authority, will not be able to cultivate in him courage, endurance, the ability to sacrifice, devotion to ideals and the Motherland. And without this there will be no stability of the army, there will be no country. Giving the main priority in the recruitment and training of cadets in physical training, we train not competent officers, but executors of someone else's will.
And who determined, who substantiated what is necessary in the conditions of growth external threats, open anti-Russian statements by Western politicians who declare Russia enemy number 1, an increase in the internal threat of creating controlled chaos by conducting "orange revolutions" to have the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation numbering one million military personnel?
Let us recall the words of the American political scientist and statesman Zbigniew Brzezinski: “Russia must be completely liquidated as a civilization, remaining a single whole in the geographical sense. However, such liquidation should not follow the path of dismantling - it is on this path that disintegration inevitably awaits it, but should be included in the Atlantic civilization as a whole, freed from the slightest signs of independence and identification."
Our fate is decided for us, the main duty of Russia and its people as a slave of Western civilization is to supply raw materials to the countries of the "golden billion" and to be cannon fodder in the fight against the Muslim world and developing China, protecting the United States and Europe from these threats. Thus, we have very little quiet time left.
This means that it is necessary to immediately start anew to the construction of military science and military education in the Russian Federation, taking into account the experience of the Soviet Union and Russia. And only such actions as one of the radical ways to correct mistakes made can save the country.
