This year ends the history of higher military education in Russia. At least in the form in which it existed until now, it will no longer exist. The Ministry of Defense has suspended enrollment in military universities for two years starting in the summer of 2010. This means virtually the closure of higher military educational institutions. At the same time, it is not known whether they will open their doors in two years. It is very possible that most of them will never meet students again.
It may seem to someone that two years is a short period, and it is quite possible that the closure of the entire higher military school in Russia is a temporary measure and everything will be settled. But in fact, two years is a critical time! All this time, the teachers - the elite of Russian education will need to live on something, and already now many are forced to break contracts and become civilians, which, probably, the state is seeking, because they do not need to be provided at public expense. There is no need, for example, to buy apartments for them.
The closure of military universities in Russia did not begin yesterday. In 2005, out of 78 higher military educational institutions, 17 were closed! In 2008, three more were practically destroyed. In the last two years, there have been a few more "optimizations" and "downsizing". And now they decided to bring the destruction of military education to its logical conclusion - in fact, to close all other higher educational institutions. Including unique ones that train specialists in the most important strategic areas. For example, this year the Zhukov Aerospace Defense Academy in Tver is closing.
The reasons for this whole process are simple -
1) the state no longer needs as many military specialists as military universities train (and there are too many officers and generals - most are "staff");
2) the state cannot afford (especially in a crisis) to spend budget funds only on supporting military universities, without receiving useful returns from them. The market logic is rigid - everything that is not needed dies!
Let's try to accept this point of view and see how the closure of military universities solves these problems.
To all appearances, our "Europeanized" and "Americanized" lovers of reforming something are striving precisely towards the Western model of military education. More precisely, to the American one, where there are virtually no military universities and their role is performed partly by civilian universities. At West Point academy, a person receives a military knowledge base, and the rest gets at civilian universities and colleges. Such a scheme is indeed quite economical, and in a certain sense, the cumbersome Russian military education system loses to it. But it loses only in organization and financial support. But the quality and variety of acquired knowledge is a big question.
Destruction of higher military education is economically beneficial only in the short term. Here our "reformers" are using a completely non-market approach. All economic losses have not been calculated (we will deliberately keep silent about strategic losses - we have agreed with the logic of the "reformers") in the form of an increase in unemployment, loss of social orientation of thousands of people who yesterday were focused on a military career, the need to spend money on training new military specialists, teachers, to create new infrastructure and links between educational institutions. For example, the president announced that in the coming years the rearmament of the Russian army will take place, and huge funds from the budget will be invested in this. And who calculated how much money and effort is needed to master this technique? Or is it not at all associated with financial costs?
Besides, our "reformers" are not reformers at all. The reform implies an evolutionary path of development, and our leaders are itching to destroy everything "to the ground." Sometimes this revolutionary impulse is simply amazing. Only people who sincerely believe in their own infallibility and righteousness can, with such persistence, mercilessly destroy what has already been built. And it seems that our leaders have already formed a stable idea of their own infallibility - otherwise the cult of personality with all that it implies (groveling has always been widespread among us).
Destroying the old is not difficult. It's much more difficult to create something viable in return. It is quite simple to close military universities by administrative decision. It would be more difficult to try to preserve the unique Russian military school, which is more than 200 years old! The country's leadership and the Ministry of Defense took a simple path. But will it make life easier for all of us?
