Contrary to popular belief, Russians are quite positive about the army.
Despite the critical information about the army and the widespread opinion that society treats it negatively, constantly disseminated by part of the media and individual political groups, this is not true.
For example, according to VTsIOM, trust in the army remains one of the highest compared to other public institutions - 52%, with 34% for law enforcement agencies, 27% for the judiciary, 26% for trade unions and the Public Chamber, and 25% for political parties. Moreover, if we subtract from these figures the scores of mistrust, and they are quite low for the army against the background of other institutions - 28%, then it receives not only the most positive, but also simply incomparably high index of trust against the background of the others: today it is a minus among law enforcement agencies 12%, political parties and the judicial system - minus 14% each, trade unions - minus 11%, and the Public Chamber - 1%.
Russian society rates military service unexpectedly high. According to the Levada Center, which has never had any special sympathy for the army, 44% of the country's citizens believe that "every real man should serve in the army," and another 30% believe that "serving in the army is a duty that is needed give it to the state, even if it doesn't meet your interests. " Moreover, if the first indicator remains the same as it was ten years ago, in 2000, the second has grown significantly - ten years ago it was 24%. That is, in one way or another, a positive attitude towards the service is expressed by 74% of citizens. A clear minority is negatively about it - 19%, although ten years ago there were 23%.
Trust in the army remains one of the highest compared to other public institutions
The attitude of society to conscription service is far from unambiguous. Indeed, only 13% support an army composed exclusively of conscripts. But it must be borne in mind that it was almost never like that - and in the Soviet army there was both an auxiliary and a completely professional contract contingent: super-conscripts, warrant officers, foremen, etc.
The purely contract army also has not much more supporters - 27%. The majority - 56% - support a "mixed army" consisting of both conscripts and contract soldiers.
That is, 69% of citizens have a positive attitude towards conscription in one way or another, which is close to 74% of those who have a positive attitude towards military service.
It is interesting that as soon as we are not talking about the attitude to service and conscription in general, but by the time they are obligatory, the picture, it would seem, changes. In this case, in February 2010, 39% were in favor of maintaining universal conscription, and 54% were in favor of moving to the formation of an army from those who go to serve for pay.
There is a certain contradiction. It can be explained in two ways. On the one hand, we are talking about comparing polls and responses spaced over several months. But it seems unlikely that from February to June 2010, 74% of those who positively assess the conscription will turn into 39% of supporters of maintaining universal conscription.
The second explanation is in the wording of the questions. The February poll suggested choosing one of two things: either to remain obligatory, or to switch to a volunteer-mercenary army. The June poll suggested the middle option - a mixed army. And it turned out that it was he who enjoyed the greatest support. And this is an indicator of the constantly used ability of the leading sociological centers to change the results of polls to the opposite with imperceptible nuances of wording.
But there is another side, also related to the nature of the wording.
In one case, a question was asked about the attitude towards the army with options: a man must do the service, service is a debt that must be repaid, service is uselessly wasted time. That is, it was about an internal, moral attitude.
In another case, it was about the external side of the question: to remain obligatory or to move to voluntariness.
At this point, attention should be paid to the relative similarity of the indicators of the answers "service is a debt that must be paid" - 30%, and "preserving the obligation to serve" - 39%.
That is, it turns out that these are indicators of recognition of external obligation, the right of the state to establish it. And they almost do not take into account, in particular, those 44% who believe that military service is a kind of internal imperative, that a person must go through it not because it is required by law, but because it is useful and morally. This large group does not want to be forced into service, but itself is tuned into service simply because of its internal value orientations.
At the same time, judging by the ratio of answers, the issue of payment for service in the army also plays an important role - people are ready to serve, but consider it desirable to pay for service. It is worth noting here a certain incorrectness of juxtaposing two formulas: "to preserve the obligation to serve" and "to form an army from those who go to serve there for money." An opposition arises: "obligatory or for money", but in fact one does not exclude the other - the following answer is possible: "obligatory service with a decent payment."
But other answers just show that the isolated and isolated aspect of "paid" is quite skeptical about the citizens. Thus, the initiative of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia on exemption from military service for one million rubles was assessed negatively by the respondents. It caused a positive reaction in 20%, a negative - in 67%.
Russian society rates military service unexpectedly high
It seems that, while recognizing the expediency of paying for military service, citizens do not mean the commercial nature of this payment, but the "salary" itself - the natural provision of the needs and maintenance of a decent standard of living for the military. Meanwhile, society instinctively rejects the idea of commercializing everything related to military service, maintaining a kind of value-sacralized attitude towards the latter.
This is partly confirmed by the attitude to the contractual conscription of those previously convicted, even if their conviction has been canceled. 35% agree to their presence in the army, 55% disagree.
Involuntarily, the assumption arises that they agree to serve in the army of convicts, albeit with a canceled conviction, rather those who do not trust the army anyway, those in whom it enjoys trust, want to protect it from the influence of the criminal world.
Likewise, but for other reasons, the majority of citizens are negatively disposed towards serving in the army of students - 30% are in favor of it against 62%.
Of course, the question can be raised that the general benevolent attitude towards military service in society as a whole is not entirely indicative, since this question can be answered in different ways by those who have to send their children into the army, and those for whom this question is abstract. character.
However, there are more people who want their relatives to join the army than those who would prefer to avoid it: 46% versus 42%.
And, what is interesting, the dynamics draws attention to itself: in October 2007, the number of those preferring service was 45%, and those seeking to avoid it - 42%. But by the spring of 2009, the number of the former increases markedly - up to 50%, and the number of the latter falls - to 35%. But a year later, by February 2010, the first indicator again decreases to 46%, and the second increases to 42%.
We face two turns in relation to military service. The first - the improvement in attitudes towards it by the beginning of 2009 - clearly follows the military campaign of the Russian army in the South Caucasus. The second - a new relative deterioration - follows the specific reforms unfolding in 2009, carried out in the army by Defense Minister Serdyukov.
