Carpet financing

After the first reading of the budget bill for 2007, it is already clear that not less than 820 billion rubles will be spent on defense goals. This is more than this year, for 160 billion, the army share in the total volume of budget expenditures will roll out of 15 percent. Given the warlike relations of moods in relation to Georgia, military spending can jump to trillion. The deputies will surely meet with understanding the wish of the Ministry of Defense to increase the defense budget in such an alarming time.

Meanwhile, the costs under the article “National Defense” are planned twice as high as under the article “National Economy”, and four times - than on social policy. Such a situation cannot but interest taxpayers.

The point here is not a desire to look into the classified part of the defense costs. Well, he finds out the layman that the Ministry of Defense was going to buy the next year, say, sixty T-90 tanks-will this knowledge give him a lot? When there is nothing to compare with, he will not give anything. The details of the layman are of little interest. He would like to understand the essential - these considerable money, divorced from the "citizen", really work on the defense of the country? The demonstration of the start of the ballistic missile from the North Pole area is impressive, but it does not give a common picture.

Recall that over the past six years, the military expenses of Russia in absolute numbers have increased almost five times. In the same proportion, deductions for state defense orders increased: in 2001, weapons and equipment were purchased by 51 billion rubles, in 2006 - already 225 billion. The past debts, as the government assures, was paid - it means that all these amounts should not only end up the influx of new weapons and equipment, but also the transition of national defense to a qualitatively new level. However, you listen to the generals and understand that the allocations are still going to the arrangement of the showcase.

One of the solid consumers of the defense budget, chief of the Ground Forces, Colonel General Alexei Maslov recently stated once again: the physical and moral aging of military equipment is faster than its update, and it is unlikely that it will be possible to fix this situation in the coming years. " To change the situation, you need to annually update at least 5 percent of the military equipment and weapons park. Otherwise, it turns out that from year to year we finance the degradation of the combat potential of the ground forces.

Not only on land, but in other media, the progressive movement is either not given at all, or with great difficulty and in the wrong direction. Here they invested in the construction of the new generation of the “St. Petersburg” diesel submarine. Maiden for a sight for sore eyes, an ultra -modern filling. Tests in the Gulf of Finland. Soon he will join the two diesel engines surviving the age of the berths, and they, like three heroes, will protect the Baltic approaches to Russia. What will they do in a closed European basin, where all the underwater tracks have long been taken under control of the fleet and aviation of neighboring countries, including NATO forces? Except to serve as educational targets for working out the skills of anti -submarine forces of a probable enemy (and we have no incredible in this region). In other words, they spent on a good and expensive boat, the strategy of the application of which (as well as in general - about the use of an integer in the Baltic in modern wars) did not manage to think yet. And therefore it is not at all the fact that the money spent on the St. Petersburg made our defense stronger.

Two words about what has already been filled with soreness - about the monetary displeasure of military personnel. The problem is from the same series as the military-technical re-equipment of the army and the navy. From year to year, more and more funds are invested in the officer and contractor (here, from October 1, they threw up to 50% to salaries), and we can not get to them like a horizon.

Everyone is generally clear to everyone: in order for the officer to catch up with the interests of the service, he does not need to add money in the dropper mode, but immediately give as much as in modern Russia enough for a decent life. But to begin with, to bring the officer corps to the optimal number, transferring a lot of non -eating posts into civil state. The same simple approach to the problem of replacing old weapons with new or modernized. Do not denote the "concern of the president for the army", but annually finance such a state order that would really improve the quality of the defense, and not fill the window with colorful crafts.

For this, the smallest is needed - to know exactly what and why we need an army. If in order to participate in the races of the arms race, then in principle, nothing needs to be changed in the system of military expenses. With the exception of an increase in financing by at least thirty times (approximately the current ratio of military budgets of the United States and Russia). And what to do with this money is already unimportant. The main thing is that a lot and fast. Supporters of this approach - to take the image of the enemy of the United States and NATO and to tighten the belts for this business - today in Russia there are many. Including among the inhabitants of the Kremlin.

If you set yourself a less ambitious task - the creation of a strong defense that can protect the country from an attack from outside - it turns out that we already have something significant - strategic nuclear forces. Of course, they also need updating, new technologies. But this is a completely feasible load for the state budget, since there is no need to re -equip “Pobinom” - the very fact of the existence of an amazing is a sufficient guarantee that no one will come to us for many more and many years.

As for local, border conflicts, then there is a place for the principle "better than and better." It is only necessary to decide how to fight in such cases. Is it necessary, say, to work out the transfer of the North Sea Marines along with their armored vehicles to the Pacific Ocean or still keep in all "tank-hazardous" directions the local forces of a quick and effective response? The General Staff, which does not spare money for large -scale landing exercises, believes that the first option is preferable - plus hundreds of millions to the defense budget.

Meanwhile, the army does not receive helicopters, communications, special equipment, new types of small arms and much more, so necessary for the usual battle. He does not receive in a complete way, in the amount that changes the level of combat readiness of the parts.

I do not want to carp, but today, say, a company that has been surrounded, will wait hours to reinforce and die in its territory, as in a foreign land. For her salvation, there are no helicopters, nor high -precision artillery, nor reliable connection, nor tractors who can quickly overcome off -roads ... It is this company who does not see the defense budget of Russia.

The effectiveness of defense costs can only be discussed when they begin to contract from year to year. When the Army is replaced by a carpet funding. Then it will be obvious that the money is not absorbed by the collapsing monster, but go to maintain a rational system. Otherwise, we will continue to hear from the military leaders: the patient is recovering, but the disease progresses.