Election militarism

The need for protection from an external enemy occupies a very important place in the minds of our citizens. This is a completely logical and natural consequence of the events that took place in our history. The contribution that Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov made to ensuring this protection cannot be overestimated. He is sometimes called the father of the Soviet hydrogen bomb.

Despite the negative propaganda towards him in the USSR in the 60s-80s, his authority among the people was high, he was respected as the creator of the “nuclear shield”. At the same time, they understood that it was precisely the knowledge about this weapon, not accessible to everyone, that led Andrei Dmitrievich to the idea of ​​​​the greatest responsibility of its creators and those who possess them. The burden of this responsibility largely determined his further social and political activities, which were based on the results of powerful mental work.

The result of this work was the conclusion that “geopolitics” in its previous form, that is, the approach that he called “empirical-conjunctural”, was unacceptable in the nuclear era . He characterized it as “ a method of maximizing one’s position wherever possible, and at the same time a method of causing maximum trouble to opposing forces without regard for the common good and common interests...”

Sakharov's fundamental conclusion: “Thermonuclear war cannot be considered as a continuation of politics by military means... but is a means of global suicide .”

So who should the people listen to - the creator of our “nuclear shield”, who indicated the necessary framework and rules (including in the field of public policy) that determine the safety of handling it, or to adventurers unworthy of the legacy they received, irresponsibly brandishing a nuclear bomb for the purpose of worldwide blackmail?

Today, in connection with the approaching presidential elections in the Russian Federation, we see a powerful surge in “pre-election militarism.” In this regard, it is appropriate to recall the statement of Friedrich Engels: “Militarism perishes as a result of the dialectics of its own development.” (K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, T. 20. P. 175)

Militarism is a policy ostensibly designed to ensure the military power of the country, but in fact aimed at subordinating all aspects of the life of the state and society to the interests of the military corporation, including those enterprises that receive funding for this task. This conflicts especially sharply with the real interests of defense in conditions favorable to corruption. We all know the clearest examples of this. The Vostochny Cosmodrome, which has not been brought into satisfactory condition for a year now. The scandalous Arctic Shield project. Unsuccessful launches of Bulava missiles, which, as it turned out, were associated with the fact that during their production precious metals were replaced by cheaper materials.

The funds thrown into the black hole of such projects are taken away from those eking out a miserable existence in education, medicine, and road construction, without which we cannot seriously talk about defense capability.

Militarist frenzy, fueled by pseudo-patriotic propaganda, is used to involve citizens in armed conflicts, the usefulness of which for Russia is more than doubtful. We cannot ignore the fate of those compatriots who agreed to participate in these conflicts at the risk of their lives. The irresponsibility of the state towards these citizens in its extreme manifestations borders on betrayal.

They themselves begin to realize this. Chairman of the Sverdlovsk Public Foundation of Special Forces Veterans Vladimir Efimov speaks about this. Many citizens who had previously taken part in hostilities in the Donbass as part of PMCs, according to him, willingly joined PMCs sent to Syria. However, he doubts that there will be many people left after the events of February 7 this year.

“I have a feeling that our guys were handed over. It was disgusting and despicable,” he says . “They have become bargaining chips in the political game. The fact that the Americans, I repeat, are enemies, but what our generals did by surrendering our guys is worse than enemies.”

One may not approve of the decision of these people to participate in such military operations, however, they should be recognized as victims of deception and betrayal by the Russian state, in need of protection.

I would like to hope that Russian citizens will think about whether power should be entrusted to those who intend to continue such a policy.


Photo: Russia. Chelyabinsk. Photo reproduction: “Nuclear warhead of a rocket with a rotor braking device.” Declassified photographs of the country's nuclear shield are exhibited at Vladimir Vidyakin's personal exhibition in the House of Architects, which is dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the Federal Nuclear Center. 7. 04.2005". Valery Bushukhin/TASS