Army demystification
You, for sure, have already heard this more than once: they say, you can be against the decisions of the government, but how can a Russian person oppose the Russian army? And every time it is worth asking in response: how can a Russian person be against the Russian police? Against the Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations? Russian ambulance? Russian customs? Russian gas service?
How, in fact, the army, one of the many institutions of the state, differs from all the others? Why can the actions of the customs or the Russian Post be criticized in any way, while the armed forces have a certain halo of sacredness? There is some primal awe of people with guns, but that's not the point, because it doesn't apply to armed police. "Cop he is a cop." We'll figure out.
I suppose the reason is that the army has long been a source of civic virtue. These ideas come from Antiquity: they say that King Xerxes has an army of slaves, and we, free citizens of Athens and Sparta, are fighting for our rights. Being a warrior in heavy armor is the privilege of a citizen, being a rider is even cooler, equipping a trireme at your own expense is generally atas. In the Middle Ages, Machiavelli tried to return the Florentines to the path of civil prowess - so that they fought themselves, and not with the hands of mercenaries. It didn’t work out - they raked from the French. The renaissance of the citizen-warrior came later, with the rise of nationalism and military conscription. In the French conscription army of the times of the republic, the soldier entered into a kind of contract "service in exchange for civil rights." In addition, for many, the army was a ticket to life - so the villagers could get out of their native village, get a little bit of an education, save up a salary, and then go to the city (with some luck, they could also rob on campaigns). Even the average height of the French soldiers was greater than that of the brethren who remained in the village - they fed better in the army.
However, to date, the draft army has ceased to be an institution for liberation from the rural community and has become a form of slavery. Therefore, many countries have decided to abandon it (with the exception of those who cannot defend themselves otherwise, like Switzerland). And even volunteer service under a contract has ceased to be a civic prowess today. Your rights have nothing to do with the army, and the "social lift" of the army service will only take you down - while your classmates are studying at universities and gaining work experience, you are doing what the hell. A similar thing happened with the officer corps. If in the 18-19 centuries. officers are one of the most educated and progressive parts of society, today you just look at them. In general, from an honorable source of civic prowess, army career and service turned into an occupation for the least educated, cultured and well-to-do parts of society.
Some authors are sounding the alarm, because "free men with guns" have always been the backbone of free societies (and this refers to military service, not mere possession of weapons - read the notorious Second Amendment to the US Constitution). Today, however, the line of defense for freedom lies elsewhere - followed by numerous NGOs, journalists and civil society institutions. As for the army, today it simply does not deserve the halo of civic virtue that it had in the old days. People who are now pathetically wringing their hands on the topic "the army is sacred" and "you can't hit a Russian soldier in the back" are trying to sell us the discourse of the 19th century. Today's Russian army is not an expression of civic prowess and therefore not the "spirit of the nation." A true halo of civic virtue surrounds today those girls and boys who continue to come out with anti-war posters.
Mihail Pojarsky 2022-04-12
