Influencing Russian Public
Opinion in order to Improve
Russian Military Reform

La réglementation juridique
de la solde du personnel
militaire sous contrat

des priorités majeures pour la Fédération de Russie. On ne peut ignorer bien sûr la complexité et l’ampleur de cette tâche qui peut paraître insur- montable. Pourtant, ce défi doit être relevé dans l’intérêt de la Russie mais également afin de préserver la stabilité internationale.

Le Collège de Défense de l’OTAN se félicite d’avoir pu accueillir deux bour- siers russes dans le cadre du programme de recherche OTAN-Russie dont le travail met respectivement en exergue deux aspects essentiels de cette réforme: d’une part la possibilité d’influencer l’opinion publique russe afin d’optimiser la réforme du système militaire et d’autre part la question de la solde du personnel militaire sous contrat en Russie et sa réglementation juri- dique. La contribution de ces deux boursiers est non seulement très docu- mentée mais également nourrie de contacts entretenus avec les principales institutions impliquées dans ce processus de réforme. En outre, l’expérience acquise respectivement au sein de l’Institut Militaire pour les Affaires écono- miques et de l’Université Militaire de Moscou a sans nul doute contribué à la richesse de leur analyse.

Le travail du Lieutenant-Colonel V. Levanov permet entre autres de lever le voile sur des questions fondamentales comme la spécificité de la vie militai- re russe et les méthodes à envisager pour l’amélioration de la réglementa- tion juridique de la solde des militaires engagés sous contrat. Le Lieutenant- Colonel I.Sharavov quant à lui nous livre une analyse approfondie de l’opi- nion publique russe face aux réformes entreprises dans le domaine de la Défense. Une attention toute particulière est portée à des aspects fonda- mentaux tels que la nécessité de rendre le processus de réforme plus transparent, l’amélioration des relations entre les groupes médiatiques et les représentants militaires, et la professionnalisation du système militaire russe.

L’influence, voire le contrôle, que peuvent exercer certains groupes criminels sur le complexe militaro-industriel russe constitue également un sujet d’inté- rêt primordial. L. Kosals invité par le Collège de Défense de l’OTAN dans le cadre du programme de recherche du Partenariat pour la Paix, s’attache per- tinemment à démontrer l’importance de ce problème et plaide pour la mise en œuvre de mesures destinées à décriminaliser les industries de défense russes.

NATO Defense College
Collège de Défense de l’OTAN
Academic Research Branch
Via Giorgio Pelosi, 1
00143 Rome – Italie

Imprimerie CSC Grafica
Via Arrivabene, 40
00159 Rome – Italie

Vous trouverez ci-après trois résumés de travaux récents effectués au Collège de Défense de l’OTAN (Rome) par des officiers russes titulaires d’une bourse de recherche. Par leurs approches variées, ils nous apportent un utile éclairage sur certains aspects de l’actualité militaire de la Fédération de Russie.

Please find below three recent executive summaries by Russian Officers, former Research Fellows at the NATO Defense College, Rome. Each in their own way casts a useful light on certain aspects of the current mil- itary environment in the Russian Federation.

needs them, and how they intend to achieve them. Public “transparency” is critical here if Russian military reforms are to succeed.)

Now when speaking of Russian “public opinion,” it is important to remember that it has two components. Ordinary people make up the first category. They include would-be conscripts and their typically 30-49 year old mothers, who have strong (i.e., “emotional”) opinions about military reform. They firmly and repeatedly stress the need for optimal working conditions in the armed forces. (Minimizing the hazing of young conscripts is a pri- mary concern here.) In contrast, older people and those with limited education are less critical of the military sta- tus quo and more amenable to preserving a conscript- based system.

Public opinion also has an expert component. The experts include state employees, scientists, retired high-ranking military officers (who provide mostly “rational” security estimates), politicians, and some journalists (who often

inescapable choice. Because the world’s geopolitical and security context has changed so markedly over the last 15 years, its armed forces must reform. Russian lead- ers are well aware of this requirement and have respond- ed accordingly. They are currently modernizing the nation’s military to cope with the instabilities and chal- lenges that confront them, including international terror- ism. However, Russian leaders also know that substantive military reforms cannot occur without a clear-eyed con- sideration of national and, to some extent, international public opinion. Military reforms, in short, require the back- ing of citizens and friends alike; they require their forbear- ance and political-economic support. These requirements then yield requirements of their own. First, Russian lead- ers must know who is the “public,” what they believe (vis- à-vis national security), and what reforms they seemingly want. Second, the leaders may want to account for these preferences, if not outright reconcile them, with their own reform program. (In the latter case, Russian officials need to explain their preferred objectives, why the country

The above two groups largely agree on the requirements for military reform, although there are some differences in emphases, and the experts certainly have a more detailed appreciation of the immediate issues at hand. Having said this, what does the “public” believe about the Russian mil- itary and its need for reform?

Lt Col Sharavov’s analysis attempts to answer this over- arching question and related secondary ones. The statis- tics-laden analysis does not pretend to be all-inclusive, but it does highlight the following public beliefs.

most trustworthy “power institution” in Russia, but they also “pity” its present condition and blame the State for its decline. (Put another way, barely half the population has “confidence” in the Army and almost 90% believe its current fighting efficiency is “low.”)

reform is necessary while 11% do not. Predictably enough, 82 % of those who are young advocate mili- tary reform, as do 81% of university graduates, 81 % of those who have “succeeded in adapting to modern life,” and 79% of city dwellers.

ers would consider a political party’s position on mili- tary reform as an important reason for determining whether they would vote for its candidates or not.

The above beliefs establish parameters; they bound the art of the possible for transformation-minded politicians, as do the following reforms themselves. They are the ones most preferred by the Russian public for its military.

military instead of the current conscript-based force. (Put another way, 31% of the public said building a professional army is a “top priority” for Russia.)

However, to most of those who advocate this partic- ular reform, a “professional” army also means a highly trained, contract-based, and/or voluntary force. They expect the same benefits from this type of military that Western nations currently enjoy.

truly modern weaponry into the Russian armed forces. (At present, 62% of the public does not believe the military receives sufficient quantities of these weapons.)

improvements, legislative and executive reformers have suggested further remedies for Russia’s military problems. They include making the Ministry of Defense budget more transparent, and developing new defense strategies and doctrines.

whelming majority of experts (77%) believe that Russia needs a completely professional and/or vol- unteer army.

Finally, it is important to remember that the above recom- mendations are not antithetical to Government reform plans. They either complement or go beyond the current agenda, which includes (but is not restricted to) the fol- lowing.

All the above beliefs and recommendations are a positive good. They represent a call to arms by Russian authori- ties and their public.The public, however, is not stupid or gullible about military reform.