Among many dire woes of various kinds, the combatants in the war in Ukraine each have a massive problem brewing: what to do with their armies when fighting ceases. Any nation does, and always has had. The details are different in each case: I'll look at Russia in this post.
The objective diagnosis is this: hugely disgruntled Russian soldiery returning from their 10-year adventure in Afghanistan 1979-1989, brought with them many personal problems, and were not well looked after. They in turn caused no end of social problems themselves, many of the most violent, brutal and criminal kind. Putin knows all about this from his KGB days, in even more detail than every Russian citizen knows anyway. There will be even more returnees from the 'Special Military Operation' (SMO); and thus far, there has been no large-scale demobilisation (perhaps for this very reason). Even so, those few who have returned, on leave or wounded or just deserters, have been causing all the expected problems. This is not least because when they are serving in the SMO their pay is substantially better than anything they'll return to - often their reason for signing up in the first place. The towns from which they hail (mostly quite a long way from Moscow ...) are trembling at the thought of this happening on a large scale.
 |
| Zhukov: definitely not wanted by Stalin in 1946 photo: MoD Russian Federation Mil.ru |
Coupled with this is a particular Russian problem: its post-Tsarist leadership has always feared the military. Communist parties always do, the world over: doctrinally, they recognise no higher power than the Party - but they have obviously also spotted that large numbers of men trained in violence are themselves potentially a rival source of power to be reckoned with. Lenin's first actions on taking power were (a) to strike a peace with Germany, quickly followed by (b) disarming the army. Shortly after WW2, Stalin (who had of course eviscerated the Russian army officer corps in the 1930s) dispatched Marshal Zhukov, undisputed victor of the Eastern Front, to effective banishment (ironically, to the Odessa Military District), such was the Marshal's popularity and stature.
Irrespective of the details of whatever outcome in Ukraine, Putin - shaken to his core by Prigozhin just two years ago - knows he has to deal with this comprehensively. Phase One, as noted above, is probably just to avoid demobilising at all for as long as possible. Phase Two is the "Time of Heroes" programme being rolled out, that will reserve a range of sinecures in civic society (in government, deputy mayoral posts etc etc) for veterans of the SMO. Now, word is coming out that veterans will be packed off en masse to build new infrastructure and enterprises in ... Siberia! (And Murmansk, which is just as cold.) The pay won't be great but it will be a job ... As one Russian cynic has it:
"Veterans have already fulfilled the most important task of the state - to fight our enemies. Who, if not them, should perform new tasks, be ahead of everyone in this matter? Veterans, current and future, let's be honest, in civilian life, many of you will not be able to earn as much as in the army. Resettlement in Siberia will be an excellent (and for some, the only) way for you to find yourself in a peaceful life,"
... oh, and it won't be anywhere near Moscow.
Still, at least Putin is thinking about it strategically. Unlike so many other aspects of the SMO. Well, au fond, his training was KGB.
ND
11 comments:
Now come on, ND !
"this is a particular Russian problem...always feared the military. Communist parties always do '... large numbers of men trained in violence are themselves potentially a rival source of power"
Before WW1 the UK had effectively no gun laws - they were all introduced after WW1 when there were few "homes fit for heroes" and Soviet Russia was a beacon, albeit a false one. See AJP Taylor's history of England 1914-45.
(My grandfather came back from Gallipoli and Gaza seriously wounded, died before I was born having spent a good chunk of the 20s and 30s unemployed)
Anon, did I not just write:
"Any nation [has this problem], and always** has had." - ??
Oh - so I did, it seems.
______________
** The Odyssey, for example!
The firearms act first came about in the Uk, in a modern form, in the 1820s. Soldiers returning from the napoleonic wars. There were many bandits and vagrants gangs.
The next large scale reform of the laws was after WW1.
Returning soldiers are a part of the problems, that is true. But it was also the easy availability of the guns plus the lack of employment combination. As follows all wars. Boom and bust cycle.
My father enjoyed wild-fowling before The War. After The War he shot only while teaching us to shoot. All the bang-bang in the army presumably put him off shooting.
He did make one lovely joke of it: I'm teaching you to shoot because next time the Germans might be Russians.
Just reading Godfather Of The Kremlin by Paul Klebnikov. Amazing Berezovsky was ever allowed into the UK, but I suppose maintaining governments-in-exile, even murderous and corrupt ones, has always been the British way. Not realised how close he was to Roman Abramovich.
maintaining governments-in-exile, even murderous and corrupt ones, has always been the British way
And the French!
Paris was home to the Ayatollahs for many years, then in turn Bakhtiar (whom I met there, and who is buried there), then Banisadr!
Hedging bets, or what?
P.S. It was remarkable how easy it was to learn basic rifle shooting. The big deal was to unlearn everything you'd seen in cowboy films.
It won’t be a problem for Putin.
All Russians have I.D cards. That fixes everything. Apparently.
OT but a Guardian comment illustrates where the Labour Party are today - the party of the teacher and the social worker rather than the turret lathe operator.
"What exactly is the Labour Party? First of all the very name is antiquated. If it represents the aspirations of the working class, it is likely to be very socially conservative, intolerant, particularly 'un-woke'. Well that is going to please a more educated, liberal, progressive demographic, which values diversity and tolerance."
Or at least "which SAYS it values diversity and tolerance."
Post a Comment