Military And Society In Post Soviet Russia

This collection provides the first comprehensive analysis of the nature of the relationship between the military and society in post-Soviet Russia. It brings together a multidisciplinary group of leading Western and Russian experts to investigate both the ways in which developments in the Russian armed forces influence Russian society, and the impact of broader societal change on the military sphere.

In contemporary armies, violence among soldiers seems to be a universal phenomenon found in both professional and drafted armies. However, the comparison of violent practices in various armies around the world allows us to identify specific features linked to those countries' sociological, political or anthropological contexts. Hazing, for example, seems to be more violent in the armies of transitional societies (Russia, Eastern Europe, Latin America), where social tensions encountered by citizens in their daily lives are carried over to, and sometimes intensified in, the military. The comparison of Russian dedovshchina with the situation in other countries makes it possible to identify universal, transitional and national characteristics of military violence.Contents: Konstantin Bannikov on the consequences of the spread throughout society of archaic violence produced by the Russian army; Anna Colin Lebedev on the perception of military violence in Russian society; Anton Oleynik on informal relationships among prisoners and conscripts; Kirill Podrabinek on the reasons of the prevalence of dedovshchina in the post-Soviet context; Igor Obraztsov on the historical roots of dedovshchina; Vadim Mikhailin on the role of language in the military milieu; Julie Elkner on the Committee of Soldiers’ Mothers; Bakit Katchekeyev on hazing in the Kyrgyz army; Irakli Sesiashvili on hazing in the Georgian army; Hana Cervinkova on hazing in the Czech army; James Wither on bullying in the British army; Eduardo Paes-Machado & Carlos Linhares de Albuquerque on hazing in the Brazilian police; Joris Van Bladel on dedovshchina and the all-volunteer force.

What does it take to reform a post-Soviet police force? This book explores the conditions in which a meaningful transformation of the police is likely to succeed and when it will fail. Based on the analysis of five post-Soviet countries that have officially embarked on police reform efforts, Erica Marat examines various pathways to transforming how the state relates to society through policing.

Outsiders view Russia as an aggressor, but Russians see themselves as surrounded by enemies, defensively fighting off invader after invader, or called upon by history to be the savior of Europe, or Christianity, or civilization itself, often at immense cost. As Gregory Carleton shows, war is the unifying thread of Russia’s national epic.

A detailed and carefully structured study of Soviet/Russian attitudes and responses to military interventions. It explores cases from the Gulf War in 1990 to the intervention led by Western states in Libya in 2011.

The conflict in Chechnya, going through its low- and high-intensity phases, has been doggedly accompanying Russia's development. In the last decade, the Chechen war was widely covered, both in Russia and in the West. While most books look at the causes of the war, explain its zigzag course, and condemn the brutalities and crimes associated with it, this book is different. Its focus lies beyond the Caucasus battlefield. In Russia's Restless Frontier, Dmitri Trenin and Aleksei Malashenko examine the implications of the war with Chechnya for Russia's post-Soviet evolution. Considering Chechnya's impact on Russia's military, domestic politics, foreign policy, and ethnic relations, the authors contend that the Chechen factor must be addressed before Russia can continue its development.

Why has the military not intervened in the post-communist political arena since the advent of democracy in Russia? Do lowered levels of professionalism actually lead to higher levels of intervention? Through a systematic exploration of professionalism within the Russian military, this study addresses these important questions. Moran suggests that by examining the notion of subjective fragmentation, both Gorbachev and Yeltsin utilized a highly effective, yet potentially troublesome, form of civil-military control. Findings that overall levels of praetorian behavior on the part of the Russian military have declined in this period, in spite of declining levels of military professionalism, challenge one of the most basic theoretical assumptions of civil-military relations. Since 1991, post-communist Russia has exhibited all of the classic indicators of a society ripe for a military takeover. Not only have institutional interests of the Russian officer corps been gravely threatened, but surveys conducted within it have found a general lack of sympathy for democratic values. Furthermore, Russia's weak civil society is accompanied by high levels of corruption, rampant crime, secessionist movements, a significant terrorist threat, and a general disrespect for the rule of law. Even further augmenting the chances of a military coup d'^D'etat, public opinion polls of civilians have found that the military is one of the most trusted institutions in the country—so trusted, in fact, that many Russian citizens have expressed support for a military takeover. Moran explains why the military has not capitalized on these factors.

Special Sections: Russian Foreign Policy Towards the “Near Abroad” and Russia's Annexiation of Crimea II This special section deals with Russia’s post-Maidan foreign policy towards the so-called “near abroad,” or the former Soviet states. This is an important and timely topic, as Russia’s policy perspectives have changed dramatically since 2013/2014, as have those of its neighbors. The Kremlin today is paradoxically following an aggressive “realist” agenda that seeks to clearly delineate its sphere of influence in Europe and Eurasia while simultaneously attempting to promote “soft-power” and a historical-civilizational justification for its recent actions in Ukraine (and elsewhere). The result is an often perplexing amalgam of policy positions that are difficult to disentangle. The contributors to this special issue are all regional specialists based either in Europe or the United States.