Time has proved that the Russian Army is strong not only in military affairs

Nothing inspires our people like grandiose plans for great construction projects. To achieve the unattainable, to master the unassimilable, to jump over your head. And not alone, not for the sake of vanity and money, as the Western man in the street understands, but the whole country, together, in a single burst of labor heroism. Our people are romantic, who easily respond to the pathos of a historically large-scale.

Pay attention when S.K. Shoigu proposed to build several large cities in Siberia, none of us came up with a picture of the construction of Saudi cities by the hands of disenfranchised migrants from Egypt, Sudan, and the Philippines. On the contrary, our man immediately began to figure out in which closet the guitar was hidden and what kind of payment he would receive at work if he signed up for a great construction site.



Political opponents will say that Shoigu throws pre-election statements, tries to play on the sympathies of the voter, on his “soviet” nature. Targets the place of a successor. Maybe Shoigu's dream, which he is talking about, by the way, is not the first time, will not come true in the near future, and his loud statement will remain just a successful political maneuver, but the Minister of Defense has some objective reasons to voice such projects. Namely, the successful experience of the economic development of the Russian army.

Who rescued the country at the most difficult moment of the pandemic by building 16 medical centers? Western "partners"? Figures on the Forbes lists? Gazprom? Rosneft? Sberbank? Unions? Show business stars? Bloggers? Patrons? No, this was done by the army under the leadership of Shoigu. The rest were mostly PR with minimal costs and complained about the restrictions.

Why did the army, with its cumbersome and unwieldy constitution, be more effective than all effective managers and socially responsible entrepreneurs put together? First of all, because the army is to a much lesser extent permeated with commodity-money relations.

The collapse of the USSR broke our society not only politically and economically, but also ideologically. We have taken on faith the liberal dogma of the times of antifeudal revolutions, imposed on us from the outside, that the state is fundamentally ineffective, and the market is able to correctly and fairly regulate the life of society.

American and European oligarchs in the 1990th century were so scared of Soviet communism that they spent a lot of money on the development and propaganda of absolutely utopian ideas of classical liberalism. As a result, Western society piously believed in private entrepreneurship and money, and in the XNUMXs it implanted this belief in us not only through politicians, but also through the long-standing tradition of the Russian intelligentsia of servility to everything Western.

When in 2009 V.V. Putin created the Military Construction Corporation in the structure of the Russian army, it was explained:


That is, our people in uniform clearly understand: where there are commercial interests, the necessary result for the country cannot be expected. This, by the way, is not understood in the Pentagon, therefore, American foreign policy is controlled to a greater extent by private corporations of the military-industrial complex than by presidents and parties. America needs conflicts, wars, military bases, aircraft carrying fleets, an army armed to the teeth, not at all because the American people are so especially belligerent. It's just that the military-industrial concerns are overwhelmed by an irrepressible thirst for profit.

The withdrawn from the commercial sector of the military construction has served the people a good service during the peak of the pandemic. And now Shoigu suggests building new cities in Siberia, ennobling the Motherland, straightening the unevenness of development between megacities and the hinterland, which has set the teeth on edge. Why not do this, including on the basis of the successful experience of the army?

If we turn to foreign examples of using the army in economic and social construction, then there is one country in which not only a similar method is widely used, but also a whole theory has been developed that the armed forces are a kind of vanguard of society. We are talking about the DPRK.

For a long time, we were instilled with the idea that North Korea is a totalitarian hell, a country of half-crazy zombies walking in formation and praising the leaders as gods. True, when we ourselves came under the pressure of the "collective West", views on this country began to gradually evolve. Articles, broadcasts and films have appeared that tell and show the life and struggle of the proud Korean people. Meanwhile, the neighbors came to conclusions about the usefulness of the army much earlier than our military.

So, left without the support of the USSR in the early 1990s under conditions of tough economic, political and military pressure from the United States, the Labor Party of Korea, represented by Kim Jong Il, put forward the concept of "Songun", the essence of which can be expressed in two postulates. First: the sovereignty of a country directly depends on its defense capability, which means that the army should be given priority among other institutions of the state and society. The second follows from the first: since the army is now the leading social force, if military affairs is the most important factor in the implementation of independence, then the army should become a model for society, a driving force for its development. It was thanks to the Songun policy, in the opinion of the Koreans, that they managed to survive the crisis and build a nuclear power, finally securing their borders.

As for the first postulate, it is applicable to our situation to a lesser extent, we already have an ultimatum nuclear deterrent arsenal, a strong army and no one threatens us with intervention. And the TPK at that time had two ways: either to turn the country into a military camp (Arakcheevshchina), or to come up with some of their own, unique recipes for the survival of the besieged fortress. Let me remind you that China in the 1990s, despite the agreement with the DPRK, was rather unable to protect Koreans from the United States.

As for the second postulate, Kim Il Sung probably noticed that many progressive phenomena in history often arose precisely in the army, or were tested in the armed forces. Since we have put the army at the center of society, why not educate the masses through it? This is how the Songun concept was born.

The Korean People's Army is widely involved not only in eliminating the consequences of natural disasters, but literally everywhere - in the construction of houses, roads, in educational work with schoolchildren, and in helping the elderly. Serving in the army is as honorable as it was in the USSR until the moment when national strife was sparked in the 1980s.

And the authority of our service in the army is growing due to the success of the construction of medical centers. Will grow even more after the statement of Shoigu. Because for a normal person, involvement in a noble and great cause is important, and not just money, an apartment, a car, a summer residence and entertainment.

Of course, liberal oppositionists who hate their people and their country will seize the similarity of Shoigu's position with the policy of the DPRK and burst into publicistic bile. But if we compare the scale of the resources that the DPRK has in defending its sovereignty, it turns out that many of the methods and techniques used by the Koreans objectively show their historical viability and even effectiveness. Therefore, it may be useful for us to isolate what North Korea manages to withstand the enormous pressure of the West and to develop. If, of course, we apply the conclusions wisely and in accordance with our conditions.