Civil–Military Relations in Russia: Conscript vs. Contract Army, or How Ideas Prevail Against Functional Demands

Abstract

The personnel structure and recruitment of armed forces represent major elements of civil-military relations and civilian control. Particularly crucial is the moment of shift from one type of recruitment to another and the factors that facilitate or impede it. The focus of this paper is the case of the Russian Federation during the Medvedev presidency, when renewed efforts were made to cut back conscription in favor of a professional contract-based force. Despite crucial incidents, such as the 2008 Russian-Georgian War that spelled out once more the prevailing inertia of the Russian conscript-based army, military elites have been opposed to a change of the status quo. By analyzing exemplary ideational discourses based on the discursive institutional approach, factors will be elaborated that explain what continues to impede the shift to contract-based recruitment in Russia. In the light of the latest hostilities between Russia and NATO, the prospect of this shift has receded even further into the distance.

Negotiating the Uniform: Youth Attitudes towards Military Service in Israel

“…The process whereby the military's changing demographic composition is accompanied by weakening ideologies and a growing emphasis on career benefits is not unique to Israel. Countries like Russia (Douglas, 2014) and Bolivia (Fernández, 2015) have also witnessed heated public discussions over the normative and ethical functions of military service, negotiating shifting from a national duty to a professional career (Yuval-Davis, 2011). Nevertheless, the way these changes are accepted and interpreted by military service candidates has not yet been studied in depth.…”

Top Down or Bottom Up? Public Control of the Armed Forces in Post–Soviet Russia

“…In fact, past and ongoing reforms have merely implied an overhaul of the “material” but not the “human” conditions with regard to making ethical standards and education within the armed forces accountable to contemporary military reality (Douglas, 2014, p. 23). Demands toward a change in military ethics have not come “from above”; instead, an attempt was made to introduce them “from below.” On a selective basis, they brought about incremental improvements on the ground, such as increased involvement of activists on the local level, for example, in enlistment commissions, as the following quote testifies:I have been successful in persuading our chief enlistment officer, who has been in office for 4 or 5 years that by protecting draftees’ rights I also protect the right of the army to have good recruits.…”