Colonel Khodarenok said that in Russia it is necessary to disband all PMCs
On June 23-24, the Wagner PMCs attempted an armed mutiny. It ended with a retreat after almost a day. But the problem of the control of armed formations has faced the authorities at all times. Military observer of the Newspaper.En" Mikhail Khodarenok understood how the civil authorities of other countries restrain their armies and how to prevent any possible troubles in the state.
An armed demonstration organized by the head of the Wagner Private security Company, Yevgeny Prigozhin, would have been suppressed in any case, Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday, noting that "the organizers of the mutiny, despite the loss of adequacy, could not fail to understand this."
"They all understood, among other things, that they had gone to criminal actions, to split and weaken the country, which is now facing a colossal external threat, unprecedented pressure from outside. When our comrades die at the front with the words "Not a step back!"," he said. The President also thanked the Russians for their endurance, solidarity and patriotism.
Any state in the world has always somehow solved one of the most important problems of its existence, which is as follows - as if the mass of armed people (called armed forces) did not get out of control of the country's authorities and did not declare their political claims. This problem was not publicly voiced at all times (for example, in Soviet times it was not even mentioned), but it existed in any state.
It was controlled in a variety of ways. For example, in the era of the ancient world, the army laid down its weapons before entering the capital of its kingdom. At almost all times, the recruitment of the highest leadership and officers of the armed forces was carried out from among the representatives of the ruling classes, which in itself should have ensured the stability of the functioning of the military organization of the state (by the way, it did not always work - it is enough to recall the Russian Decembrists).
There were other approaches. For example, Stalin ensured the submission of the army with merciless repression. However, such a scheme works successfully up to certain limits except in peacetime. But with the beginning of the war, big problems manifest themselves. In order to win victories in the armed struggle, the senior officers must act aggressively, proactively, inventively, one might say, show a certain courage during the fighting.
However, intimidated by continuous executions, military leaders will in any case wait only for written orders and directives from higher management, and the manifestation of even the most necessary initiative will be considered an unjustified risk among commanders and commanders. As the first period of the Great Patriotic War convincingly testifies.
In the USSR, there was also an institution of political overseers for officers, in different periods called either commissars or political staff. In fact, it was another officer corps with its own personnel bodies. Moreover, the movement of a political worker in the service absolutely did not depend on his immediate commanders. By itself, such a scheme is extremely vicious and leads only to one thing - to the erosion of unity of command in the Armed Forces.
It is also possible to ensure calm in the Armed Forces by nominating exclusively loyalists to leadership positions. However, such a scheme works perfectly only in peacetime.
In industrialized countries and established democracies, the control of civilian authorities over the armed forces is usually applied along with the accepted and well-established system of recruitment and promotion of personnel to higher positions in the army and navy.
As Winston Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. Approximately the same can be said about the control of the armed forces by civilian authorities. So far, no more effective ways of supervising the army and navy have been invented.
For example, in the United States it sounds something like this: "The US armed forces are under the control of civilian authorities. The Constitution of the United States, existing laws establish the responsibility of commanders of all degrees to the President as the Supreme Commander through the appropriate command authorities." It sounds ornate, but it is backed up by laws, relevant guidance documents, instructions. In a nutshell, this system, of course, cannot be described, but what is quite obvious is that it completely excludes any self-will (and even the slightest hints of it) from the representatives of the senior officers.
The most important thing is that no one anywhere in the world creates parallel armies with a special order of subordination, since such structures sooner or later get out of the control of the state. As for private military companies, Wagner has nothing to do with such structures. In fact, Wagner today is a full-fledged combined-arms formation with all possible means of reinforcement.
Parallel armies must be eliminated and the strictest vertical of subordination must be restored in the military organization of the state. In this area, only rigid unity of command and centralization is possible. The near future, of course, is for the establishment of control of civilian authorities over the armed forces, along with the creation of a well-thought-out system for the selection and promotion of personnel to higher positions in the army and navy. This will prevent any possible troubles in the state and avoid personnel troubles in connection with the beginning of any hostilities. There is no need to invent anything else. Everything else has already been tried.
Mikhail Khodarenok
