All about car tuning

Militarization is a term and concept. Militarization of the economy: concept, examples What does militarization mean

The dynamic and active development of civilization and society over the past few centuries has significantly expanded the vocabulary of mankind with many concepts and terms. The concept of “militarization” also applies to them. In fact, this is far from a new phenomenon, but it has become especially pronounced over the past few centuries in history. Many political scientists, sociologists and historians talk about this concept. What is militarization?

The main point

This concept covers a fairly wide range of phenomena. In essence, militarization is a process that is characterized by adaptation and change in the economy, scientific and technological progress, public, political and social spheres to the concept of militarism, which becomes the main and sometimes the only ideology at the level of the state and legislation. Militarism is a doctrine that is expressed in the need to actively build up impressive military potential, improve weapons, and develop the art of war. Militarization is a justification for the use of predominantly military force in external and internal conflicts, since resolving issues through force is the main thing in this doctrine.

History of the development of the term

Militarization is a concept that originated in mid-nineteenth century France. The word itself comes from the French militarisme, which translated into Russian means “military.” This term characterized the state of affairs in France during the regime of Napoleon III. Closer to the beginning of the twentieth century, this word very firmly entered the lexicon of historians and political scientists. At that time, political, territorial and economic contradictions between the largest capitalist states were at the stage of open military confrontation. The militarization of society and the economy at that time reached its limit. The process affected the social and political structure of the leading countries of the world and moved at an alarming pace.

Main features

Militarization is a process that, globally, has a dual meaning for those states in which it occurs. The main feature is the transfer of the economic system “on a war footing.” This is done to ensure a rapid increase in the country's military potential, which determines success in military competition and the arms race between rival states. On the one hand, militarization leads to an increase in budget expenditures on the military industry, the maintenance and maintenance of a large army, weapons, and the development of new types of weapons and strategies. Taken together, this leads to a decrease in funds allocated for the development of social, cultural and public spheres of life. On the other hand, such a prevailing doctrine in the mood of society is capable of extremely stimulating design and research activities in all areas of technology and science: mechanics, electronics, computer science, nuclear physics, and so on.

Is militarization evil or good?

As general conclusions, it can be argued that militarization is the penetration of military ideology into virtually all spheres of life of society and the country, the transfer of its economic system, financial system, ideology, political vectors, the vast majority of technical and engineering areas, scientific discoveries and research into exclusively military channel Naturally, this process actively stimulates technical and scientific progress, increases the rating of aggressive politicians and public figures, strengthens the country’s defense capability, increases its significance on the world stage, but greatly depletes resources within the state itself, impedes the comprehensive development and harmonious existence of social, public and cultural traditions.

Over the past twenty years, Crimea has been heading towards gradual demilitarization. The Ukrainian authorities knew that the orientation of Crimea towards the resort sector was more promising. In the last 2 years the situation has changed a lot. What kind of weapons and military equipment the Russian Federation is “stuffing” Crimea and what are the possible consequences of its militarization - we talked about this on Radio Krym.Realii with the People’s Deputy of Ukraine, military expert Dmitry Tymchuk, writes krymr.com.

– We will talk with a military expert, coordinator of the “Information Resistance” group, as well as the head of the Center for Military-Political Studies, Dmitry Tymchuk. Dmitry, how has the composition and strength of the Russian military contingent in Crimea changed over the past 2+ years?


Tymchuk: The limit strength of the Black Sea Fleet was determined by an agreement between Ukraine and Russia on the conditions for the presence of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Crimea. Today, these parameters are not strictly observed - about 24 thousand military personnel of the Russian Federation are currently recorded. And it's not a matter of numbers. The fact is that we are seeing increased development of military infrastructure on the peninsula. This means that, if necessary, significant forces and assets can be redeployed from the territory of the Russian Federation to the occupied Crimea from the Southern Military District within a week, and the number of military personnel on the peninsula will change dramatically. This causes great concern. And the infrastructure is being built to be able to use nuclear weapons.

– What kind of infrastructure is this? As far as I know, the first example could be the abandoned airport in Dzhankoy - almost in the first days of the occupation it was brought into working order.

Tymchuk: We are also talking about the development of existing facilities. For example - Guards. I do not believe that Russia can currently transfer intercontinental ballistic missile systems there. Most likely - about tactical nuclear weapons. But it’s much easier to move it unnoticed. This could be aviation ammunition for front-line attack aircraft, which were part of the Russian Black Sea Fleet - now their numbers have increased. For example, Su-24 can use tactical nuclear weapons. Even under Ukraine, the Russian Black Sea Fleet had violations in Crimea - these were also Su-24s made for tactical nuclear weapons. This caused concern on the Ukrainian side, but Russia did not pay attention to this and responded: we do not have nuclear weapons, so there can be no talk. The same applies to anti-ship missiles, which can be equipped with either a simple warhead or a nuclear one. Identifying the movement of these nuclear weapons is not easy. It cannot be ruled out that there are now nuclear weapons in Crimea.

Tymchuk: We know what the Black Sea is. Strengthening the Russian Black Sea Fleet is most likely for show. If there is a full-fledged military clash with NATO forces in the small Black Sea, then the chances of the Black Sea Fleet are not great. This is a matter of demonstrating the Russian military presence in the region, an attempt to influence the balance of power. Crimea is perceived by the Kremlin as an unsinkable aircraft carrier, as Britain was previously called in the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, Crimea is now an unsinkable aircraft carrier of the Russian Federation.

– The Border Service and the Main Intelligence Directorate are talking about increased military activity on the administrative border with Crimea: overflights along the demarcation line, the relocation of an artillery regiment near the border. How serious is this? Just a year ago, everyone was afraid that Russia would open a second front and begin to break through a second corridor to Donbass. How real is this?

Tymchuk: The Information Resistance group has been studying the situation with the presence of the Russian Armed Forces in Crimea from the very beginning. We were skeptical that the Russian Federation would invade the continental part of Ukraine from Crimea. Remember: Crimea is connected to the mainland by 2 narrow isthmuses, which can be blocked with small forces on our side. Measures were taken in the spring of two thousand and fourteen. This is an option called “three hundred Spartans” - you can control a fairly large group of the enemy with small forces. In terms of a ground offensive, the Russians have little chance, especially considering the current state of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Our army cannot be compared with the one that was there a year ago; it is 3 heads higher. If Russia does not use nuclear weapons, it has little chance of a successful ground offensive operation. Naturally, there is the option of a sea or complex air-sea operation. But there is a nuance. These operations are complex and can be carried out by the armies of few countries. This is, first of all, America, maybe Great Britain. Russia has no experience of these operations over the past decades. When the Russians decided to do this, half of their personnel would be out of action. But, if we are talking about the possibility of using Crimea as a springboard for an attack on Ukraine, Putin wants to hide from the very beginning that this is a direct aggression of the Russian Federation towards Ukraine. An offensive in any format from Crimea would be a very obvious manifestation of aggression.

– We contacted a representative of the General Staff, a native of Crimea, Vladislav Seleznev. Vladislav, how much has the Russian military presence increased and how does this threaten Ukraine?

Seleznev: Since February two thousand and fourteen, the grouping of the Russian Armed Forces in the occupied Crimea has been constantly increasing - and not only in quantity, but also in quality, since exercises aimed at increasing the combat effectiveness of units are constantly taking place at the key training grounds of the peninsula. As for the prospects, I support Dmitry’s opinion: in the current realities, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation are unlikely to be able to conduct offensive operations from Crimea. Yes, Crimea has been called the “unsinkable aircraft carrier” since Soviet times, which means that it is very difficult to conduct offensive operations on the territory of Crimea due to the peculiarities of the relief and geography. I think there will be a status quo. How the situation develops, first of all, depends on the actions of the international community aimed at putting economic pressure on the Russian Federation.

– Vladislav, constant overflights of the administrative border line, movement of columns of military equipment, rotations – is this a show of force, an exercise or something much more serious?

Seleznev: These are planned rotations of units performing tasks in the north of Crimea through an extensive network of strongholds and command posts. Overflights are planned reconnaissance operations so that officers of the headquarters of the Russian Armed Forces deployed in the north of Crimea have operational, reliable data on the state of affairs along the demarcation line.

– Dmitry, do you think constant movements are rotation or strengthening? And do the military even consider the civilian population in their movements?

Tymchuk: In Russia, and not just in the occupied territory, the military is not interested in the opinion of the civilian population, this is obvious. With military activity in the north of the peninsula, the Russians are killing 2 birds with one stone. Firstly, for all the statements of the Ukrainian authorities about diplomatic de-occupation in the Russian capital, they do not remove the use of force to solve the problem. But advancing from Crimea to the mainland, as well as from the mainland to Crimea, is very problematic. This means that the Russians are making conditions to block the isthmuses. And this is a safety net. The most interesting thing is probably a manifestation of the paranoia of the Russian General Staff, since we see the same thing in the Donbass through the Russian curators in the 1st and 2nd Army Corps - this is a constant hysteria that the “dill” are preparing for a full-scale offensive. And there they make entire defense areas. Well, maybe they think that Poroshenko is so insidious, he lulls his vigilance, and tomorrow it will strike - they are insuring themselves. Another task of the Russians is to divert Ukrainian military forces to Crimea. They know that by showing activity in Crimea, they make Kyiv nervous and divert some forces and resources from Donbass.

– The development of Crimea now takes place mainly in cities where there are military garrisons. Am I correct in thinking that even civilian infrastructure is also designed for the military?

Tymchuk: I don’t understand Vladimir Putin’s logic at all. In Moscow they are shouting that we will develop Crimea. When Crimea was controlled by Ukraine, we observed that any kind of militarization hindered development - for example, this applied to Sevastopol. To take investments for social projects, demilitarization will be required. Nobody invests money in social projects in those areas that are stuffed with troops. And here’s the paradox: Moscow wants to develop Crimea, but at the same time it is militarizing. And these are things that absorb one another.

– In your opinion, will the military presence in Crimea begin to increase in the near future or may it decrease?

Tymchuk: Of course it will increase. We see that the Russian Federation is beginning to quarrel with players in international politics in the economic and energy fields - for example, with Turkey. With this policy, Russia needs to demonstrate a military presence in the Black Sea region, and Crimea is a key point.

A, m. militarisme m. The predominance of the military class and spirit; a political system based on the strength of troops. Chudinov 1902. The predominance of military interests in the state. In the sense of the M system, it means the state’s desire to increase military forces... Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language

- (new lat.). The predominance of the military class and spirit; a political system based on the strength of troops. Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. MILITARISM military clergy is also a situation when the military class... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

- (militarism) A situation in which the state, struggling to achieve political goals, attaches paramount importance to such means as war, the use of military force or the threat of its use. Or, alternatively, the position, ... ... Political science. Dictionary.

- (from Latin militaris military) a system of political, economic and ideological means used by the ruling circles of a particular country with the aim of increasing the military power of the state. Militarism is characterized by an arms race, the growth of military... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

MILITARISM, militarism, many. no, husband (from Latin militaris military) (political). In imperialist states, a policy that seeks to strengthen military power to conquer new lands, colonies and new markets. || Growth, excessive enlargement... ... Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary

MILITARISM, ah, husband. The policy of strengthening military power, building up armaments and intensifying military preparations. | adj. militaristic, oh, oh and militaristic, oh, oh. Ozhegov's explanatory dictionary. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. 1949 1992 … Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary

Aggression. Ant. peacefulness Dictionary of Russian synonyms ... Synonym dictionary

English militarism; German Militarismus. Complex economic, political, ideological. funds aimed at preparing for war by increasing and strengthening new armed forces, creating new weapons, improving areas of economic... ... Encyclopedia of Sociology

- (from Latin militaris military) in broad historical terms. understanding of the military buildup policy. the power of the exploitative state in order to prepare for the invasion. wars and suppression of resistance of the exploited masses within the country. As a complete system... ... Soviet historical encyclopedia

- (French militarisme, from Latin militaris military) in a broad sense, building up the military power of an exploitative state with the aim of implementing a policy of wars of conquest and suppressing the resistance of the working masses within the country.… … Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Books

  • Just like a person, Kobo Abe. Kobo Abe or, more precisely, Abe Kimifusa is a Japanese writer, playwright, screenwriter, photographer and inventor, one of the leaders of the Japanese post-war avant-garde, author of the famous novels WOMAN...
  • Ninth of November. Dance of Death, Bernhard Kellermann. In the novel THE NINTH OF NOVEMBER, written shortly after the end of the First World War, the author sought first of all to stigmatize militarism, to open the eyes of the German people to the dangers...

Protection from external enemies is one of the main ones. For these purposes, a military budget is created, which makes it possible to maintain the army, modernize it, and conduct But the threat to peaceful existence comes when the militarization of the economy begins. The consequence is an increase in the size of the army and military equipment. The threat is that any provocation and the state can use its military potential. What is militarization? This will be discussed in this article.

What is the militarization of the economy

Militarization is the process of increasing the military sector in a country's total output. As a rule, this happens to the detriment of other areas. This is a kind of “militarization” of the economy. Let's give an example from history.

Militarization of Europe at the turn of the century

At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, militarization was observed. Of course, the German Kaiser was not the only one who armed his country; almost all European countries, including Russia, did this.

The Franco-Prussian War and, as a consequence, huge indemnities and the annexation of two industrial regions (Alsace and Lorraine) to Germany made it possible to concentrate huge fortunes in the hands of German bankers. Industrial magnates faced two problems:

  1. Lack of markets for its products, since Germany joined the colonial division later than others.
  2. Lack of agricultural sector due to lack of agricultural land.

These reasons influenced the mood of German financial magnates. They wanted:

  1. Sell ​​your products.
  2. Have agricultural land.
  3. Strengthen your position within the state.

The only way out is the militarization of the economy. This solved all the problems at once:

  1. The state purchases industrial products, which consist mainly of ammunition, weapons, guns, and ships.
  2. A combat-ready army is being created that is capable of changing the colonial division of the world, seizing markets and agricultural lands in the east.

All this ended with the First World War. A second attempt to militarize the German economy during Hitler's rise to power led to World War II. The third attempt to build up armaments by the USSR and the USA almost led to a nuclear war that would destroy our planet.

Modern threats

The militarization of the economy is not a thing of the past. Today we see that many countries are actively arming themselves. These are mainly the USA, China, India, Pakistan, Russia, Arab Southeast Asia. The DPRK has a huge army of one million people.

Is Russia a threat to the world?

No matter how it sounds, it is our country that is ahead of all the major countries in the world in the militarization of the economy. The share of the military budget is 5.4% of our country's GDP. For example, China spends about 2%, the US - just over 3%, India - just over 2%. Huge amounts of money go to Saudi Arabia - 13.7% of GDP. The leader is the DPRK - more than 15%.

Despite the fact that Russia has such a seemingly huge percentage of the military budget as a share of GDP, there is no point in falling into hysteria and shouting that our country poses a threat to the world. Everything needs to be analyzed carefully.

The fact is that in monetary terms, the military budget of our country is not so huge. It is approximately $66 billion. For example, the military is almost 10 times larger - about 600 billion dollars. China - more than 200 billion. Thus, in monetary terms we are not among the leaders. There are several reasons for the high share of the military budget:

  1. Weak economy.
  2. Huge territories.
  3. Lack of ten years of army development.

The last point, according to President V.V. Putin, is key. Our country after the collapse of the USSR and until the early 2000s. gg. practically lost the army. The military campaign in Chechnya is indicative in this regard. The lack of modern weapons, professional military personnel, the latest planes and helicopters, add here the lack of professionalism of the generals, the lack of military exercises - all led to huge losses in the Chechen Republic.

That is why Russian President V.V. Putin announced that today’s militarization of the economy is making up for lost time in modernization.

conclusions

So, let's summarize. Militarization of the economy is a significant increase in the share of the military budget as a percentage of GDP. This is important to understand. An increase in the military budget, provided that the economy as a whole is growing, does not mean militarization. Conversely, if the military budget decreases in real terms, but its percentage of GDP increases, then such an economy can be called militarized.

It is a mistake to believe that militarization is synonymous with aggressiveness. A military buildup may, on the contrary, be a consequence of hostility on the part of other states. For example, the growth of the army in South Korea is associated with aggressive threats emanating from the DPRK. Militarization in Russia is not at all connected with the desire to start a war in the future, but with a ten-year lack of modernization of our army.

Militarism- this is a state policy or ideology that has an end in itself, aimed as the main instrument of foreign policy at a significant increase in the military power of the state and/or wars of conquest. The definition of the concept of militarism is revealed through its Latin root “militaris” - military. This term was first used in relation to the Napoleon regime in France in the 19th century and implied a policy of building up military power to seize and maintain state positions. Since then, the concept of militarism has undergone minor changes, becoming a little more humane, played up by politicians in order to soften it for the mass consciousness, but has not changed its essence. Today's examples of militarism are all major powers, especially nuclear weapons holders. Examples of militarism of past centuries are its adherents: Germany, the Soviet Union, France, Italy, Great Britain, Austria-Hungary with their armies.

What is militarism?

Today, the principle of secular peacemaking is widespread, which is expressed in the saying: “If you want peace, prepare for war.” So what is the meaning of this Latin phrase? She comes from the time of peace of a hundred years during the Roman Empire, which survived on the threat, the constant demonstration of power. A similar situation in history occurred during the so-called Cuban Missile Crisis, during which the Soviet Union placed nuclear missiles in Cuba by agreement, Kennedy issued an ultimatum to Khrushchev to remove them within three days, otherwise a war would start. The missiles were recalled, but an ongoing and now major arms race began. This expresses the principle of limited violence or just war - the principle of militarism.

According to the principle of militarism, there are criteria of justice that must be present for a war to be considered justified. Among them, first of all, it is worth mentioning a fair goal - usually the establishment of peace. And the legitimate government must lead to this goal, otherwise it will be a coup d’etat. Also, public consciousness accepts the need for war if it is of a defensive rather than aggressive, predatory nature. There must be merciful behavior, without cruelty towards the enemy. According to one UN resolution, the rules of a just war include non-involvement of civilians, refusal to overthrow the government and devastate enemy territories.

Militarism does not encourage murder, but only allows the use of weapons as a lesser evil to prevent a greater evil, like amputation of a leg due to gangrene.

Militarism, as opposed to pacifism, abstracted from the realities of modern life, guards a healthy system of society, its principle is active involvement in public life. Evil is restrained and punished, the suffering of the third, weaker party is significantly reduced with intervention, an alliance with a strong patron state.

Criticism of militarism can have several reasons and forms. One of them is Christian pacifism, a literal interpretation of the instructions not to harm one’s neighbor. However, under the guise of lofty goals, ordinary weakness and inability and unwillingness to stand up for oneself, indifference to issues of public and state security can also be hidden - the so-called pilatism, “washing one’s hands”, avoiding responsibility. This position can lead to sectarianism and isolationism in society. Extreme pacifism may not make a distinction between the victim and the bearer of evil, and here we can already talk about the immorality of the same approach to the victim and the rapist. A true victim deserves compassion and help, while an aggressor deserves punishment. Does a third party need to intervene to protect the victim? Extreme, consistent pacifism must answer this question in the negative.

By refusing to restrain evil, pacifism can lead to its indirect encouragement and make it possible to strengthen itself without hindrance. If pacifism places peace above justice, then militarism, on the contrary, defends the position of justice, protection and retribution according to deserts. "Good must be with fists". In militarism, justice is always primary in relation to peace.

Another critic of militarism was Clausewitz, who argued that war is always immoderate violence. Even with the initially high, just goals of war, such as protecting and restoring peace, they are forgotten, violence goes beyond its limits and is overwhelmed by an uncontrollable wave of cruelty. And in modern wars, unlike the battles of antiquity, it is the civilian population who most often suffers.

Politics of militarism

The policy of any violence, even limited violence, becomes justified in the minds of people when it is interpreted as an instrument of good. According to the saying “good conquers evil”, citizens of one country for the most part are always confident that the forceful influence of their state in relation to others brings not evil, but good, trying to subjugate others to their good will, it is their soldiers who fight for the truth. This is how people have risen to war since ancient times, from the Crusades to our times, there is always an ideology that embeds in the thinking of citizens the concept of good on the side of their own state and the need to protect it from the attacks of enemies.

To justify violence, arguments may be used such as the need for fair retribution or even the benefit of those against whom this violence is used. An example of bringing such benefits, a bright future, are all the revolutions of the world. Another argument is that a little violence can save you from more. In other words, if a small evil is applied, it can prevent a greater evil.

The military economy is closely related to the policy of militarism, since it provides the country’s defense with voluminous and expensive resources. Criticizing this approach, pacifists argue that militarism in the economy is only a threat to the well-being of the state, and in no way helps, since its provision is implemented to the detriment of more important sectors of the national economy for the average person. There is merit to this argument - after all, these are huge sums that, if invested in housing, food, education and medicine, would significantly improve the standard of living of the ordinary population. There is also an opinion that militarism in the economy is today an inexhaustible source of money for businesses related to military affairs. In this case, it is practically ineradicable.