Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealhead
Not really sure what that is so funny to be honest.Do you think that there are not plenty of Russians who would not be interested in service if they know they can make a good career of it?i am willing to bet that a much higher number of Russians per capita will enlist willingly than what we see in the US.
I think it is funny how some officers and NCOs(the bad one I bet) dont like the idea because it will mean the end of their ways sooner or later just because it is a centuries old tradtion does not mean that it is a very good idea or is the best way to do things.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FIREWALL
To old school officers and NCOs it will be the end of the free ride.
|
It is not "funny". Most Westerners seem to think that the only reasons that Russian officers are resisting is because of "free ride", the ab or fossilized traditions, and some Russians (mostly the so-called
instituniks that don't have to take actual responsibility for their proposals) agree with them. Actually the Russian officers do have a point:
Volunteer troops are more expensive, a Western estimate made back in 1990 being about 5-8 times per man (and I doubt it changed that much since then). That alone immediately creates a dilemma, because Russia does have long borders and real defense (a power projection requirement is not the same thing) requirements, a combination that's not faced by most countries using volunteer armies.
As for quality, volunteer enlisted are really only superior if:
1) They can be obtained from a reasonable grade cut of the population, both in quality and motivation. These days, the Russian conscription system gets a lot of crumbs, but so does their
kontraktniki system - dubious advantage there. 8 crumbs vs 1 good soldier may be a discussion point, but 8 crumbs vs 1 is quite another.
2) They actually stay for more than one tour (which is usually 2-4 years long) so they have an experience advantage.