Posted 22 октября 2021,, 07:10
Published 22 октября 2021,, 07:10
Modified 24 декабря 2022,, 22:37
Updated 24 декабря 2022,, 22:37
The very fact of its appearance raises questions. Including private ones. Andrey Ilnitsky - Advisor to the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation. Probably, it would be quite logical for him to speak in the subordinate MO "Krasnaya Zvezda"? But he published an article in Parlamentskaya Gazeta, an organ of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. In the state-socio-political publication. And he signed under the article as "a valid state councilor of the 3rd class".
Ilnitsky is a man with a rich biography. From the beginning of the 90s of the last century, for 11 years, he was one of the leaders of the publishing houses Ast, Agraf, Vagrius. After that, in 2006-2012 - Deputy Head of the Central Executive Committee of the United Russia party. Since 2015 - Advisor to the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation, Lieutenant General...
But doesn't his current position and rank impose restrictions on the military? First of all, distancing from political issues. The army is out of politics. Is not it? The question is significant, because General Ilnitsky is proposing, in fact, a radical change in the political and economic system of the Russian Federation. Is this permissible for law enforcement officers? Isn't that why he "hid" behind the civil rank as "a real state adviser"?
His article begins epic: “Russia has exhausted the time and social resources of inertial development. The time is coming for Big Decisions and Big Projects".
That is, before us is not even an article, but something like a Manifesto indicating the Great Way to the country. Therefore, it is strange that the civil authorities did not notice her. Or they pretended not to notice.
After lengthy discussions on all topics: about the past, present, spirituality, and so on, the author turns to theses-sentences:
“What is the ideology of the Big Project? I will cite only the main ideologemes:
nationalization of the elites on the principle "who is not with us is against us". Those "who are not with us" must realize that they risk losing everything".
We will interrupt the quotation here and consider this thesis separately. For example.
What are "elites"? I have written more than once that this is primarily an agricultural term: the best varieties of seeds, the best breeds of livestock. The criterion is productivity. If a cow's passport says "Holstein" or "Simmental" - everything is clear. And what is the "elite" in relation to the human community? What are the criteria here? In mind, honor, conscience? By intelligence? Erudition? By wealth, by position?
"Nationalization" is "the withdrawal of property from private ownership and its conversion into state ownership".
Then what does “nationalization of the elites” mean? Moreover, with the addition: "Those" who are not with us "must realize that they risk losing everything".
With whom - "with us"? Whom does General Ilnitsky consider "us" who can "deprive someone of everything." And what - "everything"? What can you take away from an intellectual of Soviet times who now lives on a pension of 16 thousand rubles? Or does the author mean only the rich? As he writes: "The betrayal of the elites ... There is no doubt that the comprador financial and economic" elite "will surrender the country and go to live" beyond their strength "on their Mediterranean riviera".
But we do not have laws on "nationalization". So this is the threat of an ordinary robbery? Take, people, pitchforks with sledgehammers - and let's go smash?
I cite this thesis and comments on it separately only in order to show the vagueness of thoughts and words. But behind it, behind this vagueness, anything can be hidden.
But the rest of the theses are quite specific:
“The Russian army and the military-industrial complex are the center of mobilization and economic revival, including the principles of control and planning based on the State Defense Order (SDO);
the transition to a mobilization economy and partial closure from the disintegrating global world;
the state takes control of the country's economic, informational and geographic space;
the Russian army is the main source of the ideology of serving the Fatherland, the center for the formation and education of new nationally oriented managers for the state (education, medicine, science, etc.) and, in particular, for the revival of Russia through the Big Projects".
Is this a plan for a military-political and economic coup? The abolition of civil authority in the country? "Collecting" the country under the economic and ideological dictates of the army?
A month has passed. So far, there has been no reaction from the civil authorities. Let's take into account: the article was published in the press organ of the parliament! Are they calling themselves to be abolished? Or is it a "discussion"? Can you agree, criticize, or laugh?
I am, perhaps, the only one in the USSR Twice Sergeant of the Soviet Union (twice awarded the same rank) with both hands - “for”. Remember our old bike? How - civilians argued with us, the military, who is smarter. And when all the arguments were exhausted, we knocked them out on the spot: "If you civilians consider yourself so smart, then why don't you march in formation?"
All - in line. As a last resort - to the semi-barrack position. Give all the benefits from our lockers.
A locker is a large room in a company barracks where property, uniforms, etc. are located. With embrasure in the door - for issuing.
This is, of course, particulars. If in general, then Ilnitsky's initiative can be picked up, "developed" representatives of other power structures, to offer their options. No longer barracks, but barracks. Half of the country's population "sits" and works there within the framework of the "mobilization economy" - half graze in the wild. Then they change places. Then they change again - and so constantly. Implementing a Big Project.
Still, it’s interesting: if civilians consider themselves so smart, then why don’t they march in formation...
And now let's remember the words of Nikolai Varlapkin. There was a special attitude towards him in our military unit: he returned to serve the remaining months before demobilization, having served two years in the disbat - a disciplinary battalion. In the late 60s - early 70s of the last century, some soldier circles said that the disbat was more terrible than the "zone". So, Varlapkin, although he passed the disbat, for some reason said: “The one who just returned from the“ lip ”laughs well.
"Guba" - a garrison guardhouse, where guilty soldiers were sent for 10 days.
Ilnitsky, of course, does not say anything about such a trifle as the organization of guardhouses. But in that coordinate system they are assumed by themselves - as an image, symbol, element of life. In our strategic missile area, stretching one and a half to two hundred kilometers from north to south and from east to west, soldiers serving in the guardhouse were demobilized a week earlier than the rest so that they would not accidentally meet with those who had been there.