Izvestia

The commander of Russia's Airborne Forces, Colonel General Georgy Shpak, called a press conference in Ulyanovsk Tuesday evening devoted to the results of an operation to kill two deserters. The pair had shot several policemen.

"It is barbarous, it is a stain on the reputation of the Airborne Forces. I am preparing a report. I will take it to the defense minister within days. The report will list measures that need to be taken in order to avoid similar tragedies in future," he said.

No one has any doubt that General Shpak will formulate his proposals clearly. However, what measures can be adopted within one particular artillery battalion, one particular paratrooper brigade, the Airborne Forces? The problem is incomparably wider.

On the one hand, the public mood in Russia is militarized to the extreme. On the other, even as strong a team as the one that Sergei Ivanov has brought to the Defense Ministry is unable to reform - that is, to improve - the existing army. Not that it is bad in itself. The main reason is that it was created to pursue different objectives.

It is an army from the last century, mobilizing all national resources. What it is not is a high-tech, modern army, which serves those resources and "covers" them. There is only one way out of the situation: change over to a strictly professional army. One created on a new foundation. With new goals. For the new century. Will Russia have the sufficient political courage and financial funds to make the breakthrough? This is the gist of the matter.

America phased in a professional army for ten years. After the humiliation of the protracted Vietnam War, faced with the refusal on the part of young Americans to serve their country, the authorities at long last realized that the armed human "freebee" becomes dangerous primarily to his own country. The United States has invested hugely into a professional army and now has what are the world's most powerful armed forces.

We left Afghanistan and came to Chechnya, which we are unable to pull out of for ten years. The police have to hunt soldiers with dogs to get them into the army. Our presidents start talking about a professional army only before another presidential election. Generals dutifully write military reform concepts, knowing in advance that they will never be put into practice. Both the authorities and the brass have one excuse: there is no money for the reform.

Two young conscripts bolted from a training unit stationed somewhere in the Nizhny Novgorod Region, taking along their automatic rifles. They were hunted in two regions for a fortnight. There was enough money for police roundups. A border guard sprayed his fellow soldiers with bullets in the Far East a few days ago. There was money to pay for the coffins to be sent central Russia. Today, after the bloodbath in the Ulyanovsk Region and Tatarstan, money will be found for the funeral and allowances to the families of the dead policemen.

What kind of people does this country entrust weapons to? To drive a car, you have to pass driver's license tests. To get hold of weapons, you have to scrub floors in a barracks for a month, to fire a few rounds at a shooting range, and to read the military oath at formation. Our army is becoming dangerous for this country, for all of us.

The Defense Ministry has started drawing up plans for yet another military reform. Its priorities, to quote Minister Sergei Ivanov, are professionalization, rearmament, and social welfare. The reform plans will be ready before the presidential elections. With all due respect for the generals, you have to say this: the military has no business handling an armed forces reform. It is a national problem. It is a general political issue, not one for the army. To quote one prominent Western politician, generals (not only Russian generals) are in the habit of preparing for a past war.

The Russian authorities have long treated the army like an unloved stepson. A list of grievances includes officers' beggarly pay, the decline in the prestige of military service in society, forced drafts, shortages of state-of-the-art military equipment, occasional food shortages, and so on and so forth without end.

What is needed for our army to become professional? We are not the first ones [to stumble] into this area. There is an international method for transition to a modern army. State leaders decide what kind of armed forces their country needs. In our particular case, Russia requires huge Land Forces or we will attempt to catch up with the U.S. and put a stake on precision weapons. America bet on weapons, not soldiers. People overseas are reducing the strength of their armed forces and building up cruise missile arsenals. So, it is necessary to decide at the state level where to invest money - into science or in military registration offices.

The economy is becoming mobilized. People are analyzing where they can take money and how they can spend it. The military education system is being overhauled. Weapons are to be handled by trained individuals. In the United States, there are specialized training centers for the army, the navy, and the air force. Fort Knox trains tankers. Fort Sill trains artillerymen. Fort Benning trains Rangers. A person is trained by professionals for professional service. Alas, our current Russian enlistee is no pro. There is no such profession as defending the Motherland. While we are at it, let's discuss money. Military analysts estimate that a professional soldier must be paid 10,000 times more than today's draftee.

If Russia fails to muster enough strength and money to create a professional army, we will be defenseless in the face of armed rogues. After all, a uniformed rogue is still what he was before he came of age.