Ukraine needs the Civil Minister of Defense, not the military. Six reason why

Why Ukraine needs the Civil Minister of Defense, and the Minister of War is absolutely impossible, even especially during the war. As I investigated this topic as part of my work at the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, the main tenets will be present. 1. The military must be managed by a civilian. It is the principle of subordination of a military machine to a civilian government, which is one way or another, but is the formation of a democratic choice of society.

I serve the people of Ukraine - through democratically elected and appointed officials. War Minister of Defense - either a sign of junta or tyranny/autocracy. It is in Russia. We fight with a dragon to become a dragon? The hierarchy of a healthy democratic society is as follows: Civil President (Prime Minister, Chancellor - Supreme Commander) - Civil Minister of Defense - Chief Military (Commander -in -Chief). These are the principles of proper government, which is also fundamental to NATO. 2.

One of the reasons why the Minister of Defense should be civil, and not just civilian, because he removed the shoulder straps for the post, as Stepan Poltorak, and preferably - civilian or 10 years is that such a person may be interrupted Lays with their co -servicemen not to indulge in neoplain or military "godfather". And this is the history and practice of our allies on NATO, not just about phenomena in the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

An interesting example is the movie "The Pentagon War", where this issue is also traced. To ensure that the military through their ties cannot bypass the tools and fuses of civilian control over the armed forces. 3. Another reason is professional deformation. The military thinks as a military. It is not bad, because every profession has its own characteristics, and military affairs are a profession with its peculiarities.

Political position, political responsibilities and politics as such are not a matter of military who are still in service. Policy and military affairs cannot be mixed. In addition to the fact that it is quite different that they are preparing for and why the military is taught at any level, it is also the risk of transformation of the civilian ministry into a military unit with all its customs.

If you think that in the military units the order of "war", then from my experience working with the military, this is not the case. Let us call it "operational chaos", where there is a main principle - "PVO" (in Russian), "it is always possible to cancel. " Another factor, extremely influential, and the first that shocked me in 2014-2015, is absolute, with rare exceptions, the uninitiatedness of military/former military in the Ministry's apparatus. Who served will understand.

Who did not serve, uninitiated is the first consequence of the customs of military administration. If you take the initiative - you will be humiliated, wrapped up or simply hung on you all dogs, until uninitiated or who have understood the trick, colleagues, will be infused, so as not to do additional work. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule, but I did not meet the signs that have changed. 4. How does this uninitiatedness affect the Ministry of Defense's apparatus? Forget about reforms.

Forget about everything except what they will do higher. Closing management decisions to the highest level, which will mean that in the end - the Minister of War will encounter such a level of micro -management that he will not be able to perform all his duties. He will be Minister of the Armed Forces at best, not the Minister of Defense. 5. Well, finally, it will return and increase the confusion in who is the main military - the one who controls the troops or the one who runs the ministry.

The decisions that the head should make alone can now be viewed by the military. We already had this model, according to which the Minister and Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (who combined the position with the position of commander -in -chief) were reported directly to the Supreme Commander. Thus, there was no hierarchy of subordination to each other. It took years to get away from this and come to the Civil Minister of Defense. 6.

Finally-if you have a hammer in your hands, any problem will be a nail. Civil Minister of Defense is a member of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, which jointly makes decisions on many issues of life of the country, not just military issues. And the fact of war does not change. Civil policy is not a military affair, especially if we are not in Russia or other countries in power.

The Minister of Defense Minister is also not equivalent to the above, the issue of the appointment of the Deputy Minister of Defense. According to the current legislation, they are appointed among civilians, a point. Changes to the law have not been made, but the appointment has already taken place.

President Volodymyr Zelensky allowed for the time of martial law to appoint the first Deputy Minister of Defense of a serviceman in the rank of Lieutenant General or Viceadmiral, according to Decree No. 76/2023 of February 13. But in addition to the procedural, the question remains essentially democratic and civilian control - the latter is now being reduced. The military as a minister or deputies is a weakening and blurring of the role of commander -in -chief.

There have always been a strained relationship between the General Staff (Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces, the Main Committee) in the history of Ukraine. There are many reasons for this. But the main way to relieve such tension is to clearly distinguish roles and responsibilities, and unfortunately, with the weakening of civil control, such a distinction is blurred. Military administration and civil administration are two completely different realities.

Yes, bureaucracy has its own common features everywhere, however, the principles laid down in the system of military administration (Command and Control, C2), and the principles of governance in ministries and other state structures are different. The Ministry of Defense has always been oversaturated with either military personnel or former servicemen.

The reforms in the Ministry of Defense in particular provided for a reduction in military positions and an increase in the role and quality of civil servants in the Ministry's administration and the formation of relevant politicians. What we have as a result - the need to appoint the military to senior positions - not justified, not procommunicated. Procedures and legislation are not complied with. In the eyes of our allies is a questionable step in the opposite direction from NATO.

Disclamer according to the results of the discussion on Facebook 1. Yes, often former servicemen, officers, generals become defense ministers. But after a certain time. 2. There are exceptions, even in the US, when they do not observe quarantine at 10 years, as in the case of US Central Command James Mattis. But it was an open discussion and approval of a candidate with a deviation from the norm, not the abuse of the rules of the legislation. 3.

One of the reasons for the institutionalization of the Civil Minister of Defense was to counteract a possible military coup. Even in Europe or NATO, there have been situations in general. 4.

In advanced democracy, with an exceptional need to appoint a War Minister of Defense - where institutions are developed, a system of restraints and balances, and the legislation is not a toy - such a purpose will carry less risks than in our case, where we still have to eradicate the Soviet army from the army manners.