Society, State Must Reconsider Their Attitude to Army

***

- Akram bey, last month the salaries of the frontline soldiers were cut. After public discontent a few days ago, on the basis of the corresponding order of the Minister of Defense, temporary allowances to the official salaries of servicemen were established. Will these allowances replace the salaries of military personnel on the front line?

- This topic, which has seriously worried our society lately, needs to be approached from two planes: 1) the material support of our servicemen in general, including their salaries; 2) the material support, including their salary, of our military personnel at the forefront.

Regarding the first plane of the question, I can say that in my understanding there are three professions that the people (the state) should adequately provide: military, teacher and doctor. The wealth of the people, the budget of the state are not unlimited. Therefore, of course, there will always be problems and discontent. But, at least within a comparable framework, we must always provide the representatives of these three professions as much as possible. Are we doing this? This is a subjective question. And the speech here is not only in the bureaucratic relation. As a people, we also fail to strike a balance. Do our people provide support to servicemen and their families adequate to what they provide to representatives of show business, even getting into debt for them (for example, at weddings)? In most cases, no. Although officials are the children of ordinary people. Putting low-level artists above the military (putting them at the head of the table, rewarding them with high awards, etc.) is a reality. There are no weddings now. However, when the weddings resume, then with a high degree of probability, most people will be proud not of the presence of the hero of the Patriotic War at the wedding, but of some kind of singer.

I relate to the second plane of the question more as a lawyer and advocate. War is over. The previously existing front-line areas no longer exist. There is also no line of contact. And our legislation was adopted taking into account an earlier period. This is where the misunderstanding arises. Yes, the law requires that salaries not be paid twice as much as before for the majority of military personnel. And officials, naturally, should follow this. On the other hand, from a human point of view, one cannot accept such a sharp decline in the salaries of military personnel. Therefore, in my opinion, it is necessary to find an average option and raise the salaries of our servicemen as a whole. Even if not double the size.

Officials are, of course, slow. And this is the case all over the world. And although we no longer have a front-line zone, we have a state border with Armenia, territories adjacent to the zone of the Russian peacekeeping contingent in the Karabakh region, and territories liberated from occupation, which currently have no infrastructure. This is a new reality. Our officials, finally realizing this, increased the salaries of our servicemen serving in these territories. I hope this is the right decision, and it is actually equivalent to the previous front-line salary.

-Was this change necessary? If these allowances followed, then why was it necessary to cut wages? How will this affect the state budget?

-I talked about this with in my answer to the previous question. The reduction took place in accordance with the current legislation. Then, in accordance with the new reality, there was a rise of a different type. They were just slow. Most likely, the legislation will also be amended in this regard. Because we will have military personnel who will serve in the new reality. That is, on the territory adjacent to the state border with Armenia, the zone where the Russian peacekeeping contingent is stationed in the Karabakh region and in the territories liberated from occupation and currently lacking infrastructure.

- And now there is concern about the fact that the established temporary allowances to the official salaries of servicemen can be canceled at any time?

-Not to be canceled until the indicated problems are corrected. That is, if there is no final peace treaty with Armenia, then it is an enemy, which means it is dangerous to serve on the border with it. Military service in the territories adjacent to the zone where the Russian peacekeeping contingent is stationed in the Karabakh region is dangerous, since Armenians can always resort to provocations. The territories liberated from occupation and currently lacking infrastructure also indicate the difficulties of military service, and these difficulties will exist until the completion of the improvement work.

- How is it accepted in world practice? Should the earnings of those on the frontline of the military be different from the earnings of those who do not serve there? How should this look from a legal point of view?

- In general, in most countries this is exactly the case: the salary of those who serve in more dangerous conditions is higher. In fact, this is also the case here. There is simply no front zone, there are other, in fact, dangerous and inconvenient conditions. Accordingly, salaries will be higher than in other territories.

- What are your suggestions? What steps should the state take to differentiate the frontline military?

-Our legislation needs to be amended to reflect new realities. A new classification of hazardous areas must be approved. It is clear that these problems will persist for several years to come. And most importantly, it would be good to raise the salaries of our military as a whole. Most likely it will. As far as I understand, the officials are making the appropriate calculations for now. Indeed, on the one hand, not all those called up for service were demobilized. On the other hand, as I said, officials are officials everywhere. The state apparatus is inherently non-operational, bureaucratic processes are inevitable. This is the case all over the world. This will take time.