In Russia a wide range of problems exists connected with the study of civil-military relations and with the understanding and interpretation of this phenomenon. Some changes take place affecting both society and the military, thus, influencing civil-military relations. This issue arouses the interest of foreign sociologists who consider civil-military relations and the military in so-called societies in transition. This group of countries includes, among others, the states of post-communist Europe¹. Meanwhile, in Russia, few studies can be found on this subject. In this essay, the major differences in the way Russian and foreign sociologists understand the essence, characteristic traits and ways of development of civil-military relations are determined through the comparative analysis of Russian and foreign theoretical approaches to the subject.

The problems, mentioned above, can be split into three large groups:

First of all, it is necessary to mention communicative and linguistic problems. There are some problems connected with translation:

• a) Very few works are translated into Russian and as a result of this, translations are not always exact, for example, they may be ambiguous or they cannot be directly translated into Russian as they have no analogue in Russian. As a result, the specific meaning of the terms is easily lost and the essence of the text may not be understood correctly;

• b) in the USSR foreign languages were learnt at school but were taught in such a way that they were rarely mastered. As a result, Russian scientists could not analyse foreign findings which were not translated into Russian, as already mentioned. Unfortunately, similar problems exist today. Crucially, it depends on the wish of a person to master the language and their own efforts. Also, the following disadvantage arises: works concerning civil-military relations are translated by professional linguists who have no sociological education and so, they may fail to correctly convey the point or translate specific sociological terms.

Secondly, there are problems connected with theoretical issues and methodology, including the following:

• a) Indefinite terms. Russian authors use the expression “military-civil relations”, while the term “civil-military relations” is characteristic of foreign research. In this, it is not only possible to see linguistic differences but the difference in understanding the essence of this phenomenon. Speaking about civil-military relations, Russian authors mainly stress the problem of civilian control of the military. The civilian control is defined only in the narrow sense, as a control of the government over the military and this understanding implies an elected civilian head of the military². So civil-military relations are mainly understood as an interaction between government and the military, while in foreign studies this term has a broader meaning, for example, the interaction between the whole society and the military. So here, it is possible to see the difference both in terminology and in meaning³. The problem is not only one of using different words. The use of vocabulary can influence true understanding of concepts. It is only possible to understand a thought once it has attributed a name. Word gives   form to indefinite or vague thoughts. We should use the concepts “military-civil relations” and “civil-military relations” very carefully.

• b) The absence of any alternative concepts. As aforementioned, there are few works on civil-military relations but there are also no theoretical concepts besides the one described above. This modern Russian concept is based on the philosophy of Karl Marx. In the Soviet Union, the Iron Curtain prevented Russian authors from keeping in touch with the development of military sociology abroad and new ideas of foreign authors. All Western interpretations and theoretical approaches were called "bourgeois" and "antiscientific". Strange as it may seem, nowadays no Western works are known yet, although there are no restrictions any longer and Russian researchers are free to study the foreign experience. Nevertheless they even rarely refer to foreign authors (with the exception of Samuel Huntington). It’s obvious that Huntington’s theoretical approach and that of Russian authors are very alike. Quite a lot of attention is paid to one of his main ideas, i.e. to the idea that the military must be politically neutral. Huntington argues that it was closely connected with the professionalization of the military and clear separation of civil and military spheres⁴. Nevertheless, in Russia the idea of political neutrality of the military turns into the idea of departisation of the military. However, Huntington’s theory is not suitable for the analysis of the situation in Russia. It’s deeply rooted in the conditions and time of its creation – in the conditions of the American society of the 1950s. Huntington thought the societal imperatives to be stable in that society, so only the external threat could explain the development of civil-military relations. This approach doesn’t imply a society where the constitutional order, values, tradition and culture are changing. In Russia we see changes of this sort which characterize the society and explain many of its peculiarities, so the subjective control theory of Janowitz seems to be worth taking into consideration. Janowitz regarded a society, where, on the contrary to the one described by Huntington, the societal imperatives can change. Moskos’ theory is suitable for the same reason. Studying and thoroughly analyzing these approaches would be quite useful not only for the purpose of development of the theory, but also for practical work and for implementing long-awaited reforms, which are often debated in Russia and thought to be necessary. Meanwhile these theories are not mentioned in Russian studies and scarcely known.

Consequently on the basis of examination of foreign studies the following theories are to be considered by Russian sociologists (beside S.Huntington's theory): theories of Morris Janowitz and Charles Moskos⁵.

Huntington considered the military as an organization separated from the rest of the society and connected the idea of democratic control over the military with the professionalisation of the military, which he understood as professional training of officers⁶. On the other hand - Janowitz described the military as an organization becoming closer to the civil sphere, which included a shift to all-volunteer armed forces (it is the base of civilian control) and some structural and cultural changes⁷.

Charles Moskos analyzed the processes of structural and cultural approach and interosculation of military and civil spheres and changing missions of the military. He also introduced the concept of the post-modern military, which emerged after World War II as a product of processes of mobilization, individualization, democratization and globalization.

As a result of the development of these ideas we have a portrait of “good” democratic civil-military relations in the modern military sociology, which is regarded as typical of all developed democratic states. These main are the traits:

• Growing mutual penetration, both structural and cultural, of military and civil spheres (democratization), including the process of individualization (soldiers’ orientation to the marketplace economy, adopting democratic values, protection of every soldier’s human rights etc.)

•  Functional change (shift from defense of the territory of a national state to Operations Other Than War (OOTW) (constabulary force of Janowitz)

•  Structural change: reducing the size of the military and shifting to all-volunteer armed forces, including the process of mobilization

•  Participation in international missions, run by such bodies as the UNO and the appearance of international forces (for example Eurocorps) (globalization)⁸.

Therefore major differences in theoretical approaches of Russian and foreign sociologists can be clearly determined. Russian authors tend to view the military as a closed system separated from the rest of the society, whereas foreign authors think it to be an open organization which is quite close to the society.

Actually if we analyze the military in Russia and in Europe from the point of view of Moskos’ theory, who as a matter of fact distinguished the two described types of military organizations, both sides turn out to be right – according to its structural and cultural traits the military in Russia can be called “closed” and the one typical of Europe and the USA, “open”. However it would be more important to underline the fact that, since we are building a democratic society in Russia we must have an open military organization, typical of such a society, together with all the processes, described above. Of course, they acquire their specific nature in Russia and may sometimes influence the society, even negatively. Although foreign authors think such a type of civil-military relations to be desirable for societies building democracy, including Russia, Russian researchers ignore it, on the whole concentrating on the problem of civilian control. These sociologists take the mere existence of these processes very negatively, especially the process of adopting the norms of a market economy and individualization. They tend to regard these processes as a deviation, which should be corrected in the course of solving the problems of the military, while foreign sociologists describe these processes as quite natural. Russian authors still think a closed social system to be the best type of the military organization, while sociologists all over the world stick to the contrary opinion. This situation leads to the appearance of the third group of problems: organizational and technical problems. The fact is that, although democracy has spread, the military is remains a closed organization. To study civil-military relations we have to study both the military and society, but the military is “closed”; it's not available for non-military sociologists to study it. Only "sociologists wearing stripes" (sociologists who are servicemen or servicewomen) have the opportunity to conduct research of the military. Moreover, the results of such research are used only by the administration of the military for purposes of the military. Consequently, we have the unilateral analysis of the interaction between the military and the society: the influence of the society on the military is studied, but not inversely. In Western studies the analysis of civil-military relations is much broader; it includes consideration of many more aspects of this interaction and studying the interdependence of the both sides. Moreover these "sociologists wearing stripes" do not study society and the military from the valueless point of view, which is critical to any scientific sociological study.

 In a nutshell, thorough studying of foreign theoretical approaches to civil-military relations is no doubt necessary for developing Russian theories, whilst taking into consideration certain peculiarities of modern Russia. We obviously lack new views, alternative opinions, and new approaches in this sphere. Besides, as the theoretical analysis of the problem forms the basis for practical work for reforms which are no doubt necessary for Russia. For developing democratic civil-military relations in Russia, it would be very useful to take into account foreign experience in this sphere, the experience of the states which have already built such a type of civil-military relations.

Besides, it’s very important to pay more attention to the sociological concepts we use. More critical thinking about what they mean is needed, for it influences results of any study.