This article studies the role of military culture in defense policymaking. It focuses on Russia’s post-Soviet civil–military relations and military reform attempts. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia’s armed forces were in a state of despair. Despite having relative institutional autonomy, the military neither made itself more effective before minister Serdyukov nor tried to overthrow the government. The paper uses the advocacy coalition framework’s belief system approach to analyze data from military memoirs, parliamentary speeches, and 15 interviews. The research shows that the military’s support for institutional autonomy, combined with its elites’ self-serving bias, critically contributed to what I term an “imperfect equilibrium” in Russian civil–military relations: the military could not reform itself and fought back against radical, though necessary, changes imposed by civilian leadership.
BaranyZ. (1999). What went wrong in Russia? Controlling the military-A partial success. Journal of Democracy, 10(2), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1999.0024
2.
BaranyZ. (2008). Civil-military relations and institutional decay: Explaining Russian military politics. Europe-Asia Studies, 60(4), 581–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668130801999870
BinksE.CambridgeS. (2018). The transition experiences of British military veterans. Political Psychology, 39(1), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12399
5.
BrannonR. B. (2009). Russian civil-military relations. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
CohenG. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808–822. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808
FengerM.KlokP.-J. (2001). Interdependency, beliefs, and coalition behavior: A contribution to the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Sciences, 34(2), 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010330511419
11.
FitchJ. S. (1998). The armed forces and democracy in Latin America. JHU Press.
12.
FreireM. R.HellerR. (2018). Russia’s power politics in Ukraine and Syria: status-Seeking between identity, opportunity and costs. Europe-Asia Studies, 70(8), 1185–1212. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2018.1521914
13.
GavrilovY.ChernyakI. (2005, November 1). Jurij Baluevskij: S NATO voevat' ne sobiraemsja [Yury Baluyevsky: We are not going to war with NATO]Rossiiskaya Gazeta. https://rg.ru/2005/11/01/baluevsky.html
GoldsteinL. J. (1997). Russian Civil‐military Relations in the Chechen War, December 1994–February 1995. The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 10(1), 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/13518049708430277
16.
GoltsA. (2017). Military reform and militarism in Russia. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
HerspringD. R. (2013). Civil-military relations and shared responsibility: A four-nation study. Johns Hopkins University Press.
19.
HsuS.-H. (2005). Advocacy coalitions and policy change on nuclear power utilization in Taiwan. The Social Science Journal, 42(2), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2005.03.002
20.
HuntingtonS. P. (1957). The soldier and the state: The theory and politics of civil-military relations. Harvard University Press.
Jenkins-SmithH.SilvaC. L.GuptaK.RipbergerJ. T. (2014). Belief system continuity and change in policy advocacy coalitions: Using cultural theory to specify belief systems, coalitions, and sources of change. Policy Studies Journal, 42(4), 484–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12071
23.
Kara-MurzaV. (2012, September 24). Kakova rol' figury Pavla Gracheva v novejshej istorii Rossii? [What is the role of the figure of Pavel Grachev in modern Russian history?] In Grani Vremeni. Radio Liberty. https://www.svoboda.org/a/24719507.html
KüblerD. (2001). Understanding policy change with the advocacy coalition framework: An application to Swiss drug policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(4), 623–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760110064429
28.
KuckartzU. (2014). Qualitative text analysis: A guide to methods, practice & using software. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446288719
LibelT. (2016). European military culture and security governance: Soldiers, scholars and national defence universities. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315848914
32.
LuxonE. M. (2019). What do advocates know about policymaking? Revealing process in the advocacy coalition framework. Journal of European Public Policy, 26(1), 106–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1400088
33.
MakarovN. (2011, March 30). Put' prob i oshibok vynuzhdennyj [The forced path of trial and error]Voenno-Promyshlennyi Kurier. https://vpk-news.ru/articles/7369
34.
MarshallJ. A. (2014). Russia’s struggle for military reform: A breakdown in conversion capabilities. The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 27(2), 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/13518046.2013.844488
35.
MillerS.TreninD. (2005). Vooryzhennie Sily Rossii: Vlast' i Politika [Armed forces of Russia: Power and politics]Interdialekt+.
36.
O chem dumali i govorili oficery, 1992 god, Moskva, Reportazh [What were the officers thinking and talking about, 1992, Moscow, Report] (1992). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBHP_bLG10&t=1s
37.
On the order of work of the State Duma for November 22, 1995, State Duma (1995) (testimony of viktor ustinov). http://transcript.duma.gov.ru/
PallinC. V. (2008). Russian military reform: A failed exercise in defence decision making (1st ed.). Routledge.
41.
PierceJ. J.PetersonH. L.HicksK. C. (2020). Policy change: An advocacy coalition framework perspective. Policy Studies Journal, 48(1), 64–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12223
42.
Pion-BerlinD.DudleyD. (2020). Civil-military relations: What is the state of the field. In SookermanyA. (Ed.), Handbook of military sciences (pp. 1–22). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02866-4_37-1
43.
RenzB. (2006). Putin’s militocracy? An alternative interpretation of Siloviki in contemporary Russian politics. Europe-Asia Studies, 58(6), 903–924. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668130600831134
44.
RipbergerJ. T.GuptaK.SilvaC. L.Jenkins‐SmithH. C. (2014). Cultural theory and the measurement of deep core beliefs within the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Studies Journal, 42(4), 509–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12074
45.
RiveraS. W.BryanJ. D. (2019). Understanding the sources of anti-Americanism in the Russian elite. Post-Soviet Affairs, 35(5–6), 376–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2019.1662194
ShamievK. (2021). Against a Bitter Pill: The Role of Interest Groups in Armed Forces Reform in Russia. Armed Forces & Society, 47(2), 319–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X19852648
51.
SoetersJ. (2018). Organizational cultures in the military. In CaforioG.NuciariM. (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of the military (2nd ed., pp. 251–272). Springer International Publishing. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319716008
52.
StepanA. C. (1988). Rethinking military politics (1st ed.). Princeton University Press.
53.
SvolikM. W. (2012). The politics of authoritarian rule. Cambridge University Press.
WeibleC. M. (2005). Beliefs and perceived influence in a natural resource conflict: An advocacy coalition approach to policy networks. Political Research Quarterly, 58(3), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290505800308
56.
ZimmermanW.RiveraS. W.KalininK. (2003). Survey of Russian elites, Moscow, Russia, 1993-2016: Version 6 [Data set]. Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03724.V6
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
