Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:42:32.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Organizational Politics and Change in Soviet Military Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

Stuart J. Kaufman
Stuart J. Kaufman
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Get access

Abstract

This article uses two puzzles from the Brezhnev period to test competing models of Soviet military policy and of innovation in military “doctrine.” An organizational model of Soviet military policy offers the best explanation of both cases: why the Soviet Union's Brezhnevera military strategy contradicted the Politburo's priorities (to prevent any war from escalating to nuclear use) and why the Soviet Union agreed to the ABM treaty. The ABM case shows that civilian leaders can force change in military “doctrine” when they have a policy handle–a way of redefining the issue to remove it from the military's exclusive area of competence. When civilians lack a policy handle, as in the military strategy case, they are unable to force innovation if the military is unwilling.

The Russian government now faces the task of finding effective policy handles that will institutionalize civilian control of military policy. The fate of Russia's reforms may depend on it.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , April 1994 , pp. 355 - 382
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 This approach was first proposed by Timothy Colton. See Colton, , Commissars, Commanders, and Civilian Authority: The Structure of Soviet Military Politics (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 See, e.g., Lepingwell, John W. R., “Soviet Civil-Military Relations and the August Coup,” World Politics 44 (July 1994)Google Scholar; and Meyer, Stephen M., “How the Threat (and the Coup) Collapsed: The Politicization of the Soviet Military,” International Security 16 (Winter 1991–92).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 For an excellent theoretical discussion of this point, see Glaser, Charles L., “Political Consequences of Military Strategy: Expanding and Refining the Spiral and Deterrence Models,” World Politics 44 (July 1994).Google Scholar

4 Posen, , The Sources of Military Doctrine (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1984), 58.Google Scholar

5 Kenneth Waltz makes the same point. See Waltz, , Theory of International Politics (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1979), 118.Google Scholar

6 Posen (fn. 4), 74–75.

7 Rosen, , Winning the Next War (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1991).Google Scholar

8 Civilian incentives to alter military policy were even higher in the Khrushchev period (1954–64); as the model would predict, Khrushchev was infamous for his “interference” in strategic planning. See Wolfe, Thomas W., Soviet Strategy at the Crossroads (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The current study focuses on the Brezhnev period because there is less agreement on the role of the civilian leadership in setting military policy in that period.

9 Brezhnev, Leonid, “For Strengthening the Solidarity of Communists, for a New Upswing in the Anti-Imperialist Struggle” (Speech to International Conference of Communist and Workers' Parties, Pravda, June 8, 1969, trans, in Current Digest of the Soviet Press 21 [July 2, 1969]).Google Scholar

10 Jackson, William D., “Soviet Images of the U.S. as Nuclear Adversary, 1969–1979,” World Politics 33 (July 1981), 625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Posen (fn. 4), 75.

12 Prominent works by military-mission theorists include Berman, Robert P. and Baker, John C., Soviet Strategic Forces: Requirements and Responses (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1984)Google Scholar; Yost, David S., Soviet Ballistic Missile Defense and the Western Alliance (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988)Google Scholar; and Meyer, Stephen M., Soviet Theater Nuclear Forces, Adelphi Papers no. 187–88 (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1984)Google Scholar, pts. 1, 2.

13 The Soviet use of the term “doctrine” was significantly different from Western definitions. In Western usage, doctrine refers to a strategic or tactical approach; in Soviet usage, it referred to fundamental issues of grand strategy.

14 On the role of the general staff, see Currie, Kenneth, “Soviet General Staffs New Role,” Problems of Communism 33 (March-April 1984)Google Scholar; and Meyer, Stephen M., “Civilian and Military Influence in Managing the Arms Race in the U.S.S.R.,” in Art, Robert J., Davis, Vincent, and Huntington, Samuel P., eds., Reorganizing America's Defense (London: Pergamon-Brassey's, 1985).Google Scholar

15 In principle, most military-mission theorists argue that organizational constraints are included in the military-mission model. In practice, however, consideration of these organizational constraints is usually limited to recognition of Soviet technological limitations. See, e.g., Berman and Baker (fn. 12).

16 Raymond Garthoff suggests a model of the Soviet military policy process very similar to the process of the balance-of-power model, with its emphasis on the role of the political leadership in policy change and on the importance of foreign developments as the motivation for such policy change. See Garthoff, Raymond L., “Mutual Deterrence, Parity and Strategic Arms Limitation in Soviet Policy,” in Leebaert, Derek, ed., Soviet Military Thinking (London: Allen and Unwin, 1981)Google Scholar. Garthoff s model is not discussed here because his interpretation of the content of Soviet strategy is incompatible with actual Soviet policy. For a complete discussion, see Kaufman, Stuart, “The Politics of Soviet Strategic Defense: Political Strategies, Organizational Politics, and Soviet Strategic Thought” (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1991).Google Scholar

17 Regarding the change in Soviet strategy, see Hines, John G., Petersen, Phillip A., and Trulock, Notra III, “Soviet Military Theory from 1945–2000: Implications for NATO,” Washington Quarterly 9 (Fall 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and MccGwire, Michael, Military Objectives in Soviet Foreign Policy (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1987).Google Scholar

18 Zisk, Kimberly Marten, “Soviet Reactions to Shifts in U.S. and NATO Military Doctrine in Europe: The Defense Policy Community and Innovation” (Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 1991).Google Scholar

19 Pipes, Richard, “Why the Soviets Think They Can Fight and Win a Nuclear War,” Commentary, July 1977Google Scholar. Another prominent presentation of the nuclear victory model is Lee, William T. and Starr, Richard F., Soviet Military Policy since World War II (Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press, 1986)Google Scholar. A nuclear victory model of Soviet strategic defense is Deane, Michael J., Strategic Defense in Soviet Strategy (Miami, Fla.: Advanced International Studies Institute, 1980).Google Scholar

20 Hines, Petersen, and Trulock (fn. 17) remains the best summary of that evidence. The General Staff Academy lectures are published in Wardak, Ghulam Dastagir, The Voroshilov Lectures., vol. 1, ed. Turbiville, Graham Hall Jr. (Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press, 1989).Google Scholar

21 See Jervis, Robert, The Logic of Images in International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970), 234–35Google Scholar; and Quester, George H., “On the Identification of Real and Pretended Communist Military Doctrine,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 10 (June 1966), 172–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 For an argument that war prevention was an important element in Soviet foreign policy, see Holloway, David, “Military Power and Political Purpose in Soviet Policy,” Daedalus 109 (Fall 1980).Google Scholar

23 See, e.g., Berman and Baker (fn. 12), 149–50.

24 Some classic discussions of organization theory include Allison, Graham T., “Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis,” American Political Science Review 63 (September 1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cyert, Richard and March, James, A Behavioral Theory of the Firm (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963)Google Scholar; and March, James and Simon, Herbert, Organizations (New York: John Wiley, 1958)Google Scholar. Some studies that emphasize the organizational explanation of Soviet military policy are Warner, Edward L. III, The Military in Contemporary Soviet Politics (New York: Praeger, 1977)Google Scholar; Payne, Samuel B., The Soviet Union and SALT (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1980)Google Scholar; and Herspring, Dale, The Soviet High Command, 1967–89: Personalities and Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990).Google Scholar

25 The “essential core” of an organization is defined as the plans, procedures, and capabilities that are part of both the “organizational essence” and the “technical core,” so generalizations about both are valid concerning the “essential core.” On organizational essence, see Halperin, Morton H., Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1974)Google Scholar. Technical core is discussed in Thompson, James D., Organizations in Action (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967)Google Scholar. For further elaboration, see Kaufman (fn. 16), chap. 3.

26 Posen (fn. 4), 47–50.

27 Huntington, , The Common Defense (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961)Google Scholar. For a roughly analogous discussion of Soviet military policy, see Snyder, Jack, “The Gorbachev Revolution: A Waning of Soviet Expansionism?” International Security 12 (Winter 1987–88).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Downs, Anthony, Inside Bureaucracy (Boston: Little, Brown, 1967), 200–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Wilson, James Q., Bureaucracy (New York: Basic Books, 1989), 224–25.Google Scholar

29 Wilson (fn. 28), 225.

30 Ross, , “Coalition Maintenance in the Soviet Union,” World Politics 32 (January 1980), 259–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31 Breslauer, , Khrushchev and Brezhnev as Leaders (London: Allen and Unwin, 1982).Google Scholar

32 Grechko, , “Report by Marshal of the Soviet Union A. A. Grechko, USSR Minister of Defense,” Krasnaia Zvezda, March 28, 1973Google Scholar, trans, in Current Digest of the Soviet Press 25 (April 25, 1973).Google Scholar

33 See, e.g., Simes, Dimitri K., “The Politics of Defense in the Soviet Union: Brezhnev's Era,” in Valenta, Jiri and Potter, William, eds., Soviet Decisionmaking for National Security (London: Allen and Unwin, 1984), 77.Google Scholar

34 Brezhnev, , “Report of the CPSU Central Committee to the Twenty-third Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union,” Pravda, March 30, 1966Google Scholar, trans, in Current Digest of the Soviet Press 18 (April 13, 1966), 6.Google Scholar

35 Malinovskii, , “Speech by Comrade R. Ya. Malinovskii,” Pravda, April 3, 1966Google Scholar, trans, in Current Digest of the Soviet Press 18 (May 18, 1966), 12.Google Scholar

36 Speech reprinted in Brezhnev, Leonid I., Leninskim Kursom (On a Leninist course) (Moscow: Politizdat, 1970)Google Scholar, 2:9.

37 This implication is noted by Herspring (fn. 24), 58.

38 Kosygin, Aleksei N., “On a Leninist Course,” Pravda, March 7, 1967Google Scholar, trans, in Current Digest of the Soviet Press 19 (March 29, 1967), 3.Google Scholar

39 Brezhnev, , “Loyalty to the Homeland, the Party and the People,” Pravda, July 9, 1968Google Scholar, trans, in Current Digest of the Soviet Press 20 (July 31, 1968), 11.Google Scholar

40 Both quotations are from Milovidov, A. S. and Kozlov, V. G., eds., The Philosophical Heritage of V. I. Lenin and Problems of Contemporary War, trans. U.S. Air Force (Washington, D.C.: USGPO, 1972), 36–37Google Scholar; emphasis in translation.

41 For good discussions of the shift in military thinking, see Hines, Petersen, and Trulock (fn. 17); and Zisk (fn. 18).

42 Sokolovskii, , ed., Soviet Military Strategy, 3d ed. (1968)Google Scholar, trans, and ed. Scott, Harriett Fast (London: Macdonald and Jane's, 1975)Google Scholar, 187.

43 Ibid., 195.

44 Grechko, , “KPSS i vooruzhennie sily,” Kommunist, no. 4 (March 1971), 45–46Google Scholar; emphasis added.

45 Brezhnev, , “The Report of the CPSU Central Committee to the Twenty-fourth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union,” Pravda, March 31, 1971Google Scholar, trans, in Current Digest of the Soviet Press 23 (May 4, 1971), 5.Google Scholar

46 Grechko, , “Speech by Comrade A. A. Grechko, USSR Minister of Defense,” Pravda, April 3, 1971Google Scholar, trans, in Current Digest of the Soviet Press 23 (May 18, 1971), 23.Google Scholar

47 Tyushkevich, S. and Sushko, N., eds., Marxism-Leninism on War and the Army (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1972), 73Google Scholar, 116.

48 Finley, , “Conventional Arms in Soviet Foreign Policy,” World Politics 33 (October 1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49 MccGwire (fn. 17), 76.

50 Ruhl, , “Offensive Defence in the Warsaw Pact,” Survival 33 (September-October 1991), 442–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

51 Wardak (fn. 20), 1:72–73.

52 Ibid., 1:74.

53 Tyushkevich and Sushko (fn. 47), 73.

54 Wardak (fn. 20), 1:77.

55 Kozlov, S. N., The Officers Handbook (Moscow: Voenizdat, 1971)Google Scholar, trans. U.S. Air Force (Washington, D.C.: USGPO, 1972), 65.Google Scholar

56 Lebow, , “The Soviet Offensive in Europe: The Schlieffen Plan Revisited?” International Security 9 (Spring 1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

57 Quoted in David Holloway, “Gorbachev's New Thinking,” Foreign Affairs 68 (America and the World, 1988–89), 72.

58 Quoted in Garthoff, Raymond L., Deterrence and the Revolution in Soviet Military Doctrine (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1990), 160.Google Scholar

59 Both Yazov and Shevardnadze clearly made these arguments in order to defend the new thinking about foreign affairs, which eliminated this contradiction. Nevertheless, they would not have made that particular argument in favor of the new thinking unless they also believed it.

60 Snyder, , The Ideology of the Offensive (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1984), 25–30.Google Scholar

61 One can hypothesize a cross between the military-mission and organizational models that asserts that the military, led by the general staff and the Defense Ministry, acted as a single organizational interest, maximizing military interests at the expense of civilian control. Such a model would explain the outcome of this doctrinal dispute, but it could not explain the ABM case.

62 Meyer (fn. 2); Currie (fn. 14), 39.

63 Burlatskii, , “Brezhnev and the End of the Thaw,” Literaturnaia Gazeta, September 14, 1988Google Scholar, in FBis-SOV, September 19, 1988, 71.

64 The classic account is Wolfe (fn. 8).

65 See Herspring (fn. 24), 75.

66 Grechko, Andrei A., “In Battle Born,” Pravda, February 23, 1970Google Scholar, trans, in Current Digest of the Soviet Press 22 (March 24, 1970), 23.Google Scholar

67 Payne (fn. 24), 64.

68 See Wolfe, Thomas W., The SALT Experience (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1979), 21.Google Scholar

69 Payne (fn. 24), 7.

70 See Batitskii, “Development of the Tactics and Operational Art of the Country's Air Defense (PVO) Troops,” trans. Central Intelligence Agency, Military Thought, no. 10 (October 1967), 28–40.Google Scholar

71 Batitskii, , “Rukovodstvo voiskami—na prochnuiu nauchnuiu osnovu,” Vestnikprotivovozdushnoi oborony, no. 7 (July 1969), 2–10Google Scholar; Garthoff, Raymond L., “BMD and East-West Relations,” in Carter, Ashton B. and Schwartz, David N., eds., Ballistic Missile Defense (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1984), 299–300.Google Scholar

72 Preface in Zimin, G. V., ed., Razvitie Protivovozdushnoi oborony (Development of antiair defense) (Moscow: Voenizdat, 1976).Google Scholar

73 See Warner (fn. 24), 236.

74 Krylov, Nikolai, “Raketnye voiska strategicheskogo naznacheniia,” Voenno-istoricheskii zhurnal, no. 7 (July 1967).Google Scholar

75 Marshal of the Soviet Union V. Chuikov, “V interesakh zashchity rodiny,” Pravda, February 23, 1968, p 3.

76 Zemskov, V. I., “Wars of the Modern Era,” Military Thought, no. 5 (May 1969)Google Scholar, makes the argument about crisis instability; Anureyev, I. I., Oruzhie protivoraketnoi i prottvokosmicheskoi oborony (Weapons of antirocket and antispace defense) (Moscow: Voenizdat, 1971)Google Scholar, discusses cost effectiveness.

77 Based on interviews with former Soviet general staff officers who worked on ABM issues, Moscow, June-July 1992.

78 Sokolovskii (fn. 42), 284–85.

79 Provorov, K., “Missile and Space Offensive Weapons and the Problems of Countering Them,” trans. Central Intelligence Agency, Military Thought, no. 5 (May 1972), 119–25Google Scholar.

80 Of course, the model cannot explain the views of every actor. Marshal Bagramyan, the commander of Rear Services, for example, expressed optimism about the prospects for ABM, whereas Marshal Moskalenko, the inspector general (and former PVO officer), was more pessimistic. Neither stand clearly accords with any bureaucratic interest. See Bagramyan, I. Kh., “Bagramyan Speech,” in FBIS-SOV, February 23, 1967Google Scholar, CC5; Moskalenko, K. S., “Prazdnik pobedy,” Trud, May 9, 1968.Google Scholar

81 Interview with former senior civilian official involved in the process, Moscow, July 1992.

82 See, e.g., Gromyko, Andrei A., “On the International Situation and the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union,” Pravda, June 28, 1968Google Scholar, trans, in Current Digest of the Soviet Press 20 (July 31, 1968), 12.Google Scholar

83 See Payne (fn. 24) for a discussion of the role of academicians in general.

84 Interview (fn. 81).

85 Ibid.

86 Brezhnev (fn. 36), 1:541.

87 Brezhnev (fn. 39), 11.

88 Reprinted in Kosygin, Alexei N., Selected Speeches and Writings (New York: Pergamon, 1981), 66.Google Scholar

89 Volten, Peter M. E., Brezhnevs Peace Program (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1982), 227.Google Scholar

90 Jack Snyder (fn. 27) argues that such a “logrolled coalition” best explains detente under Khrushchev and Brezhnev.

91 Parrott, , Politics and Technology in the USSR (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1983), 186–89Google Scholar, 233–35; and idem, The Soviet Union and Ballistic Missile Defense (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press/Foreign Policy Institute, 1987), 31.Google Scholar

92 For a discussion of Kosygin's early view, see Garthoff (fn. 71), 295–96. For definitions of different kinds of learning, see Tetlock, Philip E., “Learning in U.S. and Soviet Foreign Policy: In Search of an Elusive Concept,” in Breslauer, George W. and Tetlock, Philip E., eds., Learning in U.S. and Soviet Foreign Policy (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1991).Google Scholar

93 Checkel, Jeff, “Ideas, Institutions, and the Gorbachev Foreign Policy Revolution,” World Politics 45 (January 1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

94 Kozyrev, , “In the Republic's National Interests,” Rossiiskiye vesti, December 3, 1994Google Scholar, trans, in Current Digest of the Soviet Press 44 (December 30, 1994), 15Google Scholar; Yeltsin, Boris, “Speech by B. N. Yeltsin,” Rossuskaia gazeta, October 7, 1994Google Scholar, trans, in Current Digest of the Soviet Press 44 (November 4, 1994), 5.Google Scholar

95 “Fundamentals of Russian Military Doctrine,” Voennaia Mysl', special edition, May 1992, trans. U.S. Joint Publications Research Service UMT-008-L. For further discussion of the debate over military doctrine, see Kaufman, Stuart, “Lessons from the Gulf War and Russian Military Doctrine,” Journal of Slavic Military Studies 6 (September 1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

96 “Military and Security Notes,” RFE/RL Research Report 1 (October 16, 1994).Google Scholar

97 RFE/RL Daily Report, January 7, 1993.Google Scholar

98 Sinaiskii, A. S., “Geopolitika i natsional‘naia bezopasnost’ Rossi,” Voennaia Mysl', no. 10 (October 1994), 10.Google Scholar

99 An example of this Russian argument is in Gareev, M. A., “O nekotorykh voprosakh voennoi doktriny,” Voennaia Mysl', no. 11 (November 1994), 4.Google Scholar

100 Krepinevich, , The Army and Vietnam (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986).Google Scholar

101 “Russia's Security Will Be Enhanced by Deep Cuts in Strategic Offensive Arms,” Izvestiia, June 22, 1992, p. 7, trans, in Current Digest of the Soviet Press 44 (July 22, 1994), 19–20Google Scholar; Felgengauer, Pavel, “The Russian Army's General Staff Supports START II,” Nezavisimaia gazeta, January 11, 1993Google Scholar, trans, in Current Digest of the Soviet Press 45 (February 3, 1993), 15.Google Scholar

102 Yeltsin (fn. 94).

103 Kozyrev, Andrei, “The War Party Is on the Offensive,” interview in Izvestiia, June 30, 1994Google Scholar, p. 3, trans, in Current Digest of the Soviet Press 44 (July 29, 1994), 4Google Scholar; RFE/RL News Briefs, supplement to RFE/RL Research Reports 2 (January 25–29, 1993), 10.Google Scholar

104 “Russian-Moldovan Dialogue in Moscow Proves Fruitful,” Izvestiia, February 11, 1993, trans, in Current Digest of the Soviet Press 45 (March 11, 1993), 20Google Scholar; Lough, John, “The Place of the ‘Near Abroad’ in Russian Foreign Policy,” RFE/RL Research Reports 2 (March 12, 1993), 24.Google Scholar

105 Urigashvili, Besik, “Parliamentary Opposition Demands Radical Actions,” Izvestiia, February 25, 1993Google Scholar, p. 2, trans, in Current Digest of the Soviet Press 45 (March 24, 1993), 15.Google Scholar

106 Art, Robert J., “Bureaucratic Politics and American Foreign Policy: A Critique,” reprinted in Ikenberry, G. John, ed., American Foreign Policy: Theoretical Essays (Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman, 1989).Google Scholar

107 See, e.g., Goltz, Thomas, “Letter from Eurasia: The Hidden Russian Hand,” Foreign Policy, no. 92 (Fall 1993).Google Scholar