The president of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin supported offer according to which Rostec State Corporation will provide the Ministry of Defence with one new machine gun AK-12 in exchange for three machine guns of the old generation withdrawn from ministry warehouses. Thus the Deputy Prime Minister reminded that AK-12 hadn’t passed the state tests yet...
"Today the president supported Chemezov's proposal according to which corporation could provide the ministry with one new machine gun in exchange for three machine guns withdrawn from warehouses of the Ministry of Defence free of charge," — the Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin told to the journalists.
The Kalashnikov guns of the previous generations being in reserve of the Ministry of Defence can be transferred to foreign partners within military and technical cooperation, Dmitry Rogozin also declared.
"Also they can be used for creation of civil weapon on their base. Fine competitive position — "Saiga" of the 12th caliber is created on the basis of the Kalashnikov gun. This weapon is very popular in the American market," — Rogozin told.
________________________________________
From editorial board: Generally it reminds similar disarmament of nuclear-powered submarine fleet we refused from old rockets, while new “Bulava” weren’t still ready.
If it is possible to make plans on modernization of the army, when new machine gun hasn’t passed state tests?
Besides the Kalashnikov guns of old samples stay in warehouses not for nothing, but in case of mass mobilization. A question appears at once: if to exchange old to new in proportion 1:3, in case of mass call reservists will gun with entrenching shovels? Or we should count at the rate of one gun for three soldiers? Besides reservists didn't get used to AK-12 which nobody saw, they got used to old models instead.
If old guns in army warehouses interfere with anyone that it’s obligatory to do something with them? Both to sell to mujahideen or to make hunting chachka for the Americans? Whether the Russians don’t need weapon at all?
If it is so necessary to make army warehouses empty, why not to do the Swiss do, there everyone who serves goes home with ammunition, including the weapon. All this is included into his duty of the reservist including to keep it in working condition. Why the American can have fighting weapon, while the Russian doesn’t have such right?
There is such an impression that the power prepares for something bad. At that at the time this bad thing happens, people shouldn't have weapon.
How else is it possible to explain the program on reduction of arsenals of the "national" weapon with which everyone is able to handle almost thrice?
Аnatoly Baranov, editor-in-chief of FORUM.msk
