Politics and the Russian Army: Civil–Military Relations, 1689–2000.

By Brian D. Taylor. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 374p. $75.00 cloth, $25.00 paper.

Brian Taylor has produced an excellent work the first time out of the box. He has written on Russian civil–military relations over more than 300 years, an important and yet somewhat neglected topic, and has done so with significant original research. He rigorously tests four theories (out of nine) to help explain the seemingly unusual development of Russian civil–military relations—from a strong praetorianism in the first century covered to the model of a reliably tame army obedient to civil authority, even as the state crashes about it or the party purges it. As a political scientist, he should be especially commended for undertaking such a fine comparative historical study.

The four major theories Taylor tests over time are domestic structure, organizational structure, corporate interest, and organizational culture. Overall, he finds organizational culture and domestic interest the most compelling. This thread of an organizational culture over the centuries encompasses the belief that any kind of intervention against Russian political leaders (whether tsars, general secretaries of the Communist Party, or the new presidents) is basically illegitimate. This is a fascinating finding, given the repeated weakness of the Russian states in not producing military coups from potentially strong armies. This finding, in contradiction to other scholars, is the most significant in the book.

And yet, although Taylor has done a fine job in a readable work on an important yet neglected topic, there are a number of additions that might have improved the work. To begin with, there is very little space devoted to comparative aspects of civil–military relations. Just as the lengthy study of comparative revolutions (Theda Skocpol, Barrington Moore, Nikkie Keddie, Jack Goldstone, etc.) has greatly enriched the study of revolutions, so too does the comparative study of civil–military relations help us to better understand the case study. For example, the study of Imperial Russia (1689–1917) would have been enriched by looking at the civil–military relations of other important imperial cases: the Ottoman Turkish Empire, Imperial China, Imperial Japan, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. If knowledge is almost by definition comparative, much that might seem unique to Russia actually adheres to its status as a multinational empire.

Similarly, the Soviet period (1917–91) would have benefited by comparison to other Communist countries, especially China (1949–2003). Then the Soviet army would be seen not as typical of Communist civil–military relations but as an anomaly compared to the politically powerful armies in such Communist states as China, Vietnam, and Cuba. These comparative aspects would definitely have enriched Politics and the Russian Army.

So, too, would have been somewhat more emphasis on the civil side of civil–military relations. Naturally, studies such as these tend to focus on the military side of the relationship. Yet Russia underwent enormous economic, political, social, and international changes during more than 300 years. While they crop up from time to time, a systematic analysis of the changing nature of the Russian state, society, and economy would definitely have improved the study.

In addition, there is a most curious omission in this book. World War II (or the Great Patriotic War) is completely omitted. It does not even appear in the index to the volume! Yet, as Seweryn Bialer (Stalin's Successors, 1980) showed so well, World War II had a profound impact on Russia in so many ways, including civil–military relations. The role of the Russia military changed, as Bialer shows, throughout the war and had significant impact on the postwar era. Why, for example, did not the Russian military during World War II, like the German military in World War I, basically seize power and run the country for the survival of the nation?

The Russian civil war, as various works have shown, also had a great impact on Russian civil–military relations. Yet it receives short shrift, only five pages. And World War I, which was so critical, receives another five pages. How can these three great wars, which helped determine the fate of Russian civil-military relations in the twentieth century, receive barely 11 pages in a volume of 374 pages? Similarly, the wars in Afghanistan and Chechnya and their impact receive minimal treatment.

Overall, however Taylor has done a fine job in his first effort. We can await further such efforts in the future, making a real contribution to the field.