On the other hand, the military organization can itself lead to infringement of interests of society by reducing national security to the social, economic and other spheres. In this regard, it may be helpful to study the relations between society and military organization from the point of view of necessity of search of balance of their interests and needs. Thus we can assume that different countries present their own model of organization of relations between society and military organization, allowing a greater or lesser extent to achieve this balance. A comparative analysis of relations between society and the military organization on the example of Russia and NATO countries is also interesting because allows to consider the relationship between the society and military organization in the different contexts of ensuring national and collective security, to determine what conditions promote and hinder the achievement of this balance.
To conduct a sound analysis of relations between society and military organization in the specific historical conditions in Russia and the NATO countries, you must first perform a theoretical analysis of this phenomenon. The relationship between the society and the military organization are a very popular research topic in domestic and foreign science. Generalizing existing work on the subject, it is possible to allocate two basic approaches to disclosure, which we conventionally denote as state management and value-normative.

In the framework of public-management approach the relationship between society and military organization reveals how relations of power and subordination that have been developing between the military organization as part of the state, on the one hand, and government and society, on the other hand. Thus, on the one hand, there are concepts originating from ideas about the military organization as a tool created and used by the state for the realization of national goals and interests (bland D., Maslyuk S. G., L. V. Paving etc.) . The state and society while providing targeted management and controlling impact on military organization, interests and objectives of the subjects of the state and society are recognised priorities in relation to the principles of construction and functioning of the military organization. The focus within these concepts are the management of military organization of state authorities and civil control over it.

On the other hand, some authors (Vagts A., Vladimirov A. I., Lasswell G., mills, H., M. P. Shabardin, etc.) indicate that the needs and interests of the military organization, due to the need of ensuring national security are a priority in relation to the needs and interests of the state and society. This implies a deviation from the principles of civilian control over military organization, until the conversion of the military organisation in an independent subject of political relations.

From our point of view, in the framework of the above-described concepts reveals two types of interaction between society and military organization, the Arctic relative to each other is characterized by the dominance of the interests of the military organization and the dominance of the interests of the state and society. The basic ideas of these approaches can be integrated into a single concept that represents the relationship of military and non-military entities as defined by mutual dependence and mutual influence.

In contrast to the above state-management approach, value-normative approach to understanding relations between society and military organization reveals them as the relationship and interaction of the military organization and the state and society, defined by the content of value-normative systems of these agents, their similarity and distinction. While some authors emphasize the value-normative distinctions between military and non-military actors (Deryugin Yu. I., Serebryannikov V. V., etc.). As the most significant is considered the fundamental difference between military activities from the activities of the subjects of the state and society, leading to the formation and development of military culture and specific military professionalism. Together with the solved tasks and used specific means this causes the closure of the military organization, its separation from society and makes the necessary civilian control over it.

On the contrary, some authors, while not denying the qualitative differences between the values and norms of military and non-military actors, and allocate their similarity, acting as the basis of relations between society and military organization (Mamontov, Y. V., H Moskos, Joints V. P., A. A. Timorin, etc.). This similarity is due to common military and non-military actors interests and goals related to ensuring national security, the presence in society of a unified system of values and norms, and mutual influence of actors. The specific variant of this idea was developed in the framework of military-sociological thought of the Soviet period – the armed forces was seen as "rolling pins" socialist society due to the fact that social relations and processes in a specific form are reflected in the activities of military and social relations in the armed forces.

State-management and value-normative approaches, from our point of view are not mutually exclusive. The basis for the development of relations between society and the military organization is the role and position of the latter in society, manifested in the specifics of military personnel. This specificity determines the value-normative bases of military service, the status and role of the military, their way of life is qualitatively different from the values and norms, statuses and roles, and way of life of civilians causes of social ties between the military and the formation of their communities (including the military organization as the most comprehensive and organized social community of military personnel). This determines the nature of the interaction of the military and civilian communities, including their rights and obligations with respect to each other, their positions relative to each other in relations of power and subordination. Among Russian authors, the integration of the provisions of the state administrative and value-normative approaches noted in the works of A. I. Smirnov. The author characterizes the army as a political institution, created by the government to implement their goals by means of armed violence, but stressed the importance of socio-cultural foundations of interaction between society and the army, reveals the processes of change in values of soldiers and civilians analyzes the impact of these processes on the interaction between society and the army.

The conclusions based on the analysis of theoretical approaches to understanding relations between society and military organization, allow to make conclusions about the basis on which these relationships are built. Their properties are determined by the specifics of military activity, namely the fact that it is, on the one hand, is a necessary means of ensuring national security and the interests of society, and on the other hand, is only possible provided the military resources of the organization and regulation of society. Military activity is not an end in itself, it must not only protect the interests of society, to meet the needs of its subjects in specific historical conditions, but also to meet the opportunities and resources of society. At the same time needed to be quite effective military means of protecting national security that may imply a certain violation of the interests of society in order to achieve this efficiency (for example, due to the increase in the share of military expenditures to the decline in the share of expenditure on social articles of the budget). The activities of social actors should not create obstacles to protect national security from internal and external threats by military means. In this regard, it is necessary to seek balance between the activities of the military organization and the public interest, which is determined by the ratio of the two components: security of the military organization with the necessary resources and realisation of interests of the society in its relations with the military organization.

The security of the military organization with the necessary resources is characterized by the fact that the actors provide military organization of financial, material and human resources of required quality and in an amount sufficient to ensure its ability to effectively carry out its tasks. The security of the military organization also implies that the public authorities exercise effective management of the military organization. In turn, realisation of the interests of society is characterized by the fact that the military organization, on the one hand, effectively ensuring national security, creating thus the necessary conditions for the realization of these interests (the rights and freedoms of the individual, preservation of material and spiritual values of society, constitutional order, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state). On the other hand, on the achievement of the interests of society it is possible to speak if in itself, the provision of military resources of the organization and its activities do not lead to infringement of interests of society. Consider the relationship between society and the military organization on the basis of the described approach.

When you conduct a comparative analysis of relations between society and military organization in Russia and the countries of the NATO it is essential that the principle of collective security. The Alliance provides the necessary level of national security for each of the States-members of NATO on the basis of joint efforts of all countries, and not the independent efforts of each state . This object is achieved due to the fact that each state contributes to collective security, in the form of contributions to the total military budget of NATO, providing NATO's force personnel and weapons, military equipment, necessary for carrying out specific operations. In regard to NATO, there are common standards for arms, military equipment, training of personnel. These standards are largely determined by the specifics of reforming the military organization in former socialist States seeking to join NATO.

Thus, the net contribution of each of the States in the collective security varies and is determined based on resources and capabilities of the state. According to the data presented on the official NATO website, the amount of contribution of each of the NATO members in the total military budget is calculated by special formula considering the size of the gross national income. In 2014-2015, the largest contribution comes from the United States, Germany, France and the UK – together these countries provide around 58,3% of the total military budget of NATO. Thus, participation in NATO has a direct impact on the achievement of balance of interests in the relationship between society and the military organization – specifies additional criteria to assess the adequacy of resource provision of the military organization, while simultaneously ensuring a higher overall level of national security, which creates a basis for greater realization of the interests of society. Despite adopted at the NATO summit in 2014, decisions on the need to increase military budgets , you can expect to save marked disproportion in the contributions of member States to the military budget of NATO. The number of States participating in NATO, do not develop all the elements of military organization, able to fully ensure the national security of the state.

Russia is also a member of international organizations for cooperation in the field of security and defense, for example, the organization of collective security Treaty. The fourth article of the Treaty on collective security stipulates that: "In the case of an act of aggression against any of the parties, all other States parties would provide him the necessary assistance, including military, as well as support are at their disposal in exercise of the right to collective defense in accordance with article 51 of the UN Charter". However, the Military doctrine of the Russian Federation involves the development of the military organization, able to ensure the national security of the Russian Federation. Thus, with regard to Russia collective security is organized on the principle, distinct from NATO, and therefore the comparison of types and levels of balance prevailing in Russia and NATO countries, is of considerable heuristic value, especially considering that the expansion of NATO seems to be one of the most significant threats to national security, and relations with the NATO countries had been worsened by the armed conflict in Ukraine and Crimea into the Russian Federation.

Thus, the factors of interaction between society and military organizations in NATO countries and Russia are qualitatively different. This allows to conclude that the various and characteristic of the data model relationships. In order to identify patterns and determine the state of relations between society and the military organization we used, firstly, the indicators characterizing the degree of resource availability military organizations in Russia and NATO countries in terms of resources allocated. Secondly, we used the indicators characterizing the degree of achievement of the interests of society and its subjects in Russia and NATO countries in General, not only in their interactions with military organization. The choice of such indicators is due, on the one hand, the lack of comparable data on the degree of achievement of the interests of society in its interactions with the military organization in the world. On the other hand, realisation of the interests of society in its interactions with the military organization is located in relationship with the overall level of achievement of the interests of society and rights of citizens.

On the basis of these groups of indicators were calculated aggregated indices of resource availability military organizations in Russia and the NATO countries and the achievement of the interests of society in Russia and the NATO countries. Within the aggregate index of security to military organizations in Russia and the NATO countries were combined, the indicators used in the calculation of the Global index militarization : the index of volume of financing of the military organization, the volume index of human resources index of arms, and in the framework of an aggregated index of achievement of the interests of society in Russia and the NATO countries: the Index of human development , the positive peace Index , reflecting the efficiency of institutions and structures to achieve social stability and prosperity, the freedom Index, the research organization Freedom House , reflecting the level of implementation of civil rights and liberties, and two indicators used in the calculation of the Global peace index – a security Index and social welfare of the state, the Index of involvement of the state in the external and internal conflicts. The aggregated index of the resource provision of military organization in Russia and the NATO countries can take values from +1 to -1, with a value of "1" indicates a high degree of security of the military organization all the necessary resources, the value "-1" indicates a low degree of security of the military organization with the resources necessary for the effective performance of its functions. For aggregated index of achievement of the interests of society in Russia and the NATO countries the value of "1" indicates a high level of life of citizens, stability and sustainable development of society, the value "-1" – low quality of human potential, a low level of security and stability of the society, etc.

The calculation of aggregated indices involves the normalization of these indicators. Normalization values of indicators was carried out in the context of Russia and NATO countries, not all countries with available values of indicators, as in the latter case the values obtained would not be comparable for each index the number of countries measured varies. In this regard, the received aggregated indices can be interpreted only in a comparative context – their values indicate the degree of security of the military organization and achievement of the interests of society in Russia and the NATO countries in comparison with each other. The obtained values of the aggregated indexes made it possible to characterize the model of relations between society and military organization in Russia and NATO countries (see figure 1).

 
Figure 1. Distribution Russia and NATO countries on the level of achievement of the interests of society and the level of resource availability military organization, determined on the basis of secondary data.

The indicators used in the calculation of aggregate index of security to military organizations in Russia and NATO countries, characterize the volumes of resource provision is not absolute in terms of the monetary unit, the number of people and pieces of equipment, and in relative terms – the number of military personnel in relation to the size of the population, the military budget as a percentage of GDP and in relation to health expenditure in percent of GDP, the number of arms in relation to the size of the population. In this regard, to the same level were classified as countries with different amount of resource supply in absolute terms, which was associated with different size of GDP and population.

From the point of view of resources to the military organization, and the extent to which the interests of society in the framework of NATO there is a scatter of countries. Thus, despite the different volumes of resource provision of the military organization, estimated number of experts from all NATO countries provide their own military organizations resources sufficiently to ensure that they can effectively perform their functions. Given that in front of the military organization of each country-participants of the block are set tasks that are appropriate to the capabilities of the country, sufficient may be considered different amount of resources. Overall security within the unit is higher due to collective conditions for its maintenance, and therefore different volume contribution to collective security in various countries, allows to reach a sufficient level of national security for each of them and creates a basis for the realization of the interests of society.

Do note that the most militarized NATO countries characterized by a high level of resource availability military organization and at the same time low level of achievement of the interests of society – Turkey, Romania, Croatia, Bulgaria and Greece – do not belong among the NATO members, making the largest contribution to collective security. For example, according to the plan for 2014-2015 the total contribution of Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Greece and Turkey in the military budget of NATO will be of 6.94% of its total volume. The most significant is the contribution of Turkey – 4.1% of the military budget of NATO, while for the other countries this figure does not exceed 1.1 percent . In contrast, countries making the largest contribution to the military budget of NATO (together providing more than half of the military budget of NATO – the USA, Germany, France and Britain), are characterized by the level of achievement of the interests of society above the average when comparing Russia and NATO.

Summarizing the comparative analysis of Russia and NATO countries, it is possible to detect General and particular features of interaction between society and military organization in these countries. Common to Russia and some NATO countries is the high level of resource availability military organizations (in relative terms – in relation to the size of GDP and the volume of the population) and the low level of achievement of the interests of society. So, Russia and Turkey have matching values for the corresponding aggregated indices. In both cases, not a balance in the relations between society and military organization, but due to various, specific to each country the reasons, namely due to differences in the nature of national security in Russia and in the framework of the collective security system of NATO. In this regard, despite the same level of military organization and achievement of the interests of society, Russia and Turkey can not be defined as having the same state of relations between society and military organization. Resource support of the military organization, which may be considered as insufficient to achieve the goals of the military organization in Russia, may be sufficient for the countries participating in NATO (because of lower requirements for each individual participant bloc) that is special when comparing these countries.

Shaev O. N.

References

1. Vladimirov A. I. Some aspects of civil-military relations in Russia // World economy and international relations. 1998. No. 3. P. 113-121.
2. The humanitarian aspects of the Armed Forces development / Under the General editorship of V. P. Sustavov. – M.: WU, 1997.
3. Mamontov, Y. V. Marxist-Leninist concept of military and its implementation in the development of modern revolutionary armed forces: dis. ... d-RA filos. Sciences. – M., 1987 .
4. Maslyuk, S. G. Civil-military relations in Russia. Problems of democratic control over military forces. – Moscow: Center for political and international studies, 1998.
5. The organization of collective security Treaty (official site) [Electronic resource]. – Mode of access: http://www.odkb-csto.org/structure/ (accessed: 21.10.2014).
6. Peven, L. Y. Democratic control of armed forces: the theory and practice of civil-military relations. Monograph. – M.: Publishing house rags, 2008.
7. Serebryannikov, V. V., and Deryugin, Y. I. Sociology of the army. – Moscow: ISPI ran, 1996.
8. Smirnov, A. I. the Interaction between the society and army as a social institution in contemporary Russia. – M.: Institute of sociology ran, 2010.
9. A. A. timorin Army and a socialist society. – M., 1972.
10. The shabardin, P. M., the Army and politics in modern times: dis. ...d-RA filos. Sciences: 09.00.10 / Shabardin Pyotr Mikhailovich. – M.,1996.
11. Bland, D. L. A Unified Theory of Civil-military Relations // Armed Forces and Society. – 1999. – Volume 26, Number 1. – pp. 7-26.
12. Lasswell, H. The Garrison State // The American Journal of Sociology. – 1941. – Volume 46, Number 4. – pp. 455-468.
13. Mills, C. W. The Power Elite. Oxford Press, 1956 [Electronic resource]. – Mode of access: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Book_Excerpts/PowerElite.html (accessed: 17.10.2014).
14. Vagts, A., The History of Militarism. – Greenwood Press, 1981.
15. Ramona Berenger, C. Soldiers and Society. – US army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1988.
16. NATO Handbook. – Brussels: Public Diplomacy Division, NATO, 2006.
17. NATO funding [Electronic resource] // North Atlantic Treaty Organization. – Mode of access: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_67655.htm (accessed: 21.10.2014).
18. Allied leaders pledge to reverse defence cuts, reaffirm transatlantic bond [Electronic resource] // North Atlantic Treaty Organization. – Mode of access: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_112461.htm (accessed: 21.10.2014).
19. BICC''s Global Militarization Index 2013 [Electronic resource] // Bonn International Center for Conversion. Systems. requirements: Adobe Reader. – Mode of access: http://www.bicc.de/old-site/uploads/pdf/GMI_Daten_2013_e.pdf (accessed: 20.10.2014).
20. Human Development Index (HDI) [Electronic resource] // United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Reports. – Mode of access: http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi-table (accessed: 21.10.2014).
21. The 2014 Global Peace Index Report [Electronic resource] // Institute for Economics and Peace. – Mode of access: http://www.visionofhumanity.org/#/page/news/949 (accessed: 20.10.2014).
22. 2014 ' Freedom in the World [Electronic resource] // Freedom House. – Mode of access: http://freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world#.VETtSfmsVRg (accessed: 20.10.2014).

Tags: assessment , NATO , geopolitics , A.Snesariev's competition