190 
in war.33 Post-Stalinist doctrine takes the position that ‘‘military clashes 
are not inevitable”’ and that the task is one of ‘preserving peace” 
and ‘curbing the war-mongers,” in addition to “‘the armed defense 
(zashchita) of the socialist fatherland.’’*4 The Soviets have a special 
formula for this—and it is a very important formula for our purposes. 
They say that the leading place in doctrine is taken up with a broad 
circle of state questions bearing on the problem of ‘‘war and 
peace; 
There is also a difference between science and doctrine in their 
temporal orientation. Military science deals with past, present and 
future.2° One of its most important components is military-historical 
science, which investigates the history of wars and the military art, 
as well as the history of military science itself.*7 However, ‘“‘military 
science cannot simply generalize from the experience of past wars. 
It must generalize from the practice of the present and look ahead,” 
engage in “‘a fearless forecasting of the future,’’?* not even stopping, 
as One writer put it, at science fiction.?? Doctrine, on the other hand, 
is said to have a “‘practical’’orientation, intervening only when thought 
has to be suspended in favor of action. It does not investigate the 
past or project the future; it ‘“‘exists, above all, for the present and 
very near future,’’ determining the tasks of military development for 
“some comparatively limited period.’’*° Because of this short-term 
focus, doctrine eventually begins to “‘lag behind life.’’ However, in 
the meantime military science, in actively influencing the development 
of the means of the armed struggle (military-technical science) and 
at the same time determining the changes in the methods of waging 
the armed struggle that would accompany the projected changes in 
weaponry (theory of military art), has been ‘“‘paving the way for 
practice:’"*! 
CONCRETE EXPRESSIONS OF DOCTRINE 
According to Soviet writers, the tasks of military science are not 
exhausted by the submission of ‘‘recommendations”’ for doctrine. Since 
doctrine is cast in abstract terms, science has the chance to influence 
directly the military-development and military-technical policies that 
flesh out doctrine’s commands. The Soviets frequently refer to 
“concrete expressions of doctrine;’’ these not only include party and 
“For a different view, see Geoffrey Jukes, “The Military Approach to Deterrence and Defense,” 
in MccGwire, Booth, McDonnell, op. cit., 481. 
**N. Kuz'min, “The Armed Forces of the Land of the Soviets,"’ Pravda, 29 May 1974; Bol’shaya 
Sovetskaya entsiklopediya (3d ed.), V, 205; Malinovskiy, Bditel ‘no stoyat’ na strazhe mira, 19, 20. 
%>Lomov in KVS, No. 10, 1962, p. 11; Col. V. Larionov, “The Political Side of Soviet Military 
Doctrine,” KVS, No. 2, 1968, pp. 11, 12; Bol’shaya Sovetskaya entsiklopediya (3d ed.), V, 205; Lt.- 
Col. V. Zubarev in Zubarev and Sidorov (eds.), op. cit., 147. 
86 Bol’shaya Sovetskaya entsiklopediya (3d ed.), V, 209. 
87 Kozlov, Smirnov et al., O Sovetskoy voennoy nauke, 266, 398. 
3®Col. N. Azovtsev, “V. I. Lenin—Founder of Soviet Military Science,” KVS, No. 18, 1968, pp. 
18f, Strokov in Zheltov (ed.), V. I. Lenin i Sovetskie Vooruzhennye Sily, 183; Zavizion and Kirshin, 
op. cit., 11; Grechko (ed.), Istoriya vtoroy mirovoy voyny, II, 22-23. 
39 Belousov, op. cit., 123; Col. V. Konoplev, ‘“‘Military History and Scientific Forecasting,’ KVS, 
No. 12, 1969, p. 10. 
“Kozlov, Smirnov et al., O Sovetskoy voennoy nauke, 387; Sidorov in Kozlov (compiler), 
Spravochnik ofitsera, 77. For a different view of the temporal focus of military doctrine, see Robert 
Weinland, ‘Analysis of Adm. Gorshkov’s ‘Navies in War and Peace’*’ in MccGwire, Booth, McDon- 
nell, op. cit., 568-569. 
' Azovtsev, V. I. Lenin i Sovetskaya voennaya nauka, 284; A. Lagovskiy, Strategiya i ekonomika 
(2d ed., Moscow; 1961), 131, 133; Sokolovskiy, op. cit., 331. 
