198 
national oborona’”’ (never referred to as the system of national 
zashchita) and the “‘combat system of the armed forces” (occasionally 
referred to as the ‘‘system of armed defenders’ (zashchitniki)). At 
the apex of the system of national oborona apparently stands the 
Oborona Committee or Higher Oborona Council (traditionally never 
designated as zashchita committees or councils). Predecessors of the 
current council have always been said to be responsible for national 
oborona, not national zashchita. Since in the past these councils or 
committees have also always been said to embody the ‘‘national politi- 
cal and military leadership,” ‘“‘the national military-political leadership”’ 
or simply the “national political leadership,” each of its members 
have been referred to as a state political and military leader, a milita- 
ry-political leader or simply a political leader. As a ‘‘military-political 
organ,” this defense committee or council is responsible for formulat- 
ing the “‘defense policy” or ‘‘military policy of the state,” as well 
as “‘state military doctrine” (also referred to as “political and military 
doctrine” or ‘‘military-political doctrine’’). Doctrine determines the 
main lines of ‘‘military”’ or ‘““defense”’ (oboronnoe) development. This 
development generates national or state oboronnoe might, strength 
or capabilities and national or state ‘‘military’’ might, strength or 
readiness, occasionally referred to as ‘‘political and military” might, 
““military-political’”’ might and apparently, on rare occasions, simply 
“‘political’’ might.7”° Thus we get the alternative usage of terms in 
the system of national oborona—political and military, military-politi- 
cal, political, military, and oborona, never zashchita. 
At the apex of the ‘single combat system of the armed forces,” 
on the other hand, stands the “strategic leadership of the armed 
forces,’ embodied in the Higher or Main Military Council (Supreme 
High Command in wartime). Whereas the defense council at the state 
level is responsible for ‘‘leadership of national oborona and the armed 
forces,” the subordinate military council or command at the level 
of the armed forces carries out “direct leadership of the armed 
forces.”” And whereas the military-political leadership is responsible 
for ‘“‘military development” in general, the strategic leadership is 
responsible only for a component—‘‘the development of the armed 
forces.”” As befits a ‘‘combat*system,’’ the development of the armed 
forces is usually said to generate the ‘“‘combat’’ readiness, capabilities, 
strength or might ‘‘of the armed forces.’”’ However, when they want 
to indicate the purpose of this readiness, for example, “national 
defense,” the word used for defense is zashchita; and it is obligatory. 
For the navy alone I have collected 124 examples of “‘created for 
defense,” ‘‘trained for defense’’ or “‘ready for defense’? and in each 
and every case—bar none, no exceptions—zashchita was employed, 
never oborona. 
Now, we know that the national political (political and military, 
military-political) leadership is responsible for setting political goals, 
also referred to as political and military goals or military-political 
goals, that is, the goals of military policy. It is the same with military- 
political tasks. Since ‘“‘national oborona’”’ is defined as the aggregate 
7 Gen.-Lt. N. N. Shkodunovich (ed.), Kratkiy slovar’ operativno-takticheskikh i obschchevoennykh 
slov (terminov) (Moscow, 1958); tr. by Asst. Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Dept. of Army as Rus- 
sian-English Dictonary of Operational, Tactical and General Military Terms (Wash., Dept of Com- 
merce, n.d.), 13. 
