This survey of the military's response to events over the last five years has implications for its likely role in future developments that may threaten Russia's survival. One key issue is what role the military will play in a future crisis. Would the military intervene to prevent the disintegration of Russia? Or, conversely, is the military more likely to contribute to distingrative forces undermining Russian unity? Our analysis suggests that the Defense Ministry will remain an institution strongly committed to Russian unity and the retention of a relatively centralized state.

To be sure, there are indications (noted above) that regional commands are becoming more independent of the high command in Moscow. In the future, continued economic decline and turmoil at the center could make regional military commanders more dependent on provincial politicians. This development could conceivably undermine the chain of command and, in a crisis, could result in local commanders transferring their loyalty to regional leaders.

However, there are key factors that suggest the military will act primarily to support Russian unity, not undermine it. One key factor is that many in both the officer corps and the high command remain convinced that the breakup of the USSR was a tragic mistake that must not be repeated. There is, in fact, growing support within the officer corps and the polity at large for a restoration of some form of union, particularly with the other Slavic states. The military, then, is likely to be far more insistent on preventing Russia's breakup than they were two years ago in protecting the integrity of the USSR.

A second factor is that the increasing dependence of regional commanders on their civilian counterparts has not necessarily produced congenial relations. In some cases, provincial elites have strongly resisted the transfer of local resources (like housing) to the military; for these commanders, the primary loyalty will remain the centralized military command.

Finally (and most importantly), a continuation or deepening of the centrifugal trends affecting Russia is almost certain to accelerate the breakdown of civil order. The fragmentation of Russia is unlikely to be as peaceful as the negotiated settlement that ended the USSR. It is unlikely, then, given the military's previous record, that the Defense Ministry will stand by passively if order breaks down. Indeed, the widespread violence that would likely accompany the fragmentation of Russia would probably generate a strong consensus, even within a deeply divided military, that the Armed Forces must be used to pre-empt this development. Indeed, as we argue below, the most likely form of provincial civil-military alliance is one in which a provincial coalition operates to restore strong central authority, not undermine it.

These considerations suggest that the Defense Ministry will continue to lobby aggressively on behalf of Russian unity. In addition, despite the officer corps' strong distaste for its newly-acquired internal control role, the Armed Forces will likely remain a key force for countering direct separatist challenges from Russia's provinces.

A second issue is what role the military will play in a future political crisis at the center. Our assessment suggests that the military would be extremely reluctant to initiate a political crisis by intervening unilaterally to oust a sitting president or resolve a legislative-executive conflict. Military leaders have apparently concluded that their involvement in political events, absent a clear threat to stability, has just as good a chance to speed on the onset of civil war (and provoke a dangerous split within the military itself) as it has to restore stability.

More likely than a crisis initiated by military action, then, is one produced by actions outside the military's control, placing the high command in a position where it has to choose between sides. One possibility in this regard is a succession struggle. Given the weakness of Russia's democratic institutions, it is by no means certain that the future head of state will be chosen through constitutional means (i.e., through democratic elections). If the change of leadership takes place through an illegal seizure of power, with one set of political players seizing control illegally and postponing presidential elections indefinitely, the new leader would emerge in a power struggle analogous to Soviet successions. In this case, support from key institutions and interest groups, particularly the military high command and the officer corps, would be crucial to a successful bid for leadership.

An authoritarian succession scenario, then, would greatly enhance the Defense Ministry's role as a key power broker. How likely is it that the high command would throw its support behind an extremist or ultranationalist political figure? Our review of the military leadership's role over the past five years indicates that a key motive shaping the high command's calculations in this scenario would be its perceptions of the possible impact on Russian stability. In other words, the high command would likely grant its support to that political leader it saw as representing the least divisive alternative.

Similar considerations apply to the military's likely response to another executive-legislative conflict like the one that rocked Moscow in the fall of 1993. The military's reaction and its ability to act in such a scenario will be determined in large part by the presence or absence of large scale violence, or (to put it differently) an unambiguous threat to stability. A threat to a particular political leader, or even a governing regime, will not necessarily result in decisive actions on the part of the military to defend it. The military would likely agree to employ forces only if there were immediate threats to state stability. The high command's decision as to which side to support will likely be based less on its own political sympathies (which remain largely conservative) than on its assessment as to which side was most likely to be able to restore order.

There is one scenario in which the military may be the prime architect of political change. If there were complete political paralysis at the center, the high command could initiate a seizure of power in order to restore order. Alternately, selected regional military commanders might forge a coalition with like-minded provincial leaders, to seize power with the goal of restoring the centralized state. However, a military-initiated seizure of power is likely only if there were a complete collapse of central authority and military leaders and the officer corps became convinced that only intervention by the Armed Forces could prevent Russia's descent into anarchy.