Рейтинг
Порталус

WWI and the Dissolution of Imperial Russia

Дата публикации: 04 сентября 2007
Публикатор: Научная библиотека Порталус
Рубрика: RUSSIA (TOPICS) - Imperial Russia →
Источник: (c) http://russia.by
Номер публикации: №1188905500


Was Imperial Russia's gradual dissolution in 1914-1915 a manifestation of structural weaknesses exacerbated by the war?

Viewpoint: Yes. The tsarist policy of centralizing power, limiting reforms, and ignoring the suggestions of advisers ensured that Russia could not effectively wage war and remedy its internal problems.

Viewpoint: No. The crisis in Russia was a function of military defeats that reflected the incompetence of the high military command.

________________________________

The first two years of the Great War strained tsarist Russia to its breaking point. Vladimir Lenin described the war as massively accelerating the process of revolution, and after nearly a century of hindsight it is difficult to establish a credible counterfactual scenario in which Russia might have avoided at least something along the lines of the February 1916 collapse of the monarchy. Was the war itself the cause of the collapse of Imperial Russia? Or did the war merely exacerbate fundamental weaknesses that had been previously demonstrated yet never effectively addressed?
Adherents of the latter position highlight drastic changes of prewar Russian political and economic systems. The Duma, the parliament established after the abortive revolution of 1904-1905, was admittedly far from French or British levels of power and effectiveness. It marked, however, an irrevocable step away from the bureaucratized absolutism that had defined Russia since the days of Peter the Great. The armed forces had been significantly improved since their debacles in the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905). The Russian economy was developing exponentially, despite being in only the early stages of utilizing the vast natural resources of the country. Its industrial sector in particular was rapidly overhauling its Western counterparts in the production of such key indicators as machine tools and proved able to keep the army effectively supplied for most of the war. The cultural malaise that had alienated so many of the young intellectuals and academicians from the existing order involved as much posturing as conviction and was more dangerous in hindsight than in prewar reality.
From this perspective, Russia was brought down by the shortcomings of its army. Its high command proved unable to develop a coherent strategy. Unwilling to choose between Germany and Austria-Hungary as the primary enemy, it dissipated its forces against the two foes. Russian generals, indeed the officer corps as a whole, were at best mediocre in field command. Pitting the bodies of their men against the technology of the Central Powers, in the end they bled Russia white at the front.
An alternative position argues that the Russian army was no worse than its counterparts--it was not that much less effective in adjusting to the demands of industrial mass war. The Eastern Front, moreover, was unlike the Western Front in offering greater relative opportunity for mobile operations. Russian generals had their successes, from the battles of Gumbinnen and Lemberg (1914) to the Brusilov offensive (1916). In contrast to the governments in the West and the Central Powers, however, the Russian government refused to mobilize either its society or its industry to sustain the war effort. It ignored or marginalized political processes at all levels. By the time the government began to mend its ways, in mid 1915, it had sacrificed so many lives that it had also lost its claim to public trust.
The failure of the government was in turn significant because of the deeper weaknesses in the system. Prewar economic improvements had been relative. Faced with the absolute demands of war, industry could not meet the minimal needs of the army. Nor could the railroads move raw materials and finished products on the scales modern war demanded. Nor could politicians inexperienced even in the role of loyal opposition contribute effectively to the making and critiquing of policy. Young people from the educated classes whose alienation from the system had been only theoretical experienced its shortcomings directly, as junior officers, war workers, and nurses. The relatively thin "crust of competence" that had enabled a still-backward Russia to function as a modern state prior to August 1914 was within a year broken beyond repair.
Had the tsar and his advisers been willing or able to accept the immediate risk of refusing war in 1914, they might have averted the collapse of 1916. In fact, however, the negative synergy between structural defects and military defeat spelled doom for the Romanov empire.



Viewpoint: Yes. The tsarist policy of centralizing power, limiting reforms, and ignoring the suggestions of advisers ensured that Russia could not effectively wage war and remedy its internal problems.

The problems in Imperial Russia had been evident since its defeat in the Crimean War (1853-1856). From that time, various tsars tried to repair the problems that had led to that setback, but they only achieved minimal and temporary success. By 1914 Russian political, economic, and social structures had deteriorated significantly and were continuing to do so. The onset of World War I simply sped up the process.

Russia missed the spurt of growth experienced by the West in the first half of the nineteenth century because it was so cut off from western developments by the censorship of Nicholas I. While western Europe developed new military, communication, and industrial technology, Russia essentially stayed in the eighteenth century. In addition, the political, social, and intellectual revolutions of early nineteenth-century Europe missed Russia entirely and resulted in a society profoundly behind the rest of Europe in virtually every area.

After losing the Crimean War, Alexander II tried to compensate for Russian backwardness through his Great Reforms, but even he tried to limit change to the areas that he perceived as crucial--military, judicial, and economic--and his reforms were designed to keep as much of the traditional structure of Russian society as possible. He recognized that the serfs had to be free in order for any of his reforms to work, but even this monumental change was limited and implemented in such a way as to maintain tight control over peasants, severely curtailing their freedom of movement and seriously undermining the chances of Russia for industrialization or agricultural advancement. Subsequent tsars tried to tighten control over the population even more, reinforcing traditional social relationships and reasserting the authority of the tsar over every aspect of society. While all the tsars of the nineteenth century understood the need for technological and industrial advancement, none of them were willing to allow the social change that accompanies these developments. The Imperial government tried desperately to find a way to foster technological progress and allow the necessary (if evil) industrial growth without any of the social or political upheaval that had accompanied these processes in the West. They believed that by insisting on the absolute power of the autocracy, refusing to allow any political changes, and limiting as much as possible the social changes that industrialization encouraged, they could learn from the "mistakes" of the West and eventually have a wealthy, technologically advanced country populated by docile peasants and workers under the supervision of kindly but firm gentry and industrialists, all with absolute faith in the omniscience of the tsar. This plan failed.

Despite the attempts of the government to limit social change, the demographic upheaval caused by industrialization in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was just as significant as in any western country. Traditional ties were broken, and with them the customary restraints on behavior. Peasants who moved to the city developed a new relationship to work, to their families, and to the upper classes. The same clashes between industrialists and workers that occurred in western Europe emerged in Russia. The government had two responses: it either ignored the problems or sent in the army. Neither action resolved the situation.

By the turn of the century, Russia was seething with social, political, and economic problems. Russian workers in 1900 had the worst housing in Europe and the poorest working conditions. Russian peasants still farmed using the severely outdated techniques that they had practiced two hundred years before--the limits placed on them by the commune discouraged anyone from trying new techniques, buying any new equipment, or even investing in fertilizer--and Russia endured a series of famines as a result. Even the upper classes found fault with the system: industrialists clamored for more freedom and incentives to expand their businesses while the gentry and professional classes yearned for a political voice. The defeat of the Russians in the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905), like the Crimean War fifty years earlier, threw Russian problems into high relief. Russia did not have the technology, the economy, or the will to compete in the twentieth-century world.

Nicholas II was forced to recognize these problems during 1905, but he did not have even the limited vision of his grandfather to help him deal with the shortcomings of Russia. Indeed, it would have taken monumental changes for Russia to recover sufficiently to enter the coming world war with any hope of victory, but Nicholas was reluctant to undertake even moderate changes. Instead, he made empty promises and attempted to deal with the problems by fiat. He was committed above all to maintaining the autocracy and, in that commitment, lost sight of everything else. The few modifications he tried, such as the agrarian reforms of Premier Pyotr Stolypin, reflected his desire to maintain control and his ambivalence to any real change that could pull Russia out of its financial, technological, and social quagmire. In addition to the tsar's reluctance, the people of Russia (particularly the peasants)--conditioned by centuries of heavy-handed traditions--were also reluctant to change. The hope of the Stolypin plan was to build a country of hardworking, independent farmers, but the peasants were loathe to give up the minimal security provided by the communal system. They also saw the futility of destroying the commune when there was not enough land to go around and resisted the reforms. Russia was in a mess: the cities were hotbeds of social unrest as workers grew increasingly angry with their conditions and the upper classes chafed under the firm but misguided management of the tsar. The countryside was also in turmoil as peasants tried to eke out a living on the exhausted soil and to hold on to the only security they knew--their traditional commune.

This was the situation when Russia declared war in 1914. It had been suffering from economic and social decline (at least relative to the progress of the West) for more than fifty years. The people were frustrated by the halfhearted attempts of the government to deal with these problems and by the tsar's insistence on his absolute authority despite the evidence that he could not solve the problems of Russia. As the war unfolded, it became increasingly clear that progress had been slight: the transportation system was wholly inadequate to the challenge of supplying the war, the mobilization plan was uncoordinated (it took workers first, leaving only newly recruited, unskilled peasants to fumble around in the factories, which resulted in a steep drop in production at a time when the government needed peak performance), and the tsar proved himself once again to be completely out of touch with the problems or desires of his people--most notably by refusing to allow independent groups to help supply the troops with much-needed food and clothing. A government that is too frightened to take advantage of patriotic fervor is in serious trouble indeed.

The huge losses early in the war did nothing to help the situation. As Russian men died at the front, many without guns or boots, the political and economic situation at home deteriorated rapidly. But the problems that Russia experienced were not new, they were simply intensified and accelerated by the war. The nineteenth-century tsars' continued reluctance to allow significant change, to relinquish any power, or to listen to the advice of experts had led to an impasse. Russia could not cope with the war and its internal structural problems.

-- Greta Bucher, U.S. Military Academy


Viewpoint: No. The crisis in Russia was a function of military defeats that reflected the incompetence of the high military command.

Many historians who study Russia have argued that the events of 1917 were inevitable. Because of growing social and economic instability, they argue, Imperial Russia was doomed to military defeat and revolutionary catastrophe. A careful study of the first two years of World War I indicates that this situation was not necessarily the case, however. Rather, Russian woes were caused by a leadership that was almost universally bad. Incompetence, anachronism, and unprofessional conduct characterized much of the Russian military hierarchy and the upper echelon of civilian officials responsible for war matters. This fact doomed Russia to its crushing defeats in 1914 and 1915, and to the instability that led to the catastrophic events of 1917. It was the consequences of the war, rather than structural features of Imperial Russia, that led to the triumph of communism.

The most central military problem for Russia in 1914 was its thoroughly outdated approach to warfare. Although observers have frequently remarked that this case was generally true for all the combatant powers and that military tactics everywhere lagged behind technological innovation, the situation in Russia was a case unto itself. Much progress had been made since the embarrassing defeat of Russia in the Crimean War (1853-1856). In the reign of the reformist Tsar Alexander II (1855-1881), the Imperial armies were modernized and professionalized in much the same way as those of the other European powers. The combat experience of Russia in its 1904-1905 war with Japan had even given it some advantages over European armies. Unlike the German and Austro-Hungarian armies, for example, Russia had adapted a mobilization strategy that allowed forward elements of its armies to attack before all units were in place. Because of this development, Russian armies were able to enter East Prussia within two weeks of the opening of hostilities in 1914, rather than the widely expected six weeks, and frustrate German plans to deliver a knockout blow to France before turning their attention to Russia.

In several critical categories, however, Russia lagged far behind its competitors. In a land where the social prestige of the aristocracy continued to dominate public life into the twentieth century, the elegant and traditional cavalry remained prominent in the ranks of the military. Unlike most other modern European armies, Russian cavalry had not been exclusively relegated to logistical support, irregular combat with frontier peoples, or ceremonial duties. In the first weeks of 1914 the Imperial army fielded no fewer than thirty-seven cavalry divisions against Austria and Germany. In an age when rapidly advancing troops had to be supplied by train, transportation requirements for horses, fodder, and other materials not needed by infantry meant that Russia had to use the same number of trains to supply a cavalry division of four thousand men that it did to supply its infantry divisions of sixteen thousand. The Russian rail network, which was actually modern and well developed in the western provinces of the empire, if not anywhere else, was thus utilized in a thoroughly inefficient way.

The aristocratic ethos of the officer corps also affected Russian battlefield tactics. In the first weeks of the war a substantial number of the elite officer corps was killed because its training prized gallantry and bravery to such an extreme that caution was considered cowardly. The attitude resembled the commitment of the French army to offensive à outrance and the élan of attack, but it had much more in common with the traditional ideas of battlefield honor that dated back to Napoleonic times. The Russian War Minister in 1914, General Vladimir Sukhomlinov, once stated with pride that he had not read a military manual in twenty-five years and routinely castigated his subordinates for showing interest in the techniques of modern warfare. In 1913 he fired several instructors at the prestigious General Staff Academy because they insisted on teaching modern tactics. Early in the war, Tsar Nicholas II even had to appear before young officer cadets to assure them that there was no dishonor in taking cover. British, French, and German officers may have led direct infantry assaults across open fields, but they had no shame about digging in and dodging bullets.

Grand strategy was also permeated by antiquated thinking. Although the Russians had developed an unexpectedly fast schedule for the advance of their forces into East Prussia, the character of their deployment was out of step with modern warfare. The armies stationed in Russian Poland far outnumbered the German Eighth Army in East Prussia, but their effectiveness was diminished by the decision of their commander, General Yakov Zhilinskii, to maintain huge fortress garrisons to protect the Russian frontiers.

As any responsible general should have known by 1914, strategic fortresses were no longer insuperable obstacles to large mobile armies that could bypass them and to high-caliber guns that could blast them to pieces. This fact had been known for at least half a century, with examples going back to the American Civil War (1861-1865). Even though German artillery had easily demolished all the "impregnable" Belgian forts around Liège in the two weeks before the Russian attack began, Zhilinskii still persisted with his backward strategy. Before the Russian armies moved into East Prussia, a significant number of troops and heavy guns were siphoned off for duty in strategic fortresses. As much as one-third of the infantry strength of General Aleksandr Samsonov's Second Army, and nearly 40 percent of his artillery, were lost to this useless purpose. On the German side of the border, General Max von Prittwitz und Gaffron, the Eighth Army commander usually dismissed as inexperienced and timid, systematically emptied German fortifications of their garrisons and stripped them of literally every gun to ensure the maximum possible battlefield presence. In a modern war that depended on large and highly mobile armies, the Russians willingly surrendered much of their numerical advantage. As it happened, all of the Russian border fortresses were reduced and captured by the Germans with relative ease in the summer of 1915.

As it became apparent that Russia was losing control of the military situation, Russian strategic planners made another crucial mistake. Rather than fight the Germans on an extended front in the salient formed by Russian Poland, the High Command decided to effect a strategic withdrawal to shorten the front. This decision was not a bad one in itself, for it avoided a large-scale envelopment operation that General Erich Ludendorff, the German Eastern Front chief of staff, was advocating at the time. It had an adverse impact on Russian strategy, however, because it involved the abandonment of the critical industrial centers of Lodz, Lublin, Vilnius, and the Polish capital of Warsaw, as well as much of the strategic rail network, to German and Austrian control. Looking back on their victory over Napoleon Bonaparte in 1812, the Russians also initiated a scorched-earth policy to deny war materials, foodstuffs, and other commodities to the advancing enemy. The problem with this approach, however, was that in 1812 the destruction had been confined to the narrow corridor of Napoleon's route to Moscow. In 1914-1915 it was applied along the entire front and created enormous dislocations of people, communications, and economic activity.

If strategy and tactics were subpar, the leading military personnel were completely incompetent. Sukhomlinov's refusal to acknowledge modern military realities had been noted. His tenure as Minister of War in 1909-1915 was a disaster for other reasons as well. To begin with, he scandalously misappropriated ministerial funds to keep himself and his young fourth wife living a luxurious lifestyle. His lack of probity encouraged people to offer bribes and sweet perquisites in exchange for favors. While most of these dealings were not of great significance, it later came to light that Sukhomlinov's corruption led him into close relationships with many dubious figures, including the top Austro-Hungarian agent in Russia before the war and the infamous German spy, Colonel Miasoedov. Disbelieving in modern warfare, Sukhomlinov also crucially failed to build up the Russian armaments industry. When the Russian army experienced chronic shortages of heavy guns, artillery shells, rifles, and cartridges in World War I, it was not because Russia was a benighted land with an uncompetitive military-industrial base. In September 1915--three months after Sukhomlinov's dismissal--Russia produced almost exactly as many artillery shells as Great Britain. The flaw, rather, lay with the failure of Sukhomlinov and those around him to realize the full military potential of the country before it was too late.

Command assignments were also poorly chosen. The two army commanders ordered to invade East Prussia in August 1914, Samsonov and First Army commander General Pavel Rennenkampf, had battle experience as division commanders in the Russo-Japanese War but belonged to rival factions in the army. The Russian High Command overlooked that fact when it ordered them to carry out a joint operation to surround the German forces in East Prussia. When Samsonov moved north from Warsaw in August 1914, Rennenkampf's army marched to support him after a delay of several days, and then only slowly. After overcoming initial German resistance, Rennenkampf halted and then moved his forces away from Samsonov's beleaguered army, which was fighting the German Eighth Army on its own around the Masurian Lakes. While he blamed his lackluster performance on bad intelligence and other misunderstandings, Rennenkampf may have allowed his disdain for his fellow commander to supersede sound military operations. The catastrophic defeat of the Russians at what became known as the Battle of Tannenberg originated in no small way with a poor personnel decision.

An unprofessional approach to military assignments reached even the highest levels. Grand Duke Nicholas (Nikolay Nikolayevich), the tsar's first cousin, was a forward-thinking man who had led the Imperial cavalry in the Russo-Japanese War and advocated military modernization. His progressive ideas, which also extended into the political arena, prejudiced Sukhomlinov and several other conservative courtiers against him. In the years leading up to 1914, his opponents effectively blocked his career advancement and marginalized his influence by confining him to regional commands. Although he served as supreme commander in 1914-1915, he only replaced Zhilinskii after the disaster at Tannenberg, and was himself promptly sacked in August 1915, as much out of envy and political suspicion as for military reverses.

The worst, however, was yet to come. After Grand Duke Nicholas was dismissed in 1915, Tsar Nicholas II assumed personal supreme command of the Russian armed forces, even though his only military experience was the two easy years he had spent as a regimental cavalry officer. He also took supreme command in spite of the direct opposition of most of his own ministers--men whom he himself had appointed and who served at his pleasure. In sharp contrast to all other heads of state, even the self-absorbed German emperor Wilhelm II, the tsar consistently took a major role in military planning and most tactical decisions. His limited training and experience translated into uninspired military leadership, but as the dissenting ministers pointed out, his personal command now brought all responsibility for the failure of the Russian army on him personally and on the monarchy as an institution. The tsar's absence from his capital, moreover, kept him fatally out of touch with the domestic political situation, which increasingly came under the control of the widely disliked and inconveniently German- born Empress Alexandra. Even more alarming was the growing influence of the Siberian mystic Grigory Rasputin. Possessing an unexplained ability to soothe the pain of the tsar's hemophiliac heir, Rasputin rose to a position of serious influence at court. The correspondence of Nicholas and Alexandra included many letters in which the empress related Rasputin's instinctual advice on military strategy and several replies in which the emperor promised to act on it. While historians debate the true extent of Rasputin's influence, the fact of its existence cannot be denied, and public notice of his role at court discredited the monarchy in a major way.

The woes of Imperial Russia had much more to do with military mismanagement than long-term structural problems. The magnitude of the events of 1917 has led much of the historiography to argue that since revolution broke out, every aspect of the Imperial government and society must have been fatally flawed. All roads, in other words, led to 1917. A closer examination reveals, however, that mass disillusionment with the monarchy came as a result of its military failures and the political crises caused by Nicholas II's foolhardy personal involvement in the war. The antiwar riots that broke out in Petrograd in February 1917 were caused by temporary food shortages resulting from the exhaustion of the railway system, not by principled mass opposition to the current social and economic order. The subsequent collapse of the Imperial system had much more to do with the tsar's absence from the capital and inability to bring the situation there under control at a critical time. Seeing both military disaster and domestic crisis, the army command deserted the forlorn tsar and hoped for the best. The tragic descent of Russia into communist dictatorship followed from the incompetent leadership of its Provisional Government after March 1917. The dissolution of the Imperial system, however, was firmly rooted in the poor military decisions of 1914 and 1915.

-- Paul Du Quenoy, Georgetown University


NICHOLAS II TAKES THE REINS

On 5 September 1915 Tsar Nicholas II assumed command of the Russian army and spelled out his reasons for doing so in an address to his uncle and former army commander in chief, Grand Duke Nicholas:

At the beginning of the war I was unavoidably prevented from following the inclination of my soul to put myself at the head of the army. That was why I intrusted you with then Commandership-in-Chief of all the land and sea forces.

Under the eyes of the whole of Russia your Imperial Highness has given proof during the war of steadfast bravery which caused a feeling of profound confidence, and called forth the sincere good wishes of all who followed your operations through the inevitable vicissitudes of fortune of war.

My duty to my country, which has been intrusted to me by God, impels me to-day, when the enemy has penetrated into the interior of the Empire, to take the supreme command of the active forces and to share with my army the fatigues of war, and to safeguard with it Russian soil from the attempts of the enemy.

The ways of Providence are inscrutable, but my duty and my desire determine me in my resolution for the good of the State.

The invasion of the enemy on the Western front necessitates the greatest possible concentration of the civil and military authorities, as well as the unification of the command in the field, and has turned our attention from the southern front. At this moment I recognize the necessity of your assistance and counsels on our southern front, and I appoint you Viceroy of the Caucasus and Commander- in-Chief of the valiant Caucasian Army.

I express to your Imperial Highness my profound gratitude and that of the country for your labors during the war.

On 23 October the tsar amended his proclamation:

From May to October the Russian Army was subjected to uninterrupted blows along a front of 700 miles. The Austro- Hungarians applied every possible means, not excepting such as are forbidden by international treaties, in order to increase the pressure against us. Masses of their troops were flung against this front and sent to destruction regardless of losses. Military history does not afford another example of such pressure.

During these months of continuous and prolonged action the high qualities and mettle of our troops under the difficulties and arduous conditions of the retreat were demonstrated afresh. Notwithstanding his obstinacy in fighting and his persistency in carrying out maneuvers, the enemy is still confronted by an army which fully retains its strength, morale, and its ability, not only to offer a stanch and successful resistance, but to assume the offensive and inflict blows which have been demonstrated by the events of recent days. This affords the best proof that the Austro-Germans failed to destroy, or even to disorganize, our army.

Seeing that they have failed in that effort during the five months which were most favorable to them, it would be impossible for them to repeat the Galician and Vistula exploits now that the successes of the Allies in the west have complicated the strategic position. The crisis has passed favorably for us. We issued safely from the difficult position in the advanced Vistula theater, where we were enveloped on three sides, and now stand based upon the center of our empire, unexhausted by war.

It is true that there is still much fierce and determined fighting ahead. There may be movements rearward, but there will certainly be advances also. Our army lives in the expectation of a general offensive and looks with full confidence to the armies of its allies. It will march boldly and cheerfully forward, conscious that in doing so it is defending the interests of our country and the interests of our allies. Stern struggle with the forces of nature have schooled the Russians to hardships and ingrained in them the instinct to hasten to the succor and relief of a brother in need. Hence an appeal from our allies will always find a warm response from the Russian Army.

Source: Charles F. Horne, ed., The Great Events of the Great War, volume 3 (New York: National Alumni, 1923), pp. 320-322.

FURTHER READINGS


References


Marc Ferro, Nicholas II: The Last of the Tsars, translated by Brian Pearce (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).

Martin Gilbert, The First World War: A Complete History (New York: Holt, 1994).

John Keegan, The First World War (New York: Knopf, 1999).

Dominic Lieven, Nicholas II: Emperor of all the Russias (London: Murray, 1993).

W. Bruce Lincoln, Passage Through Armageddon: The Russians in War and Revolution, 1914-1918 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1986).

Robert K. Massie, Nicholas and Alexandra (New York: Atheneum, 1967).

Bruce W. Menning, Bayonets Before Bullets: The Imperial Russian Army, 1861-1914 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992).

Alexander Rabinowitch, Prelude to Revolution: The Petrograd Bolsheviks and the July 1917 Uprising (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968).

Hans Rogger, Russia in the Age of Modernisation, 1881-1917 (London & New York: Longman, 1983).

Dennis E. Showalter, Tannenberg: Clash of Empires (Hamden, Conn.: Archon, 1991).

Barbara Tuchman, The Guns of August (New York: Macmillan, 1962).

Avrahm Yavmolinsky, Road to Revolution: A Century of Russian Radicalism (London: Cassell, 1957).

Опубликовано на Порталусе 04 сентября 2007 года

Новинки на Порталусе:

Сегодня в трендах top-5


Ваше мнение?



Искали что-то другое? Поиск по Порталусу:


О Порталусе Рейтинг Каталог Авторам Реклама