Also suppressive fire is not only an defensive strategy. It binds enemy troops and gives your troops the freedom to prepare an assault.
No, the point of a minefield is to funnel attackers into predefined areas where you've arranged to bring your heavy weapons, specifically artillery or machine guns, to bear with best effect. These areas rejoice in the name "killing zones", and their purpose is to maximize the effect of said heavy weapons by concentrating their targets in a single compact mass which can be saturated with fire. Granted, being a static emplacement, a minefield can only be effective when someone has to go through it or find a way around it; that said, and while the point is certainly arguable, I have a hard time considering a weapon, whose sole purpose is to make it as easy as possible to slaughter one's opponents en masse, as being particularly "defensive".
Not when you throw them at someone.
The difference between a well trained soldier and rabble is that soldiers don't lift their guns over their heads and fire. They look at what they shoot and they aim to hit the enemy.
/brother was a Marine in Iraq, I think a fire team leader and eventually squadron leader
I can understand the wish to disassociate from that aspect of the profession--I don't understand how people do it successfully.
None of these engineering tasks require you to meet war things.
I dunno, if I tried to do your job, I'd just feel like I was just flicking matches onto gasoline. I mean, it might just be possible that you guys are overdoing it on the defense and could spend a bit less time on the gun designs. I understand that things that go bang are fun, but you already have a reasonable number of different cluster munitions and have a large enough army to take on all the others at once, so I am not sure I see the excess utility to your society in spending too much time in designing a new one.
edit - I just don't know that the principle of deterrence works that well unless the person being deterred is sufficently informed, otherwise they are not deterred, they just end up dead.
(It is, though, rather difficult to understand how you, or indeed anyone, could with a straight face describe such a man as "naïve and unworldly". Ignorance is the kindest explanation I can devise.)
In day to day life if you need to attract someone's attention, you'd use an equivalent of "excuse me", "hey" or "hello". In rare cases people would use "man" (мужчина) or "woman" (женщина), but that's very impersonal and frequently antogonistic, so most people avoid it.
In press and written language, it's just the last name, preceded by the position when appropriate. Sometimes they will use gospodin, but that would typically be reserved for pompous occasions and when referring to people at important positions, e.g. a president of a bank. And yet it still looks odd and catches the eye.
So in the context of your post it's just Kalashnikov. No gospodin.
Post-soviet russia? Loads and loads of bandits with automatic weapons and whole ethnicities have a habit of firing AK-47 in the blue sky at weddings.
Battles where a huge chunk of a million men died in just a few days happened again and again and again. Of all the dying that happened in WWII, the Russians did a huge chunk of it.