SCIENCE AND MILITARY SECURITY No. 4/2007, pp. 47-58
Colonel I.F. MATRSHILO,
chairman of the military scientific committee
Colonel G.I. CHUKSIN,
chairman of the section of the military scientific committee
Armed Forces of the Republic of Belarus
Major V.V. SHLAKUNOV,
Leading Researcher
military scientific committee
Armed Forces of the Republic of Belarus
At the beginning of the 21st century, the development of the military-political situation in the world, which takes place within the framework of a complex and contradictory process of globalization of international political and economic relations, continued to be influenced by factors associated with the collapse of the bipolar system of the world order and the formation of "new poles of power". This process is accompanied by an intensification of the struggle for control over the sources of energy resources and their transportation routes.
The refinement at the beginning of the century of the content of the US military strategy can be regarded as a kind of milestone that marked the transition of American military policy from "deterrence" to unlimited and uncontrolled so-called "preemptive actions" of an offensive nature. This is confirmed by the military operations carried out by the United States and its allies against Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003), which are a logical continuation of the aggressive activities of the United States, which manifested itself in military operations at the end of the 21st century.
1. Causes, content and results of the US military operation and its allies in Afghanistan (2001)
The terrorist attacks carried out on September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington by the Al-Qaeda organization served as the reason for the unleashing of hostilities in Afghanistan by the United States and its allies. In this regard, US President George W. Bush (junior) officially announced the start of a "global war on international terrorism", the first stage of which was an operation against Afghanistan, on whose territory terrorist training camps were located. The leaders of most countries in the world community, while declaring support for the US position on terrorism, directly or indirectly approved the subsequent actions of the US administration to prepare and conduct a virtually illegal military action against a sovereign state.
Preparations for military action against Afghanistan began almost immediately after the terrorist attacks. Already on September 17, the head of the American military department, D. Rumsfeld, submitted for consideration by the US president several options for a plan to strike at al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, one of which was approved by George W. Bush as the basis for developing an operation called "Unbending Freedom ".
Goals the operations were officially proclaimed: the elimination of the terrorist structure of Al-Qaeda and its leadership, headed by Osama bin Laden; the overthrow of the Taliban regime, headed by M. Omar, with the defeat of their armed forces. The real goals of the military action against Afghanistan were: the expansion of the US military presence in the most important strategic region of the world and the reduction of the influence of other states in it.
Operation planning was carried out by the relevant bodies of the so-called community of joint command bodies (SOCO) under the leadership of the President and Secretary of Defense of the United States. Planning was carried out at short notice, which can be explained by the availability of advance options for crisis response plans available to the Joint Central Command (JCC).
Nevertheless, by the beginning of hostilities, the American command only had plans for an air offensive operation and the use of special operations forces, but did not have a complete understanding of the content of the operation as a whole, since this was hindered by geographical and political factors.
The most problematic were issues related to the creation and use of a ground group of troops. The main obstacle was political motives, which made it impossible to deploy large contingents of troops in the territories of states adjacent to Afghanistan. At the same time, there was a clear unwillingness of the American leadership to enlist the armed forces of the opposition, the United National Liberation Front of Afghanistan (ONOFA), known as the "Northern Alliance", as an ally in conducting ground military operations. This is explained by Washington's desire to avoid dependence on the ONOFA group, which has close ties to Russia, to achieve its goals without "foreign" help, and thereby secure the right to single-handedly resolve the issue of the post-war structure of Afghanistan.
The main efforts during the preparation of the operation were concentrated on creating groupings for carrying out an air offensive operation (AOO) and conducting systematic combat operations using air attack forces and means. Thus, the method of conducting military operations was chosen based on the hypothetical possibility of achieving the strategic goals of the operation without the participation of ground forces, which, in the opinion of the US President and Secretary of Defense, was confirmed by the experience of conducting and the results of the operation against Yugoslavia in 1999.
During creation of groupings of troops (forces) As part of the Air Force grouping, two expeditionary air wings were formed. The first air wing, which included strategic bombers, was deployed on about. Diego Garcia. In addition, it was planned to use strategic bombers from the Whitement airbase (USA).
When forming a second air wing, which included strike tactical fighters, the coalition command had problems, since the government of Saudi Arabia forbade the use of its airfields for the deployment of combat aircraft. For the same reasons, it was decided to abandon the deployment of tactical aviation in Muslim Pakistan. In this regard, the second air wing was deployed to British air bases in Kuwait and Bahrain. However, flights from these bases to Afghanistan turned out to be at the limit of the capabilities of tactical fighters, so the basis of the US tactical aviation grouping was carrier-based aviation.
By the beginning of hostilities, the coalition grouping of the Navy was deployed in the waters of the Arabian Sea. It consisted of 47 warships, including 3 nuclear aircraft carriers, as well as 12 carriers of sea-based cruise missiles (SLCM) "Tomahawk". In total, up to 230 carrier-based aircraft were on board the aircraft carriers, ships and submarines had 308 cruise missiles.
The forces and means of the Special Operations Forces (SOF) grouping were deployed at operational bases in Pakistan and Uzbekistan, as well as on the Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier in the northern part of the Arabian Sea.
Opposing side- The armed forces of the Islamic movement "Taliban" (ITM) numbered about 76 thousand people. The ITD was armed with: about 2,200 armored vehicles, up to 3,500 field artillery guns, mortars and multiple launch rocket systems. A characteristic feature was the decentralized control of the Taliban troops, who acted on the instructions of the provincial leaders. There was no unified air defense system in the country. Radar posts only partially covered the capital, the largest cities and air bases. Fire weapons included short-range air defense systems and portable weapons. The troops and local air defense also had a significant number of anti-aircraft artillery guns. Aviation reported directly to the Minister of Defense and had 8 combat-ready aircraft and 26 combat helicopters.
Defense preparation Islamic movement "Taliban" began with the announcement by the United States of the decision to conduct a "action of retaliation". The following measures were taken in this direction: the armed formations were brought to full combat readiness; closed airspace; increased measures to mask and protect important objects; mobilization of reservists announced. Particular attention was paid to the creation of stocks of weapons, medicines and food. Thus, the Taliban leadership took all possible measures to prepare to repel the aggression. However, it was not able to properly organize the repulsion of enemy air strikes due to the overwhelming superiority of the coalition forces in the Air Force and Navy components.
Operation Enduring Freedom began at 22.30 on October 7 with massive missile and air strikes. Within four days, four MRAUs were inflicted, in which strategic bombers, carrier-based strike aircraft, as well as ships and submarines carrying Tomahawk SLCMs took part. As a result, the Afghan air defense was actually defeated and the American aviation switched to systematic combat operations against individual military facilities (warehouses, workshops, Taliban camps) and communications.
At the same time, the Pentagon came to the conclusion that the strategy tested in Yugoslavia to achieve military goals through conducting only air offensive operations was unacceptable for the conditions of Afghanistan, where there were practically no key vital installations, the destruction of which would force the enemy to surrender. The expectation that bombardments and missile strikes from the air would break the resistance of the IDT troops did not materialize.
It was necessary to intensify ground operations, which until mid-October were limited to small raids by units of special operations forces and did not bring visible success. However, the use of larger units and the conduct of a large-scale ground operation involving coalition ground forces was practically impossible.
Under these conditions, the command of the coalition group was forced to enlist the forces of the ONOFA ("Northern Alliance") as an ally in the conduct of ground military operations. The establishment of direct contacts with their leaders made it possible to start developing plans for joint offensive operations. By the end of October, the plan of the air-ground operation was determined. The offensive was carried out from the northern and northeastern regions of Afghanistan, controlled by the Northern Alliance. Mazar-i-Sharif and Kabul were chosen as the directions of the main attacks on the land front. Auxiliary strikes were delivered in the direction of Kunduz and Herat.
From the beginning of November, aviation switched to solving the tasks of direct support for the troops of the Northern Alliance, whose actions, in addition to aviation, were provided by the special operations forces of the US troops. The advance of the allied troops and the seizure of territory took place without serious clashes with the enemy, which was due to the chosen method of conducting hostilities. The continuous fire impact on the Taliban from the air forced them to leave the defended areas, which were immediately occupied by the troops of the Northern Alliance. The isolation of combat areas was carried out by delivering air strikes against suitable enemy reserves and communications.
On November 16, Kabul was taken, the Taliban group was cut off and surrounded in the mountainous region near Kunduz. Further joint actions of the Afghan ground forces of the Northern Alliance, the air-sea group and special forces units of the United States and Great Britain were aimed at eliminating the encircled Taliban groups and taking control of the main settlements.
The rather rapid success of the ground phase of Operation Enduring Freedom can be explained by a number of reasons. Firstly, by making a decision to involve the troops of the "Northern Alliance" in conducting ground combat operations, which made it possible to win practically without the use of their own troops and with minimal losses. Secondly, well-organized intelligence, including through the widespread use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which provided almost round-the-clock surveillance. Thirdly, by carrying out activities of information and psychological impact on the population of Afghanistan with the help of the most accessible and effective means. To a large extent, the success of the offensive was facilitated by the provision by the leadership of Uzbekistan of its airfields for the deployment of US and British combat aircraft, which made it possible to reduce the time for attack aircraft to reach the positions of the Taliban from several hours to 15-20 minutes.
In total, about 12 thousand guided and unguided bombs (more than 8.5 thousand tons) were dropped by Air Force and US Navy aircraft and up to 40 ALCMs were launched. More than 50 SLCMs were fired from ships and nuclear submarines. The massive use of relatively cheap JDAM modular weapons has made it possible to increase the share of high-precision weapons among the total amount of used ammunition up to 50%.
In the course of hostilities, the concept of "deep strikes" was thoroughly tested, the essence of which is to defeat an enemy located at a great distance from aviation bases. Thus, B-1, B-2 and B-52 bombers flew from air bases located on about. Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and in the United States, more than 5,000 and 12,500 km away from the combat area, respectively. At a fairly large distance (up to 2000 km) carrier-based aircraft also operated from the Arabian Sea.
In the constant air support of the ground forces, an important role was played by small highly mobile units (reconnaissance and sabotage groups of 6 to 12 people) for special purposes, which provided aviation with data on the enemy.
The establishment of control by the United States and its allies over most of the major cities and main transport routes in Afghanistan created the conditions for the introduction of "peacekeeping" troops (mainly NATO) and the formation of a new supreme power in Kabul. However, it was not possible to completely decapitate the political leadership of the Taliban movement. Until now, there is no complete control of "peacekeeping" troops over the entire territory of the country.
Most of the stated goals of the operation have not been achieved. No key Taliban or al-Qaeda leaders have been captured or killed. The Taliban have dissolved among the population of Afghanistan and Pakistan, without losing the organizational structure and retaining manpower. It was not possible to form a stable and capable government of the country on the basis of an agreement between the Pashtuns, representing the bulk of the population of Afghanistan, emigrants from the entourage of the former king of Afghanistan, Mohammad Zakir Shah, and representatives of the Northern Alliance.
Thus, the military action of the United States and its allies against Afghanistan in 2001 once again confirmed that the United States is ready to use military force without UN Security Council sanctions against any state.
One of the most significant results of the operation, which is of geostrategic importance, is the penetration of the United States into Central Asia and the consolidation of its positions in this region.
In military terms, the operation revealed the capabilities of the US Air Force and Navy to deliver massive missile and air strikes and conduct long-term systematic combat operations at a considerable distance from aviation bases and ship locations.
At the same time, forecasts about the possible exclusion of the ground phase from the content of modern operations have been refuted. The grouping of troops of the "Northern Alliance" played a decisive role in the seizure of territory.
The main political result of the operation is the overthrow of the Taliban regime and the creation of a coalition Afghan government. At the same time, most of the tasks set (catching the leaders of al-Qaeda, defeating the Taliban armed forces, completely eliminating the terrorist network) have not been resolved.
2. Causes, content and results of the US and UK military operation in Iraq (2003)
Immediately after the outbreak of hostilities against Afghanistan, the preparation of a favorable world public opinion for the United States began in order to ensure the legitimacy of subsequent military actions. So, already on October 8, 2001, the US presidential administration notified the UN Security Council of its intention to use military force on the territory of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Iran, North Korea, Morocco, Yemen and Cuba, arguing its decision by the involvement of these countries in terrorist activities. Thus, under the cover of the slogan of waging a "global war against international terrorism" in accordance with the chosen military-political course of the United States, a list of potential victims of aggression on the way to world domination was made public.
The choice of Iraq as the primary target of attack was not accidental. It was caused, first of all, by the global economic interests of the United States, since the establishment of control over Iraqi territory provided them with access to the richest sources of fuel and energy resources.
The military and economic potential of Iraq was significantly weakened during the previous wars, the economic blockade and periodic missile and air strikes against the country's facilities carried out by the US Navy and Air Force. The internal political situation in Iraq was characterized by the presence of armed opposition in the north and in the south of the country. All this, according to American analysts, made it possible to consider Iraq the weakest link in the chain of independent states that stood in the way of US domination in the Middle East region.
At the same time, the United States did not receive unanimous support for its policy from the world community, as was the case in September 2001. Attempts to find evidence of Iraq's involvement in international terrorist activities ended in vain. In this regard, to justify the need to use US military force, the previous arguments were put forward: the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the high probability of their use by Saddam Hussein's regime against other countries.
In turn, the military-political leadership of Iraq, assessing the real state and combat capabilities of its armed forces, took active non-military measures to prevent a military conflict. Baghdad fully complied with the requirements of the UN Security Council resolution, which ordered to ensure "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access of international inspectors to all Iraqi facilities that the inspectors deem necessary to subject to verification." Baghdad provided the UN Security Council with a full description of past programs for the development and production of weapons of mass destruction. At the request of the UN Inspection Commission for Disarmament, the Iraqi leadership began to destroy the Al-Samoud-2 ballistic missiles.
Nevertheless, the US leadership, interested in the implementation of its plans, stubbornly continued the policy of escalating the conflict. However, the American leadership failed to ensure the legitimacy of the upcoming military action, which was largely facilitated by the position of the countries - members of the UN Security Council: Russia, China, Syria, France and Germany. In addition, France and Germany, with the support of Luxembourg and Belgium, blocked consideration of the US request for military support for the operation in Iraq by NATO forces.
In this regard, on March 17, at a closed meeting of the US National Security Council and an emergency meeting of the UK Cabinet of Ministers, decisions were made to conduct another joint military action against Iraq, like the previous one against Afghanistan, without the sanction of the UN Security Council. It must be admitted that the reason put forward by the Anglo-American coalition for unleashing hostilities - the presence of WMD in Iraq - was absolutely unfounded.
Accordingly, the stated purpose of the military operation- elimination of the threat to the world community, was only an information cover for the real goal - gaining control over one of the richest oil-bearing regions of the Earth.
Planning a military operation against Iraq, called "Freedom to Iraq", began in January 2002, after the end of the active phase of hostilities in Afghanistan. This process was distinguished by longer, compared with the previous operation, decision-making time and repeated refinement of military plans.
The final version of the operation plan was issued only on March 18, 2003, and approved by the US President at a meeting of the Security Council a few hours before the start of hostilities. The plan of the operation provided for: massive actions of special operations forces in Iraq 48 hours before the air offensive operation, the beginning of which was scheduled for 21.00 on March 20. The invasion of ground forces was supposed to be carried out on the morning of March 21.
In the direction of the main attack was the grouping of troops "South", the main task of which was to defeat the Iraqi troops on the defensive lines along the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, access to Baghdad and block it. The offensive against the capital was planned simultaneously in two operational directions: northeast (Kuwaiti-Iraqi border - Basra - Amara - Baghdad) and northwest (Kuwaiti-Iraqi border - An-Nasiriyah - Hilla - Baghdad). The operational formation of the troops provided for the creation of a second echelon in the northwestern direction and the allocation of a general reserve from the airborne formations, which were intended to solve further tasks to capture the capital and other large cities.
In other areas, limited operations were envisaged by special forces units. In addition, in the northeastern operational direction, part of the forces of the "South" grouping were allocated to solve the problem of taking control of the oil-bearing regions on the Fao Peninsula by conducting a amphibious landing operation.
Order to create united group of troops (forces) was given by the Secretary of Defense through the US Chiefs of Staff Committee on December 24, 2002. By the start of hostilities, the deployment of the Navy and Air Force groups was completed.
Navy grouping was deployed in three main directions: in the Persian and Oman Gulf - 81 warships, including: three aircraft carriers of the US Navy and one - of the British Navy, 9 surface ships (NK) and 8 nuclear submarines (NSA) - carriers of the Tomahawk SLCM »; in the northern part of the Red Sea - 13 SLCM carriers (7 NK and 6 PLA); in the eastern part of the Mediterranean - 7 warships, including two aircraft carriers and four SLCM carriers. In total - 6 aircraft carriers with 278 strike aircraft and 36 SLCM carriers with up to 1,100 missiles on board.
As part of the expanded air force groupings included more than 700 combat aircraft, of which about 550 tactical aircraft of the US Air Force, Great Britain and Australia, stationed at the air bases (AWB) of Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman and Saudi Arabia, Turkey, as well as 47 US Air Force strategic bombers based on AVB UK, USA and Oman. At the same time, part of the B-2A bombers was for the first time deployed not at their regular Whitement airbase, but at the airbase on. Diego Garcia.
The total composition of the forces and means of air attack of the Air Force and the Navy of the coalition group was: about 875 attack aircraft and about 1300 sea and air-based cruise missiles.
Preparations for the use of space assets in the Iraqi theater of operations began long before the start of the operation. By December 2002, the space contour of the integrated reconnaissance system included up to 6 spacecraft (SC) of specific reconnaissance. In addition, the space reconnaissance group included more than ten electronic reconnaissance spacecraft.
The deployment of the coalition group of ground forces was carried out by sea and by air. At the same time, the advance creation of stocks of material and technical means and the storage of weapons and military equipment on the territory of Kuwait made it possible to reduce the time for deploying ground formations from 40 to 15 days.
By the beginning of the operation in combat coalition groupland troops and marines consisted of three divisions, seven brigades and eight battalions. To support them, the 11th operational-tactical group (OTG) of the army aviation, 75 OTG of field artillery and OTG of air defense / missile defense of the US ground forces were formed. The grouping consisted of up to 112 thousand people, up to 500 tanks, more than 1200 armored combat vehicles, about 900 guns, MLRS and mortars, over 900 helicopters and up to 200 anti-aircraft missile systems.
The basis of the coalition troops was the South grouping, which included three divisions, seven brigades and two battalions. Most of it was located in field towns not in the north-west of Kuwait, and the 24th Expeditionary Battalion of the US Marine Corps (EBMP) and the 3rd Marine Brigade (BRMP) of the UK were on landing ships in the waters of the Persian Gulf.
The group "West" was created on the territory of Jordan. Its combat strength included two battalions of the 75th Ranger Infantry Regiment, a battalion of the Special Forces of the US Army and up to a company of the Special Forces of the British Army. Units with a total strength of about 2000 people were located in field towns in the eastern part of the country. In the north of Iraq (the territory of the Kurdish Autonomous Region), up to two battalions and up to a company of Special Forces of the ground forces of Great Britain and the United States were concentrated. Their actions were provided by up to 10 helicopters.
Regular Iraqi armed forces numbered about 380 thousand people; reserve - 650 thousand people; paramilitary formations - up to 44 thousand. people; mobilization resources - up to 3 million people.
As part of ground forces Iraq had: corps - 7, divisions - over 20, brigades - more than 20, personnel - 350 thousand people. The armament consisted of about 2500 tanks, up to 3100 infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, up to 4000 field artillery guns, MLRS and mortars, 164 army aviation helicopters.
Iraqi Air Force had 220 combat aircraft, but only about 40 of them were combat-ready. In service with units and divisions air defense, which was part of the Air Force, consisted of 700 anti-aircraft artillery barrels, about 40 short-range air defense missile launchers and more than 100 - long and medium range. Aviation equipment, rocket and artillery weapons were morally obsolete, Iraq had practically no stock of missiles.
The organizational structure of the air defense of Iraq since 1991 has not undergone significant changes. The air defense operations center in Baghdad coordinated the work of four zonal centers in the respective air defense sectors (Northern, Central, Western and Southern). At the same time, only around Baghdad and Tikrit, the classical scheme of integrated air defense with overlapping zones of destruction of air targets by anti-aircraft guided missiles and anti-aircraft artillery has been preserved.
As part of preparing the country and the armed forces to repel aggression The military-political leadership of Iraq carried out a number of measures. The troops were transferred to high combat readiness, the cover units occupied the areas of combat mission. Partial mobilization of reservists was carried out, up to 800 thousand militiamen were involved in the organization of territorial defense. In places of alleged hostilities, work was carried out to create a network of barriers, ditches filled with oil, and other artificial barriers. Additional air defense systems and tank units were deployed in the areas of oil facilities. To reduce the effectiveness of enemy aviation operations, false positions were prepared using mock-ups of a high degree of detail.
Particular attention was paid to the engineering equipment of positions in the areas of settlements. Work was carried out to equip strongholds around the cities of Basra, An-Nasiriya, Karbella, An-Najaf, Mosul, Kirkuk and a number of other settlements. The most prepared in terms of engineering was the line equipped 80-100 km south of Baghdad along the Karbala-Hilla line. At the same time, the creation of a continuous defense in depth was not envisaged. Thus, in the border regions, where separate units of the regular army were stationed, as well as militia formations, only separate artillery positions and anti-tank defense units were created, the work on equipping which was not completed before the start of hostilities.
Thus, the leadership of Iraq concentrated its main efforts in defense on the defense of individual settlements. The measures taken in the course of preparations for repulsing aggression were intended to force the enemy to fight in unfavorable conditions for him - cities and communications. The problem of organizing air defense to repel an air attack by the enemy was not resolved by the Iraqi leadership, which was largely due to objective reasons.
Operation Iraqi Freedom, as planned, began at 21.00 March 19, 2003 with a massive use of special operations forces in Iraq. At the same time, the subsequent actions of the coalition troops went beyond the plans. Already at 5.30 on March 20, selective single and group missile and air strikes were carried out on the places of the alleged location of S. Hussein and his entourage.
The fighting of the ground group coalitions deployed a day before the planned date and before the start of the massive use of forces and means of air attack (air offensive operation).
Troops of the group "South" northeast operating direction went on the offensive in the early morning of March 20, at the same time as the coalition launched selective missile and bomb strikes against Iraqi targets. Units and subunits of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Division (EDMP), the 7th Armored Brigade (BRBR) of the 1st Armored Division (BRTD) and the 16th Separate Air Assault Brigade (OVSHBR) developed an offensive against the city of Basra, and 15 ebmp - on the city of Umm Qasr.
On the night of March 21, a amphibious landing operation was carried out. The landing on the Fao Peninsula was carried out in a combined way using helicopters and naval landing craft, supported by naval and coastal artillery. As a result, the task of taking control of the southern oil terminals was successfully solved. At the same time, the main forces of the coalition grouping in the northeastern operational direction were tied up by heavy positional battles on the outskirts of the cities of Basra and Umm Qasr. From further advance in the direction of Basra - Amara had to be abandoned.
On the northwest operating direction troops went on the offensive on the evening of March 20. The first echelon, consisting of units of the 3rd Mechanized Division (MD), moved mainly in pre-battle formations in the desert along the right bank of the river. Euphrates. In the second echelon were units of the 101st Air Assault Division (VSD). Brigade tactical groups (BrTG) of the first echelon tried to seize bridges and bridgeheads on the left bank of the river on the move. Euphrates at the cities of An-Nasiriyah, Es-Samava and An-Najaf. However, the stubborn resistance of the Iraqi garrisons forced the Americans to switch to positional actions.
Under these conditions, the forward units of the 3rd MD continued their offensive to the north and by March 25 reached the first defensive line of the Iraqi defense on the approaches to the capital in the area of Karbala, having overcome about 400 km in 4 days. At the same time, further advance was not possible, since up to two-thirds of the division's forces were engaged in battles at Nasiriyah, Samav and Najaf. Due to the large gaps between the units, there was a threat of Iraqi troops striking at uncovered flanks and rear. The large stretch of communications made it difficult to solve the problems of logistical support for the advancing troops.
In the current situation, the command of the "South" grouping suspended the offensive and regrouped the troops. Units and subunits of the 1st EDMP, 2nd EBRMP and 15 EBMP were deployed from the north-east to the area of the city of En-Nasiriya, and the 101st Airborne Forces (second echelon) were tasked with releasing units of the 3rd MD on the outskirts of the cities of Es-Samava and En- Najef. One brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division (VDD), withdrawn from the operational reserve, was allocated to reinforce the Zapad grouping. The second brigade was supposed to guard the supply routes for the troops.
The formations and units of the marine corps, concentrated in the An-Nasiriya region, were tasked with blocking Iraqi garrisons in populated areas with part of the forces, concentrating the main efforts on a breakthrough in Mesopotamia and an accelerated exit to the Iraqi capital, which, in fact, meant the opening of hostilities on new operational direction (Nasiriya - El Kut - Baghdad).
In pursuance of the assigned tasks, units and subunits of 1 edmp and 15 ebmp, reinforced by 24 ebmp, brought into battle from the operational reserve, with the support of aviation on March 27 crossed the river. Euphrates, went to Mesopotamia and developed an offensive on the city of El Kut. After crossing the river Tiger and blocking El-Kut, part of the forces and means of the marines was redirected to capture the city of Amara from the north, together with units of the British Armed Forces, who were virgin from the south. The main forces of the 1st ADMP continued their offensive along the El-Kut-Baghdad highway and on April 5 reached the eastern and southeastern outskirts of the capital.
On the northwest direction brigade tactical groups of the 3rd mechanized division, having transferred the captured lines on the outskirts of the cities of Nasiriya, Samava and Najaf, moved to the city of Karbala, which made it possible to resume the offensive on Baghdad. After blocking the grouping of Iraqi troops in the Karbala-Hill area, the main forces of the division made a roundabout maneuver along the shore of the lake. El-Milh and by April 5 reached the southwestern outskirts of Baghdad.
The assault on Baghdad, which, according to the Anglo-American command, was supposed to be the most difficult part of the operation, did not exist as such. Infamous for Iraq, the outcome of the “strange defense of Baghdad” was the result of an operation to bribe top Iraqi military leaders, including the commander of the Republican Guard in the capital, General Al-Tikriti. Later, the American side, represented by the commander of the JCC, General T. Franks, generally admitted that it resorted to extensive bribery of Iraqi commanders, forcing them to lay down their arms in individual cities without a fight.
After the capture of Baghdad, the main efforts of the group "South" were focused on the capture of Tikrit. On the direction of the main strike (Baghdad - Tikrit), units of 3 MD, 1 EDMP and up to two BrTG 4 MD, which arrived from Kuwait, operated. At the same time, with the fall of the capital, the garrisons of other Iraqi cities, in fact, ceased resistance. Tikrit was abandoned by Iraqi forces on 13 April. On the same day, British troops took control of Umm Qasr.
On other directions the content of the military operations of the coalition forces as a whole corresponded to the plans of the operation. In the first five days, the West grouping successfully completed the tasks of capturing Iraqi airfields, individual transport hubs and took control of the western sections of the highway connecting Baghdad with Jordan and Syria. Reinforced by a brigade tactical group from the 82nd Airborne Division, on March 27, the group began to advance to the east. By April 10, the strategic Baghdad-Amman highway and the settlements located on it were completely under the control of coalition forces.
In the northern regions of Iraq, special forces units, together with Kurdish armed formations, carried out reconnaissance and sabotage missions in the areas where Iraqi troops are located, directed strike aircraft at targets, established control over individual oil production facilities, and also prepared infrastructure for the deployment of reinforcement troops.
On March 27, the deployment of the coalition grouping of ground forces "North" began. It was based on 173 air brigade and a battalion of 10 lpd with an attached company tactical group of 1 md. Armament and equipment were transferred by air to the airfields of the Kurdish Autonomous Region of Iraq. Most of the personnel were parachuted. By the beginning of April, the Sever group numbered about 4,000 people. Units and subunits of the group, together with the Kurdish armed formations with the support of aviation, captured the city of Kirkuk on April 10, and the city of Mosul on April 12. At the final stage of the operation, part of the forces and means of the "North" group took part in the capture of the city of Tikrit.
The success of the coalition forces in the operation was achieved thanks to the organization of close cooperation between all branches of the armed forces. At the same time, according to the American command, the main role in achieving it was played by military operations of the Air Force and Navy, providing absolute dominance in the airspace, information superiority over the enemy, as well as powerful support for the actions of ground forces.
The massive use of forces and means of air attack as part of the air offensive operation "Shock and Awe" was carried out from 21.00 on March 21 until the end of March 23. During VNO two massive missile and air strikes (MRAU) were inflicted. In just two days, aviation made about 4,000 sorties. About 3,000 units (100%) of high-precision weapons were used against Iraqi facilities, of which up to 100 ALCMs and 400 SLCMs.
From March 24 until the end of the operation, aviation was used in the form of systematic combat operations with single and group missile and air strikes. Every day, Air Force and Navy aircraft carried out an average of 1,700 sorties.
Identification of targets and guidance of strike aircraft on them was carried out according to the data of space and air reconnaissance, as well as ground units and subunits. The continuity of data on the enemy was achieved by the constant presence in the air of up to 25 reconnaissance aircraft and several UAVs.
The continuous location of strike aircraft over the combat areas, the use of unified control and communication systems made it possible to reduce this figure to 15-30 minutes. Thanks to powerful information support and the use of network-centric networks, aircraft were able to receive missions to hit targets already in flight.
The US strategic bombers accounted for more than 500 sorties, with the most actively used B-52H aircraft based at Fairford Air Base (UK) and about. Diego Garcia. In military operations against Iraq, B-1B bombers from the Markaz-Tamarid air base (Oman) and B-2A bombers from the Whitement air base (USA) and the island of Diego Garcia were also used. The tactical aviation of the combined Allied Air Forces operated from 30 airfields in the countries of the Middle East.
Carrier-based aircraft 60 AUS initially operated from combat maneuvering areas in the eastern Mediterranean Sea against targets in the central and western parts of Iraq. The strikes were delivered to a depth of 1300 km with four refuelings in the air. With permission from the Turkish government to use the airspace over the southern regions of Turkey, on March 24, 60 AUS was redeployed to an area located east of about. Cyprus. This allowed aviation to start conducting systematic combat operations against Iraqi troops in the north of the country and facilities in the cities of Mosul, Kirkuk, and Erbil to a depth of up to 1,100 km. Aircraft from aircraft carriers 50 AUS operated from the Persian Gulf against Iraqi facilities in the central and southern parts of the country.
Launches of sea-based cruise missiles against Iraqi facilities were carried out from surface ships and nuclear submarines from the Persian Gulf, the northern part of the Red Sea and the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea. At the same time, the range of application ranged from 600 (from the Persian Gulf regions) to 1500 km (from the Mediterranean Sea regions). The launches of the first missiles were made on March 20, two hours after the decision by the US President to launch selective strikes.
For the first time, a method was tested for the massive use of nuclear submarines (PLA) against enemy coastal targets. So, 14 submarines took part in the first MRAU of the air offensive operation, from which about 100 cruise missiles were fired. Estimated during the air campaign, the US and British Navy submarines used about 240 Tomahawk SLCMs. In total, up to 23 NKs and 13 submarines were involved in delivering missile strikes, using a total of more than 800 missiles.
In just 25 days (20.3-13.4), aircraft of the Air Force and the Navy of the United States and Great Britain made about 41,000 sorties, spent about 29,000 ammunition. Taking into account the use of SLCMs and ALCMs, the share of high-precision weapons was 68%.
Fighting on the Iraqi side began with repelling enemy air attacks. In the first selective missile and air strikes by coalition forces, cruise missiles destroyed the complex of buildings of the Ministry of Defense and the General Staff of the Iraqi Armed Forces, the government control center and the command post of the Air Force and Air Defense Forces in Baghdad. As a result, command and control of the troops was largely disrupted from the very beginning. Nevertheless, the subsequent course of hostilities showed that the Iraqi armed forces had not lost the ability to resist.
As expected, the air defense of the northern and central sectors of the country turned out to be the most combat-ready. According to the recognition of the American command, the coalition Air Force managed to achieve complete air supremacy over Baghdad and Tikrit only by the beginning of April. A characteristic feature of the actions of the Iraqi air defense forces during air strikes was the simultaneous cessation of the operation of all radar stations and the simultaneous activation of more than 300 false radar sources. In addition, the widespread use of false targets, as well as electronic countermeasure systems, significantly reduced the effectiveness of the Anglo-American air attack weapons.
The transition of the coalition ground troops to the offensive before the start of the air offensive came as a surprise to the Iraqi leadership. In this regard, there was no resistance to the Anglo-American troops in the advanced Iraqi defensive positions. The antiamphibious defense of the Fao Peninsula was also not prepared to repulse the night landing of airborne assault forces. The rapid advance of the Anglo-American landing units deep into the peninsula using helicopters and their taking control of the oil installations did not allow the Iraqis to carry out the planned explosions.
Nevertheless, the subsequent actions of the Iraqi troops are characterized by a stubborn defense of a number of settlements. For two weeks, with complete superiority in space, air and radar control of the entire territory of the country, the Anglo-American troops were unable to capture a single sufficiently large Iraqi city.
Among the main reasons that contributed to the relatively successful conduct of the defensive operations of the Iraqi troops in the first weeks are the following. Firstly, the morale of the Iraqis turned out to be higher than expected, and there was no mass surrender, just as there was no popular uprising against S. Hussein in southern Iraq. Secondly, by choosing defense tactics in well-fortified settlements, without getting involved in battles with coalition troops in open areas, the Iraqi command minimized the advantages of enemy air supremacy. Thirdly, the decentralized control system created before the war made it possible to organize local defense of individual cities and regions, the stability of which did not depend on the state and ability to lead the central government. Fourthly, a non-contact war did not work out, and the Americans really suffered losses when trying to break through the Iraqi defenses. This forced them to withdraw their troops, organize blockade and a long siege of settlements, which significantly reduced the pace of the offensive and led to the disruption of the planned time for the strike groups to reach the capital of Iraq.
At the same time, the refusal of the Iraqi leadership to create defensive lines and conduct combat operations on the flat terrain ensured complete freedom for the Anglo-American troops in matters of their movement, organization of regroupings and supplies. The exception was the actions of individual Iraqi reconnaissance and sabotage groups and partisan detachments on enemy communications.
However, examples of the conduct of organized defense by Iraqi troops can only be given in relation to separate, unrelated areas. The greatest resistance was shown by Iraqi subdivisions and units, which for three weeks defended the cities of Basra, Umm-Qasr, Nasiriya, Es-Samava, An-Najaf, Karbala. At the same time, Baghdad, Tikrit, El-Kut and a number of other cities surrendered almost without a fight.
The short period of Iraqi resistance was due to a number of factors. First, the Iraqi leadership did not take advantage of the 11-year respite to prepare to repel aggression. The theater was not properly equipped, defensive structures were not created in most of the territory, barrage minefields were not set up near the coast, preparations for a guerrilla war were not organized. Secondly, in the course of hostilities, real opportunities for resistance were not fully used. Bridges and communications were left intact to the enemy, mine-explosive sabotage operations were not carried out, oil wells and other objects remained intact, aircraft and MLRS were practically not used. But the weakest link in the organization of the defense of the state turned out to be the low moral and psychological qualities of a number of individuals from the top and middle Iraqi command, which the American intelligence services successfully took advantage of. The system of state and military administration of Iraq functioned only for the first two weeks and collapsed with the approach of the coalition troops to Baghdad. Deprived of leadership, the Iraqi army, having not exhausted its defensive capabilities, laid down its arms.
Thus, the main outcome of Operation Iraqi Freedom is of geostrategic importance. The United States has expanded its strategic base for its further advance in this region. The military action carried out against Iraq showed that in order to achieve their goals, the United States and Great Britain are ready to use military force, not only without the sanction of the UN Security Council, but also contrary to the opinion of their closest NATO allies.
In military terms, the trend towards an increase in the role of the Air Force and Navy, intelligence and high-precision weapons in achieving the goals of the operation was confirmed. A qualitatively new stage in the development of high-precision systems was the implementation of the concept of joint and interconnected in time and space use of space, air, sea and ground reconnaissance and destruction systems integrated into a single system.
The main political result of the operation is the overthrow of the S. Hussein regime and the creation of a pro-American government. At the same time, during the more than four years of occupation, the American military administration and the new Iraqi authorities failed to liquidate pockets of resistance and stabilize the situation in the country.
3. Conclusions and lessons from the experience of military conflicts in the late XX - early XXI century
Thus, the military action of the USA and Great Britain against Iraq in 1998 was carried out for four days in the form of an air offensive operation. The content of Operation Allied Force, carried out in 1999 by the Allied Forces against Yugoslavia, included a two-day air offensive operation and systematic combat operations of the Air Force and Navy, which, in fact, is an air campaign. In general terms, the operations of the US and its allies against Afghanistan in 2001 and against Iraq in 2003 can be considered air-ground offensive operations. At the same time, in the first case, the involvement of a ground group of troops (Northern Alliance forces) in military operations was carried out only after a two-day air offensive operation and a two-week period of systematic aviation combat operations. In Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, on the contrary, the military actions of the ground forces of the Anglo-American coalition unfolded before the start of a massive use of forces and means of air attack.
At the same time, there are common features in the military-political content of the considered military conflicts.
Thus, an analysis of the processes of preparing military actions makes it possible to identify a well-established algorithm for the actions of the military-political leadership of the United States and its allies to create a favorable environment for achieving their goals. As a rule, the following sequence of events was observed: the selection and declaration of one of the countries as a "rogue", with the provision of "irrefutable" evidence of a threat to the United States or other states from this country; deploying a powerful information and psychological campaign in order to form the appropriate public opinion and ensure support from the American public and the entire world community; imposing and implementing political and economic sanctions against the chosen victim of aggression, as well as exerting political and economic pressure on other countries that do not agree with US policy; attracting allies to their side, including through the use of economic and political levers of influence, etc.
The main purpose of these measures was to ensure the legitimacy of the prepared military actions, and in the end - to obtain international sanctions for the use of military force. At the same time, the common military-political content of the military operations of the late 20th - early 21st century carried out by the United States and its allies is that all of them were carried out without the sanction of the UN Security Council, therefore, from the point of view of international law, they are illegal and may be classified as aggressive.
In each case, the reasons put forward by Western countries to justify the need to use military force against sovereign states, as well as the declared goals of the operations, were only an informational cover for the real (hidden) reasons and goals of the attacking side.
When analyzing strategic (military-technical) content military operations of the United States and its allies, one can also distinguish a number of features inherent in most of the operations considered.
1. In the course of preparation, the desire of the American leadership to form a plan for the upcoming operation based on the experience of the previous one was observed. Thus, the planning of NATO military operations against Yugoslavia in 1999 was based on the experience of conducting an air offensive operation "Desert Fox" against Iraq in 1998. Based on the success achieved in Yugoslavia, the initial concept of the operation against Afghanistan in 2001 planned to achieve strategic targets by defeating the Taliban in an air campaign. In turn, the successful experience of "Afghanization" of military operations in the course of Operation Enduring Freedom predetermined the attempt to transfer it to the plans for Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003.
2. It should be recognized that, despite the relative popularity of strategic plans, the aggressors managed to achieve operational surprise attacks by ensuring the secrecy of plans of operations, skillful disinformation at all levels and using new methods of unleashing hostilities. At the same time, an atypical approach for the Anglo-American command to start operations with a limited composition of forces, that is, before the completion of the strategic deployment of the grouping envisaged by the plans of operations, played a certain role.
Thus, in the first stages of operations against Iraq in 1998 and Yugoslavia in 1999, the forces of the advanced (permanent) presence in the regions took part. Military actions against Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 were also unleashed before the creation of full-fledged groups was completed. In the first case, this refers to the joint grouping of the US and British navies, in the second - to the coalition ground forces grouping. It is noteworthy that in each of the cases considered, military analysts of other countries, including their intelligence agencies, relying on traditional signs of a conflict escalating into a military phase, predicted the start of operations 2-3 weeks later than the actual ones.
In 2003, the Iraqi leadership was surprised by the massive strikes inflicted by the US Air Force and Navy before the expiration of the American ultimatum. To a large extent, the operational surprise of the attack was also ensured by the transition to the offensive by a coalition grouping of ground forces, which was not typical for the actions of the Anglo-American troops, before the start of an air offensive operation.
3. As part of the use of air attack means, a trend has been fixed towards an increase in the share of high-precision weapons in the total amount of ammunition used in operations. Thus, in the course of conducting air offensive operations, the share of the WTO increased from 72% in the operation "Desert Fox" (1998) to 100% in the subsequent VNO, and for the entire period of each of the operations: - "Allied Force" (1999) , "Unbending Freedom" (2001) and "Freedom for Iraq (2003) - amounted to 35%, 50% and 68% respectively.
4. The possibility of expanding the use of high-precision weapons for the US armed forces was obtained with the start of the development and implementation of the so-called modular weapons, which are not inferior in accuracy to other WTO models, and in terms of production cost are dozens of times more economical than cruise missiles. At the same time, the trend towards expanding the use of cruise missiles has continued. So, in 73 hours of Operation Desert Fox, almost 1.5 times more cruise missiles were fired at Iraqi targets than in 43 days of Operation Desert Storm (325 missiles against 288). In Operation Allied Force, 722 SLCMs were used against facilities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The largest use of cruise missiles was in 2003, when more than 1,000 sea- and air-based cruise missiles were fired at Iraqi targets by US and British aircraft, surface ships, and nuclear submarines during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
5. In turn, the expansion of the use of cruise missiles in operations led to a change in the ratio of their launches and sorties in the structure of massive missile and air strikes. First of all, this statement refers to the periods of air offensive operations. So, if on the first day of the operation "Desert Storm" this ratio was 1:10, then in subsequent operations it was: "Desert Fox" - 1:1.5; "Allied Force" - 1.3:1; "Unbending Freedom" - 1.8:1. In 2003, the basis of the first selective missile and air strikes against Iraqi targets in the first day of hostilities (before the start of the air offensive) was 72 SLCMs launched from twelve warships of the US and British navies. Subsequently, during the air offensive operation "Shock and Awe", carried out as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the ratio of cruise missile launches and sorties was determined as 1:2.
In general, we can conclude that the content of military operations has changed, which are acquiring a pronounced air-sea character. The role of the main strike force was finally assigned to aviation, including carrier-based, and warships armed with cruise missiles. At the same time, the Navy is characterized by a tendency to increase the volume of tasks solved in the land direction.
6. In the operations discussed above, the attacking side had an undeniable superiority in high-tech weapons. At the same time, as the experience of organizing the air defense of Yugoslavia and Iraq has shown, even insignificant efforts by the defending side, due to limited capabilities, can significantly reduce the effectiveness of the adversary's use of the WTO. Thus, the measures taken for operational camouflage, including the use of mock-ups of false targets, jamming devices and the use of new methods of action for anti-aircraft forces and means, allowed the Yugoslav side in 1999 to maintain its air defense. In Iraq, the Anglo-American command also admitted that the measures taken by the Iraqi leadership caused certain difficulties in the use of high-precision air attack weapons in the first weeks of the operation.
7. From the content of ground (ground-air) offensive operations, a number of features can be distinguished that characterize the way the ground groupings of US and allied forces operate in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003). Thus, the advance of individual units of the ground group (brigade tactical groups in Iraq) was carried out in pre-combat formations under air cover in areas where there was no enemy defense. The nodes of resistance, as a rule, were bypassed, and the strongholds and fortified areas were blocked by part of the advancing forces. In places where a breakthrough of the defense was necessary for further advance, a long-term (up to several days and even weeks) fire defeat of the enemy was carried out with the involvement of aviation and artillery, after which the offensive continued. The isolation of combat areas was ensured by delivering air strikes against suitable enemy reserves and communications. The next battle began only in exceptional cases. In this case, the advantage, as a rule, was with the attackers, due to the greater range of destruction of fire weapons and the wide possibility of using air support. Thus, the defeat of the enemy was carried out mainly by the method of long-range fire damage.
8. The main results of the operations carried out by the US and its allies against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq are of geostrategic significance. Having overthrown the regimes they objected to and brought new pro-American governments to power, the United States has firmly established itself in the regions of Southeast Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East. In fact, we can talk about seizing strategic footholds to further advance the global political and economic interests of the United States. At the same time, in none of the cases considered, the achievement of political and geostrategic goals contributed to the resolution of the conflict. Despite the enormous costs, losses incurred and the efforts of the US military administration in Iraq and the command of the so-called NATO peacekeeping forces in Kosovo and Afghanistan, an extremely tense situation has persisted in the territories of these countries for a long time.
1. In modern conditions, the unleashing of hostilities is possible with a limited (advanced) composition of forces, before the completion of the strategic deployment of the entire grouping, which requires a more thorough approach to the analysis of intelligence signs of a military threat and the enemy’s readiness to start hostilities.
2. The traditional idea of the sequence of conducting offensive military operations by the armed forces of Western countries (air offensive operation - air-ground offensive operation) is losing its axiomatic nature, which, in turn, requires a multivariate approach to developing a scenario of military operations to repel aggression, in contrast to the existing one (repelling an air attack (aerospace) - repelling an intrusion by an enemy ground grouping, etc.).
3. The redistribution of the role of the branches of the armed forces in operations, the outcome of which was generally determined by the superiority of the aggressor in the aerospace sphere and at sea, puts forward a number of requirements for more precise methods of combating the air and sea enemy. Thus, a change in the ratio of the number of sorties and unmanned low-flying weapons (cruise missiles) in the MRAU requires a revision of the organization and parameters of the air defense (ABM) of the defending side.
In matters of combating high-precision air attack weapons, along with improving the methods of operational camouflage, the main efforts should be focused on improving the electronic warfare equipment capable of creating effective interference with the HTO guidance systems. In this regard, it should be taken into account that most precision-guided munitions are guided by the GPS space navigation system, which, as the experience of operations in Yugoslavia (1999) and Iraq (2003) has shown, is significantly affected by electronic interference created by relatively simple and inexpensive devices.
An increase in the role of the Navy in a joint air offensive requires the search for adequate measures to counter naval carriers of air attack weapons: aircraft carriers, surface ships and nuclear submarines, and the problem of combating the latter is by far the most complex and intractable.
4. The problems of using ground groupings, which in two of the five operations considered, consolidated the success achieved by the Air Force and the Navy and ensured the achievement of the goals of the operations, also require their solution. Thus, since the main tasks were solved not in the course of a collision of advanced units, but mainly by the method of long-range fire destruction, the principle of concentrating forces and means in a decisive direction and changing the methods of its implementation requires clarification.
In connection with the increase in the range and effectiveness of fire weapons, it becomes necessary to reconsider views on the conduct of offensive operations and the construction of defense. First of all, this applies to questions of creating groupings of troops and their operational formation both in the offensive and in defense.
In a war with an enemy equipped with a long-range WTO, it is necessary already at the first stage of the land phase of hostilities to turn a "non-contact" war into a "contact" one, as the most undesirable for him. In this connection, the importance of early creation of groupings of troops capable not only of repelling an enemy attack, but also ready to conduct offensive operations in direct contact with the aggressor's ground forces is growing.
5. Significant role in the military conflicts of the XXI century. will play the ratio of the levels of moral and psychological stability of the parties, and in particular the command staff. This means the need to strengthen military discipline, legality, create an effective system of moral and psychological training of the armed forces from a soldier to a general, as well as increase the efficiency of military counterintelligence agencies. Of great importance for the outcome of the armed struggle will be the availability of tools and the choice of effective methods of conducting information confrontation.
6. Achieving the political goals of the war (regime change and the coming to power of a new government) does not mean the final resolution of the conflict and the establishment of full control over the occupied territory. As experience shows, the military occupation authorities have to solve a number of problems related to the elimination of the consequences of military operations, the suppression of armed demonstrations by resistance forces, the prevention of terrorist acts, etc. At the same time, the financial costs and losses of personnel, as a rule, exceed the costs and losses incurred by during the course of hostilities. In this regard, the problems of the post-war organization require their theoretical resolution and practical implementation.
After analyzing the above, we come to the following conclusions.
The armed conflicts of the 20th and early 21st centuries have clearly demonstrated the desire of the United States to form a unipolar world and their intention to solve any problems by force, not in accordance with the opinion of the world community. The accusatory rhetoric that the Republic of Belarus, Russia and a number of other countries tried to oppose to this policy turned out to be clearly not enough.
In the political field, with these actions, the United States asserted its right to use force against any state and thus announced the formation of a new world order. The role of the UN and its Security Council in solving important world problems has been finally undermined. It can be assumed that a military operation like Operation Iraqi Freedom will not be the last. Along with the previous three, it is only an intermediate link in the subsequent planned power actions that should bring America closer to the goal of gaining world domination. In this regard, it can be assumed that the occupied territory of Iraq will be used as a springboard for an invasion of Iran or Syria.
In military terms, the experience of conducting operations has confirmed the key role in achieving the success of air attack forces and means of the Air Force and Navy, as well as space communications, intelligence and navigation systems. The trend towards an increase in the share of high-precision weapons in the total number of weapons used has also been confirmed. At the same time, forecasts about a decrease in the role of ground forces in modern operations were definitively refuted.
In the economic sphere, the penetration of the United States into the regions of Central and Central Asia provides them with access to huge reserves of Central Asian oil and gas that are not under the control of OPEC, as well as the possibility of laying pipelines and taking full control of the transportation of energy carriers from Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan through Afghanistan and Pakistan. to terminals on the coast of the Arabian Sea. But the most important, in the opinion of American politicians, is the establishment of control over Iraq, the third country in the world in terms of oil reserves, which will lead to Washington's almost complete control of the world hydrocarbon market.
Thus, we can say that today the world only considers real power, which is based on a powerful economic potential and combat-ready armed forces, which indicates the need to equip them with the most modern weapons. In addition, the experience of military conflicts of the late 20th - early 21st century shows the need to solve the problems of developing military art and training troops and forces for waging wars of the "new generation".
An international terrorist organization led by Osama bin Laden. The terrorist activities of the organization were subjected to objects located not only in the United States and Israel, but also in a number of other countries.
Up to 100 combat aircraft took off daily (of which 5-6 strategic bombers, 4-5 AS-130 fire support aircraft, the rest were carrier-based). From mid-October, F-15E aircraft from the British air base in Bahrain began to take part in the raids.
The armed formations of the "Northern Alliance" numbered up to 50 thousand people, about 1000 armored vehicles and several Mi-24V helicopters.
On November 26, the troops of the "Northern Alliance" occupied Kunduz, on December 9 they entered Kandahar, abandoned by the Taliban. On December 14, units of the US Marine Corps captured the airfield in Kandahar. Separate centers of resistance of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda remained only in mountainous areas.
The Iraqi National Congress, a self-proclaimed government in exile, promised that the Shiites would welcome the US military as liberators. Some even said that the Americans would reach the outskirts of Baghdad without firing a shot. Contacts with Kurdish armed formations were established as early as 2001.
In addition to Great Britain, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Australia have declared their support for the coalition, the latter declaring its readiness to provide troops (forces) for direct participation in the military operation against Iraq.
For 14 months, about 20 options for plans were developed and considered.
In this case, the transportation of personnel of divisions (brigades) was carried out by air for 10-15 days. Reception from warehouses and preparation of weapons and equipment took up to 5 days. For comparison, the process of loading, transportation, unloading and preparation of equipment in the case of its transfer by sea took up to 40 days.
Of these, 38% - for strikes against ground targets; 13% for air supremacy; 21.1% - sorties of tanker aircraft; 20.2% - transport aviation flights; 7.7% - work of air points, reconnaissance missions, etc.
To comment, you must register on the site.
A small victorious war, which was supposed to calm the revolutionary moods in society, is still regarded by many as aggression on the part of Russia, but few people look into the history books and know that it was Japan that unexpectedly started hostilities.
The results of the war were very, very sad - the loss of the Pacific Fleet, the lives of 100 thousand soldiers and the phenomenon of complete mediocrity, both the tsarist generals and the most royal dynasty in Russia.
2. World War I (1914-1918)
The long-awaited conflict of the leading world powers, the first large-scale war, which revealed all the shortcomings and backwardness of tsarist Russia, which entered the war without even completing rearmament. The allies in the Entente were frankly weak, and only the heroic efforts and talented commanders at the end of the war made it possible to begin to tilt the scales towards Russia.
However, society did not need the "Brusilovsky breakthrough", it needed change and bread. Not without the help of German intelligence, a revolution was made and peace was achieved, on very difficult conditions for Russia.
3. Civil War (1918-1922)
The Time of Troubles of the 20th century continued for Russia. The Russians defended themselves from the occupying countries, the brother went against the brother, and indeed these four years were one of the most difficult, along with the Second World War. It makes no sense to describe these events in such material, and military operations took place only on the territory of the former Russian Empire.
4. The fight against Basmachi (1922-1931)
Not everyone accepted the new government and collectivization. The remnants of the White Guard found refuge in Fergana, Samarkand and Khorezm, easily knocked out the disgruntled Basmachi to resist the young Soviet army and could not calm them down until 1931.
In principle, this conflict again cannot be regarded as external, because it was an echo of the Civil War, the “White Sun of the Desert” will help you.
Under tsarist Russia, the CER was an important strategic facility in the Far East, facilitating the development of wild territories and being jointly controlled by China and Russia. In 1929, the Chinese decided that it was time to take away the railway and the surrounding territories from the weakened USSR.
However, the Chinese grouping, which outnumbered it by 5 times, was defeated near Harbin and in Manchuria.
6. Providing international military assistance to Spain (1936-1939)
Russian volunteers in the amount of 500 people went to wrestle with the nascent fascist and General Franko. The USSR also delivered to Spain about a thousand units of ground and air combat equipment and about 2 thousand guns.
Repulse of Japanese aggression at Lake Khasan (1938) and fighting near the Khalkin-Gol River (1939)
The defeat of the Japanese by small forces of the Soviet border guards and subsequent major military operations were again aimed at protecting the state border of the USSR. By the way, after the Second World War, 13 military leaders were executed in Japan for unleashing a conflict near Lake Khasan.
7. Campaign in Western Ukraine and Western Belarus (1939)
The campaign was aimed at protecting the borders and preventing hostilities from Germany, which had already openly attacked Poland. The Soviet Army, oddly enough, in the course of hostilities, repeatedly encountered resistance from both Polish and German forces.
Unconditional aggression on the part of the USSR, which hoped to expand the northern territories and cover Leningrad, cost the Soviet army very heavy losses. Having spent 1.5 years instead of three weeks on hostilities, and having received 65 thousand killed and 250 thousand wounded, the USSR pushed back the border and provided Germany with a new ally in the coming war.
9. Great Patriotic War (1941-1945)
The current rewriters of history textbooks scream about the insignificant role of the USSR in the victory over fascism and the atrocities of the Soviet troops in the liberated territories. However, adequate people still consider this great feat a war of liberation, and they advise you to look at least at the monument to the Soviet soldier-liberator, erected by the people of Germany.
10. Fighting in Hungary: 1956
The entry of Soviet troops to maintain the communist regime in Hungary was undoubtedly a show of strength in the Cold War. The USSR showed the whole world that it would be extremely cruel measures to protect its geopolitical interests.
11. Events on Damansky Island: March 1969
The Chinese again took up the old, but 58 border guards and the UZO "Grad" defeated three companies of Chinese infantry and discouraged the Chinese from challenging the border territories.
12. Fighting in Algeria: 1962-1964
Help with volunteers and weapons to the Algerians, who fought for independence from France, was again confirmation of the growing sphere of interests of the USSR.
What follows is a list of combat operations involving Soviet military instructors, pilots, volunteers, and other reconnaissance groups. Undoubtedly, all these facts are interference in the affairs of another state, but in essence they are a response to exactly the same interventions from the United States, England, France, Great Britain, Japan, etc. Here is a list of the largest arenas of Cold War confrontations.
- 13. Fighting in the Yemen Arab Republic: from October 1962 to March 1963; November 1967 to December 1969
- 14. Fighting in Vietnam: from January 1961 to December 1974
- 15. Fighting in Syria: June 1967: March - July 1970; September - November 1972; March - July 1970; September - November 1972; October 1973
- 16. Fighting in Angola: from November 1975 to November 1979
- 17. Fighting in Mozambique: 1967-1969; November 1975 to November 1979
- 18. Fighting in Ethiopia: from December 1977 to November 1979
- 19. War in Afghanistan: December 1979 to February 1989
- 20. Fighting in Cambodia: from April to December 1970
- 22. Fighting in Bangladesh: 1972-1973 (for personnel of ships and auxiliary vessels of the USSR Navy).
- 23. Fighting in Laos: from January 1960 to December 1963; from August 1964 to November 1968; November 1969 to December 1970
- 24. Fighting in Syria and Lebanon: July 1982
25. The entry of troops into Czechoslovakia 1968
The Prague Spring was the last direct military intervention in the affairs of another state in the history of the USSR, which received loud condemnation, including in Russia. The "swan song" of the powerful totalitarian government and the Soviet Army turned out to be cruel and short-sighted, and only accelerated the collapse of the Internal Affairs Directorate and the USSR.
26. Chechen wars (1994-1996, 1999-2009)
The brutal and bloody civil war in the North Caucasus happened again at a time when the new government was weak and was only gaining strength and rebuilding the army. Despite the coverage of these wars in the Western media as aggression on the part of Russia, most historians view these events as the struggle of the Russian Federation for the integrity of its territory.
In the study of human history, much attention is paid to military losses. This theme is stained with blood and reeks of gunpowder. For us, those terrible days of severe battles are a simple date, for warriors - a day that completely turned their lives upside down. Wars in Russia in the 20th century have long turned into textbook entries, but this does not mean that they can be forgotten.
General characteristics
Today it has become fashionable to accuse Russia of all mortal sins and call it an aggressor, while other states "simply protect their interests" by invading other powers and carrying out mass bombing of residential areas in order to "protect citizens." In the 20th century, there were indeed many military conflicts in Russia, but whether the country was an aggressor still needs to be sorted out.
What can be said about the wars in Russia in the 20th century? The First World War ended in an atmosphere of mass desertion and the transformation of the old army. During the Civil War, there were many bandit groups, and the fragmentation of the fronts was a matter of course. The Great Patriotic War was characterized by the conduct of large-scale hostilities, perhaps for the first time the military faced the problem of captivity in such a broad sense. It is best to consider in detail all the wars in Russia in the 20th century in chronological order.
War with Japan
At the beginning of the century, a conflict broke out between the Russian and Japanese empires over Manchuria and Korea. After a break of several decades, the Russo-Japanese War (period 1904-1905) became the first confrontation with the use of the latest weapons.
On the one hand, Russia wanted to secure its territory in order to trade all year round. On the other hand, Japan needed new industrial and human resources for further growth. But most of all, European states and the United States contributed to the outbreak of war. They wanted to weaken their competitors in the Far East and manage on the territory of Southeast Asia on their own, so they clearly did not need the strengthening of Russia and Japan.
Japan was the first to start hostilities. The results of the battle were sad - the Pacific Fleet and the lives of 100 thousand soldiers were lost. The war ended with the signing of a peace treaty, according to which Japan received South Sakhalin and part of the Chinese Eastern Railway from Port Arthur to the city of Changchun.
World War I
The First World War was the conflict that revealed all the shortcomings and backwardness of the troops of tsarist Russia, which entered the battle without even completing rearmament. The allies in the Entente were weak, only thanks to the talent of military commanders and the heroic efforts of the soldiers, the scales began to tilt towards Russia. The battles were fought between the Triple Alliance, which included Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary, and the Entente with Russia, France and England in the composition.
The reason for the hostilities was the assassination in Sarajevo of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, which was committed by a Serbian nationalist. Thus began the conflict between Austria and Serbia. Russia joined Serbia, Germany joined Austria-Hungary.
The course of the battle
In 1915, Germany carried out a spring-summer offensive, having won back from Russia the territories conquered by it in 1914, the honor of the lands of Poland, Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic states.
The battles of the First World War (1914-1918) were fought on two fronts: Western in Belgium and France, Eastern - in Russia. In the autumn of 1915, Turkey joined the Triple Alliance, which greatly complicated the position of Russia.
In response to the approaching defeat, the military generals of the Russian Empire developed a plan for a summer offensive. On the Southwestern Front, General Brusilov managed to break through the defenses and inflict serious damage on Austria-Hungary. This helped the Russian troops to advance significantly to the West and at the same time save France from defeat.
truce
On October 26, 1917, at the Second All-Russian Congress, a Decree on Peace was adopted, all the warring parties were invited to start negotiations. On October 14, Germany agreed to negotiate. A temporary truce was concluded, but Germany's demands were rejected, and its troops launched a full-scale offensive along the entire front. The signing of the second peace treaty took place on March 3, 1918, Germany's conditions became more stringent, but for the sake of peace, they had to agree.
Russia was supposed to demobilize the army, pay financial indemnity to Germany and transfer the ships of the Black Sea Fleet to her.
Civil War
When the battles of the First World War were still going on, the Civil War in Russia (1917-1922) began. The beginning of the October Revolution was marked by fighting in Petrograd. The reasons for the rebellion were sharp political, social and ethnic contradictions that escalated after the February Revolution.
The nationalization of production, the ruinous Brest peace for the country, tense relations between the peasantry and food detachments, the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly - these actions of the government, together with a strong desire to retain power, caused burning discontent.
Stages of the revolution
Mass discontent resulted in a revolution in 1917-1922. The civil war in Russia took place in 3 stages:
- October 1917 - November 1918. The main fronts were established and formed. The Whites fought the Bolsheviks. But since this was in the midst of the First World War, neither side had an advantage.
- November 1918 - March 1920. The turning point in the war - the Red Army gained control of the main part of the territory of Russia.
- March 1920 - October 1922. The fighting migrated to the border areas, the Bolshevik government was no longer in danger.
The result of the Russian Civil War in the 20th century was the establishment of Bolshevik power throughout the country.
Opponents of Bolshevism
Not everyone supported the new government that emerged as a result of the Civil War. The soldiers of the "White Guard" found refuge in Fergana, Khorezm and Samarkand. At that time, the military-political and / or religious movement in Central Asia was called Basmachi. The White Guards were looking for disgruntled Basmachi and incited them to resist the Soviet Army. The struggle against Basmachism (1922-1931) lasted almost 10 years.
Here and there pockets of resistance appeared, and it was difficult for the young Soviet Army to put down the uprisings once and for all.
USSR and China
During the time of Tsarist Russia, the Chinese Eastern Railway was an important strategic object. Thanks to the CER, wild territories could develop, moreover, Russia and the Celestial Empire divided the income from the railway in half, as they managed it jointly.
In 1929, the Chinese government noticed that the USSR had lost its former military power, and in general, due to constant conflicts, the country was weakened. Therefore, it was decided to take away from the Soviet Union its part of the CER and the territories adjacent to it. Thus began the Soviet-Chinese military conflict in 1929.
However, this idea was not crowned with success. Despite the numerical advantage of the troops (5 times), the Chinese were defeated in Manchuria and near Harbin.
The little-known war of 1939
These events not covered in the history books are also called the Soviet-Japanese war. The fighting near the Khalkin-Gol River in 1939 continued from spring to autumn.
In the spring, numerous Japanese troops set foot on Mongolian territory to mark a new border between Mongolia and Manchukuo, which would run along the Khalkhin Gol River. At this time, Soviet troops came to the aid of friendly Mongolia.
Futile attempts
The combined army of Russia and Mongolia gave a powerful rebuff to Japan, and in May the Japanese troops were forced to retreat to the territory of China, but did not give up. The next blow from the Land of the Rising Sun was more thoughtful: the number of soldiers increased to 40 thousand, heavy equipment, aircraft and guns were brought to the borders. The new military formation was three times larger than the Soviet-Mongolian troops, but after three days of bloodshed, the Japanese troops were again forced to retreat.
Another offensive took place in August. By that time, the Soviet Army had also strengthened and unleashed all its military might on the Japanese. Half of September, the Japanese invaders tried to take revenge, but the outcome of the battle was obvious - the USSR won this conflict.
winter war
On November 30, 1939, a war broke out between the USSR and Finland, the purpose of which was to secure Leningrad by moving the northwestern border. After the USSR signed a non-aggression pact with Germany, the latter started a war with Poland, and relations in Finland began to heat up. The pact assumed the expansion of the influence of the USSR on Finland. The government of the Soviet Union understood that Leningrad, which was located 30 kilometers from the border with Finland, could fall under artillery fire, and therefore it was decided to move the border to the north.
The Soviet side first tried to negotiate peacefully by offering Finland the lands of Karelia, but the country's government did not want to negotiate.
As the first stage of the battle showed, the Soviet Army was weak, the leadership saw its real combat power. Starting the war, the government of the USSR naively believed that it had a strong army at its disposal, but this was not so. During the war, many personnel and organizational changes were made, thanks to which the course of the war also changed. It also made it possible to prepare a combat-ready army for the Second World War.
Echoes of World War II
1941-1945 is a battle between Germany and the USSR within the boundaries of World War II. The battle ended with the victory of the Soviet Union over fascism and put an end to World War II.
After Germany lost the First World War, its economic and political situation was very unstable. When Hitler came to power, the country managed to build up military power. The Fuhrer did not want to admit and wanted to take revenge.
But the unexpected attack on the USSR did not give the desired result - the Soviet Army turned out to be better equipped than Hitler expected. The campaign, which was designed for several months, stretched out for several years and lasted from June 22, 1941 to May 9, 1945.
After the end of the Great Patriotic War, the USSR did not conduct active military operations for 11 years. Later there was (1969), fighting in Algeria (1962-1964), Afghanistan (1979-1989) and the Chechen wars (already in Russia, 1994-1996, 1999-2009). And only one question remains unresolved: were these ridiculous battles worth the human cost? It is hard to believe that people in the civilized world have not learned to negotiate and compromise.
For the period from 1945 to the beginning of the XXI century. more than 500 local wars and armed conflicts have taken place in the world. They not only influenced the formation of relations between countries directly in conflict zones, but also reflected on the politics and economy of many states of the world. According to many political scientists, the likelihood of new local wars and armed conflicts not only remains, but also increases. In this regard, the study of the causes of their occurrence, the methods of unleashing them, the experience of preparing and conducting combat operations, and the peculiarities of military art in them is of particular relevance.
The term "local war" refers to a war involving two or more states within the boundaries of their territories, limited in purpose and scale from the point of view of the interests of the great powers. Local wars, as a rule, are waged with the direct or indirect support of major powers, which can use them to achieve their own political goals.
An armed conflict is an armed clash of a limited scale between states (international armed conflict) or opposing parties within the territory of one state (internal armed conflict). In armed conflicts, war is not declared and there is no transition to a wartime regime. An international armed conflict can escalate into a local war, an internal armed conflict into a civil war.
The largest local wars of the 2nd half of the 20th century, which had a significant impact on the development of military affairs, include: the war in Korea (1950-1953), the Vietnam War (1964-1975), the Indo-Pakistani war (1971), the Arab-Israeli wars, the war in Afghanistan (1979-1989), the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), the war in the Persian Gulf (1991), the wars in Yugoslavia and Iraq.
BRIEF REVIEW OF LOCAL WARS AND ARMED CONFLICTS
War in Korea (1950-1953)
AT In August 1945, the Red Army liberated the northern part of Korea from the Japanese invaders. Part of the peninsula south of the 38th parallel was occupied by American troops. In the future, it was supposed to create a unified Korean state. The Soviet Union in 1948 withdrew its troops from the territory of North Korea. However, the United States continued the policy of splitting this country. In August 1948, a pro-American government headed by Syngman Rhee was formed in South Korea. In the north of the country, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) was proclaimed in the autumn of the same year. The governments of both the DPRK and South Korea believed that the creation of a state united under their rule was possible only by destroying the hostile regime in another part of Korea. Both countries began to actively create and build up their armed forces.
By the summer of 1950, the number of the South Korean army reached 100 thousand people. It was armed with 840 guns and mortars, 1.9 thousand bazooka anti-tank rifles and 27 armored vehicles. In addition, this army had 20 combat aircraft and 79 naval ships.
The Korean People's Army (KPA) consisted of 10 rifle divisions, a tank brigade, and a motorcycle regiment. She had 1.6 thousand guns and mortars, 258 tanks, 172 combat aircraft.
The American-South Korean war plan was to encircle and destroy the main forces of the KPA in the areas of Pyongyang and south of Wonsan, after which, developing the offensive to the north, to reach the border with China .
Their actions were ready to be supported by 3 American infantry and 1 armored divisions, an independent infantry regiment and a regimental battle group, which were part of the 8th US Army, which were based in Japan.
In early May 1950, the government of the DPRK received reliable information about the impending aggression. With the help of a group of Soviet military advisers, a plan of military operations was developed, which provided for the repulsion of enemy attacks, followed by a counteroffensive. The USSR provided material assistance to North Korea, including equipment and heavy weapons. The advance deployment of troops along the 38th parallel made it possible to achieve an advantageous balance of forces and means for the KPA. The transition of the KPA troops to the offensive on June 25, 1950 is considered by many historians as a forced measure in connection with the numerous military provocations by South Korea.
Military operations in the Korean War can be roughly divided into four periods.
1st period (June 25 - September 14, 1950). On June 4, 25, 1950, the KPA went on the offensive. Under US pressure and in the absence of a Soviet representative, the UN Security Council authorized the creation of UN troops to "repel aggression." On July 5, units of the 8th American Army under the UN flag entered the battle against the KPA. Enemy resistance increased. Despite this, the KPA troops continued their successful offensive and in 1.5 months advanced 250-350 km southward.
The air supremacy of American aviation forced the KPA command to increasingly switch to night operations, which had a negative effect on the pace of the offensive. By August 20, the KPA offensive was stopped at the turn of the river. Naktong. The enemy managed to hold the Pusan bridgehead in the south of the Korean Peninsula.
2nd period (September 15 - October 24, 1950). By mid-September, the enemy had transferred up to 6 American divisions and an English brigade to the Pusan bridgehead. The balance of power shifted in his favor. The 8th American Army alone had 14 infantry divisions, 2 brigades, up to 500 tanks, over 1,600 guns and mortars, and more than 1,000 aircraft. The plan of the American command was to encircle and destroy the main forces of the KPA by means of troop strikes from the Pusan bridgehead and an amphibious landing in the Inchon area.
The operation began on September 15 with an amphibious landing in the rear of the KPA. On September 16, troops from the Pusan bridgehead went on the offensive. They managed to break through the KPA defenses and develop an offensive to the north. On October 23, the enemy captured Pyongyang. On the west coast, American troops managed to reach the Korean-Chinese border by the end of October. Their further advance was delayed by the stubborn defense of the KPA units together with the partisans operating behind enemy lines.
3rd period (October 25, 1950 - July 9, 1951). From October 19, 1950, the Chinese People's Volunteers (CPV) took part in the hostilities on the side of the DPRK. On October 25, the forward units of the KPA and the CPV launched a counterattack on the enemy. Developing a successfully launched offensive, the KPA and CPV troops cleared the entire territory of North Korea from the enemy in 8 months of hostilities. Attempts by the American-South Korean troops to launch a new offensive in the first half of 1951 did not lead to success. In July 1951, the front stabilized along the 38th parallel, and the warring parties began peace negotiations.
4th period (July 10, 1951 - July 27, 1953). The American command repeatedly disrupted negotiations and re-started hostilities. Enemy aircraft inflicted massive strikes on the rear facilities and troops of the DPRK. However, as a result of the active resistance and steadfastness of the KPA and CPV troops in the defense, the enemy's next offensive attempts were not successful.
had. The firm position of the USSR, the heavy losses of UN troops and the growing demands of the world community to end the war led to the signing of a ceasefire agreement on July 27, 1953.
As a result, the war ended in the same place where it began - on the 38th parallel, along which the border between North and South Korea passed. One of the important military and political outcomes of the war was that the United States and its allies, despite their enormous potential, were unable to win the war against a much less technically equipped enemy, which was the North Korean army and Chinese volunteers.
Vietnam War (1964-1975)
The Vietnam War was one of the largest and longest armed clashes since World War II. Victory over the French colonialists in the war for independence in 1945-1954. created favorable conditions for the peaceful unification of the Vietnamese people. However, this did not happen. The Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) was established in the northern part of Vietnam. A pro-American government was formed in South Vietnam, which, using US military and economic assistance, hastily began to build its own army. By the end of 1958, there were 150,000 people in it, and more than 200,000 were in paramilitary formations. Using these forces, the South Vietnamese regime launched punitive operations against the national-patriotic forces of South Vietnam. In response to the repressive measures, the Vietnamese people launched an active guerrilla war. The fighting engulfed the entire territory of the country. The DRV provided the rebels with comprehensive assistance. By the middle of 1964, 2/3 of the country's territory was already under the control of the partisans.
To save its ally, the US government decided to switch to direct military intervention in South Vietnam. Taking advantage of the collision of American ships with DRV torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin as a pretext, on August 5, 1964, US aviation began systematic bombardments of the territory of the DRV. Large contingents of American troops were transferred to South Vietnam.
The course of the armed struggle in Vietnam can be conditionally divided into 3 periods: the first (August 5, 1964 - November 1, 1968) - the period of escalation of American military intervention; the second (November 1968 - January 27, 1973) - a period of gradual curtailment of the scale of the war; the third (January 28, 1973 - May 1, 1975) - the period of the final blows of the patriotic forces and the end of the war.
The plan of the American command provided for air strikes on the most important objects of the DRV and communications of the South Vietnamese partisans, to isolate them from
incoming aid, block and destroy. Parts of the American infantry, the latest equipment and weapons began to be transferred to South Vietnam. Subsequently, the number of American troops in South Vietnam constantly increased and amounted to: in 1965 - 155 thousand, in 1966 - 385.3 thousand, in 1967 - 485.8 thousand, in 1968 - 543 thousand people.
In 1965-1966 the American command launched a major offensive with the aim of capturing important points in Central Vietnam, pushing the partisans back into the mountainous, wooded and sparsely populated regions of the country. However, this plan was thwarted by the maneuvering and active actions of the Liberation Army. The air war against the DRV also ended in failure. Having strengthened the air defense system with anti-aircraft weapons (mainly Soviet anti-aircraft guided missiles), the anti-aircraft gunners of the DRV inflicted significant damage on enemy aircraft. Over 3,000 American combat aircraft were shot down over the territory of North Vietnam in 4 years.
In 1968-1972. patriotic forces carried out three large-scale offensives, during which areas with a population of over 2.5 million people were liberated. Saigon and American troops suffered heavy casualties and were forced onto the defensive.
In 1970-1971. the flames of war spread to the states adjacent to Vietnam - Cambodia and Laos. The purpose of the invasion of the American-Saigon troops into them was to cut the Indochinese Peninsula in two, isolate the South Vietnamese patriots from the DRV, and strangle the national liberation movement in this region. However, the aggression failed. Having met strong resistance and suffered heavy losses, the interventionists withdrew their troops from the territories of these two states. At the same time, the American command began a gradual withdrawal of its troops from South Vietnam, shifting the main burden of the struggle onto the troops of the Saigon regime.
The successful actions of the air defense of the DRV and the South Vietnamese partisans, as well as the demands of the world community, forced the United States to sign on January 27, 1973, the Agreement on the termination of the participation of their armed forces in the Vietnam War. In total, up to 2.6 million American soldiers and officers participated in this war. The American troops were armed with over 5 thousand combat aircraft and helicopters, 2.5 thousand guns, hundreds of tanks. According to American data, the United States lost in Vietnam about 60,000 people killed, over 300,000 wounded, over 8,600 planes and helicopters, and a large number of other military equipment.
In 1975, the troops of the DRV and partisans completed the defeat of the Saigon army and on May 1 captured the city of Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam. The puppet regime fell. The heroic 30-year struggle of the Vietnamese people for independence ended in complete victory. In 1976, the DRV and the Republic of South Vietnam formed a single state - the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The main military-political results of the war were that the impotence of the most modern military power against the people fighting for their national liberation was again revealed. After the defeat in Vietnam, the US largely lost its influence in Southeast Asia.
Reference:
There are also portraits and biographies of famous traitors: Kim Philby, Richard Sorge. Alfred Redl, and Lives and Photographs of Those Who Conducted the Services at Various Times. Numerous original posters of original posters. This outstanding example was handed over to Prince Faisal: the weapon was delivered to a British soldier captured at the fall of Gallipoli, and it was given to the prince by the Turks. Death occurred a few days later. A blind aiming finger is hidden inside a hydrogen cyanide sprayer.
Periodical pages containing propaganda or misinformation for the public. A large number of falsified letters or small messages transmitted by spy networks, especially during the First World War. This is just a short description of the exposed objects, which is very reductive. Significantly large number of paper documents. The entire show gives a deep and comprehensive picture of what the secret wars were like until about 20 years ago. Accompany the exhibition, a book catalog with about thirty essays by material experts, scholars and historians of the Information Servers, who accompany the various sections of the exhibition with their studies, creating intelligence activities in past and present history.
Among the various studies, all of which are visually interesting, are Olivier Forcadet, Olivier Lahaye, Frederic Gelton, Herve Lenning of Maurice Weiss. At the beginning of this century, it was widely believed that human progress had no limits. Now, as we close, we know that the lofty ideals and grand goals imagined at the outset have been frustrated by the extremist ideologies that have crossed the world, leaving conflict and carnage in their wake. Perhaps no other century has seen such endless tragedy and human madness: the natural environment has been severely damaged and the gap between rich and poor is deeper than ever.
The role of the initial period of an armed conflict or war has increased significantly. As an analysis of the outcome of armed conflicts shows, it was the seizure of the initiative at the initial stage of hostilities that predetermined the outcome.
The closer we get to its end, the stronger the sense of anguish that confronts the uselessness and waste that characterize this period of human history. At a time when the first warning voices arose in the face of the danger of nuclear war on a planetary scale, the dreaded expression of excess was often used. Later, thanks to the courageous efforts of former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and other world leaders, the configuration he brought to him was dismantled, and today the nightmare of a nuclear apocalypse seems somewhat more distant.
Influence of Western Civilization. Compared to the order that prevailed in premodern communal societies, our postmodern world is far from sorted and actually "overloaded". Toynbee's hypothesis then moves quickly to a thousand years in the future. Therefore, according to Toynbee, long before the globalization that is discussed today, especially in terms of global economic integration, is mainly based on the spontaneous realization by all citizens of the world of who shares the same fate as the passengers that one could called "Earth's spaceship".
The use of various forms and methods of combat operations, including non-traditional ones;
End of the era of nuclear weapons! Three hundred and fifty years have passed since the Peace Treaty of Westphalia, in which the foundations of the modern political position on statehood were considered. It is clear that today such a structure is not suitable for solving global problems. To give one example, despite the fact that over time there have been appeals to create a permanent court capable of trying those who violate international law against genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, such an organism has not yet been born.
In addition to assessing those responsible for crimes against international law that govern respect for humanity and human rights, such a body would also be responsible for punishing and compensating the victims of these crimes. Human rights issues and concerns cannot be re-introduced within one country and, finally, we understand that their resolution requires the commitment and cooperation of the international community. However, to date, states tend to consider various attempts to create systems and organisms capable of effectively responding to such a need as attempts to limit and relativize national sovereignty - which is somewhat true - and this should be repeated resistance to the idea of a permanent international criminal court. .
military conflict . Its mandatory characteristic is the use of military force, all types of armed confrontation, including large-scale, regional, local wars and armed conflicts.
The image of a world less centered on the nation-state may still be vague and distant, but it is clear that the individual will have more influence in a world where the state is smaller. The role and responsibility of individuals - as the main characters and builders of history - must grow. It is increasingly important for us to learn to live and act as "global" citizens, active and creative, capable of recognizing and fulfilling our respective responsibilities for the next millennium.
Military conflict
Armed conflict
- Local war
These weapons were invented in this century and pose the greatest threat ever known to the survival of mankind. We urge all nuclear-weapon States to express their will to the world to end the era of nuclear power in this century. In order to build a society in which people can lead a truly human life, and not just to end the nuclear threat, it is absolutely essential that we build a new civil society that is rooted in popular initiative.
- Regional War
Last year there was a debate about environmental conditions, another of the global issues. We must never forget that only the commitment of responsible and capable citizens, those who do not expect others to take the initiative, will be able to give birth to the third millennium, inspired by the respect for the sanctity of life, free from wars and a nuclear, enlightened living rainbow of diversity. As the clouds of World War II approached, Czechoslovakian writer Karel Kapek denounced sentences like "someone has to", "it's not that easy" as examples of spiritual poverty that only passively accepts the status quo: If someone drowns, you one should not stop thinking that "someone has to go to rescue him."
- Large scale war
Massive use of weapons systems and military equipment based on new physical principles and comparable in effectiveness to nuclear weapons;
most likely nearest them effects :
Death, injury, illness;
Environmental pollution;
Violation of control systems;
Economy paralysis.
Environmental consequences .
Economic consequences –
Medical consequences
Social Consequences
Demographic implications
The level of threats and factors of uncertainty have a significant impact on the development of the military-political and military-strategic situation in the world, on the creation of hotbeds of tension and conflict zones, and on the nature of wars and armed conflicts.
Reference: The uncertainty factor is understood as a situation, or a process of a political or military-political nature, the development of which can significantly change the geopolitical situation in the region, which is a priority for the interests of the state, or create a direct threat to its security).
Objects used in the Cold War as a reversible coat, tweed on one side and khaki gabardine on the other, used by British agents operating in the German Democratic Republic. To show how the agents were misled, other documents show the passport of the Czechoslovak agent, which he gave to the nun.
In this regard, a box of disguise accessories, including bushes from a woman, various wigs. Enigma ciphers and portraits of famous traitors. Evening shoes, whose heel holds a sharp retractable blade, is also featured in one of the first James Bond films. Lots of encryption finds: books, ciphers, codes.
Analysis of the specifics of armed conflicts in the 1990s - the beginning of the XXI century revealed several fundamental points.
No generalized type of armed conflict was found. Conflicts in the forms and principles of warfare were very different.
A significant part of the conflicts was asymmetric in nature, that is, it took place between opponents standing at different stages in technical terms, as well as the qualitative state of the armed forces.
There are also portraits and biographies of famous traitors: Kim Philby, Richard Sorge. Alfred Redl, and the lives and photographs of those who conducted the Services at various times. Numerous original posters of original posters. This outstanding example was handed over to Prince Faisal: the weapon was delivered to a British soldier captured at the fall of Gallipoli, and it was given to the prince by the Turks. Death occurred a few days later. A blind aiming finger is hidden inside a hydrogen cyanide sprayer.
Periodical pages containing propaganda or misinformation for the public. A large number of falsified letters or small messages transmitted by spy networks, especially during the First World War. This is just a short description of the exposed objects, which is very reductive. Significantly large number of paper documents. The entire show gives a deep and comprehensive picture of what the secret wars were like until about 20 years ago. Accompany the exhibition, a book catalog with about thirty essays by material experts, scholars and historians of the Information Servers, who accompany the various sections of the exhibition with their studies, creating intelligence activities in past and present history.
All conflicts developed in a relatively limited area within the same theater of operations, but often with the use of forces and means deployed outside it. However, essentially local conflicts were accompanied by great bitterness and in some cases resulted in the complete destruction of the state system (if any) of one of the participants in the conflict.
Among the various studies, all of which are scientifically interesting, are Olivier Forcadet, Olivier Lahaye, Frederic Gelton, Herve Lenning of Maurice Weiss. At the beginning of this century, it was widely believed that human progress had no limits. Now, as we close, we know that the lofty ideals and grand goals imagined at the outset have been frustrated by the extremist ideologies that have crossed the world, leaving conflict and carnage in their wake. Perhaps no other century has seen such endless tragedy and human madness: the natural environment has been severely damaged and the gap between rich and poor is deeper than ever.
The role of the initial period of an armed conflict or war has increased significantly. As an analysis of the outcome of armed conflicts shows, it was the seizure of the initiative at the initial stage of hostilities that predetermined the outcome.
The main role in the initial period of the war, of course, was assigned to long-range precision weapons operating in conjunction with aviation. However, in the future, the main burden of conducting hostilities fell on the Ground Forces.
The closer we get to its end, the stronger the anguish that confronts the uselessness and waste that characterize this period of human history. At a time when the first warning voices arose in the face of the danger of nuclear war on a planetary scale, the dreaded expression of excess was often used. Later, thanks to the courageous efforts of former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and other world leaders, the configuration he brought to him was dismantled, and today the nightmare of a nuclear apocalypse seems somewhat more distant.
Military conflicts were caused by objective contradictions in the vital interests of various states or various socio-political groupings within these states, the desire of some of them to dominate others and the inability or unwillingness of their political leaders to resolve these contradictions by non-military means.
However, the excess still operates and, like the curse of Cain, torments the whole world. Philosopher Isaiah Berlin wrote: "No century has seen so many brutal and repeated mass murders of people as the one we are experiencing." 2. According to many intellectuals, including the American historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.
Influence of Western Civilization. Compared to the order that prevailed in premodern communal societies, our postmodern world is far from sorted and actually "overloaded". Toynbee's hypothesis then moves quickly to a thousand years in the future. Therefore, according to Toynbee, long before the globalization that is discussed today, especially in terms of global economic integration, is mainly based on the spontaneous realization by all citizens of the world of who shares the same fate as the passengers that one could called "Earth's spaceship".
The characteristic features of the wars of recent decades include:
The use of various forms and methods of combat operations, including non-traditional ones;
A combination of military operations (carried out in accordance with the rules of military science) with guerrilla and terrorist operations;
Widespread use of criminal formations;
At the same time, the Soviet Union activated the Cominform and started talking about the production of nuclear weapons. We cannot ignore the significance of Toynbee's vision, proclaimed at a time when people had much more immediate problems and were influenced by myopia interests. His vision covers such a large scale that it can be easily dismissed as pure fantasy, insufficiently supported by facts. Indeed, his macroscopic vision has been critically defined as a product, not a historian, but a fatalistic visionary.
End of the era of nuclear weapons! Three hundred and fifty years have passed since the Peace Treaty of Westphalia, in which the foundations of the modern political position on statehood were considered. It is clear that today such a structure is not suitable for solving global problems. To give one example, despite the fact that over time there have been appeals to create a permanent court capable of trying those who violate international law against genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, such an organism has not yet been born.
The transience of hostilities (30-60 days);
Selectivity of destruction of objects;
Increasing the role of long-range remote combat using high-precision radio-controlled means;
Targeting key targets (critical elements of economic facilities);
A combination of powerful political, diplomatic, informational, psychological and economic impact.
But finally, given the widespread belief that the international community's response to the situation in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and elsewhere was painfully inadequate, an international conference was scheduled in Rome this June leading to the establishment of a permanent international criminal court.
In addition to assessing those responsible for crimes against international law that govern respect for humanity and human rights, such a body would also be responsible for punishing and compensating the victims of these crimes. Human rights issues and concerns cannot be re-introduced within one country and, finally, we understand that their resolution requires the commitment and cooperation of the international community. However, to date, states tend to consider various attempts to create systems and organisms capable of effectively responding to such a need as attempts to limit and relativize national sovereignty - which is somewhat true - and this should be repeated resistance to the idea of a permanent international criminal court. .
2. Types of military conflicts and their main characteristics
One of the most cruel forms used by society to resolve interstate or intrastate contradictions is military conflict . Its mandatory characteristic is the use of military force, all types of armed confrontation, including large-scale, regional, local wars and armed conflicts.
The image of a world less centered on the nation-state may still be vague and distant, but it is clear that the individual will have more influence in a world where the state is smaller. The role and responsibility of individuals - as the main characters and builders of history - must grow. It is increasingly important for us to learn to live and act as "global" citizens, active and creative, capable of recognizing and fulfilling our respective responsibilities for the next millennium.
It is important for ordinary citizens to develop greater wisdom and energy and face their commitment to creating a better future. And they actively participated in solving problems related to the issue of security and the use of weapons, areas that traditionally have the exclusive competence of the state.
Military conflict - a form of resolving interstate or intrastate conflicts with the use of military force (the concept covers all types of armed confrontation, including large-scale, regional, local wars and armed conflicts).
Armed conflict - limited-scale armed clashes between states (international armed conflict) or opposing parties within the territory of one state (internal armed conflict);
These are initiatives that give confidence and hope to all who love peace. Often this is a weapon to draw the fire of those regional conflicts that represent the tragic legacy left to the world. Effective measures must be taken to prevent spread.
Along with efforts to reduce and eventually eliminate weapons of mass destruction, there must be control over conventional weapons used to kill, maim and terrorize people in conflicts around the world: this is a key step towards creating an institutional arrangement for peace. . These hot issues should not be left to governments alone.
An armed conflict may result from the escalation of an armed incident, a border conflict, an armed action and other limited-scale armed clashes, during which the means of armed struggle are used to resolve contradictions.
An armed conflict may be of an international character (with the participation of two or more states) or an internal character (with the conduct of armed confrontation within the territory of one state).
The opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons expresses a unanimous concept: "Must act in good faith to conclude negotiations and agreements aimed at nuclear disarmament in all forms and strict and effective international control."
We need to raise international public opinion and urge the nuclear-weapon States to begin immediate negotiations on a treaty for the total elimination of nuclear weapons. He urges us to follow the campaign against the World Tribunal, which gave birth to the opinion of the International Court of Justice with its main and overarching goal of the total abolition of any form of nuclear weapons. He urges all nuclear-weapon States to conclude a treaty within the year 2000 that provides for a precise program aimed at the total elimination of such weapons.
Military conflicts can take several forms.
- Local war - a war between two or more states pursuing limited military-political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of opposing states and which primarily affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political, and others);
These weapons were invented in this century and pose the greatest threat ever known to the survival of mankind. We urge all nuclear-weapon States to express their will to the world to end the era of nuclear power in this century. In order to build a society in which people can lead a truly human life, and not just to end the nuclear threat, it is absolutely essential that we build a new civil society that is rooted in popular initiative.
We must use the last three years of the twentieth century to lay a concrete foundation for the future of a new global society, a civilization that is made up of "people, people and people." A number of activities have already been planned to enable this commitment to be met.
- Regional War - a war involving two or more states of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with adjacent water areas and in the air (outer) space above it, in the course of which the parties will pursue important military-political goals;
This Assembly will be held in conjunction with the Millennium Assembly of the United Nations. In his Document for the Restoration of the United Nations: A Reform Agenda, UN Secretary-General Annan makes precise reference to this House of the People.
Last year there was a debate about environmental conditions, another of the global issues. We must never forget that only the commitment of responsible and capable citizens, those who do not expect others to take the initiative, will be able to give birth to the third millennium, inspired by the respect for the sanctity of life, free from wars and a nuclear, enlightened living rainbow of diversity. As the clouds of World War II approached, Czechoslovakian writer Karel Kapek denounced sentences like "someone has to", "it's not that easy" as examples of spiritual poverty that only passively accepts the status quo: If someone drowns, you one should not stop thinking that "someone has to go to rescue him."
- Large scale war - a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military-political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of states from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating states.
It is assumed that large-scale wars will have the following characteristics:
Integrated use of military force, forces and means of a non-military nature;
Massive use of weapons systems and military equipment based on new physical principles and comparable in effectiveness to nuclear weapons;
Expanding the scope of the use of troops (forces) and means operating in aerospace;
Strengthening the role of information confrontation;
Reducing the time parameters for preparing for the conduct of hostilities;
Increasing the efficiency of command and control as a result of the transition from a strictly vertical command and control system to global network automated command and control systems for troops (forces) and weapons;
Creation of a permanent zone of military operations on the territories of the opposing sides.
Modern military conflicts will be distinguished by the unpredictability of their occurrence, the transience, selectivity and high degree of destruction of objects, the speed of maneuver of troops (forces) and fire, the use of various mobile groupings of troops (forces). Mastering the strategic initiative, maintaining stable state and military control, ensuring superiority on land, sea and in aerospace will be decisive factors in achieving the goals set. There will be advance information confrontation activities to achieve political goals without the use of military force, and subsequently in the interests of forming a favorable reaction of the world community, a decision to use military force.
Military operations will be characterized by the growing importance of high-precision, electromagnetic, laser, infrasonic weapons, information and control systems, unmanned aerial and autonomous marine vehicles, controlled robotic weapons and military equipment.
Nuclear weapons, on the one hand, will remain an important factor in preventing the emergence of nuclear military conflicts and military conflicts using conventional weapons (large-scale war, regional war). But in the event of a large-scale or regional war that threatens the very existence of the state, the possession of nuclear weapons can lead to the escalation of such a military conflict into a nuclear military conflict.
most likely nearest them effects military conflicts are :
Death, injury, illness;
Environmental pollution;
Massive psychological information impact;
Violation of control systems;
Destruction of life support systems of the population;
Economy paralysis.
The long-term consequences of military conflicts are environmental, economic, health, social and demographic impacts.
Environmental consequences emerge as an environmental crisis . For example, the large-scale use of chemicals by American troops during the Second Indochina War (1961-1975) led to dire consequences. Mangrove forests (500 thousand hectares) were almost completely destroyed, 60% (about 1 million hectares) of the jungle and 30% (more than 100 thousand hectares) of lowland forests were affected. Since 1960, the yield of rubber plantations has decreased by 75%. American troops destroyed from 40 to 100% of the crops of bananas, rice, sweet potatoes, papaya, tomatoes, 70% of coconut plantations, 60% of hevea, 110 thousand hectares of casuarina plantations. In the affected areas, out of 150 species of birds, 18 remained, there was an almost complete disappearance of amphibians and insects, the number of fish in the rivers decreased and their composition changed. The microbiological composition of soils was disturbed, plants were poisoned. The number of tree and shrub species of the humid tropical forest has sharply decreased: in the affected areas there are single species of trees and several species of thorny grasses that are not suitable for livestock feed. Changes in the fauna of Vietnam led to the displacement of one species of black rats by other species that are carriers of the plague in South and Southeast Asia. Ticks carrying dangerous diseases appeared in the species composition of ticks. Similar changes occurred in the species composition of mosquitoes: instead of harmless endemic mosquitoes, mosquitoes carrying malaria appeared.
Economic consequences – it is primarily poverty and hunger.
Medical consequences manifest in the form of disability of amputees and other victims, long-term consequences of combat head injuries, post-traumatic chronic alcohol addiction, drug addiction, the consequences of mental trauma, and all kinds of psychological consequences.
Social Consequences in the form of aggravation of ethnic hatred, deformation of family culture and other negative manifestations are the result of any armed clash.
Demographic implications are manifested in a sharp decline in the proportion of the male population and subsequent waves of decline in the birth rate.
