In this article we will touch on a very painful and important, in my opinion, topic for any person called What does war and peace mean for a person. Let's look Alphabetically more deeply in the Meaning of the word War and word World angle of view . It will look higher , "top down", and planetary, human, "down up".

Our view is formed when we tune in to some topic, to some action, or when we find ourselves in some kind of difficult life situation. The external environment changes, the conditions around us, as a rule, for the worse and what we do: namely, we begin to collect all our internal capabilities, positions, views, structures, attitudes - because our own individual view is formed from all of this. .
How do we see this situation? We see not just with our eyes (physical), but as if we perceive this situation with our own capabilities. As a rule, we often with our folded eyes DO NOT SEE a deeper meaning inherent in the worst and most negative situation that occurs around us or somewhere with someone. We assess the situation according to our positions, attitudes, dividing it into two facets, white and black, not seeing that there are deep shades that lead to other meanings.
Destruction, fall is not only a negative action. Let's imagine that at the whole course of our life is a positive phenomenon.

War- this is positive.
Death- this is positive.
Disease- it is positive.

And then it turns on, with what look at it. There is a superior position and a subordinate position. And the higher Will and position is always right .
Upstream Will of the Father in the form of a military cleansing of the planet can only be in these conditions, no matter how hard it is for a person in physics. Therefore, now in new Metagalactic conditions there are so many military conflicts (Syria, Ukraine, and so on).

What means « war» ?

First, read the wording War in 19 dictionaries . So that you can compare with the option that you will read below.

« IN» –
« Y» - Hierarchically enters matter
"ON THE"– leading it to the Absolute matter

Various extremes arise: on the one hand, knowing everyday, usually human meanings of words War, as a rule, this is destruction, heaviness, suffering, death, torments of grief - everything is very bad for a person. And on the other hand, a person begins to think, analyze, take non-standard actions at the level of instincts in order to save his life and his loved ones.

Two ways to understand:

• First option It is a struggle between good and evil for justice and truth.
• Second option- this is when a person (old matter) resists the manifestation in matter (in physics).

There is resistance to new, transforming, large-scale, global development processes. We understand that, as in a fairy tale, the forces of good must defeat the forces of evil - this is a mythical or mythological view. Attitudes of people and interpretations that justify the killing of people in order to punish the guilty.

In military confrontation, there is a principle of conquest, upholding one's rights, freedoms, methods - in a not entirely human (power animal) way.
War is born on the basis of the inability or unwillingness of two parties, or one, to peace agreements. A different perception of a person, when war is simply not permissible and where you need to have accumulated Will and Wisdom to be able to negotiate. And, getting into such difficult living conditions, a person is forced to change, transform, rebuild under the onslaught of aggressive external conditions. As a rule, a person undergoes a switch, restructuring, rethinking of values, new Meanings and Essences of what is happening are turned on, against the background of constant stress.
Home Essence of war- this is the burning of planetary negativity (for example, historical incorrect layers and much more), collected in one territory of a country, state, region.

What means« world»?

From the beginning we read the designation of the word World in 23 dictionary .

"M"- Matter
"AND" -
"R"– Reasonable

"World"- this is where there is a peaceful life without war, where there is a peaceful path of human development.Will father included in the Hierarchical Absolute matter and The world of human life by the Father.

World human- this is what we see around us, we have with the whole perspective of our life, with all our possibilities.
Real World- this is a constant dynamics of development without resistance to the Father, without military action. A deeper understanding and decoding of the word World can be found in the article . At father there is no contradiction between these two words. Gradually, this line is erased, where Will of the Father enters matter and leads to the World of life by the Father.

And it turns out the following. Two different situations: the first ( war) there is resistance to the Father and the second ( world) - this is when there is no resistance to the Father, if we remove the word "resistance", - there is simply a gradual process of restructuring, transformation, development of human life. What war and what world lead to one whole: namely, to the DEVELOPMENT and TRANSFORMATION of man (matter) by the Father. Same result, same goal. Like peace, like war, as a result, they have one ultimate goal: it is to rebuild humanity in the Father, only in different ways and in different ways.

If we look from matter from the bottom up at these Meanings, then this is the position of the Planetary Observer, where it is difficult to see all the hidden processes and the depth of the action taking place behind the scenes. And here our position as an observer is important, which we will take. And only a person who has a higher Metagalactic position of the Observer will see and decipher these events as the Father sees it.If we do not resist what the Father reveals and manage to rebuild ourselves, accept the new that gives Father for a man, Father it is clearer how to develop and transform us.
The problem of people is that a person looks at the same picture, event, but in different ways, since each person has his own accumulations, records in the Spirit (experience), and they do not always express human principles. Unfortunately, the animal principle of development prevails more, certain tendencies of the past era in the expression of the lower globe of life (demonic), where different cultural values ​​and religious traditions are intertwined. And, it turns out, one nation looks and sees one thing, and the other, the same situation, in a different way. And it turns out not docking perception in Meanings and Sutyakh, as well as underinformation on the one and the other side or deliberate distortion of true information (information wars, stuffing, and so on).Disagreements and disagreements based, as a rule, on religious fanaticism, extremism, radicalism, and so on, or between individuals and even entire nations, countries due to unequal perception of depth pictures of the world. In most cases, this happens due to the low intellectual capabilities of a person, his lack of education, intolerance, and underdevelopment, unfortunately. And also because of excessive ambition, arrogance, exclusivity and impunity of the leaders of countries and states that do not respect the interests of other countries, nations, imposing their democratic (demonic) values. And to get away from such incorrect, dead-end, involutionary options for modern development. The Father transfers humanity to a new type of relationship in new Metagalactic conditions, to interactions between people, countries, states.

Confederation

Confederate principle of life brings to man the basic law of the Father “First among equals or First equal”
Confederation is a new type of interaction with the Father, where there is equality of all in terms of hierarchical competence.
is a society of people (Initiates, Employees, Hypostases), united by one goal, task, achieving the solution of this task on the basis of hierarchical competence, being father yourself.

This law is in terms of father creates man as a true man. To be truly human, one must be First among equals and to be equal among the first”. Such a person respects every person for having created him. Father, and he is the same cell (Omega) from father(Alpha) as you are. We are all different and are on different paths of development, with different expressiveness. We still need to see if we only reach equality, as it was in the days of the USSR, then we can reach herd and facelessness, and each person differs from another person in that we are all unique in Father. We, by our uniqueness, have our own destiny with the Father, and only we can fulfill this destiny: to live our own path and express the Father only in this unique way, because each person has his own unique

In conclusion: the confederate principle of life helps to interact with the Father and support each other, increasing each other's capabilities. And then such a person grows much more powerful, more correct. It teaches how to properly organize interaction in a team and among themselves, when everyone is equal before the Father, but all different specialists, working together and harmoniously in a team. Therefore, the Father is involved in this command action. All together, when each is conjugated with the Father and with each other, are conjugated according to the principle “First among equals”- being executed Confederate principle in fullness. In such a team, the Father manifests itself more, deeper, more powerfully than to each individually. More about it on the page IGCD - Metagalactic Civil Confederation of Russia.

What is war?

(Fragments from the book of Karl Philipp Gottlieb von Clausewitz (1780-1831) - a Prussian officer and military writer, who, with his essay "On War" (published in 1832), made a revolution in the theory and foundations of military sciences) .

We propose to consider first the individual elements of our subject, then its parts, and, finally, the whole subject as a whole, in its internal connection, i.e. go from simple to complex. However, here, more than anywhere else, it is necessary to begin by looking at the essence of the whole (war); in our subject, more than in any other, the whole must always be conceived together with the part.

Definition. We do not mean to come up with a ponderous state-legal definition of war; our guiding thread will be its inherent element - single combat. War is nothing but an extended martial art. If we want to embrace in thought as a whole the whole countless number of individual single combats that make up war, then it is best to imagine a fight between two fighters. Each of them seeks, by means of physical violence, to force the other to do his will; its immediate aim is to crush the enemy and thereby render him incapable of any further resistance.

So, war is an act of violence aimed at compelling the enemy to do our will. Violence uses the inventions of the arts and the discoveries of the sciences to counter violence itself. The imperceptible, barely worthy of mention, restrictions that it imposes on itself in the form of the customs of international law accompany violence without actually weakening its effect.

Thus, physical violence (for moral violence does not exist outside the concepts of state and law) is a means, and the goal will be to impose our will on the enemy. To achieve this goal in the surest way, we must disarm the enemy, deprive him of the opportunity to resist. The concept of the purpose of actual military operations is reduced to the latter. It obscures the purpose for which the war is waged, and to a certain extent displaces it as something not directly related to the war itself.

Extreme use of violence. Some philanthropists might perhaps imagine that it is possible to disarm and crush the enemy artificially, without much bloodshed, and that this is precisely what the art of war should strive for. Seductive as this thought may be, it is nevertheless misleading and should be dispelled. War is a dangerous business, and errors that have good nature as their source are the most pernicious for it. The use of physical violence in its entirety by no means precludes the assistance of the mind; therefore, the one who uses this violence, without embarrassment and without sparing blood, acquires a huge advantage over the enemy who does not do this. Thus one prescribes a law to another; both adversaries strain their efforts to the last extreme, and there are no other limits to this tension than those set by internal opposing forces.

This is how one should look at war; it would be useless, even unreasonable, out of disgust for the severity of her element, to lose sight of her natural properties.

If the wars of civilized peoples are much less cruel and destructive than the wars of savage peoples, then this is due both to the level of social condition in which the belligerent states are located, and their mutual relations. War proceeds from this social state of states and their interrelationships, it is determined by them, it is limited and moderated by them. But all this does not refer to the true essence of the war, but comes from outside. The introduction of the principle of limitation and moderation into the philosophy of war itself is sheer absurdity.

Struggle between people springs, in general, from two completely different elements: from a hostile feeling and from a hostile intention. As an essential feature of our definition, we have chosen the second of these elements as more general. It is impossible to imagine even the most primitive feeling of hatred close to the instinct without any hostile intention; meanwhile, hostile intentions often take place, accompanied by absolutely no, or at least not associated with a particularly prominent feeling of hostility. Among savage peoples, intentions arising from emotions dominate, and among civilized peoples, intentions conditioned by reason. However, this difference does not follow from the essence of a savage state or civilization, but from the circumstances accompanying these states, organization, etc. Therefore, in each individual case it may not take place, but in most cases it turns out to be present; in a word, even civilized peoples may flare up with mutual hatred.

Hence it is clear how erroneous it would be to reduce war between civilized peoples to a mere rational act of their governments and to think of it as something more and more liberated from all passion. In the latter case, it would be sufficient to evaluate the physical masses of the opposing armed forces and, without letting them into action, decide the dispute on the basis of the ratio between them, i.e. to replace the real struggle with the solution of a peculiar algebraic formula.

The theory has moved, it has already been, along this path, but recent wars have cured us of such delusions. Since war is an act of violence, it inevitably invades the realm of feeling. If the latter is not always its source, yet war tends more or less towards it, and this "more or less" depends not on the degree of civilization of the people, but on the importance and stability of the conflicting interests.

Thus, if we see that civilized peoples do not kill prisoners, do not ravage villages and cities, then this is due to the fact that reason interferes more and more in the direction of military operations, which indicates more effective methods of using violence than these crude manifestations of instinct.

The invention of gunpowder and the gradual improvement of firearms are sufficient evidence that the actual growth of culture does not in the least paralyze and does not negate the desire to exterminate the enemy, which is inherent in the very concept of war.

So we repeat our position:

• war is an act of violence, and there is no limit to its application;
• each of the contenders prescribes the law to the other;
• there is a competition that theoretically should bring both opponents to extremes.

This is the first interaction and the first extreme that we encounter.

The purpose of hostilities- to deprive the enemy of the opportunity to resist. We noted above that the purpose of military operations is to disarm the enemy, to deprive him of the opportunity to resist. Let us now show that this definition is necessary for the theoretical understanding of war.

In order to force the enemy to do our will, we must put him in a position more difficult than the sacrifice that we demand from him in this case; of course, the disadvantages of this position must, at least at first glance, be long-term, otherwise the enemy will wait for a favorable moment and persist.

Thus, any changes caused by the continuation of hostilities must put the enemy in an even more disadvantageous position; at least this should be the enemy's idea of ​​the situation. The worst situation a belligerent can get into is the complete impossibility of resisting.

Therefore, in order to force the enemy by military action to fulfill our will, we must actually disarm him or put him in a position that obviously threatens to lose any opportunity to resist. It follows from this that the purpose of military operations should be to disarm the enemy, to deprive him of the opportunity to continue the fight, that is, to crush him.

War cannot represent the action of manpower on a dead mass, and with the absolute passivity of one side, it is generally unthinkable.

War is always a clash of two living forces; therefore, the ultimate goal of military operations (crushing the enemy) must be shared by both sides. Thus, we again meet with the process of interaction. As long as the enemy is not crushed, I must fear that he will crush me, therefore, I have no power in my actions, because the enemy dictates laws to me just as I dictate them to him. This is the second interaction leading to the second extreme.

Extreme stress. To crush the enemy, we must measure our effort with the strength of his resistance; the latter is the result of two closely intertwined factors: the size of the means at his disposal and his will to win.

The size of the enemy's assets is to some extent amenable to definition (although not entirely accurate), because everything here comes down to numbers. It is much more difficult to take into account his will to win; the only measure here can be motives pushing the enemy to war. Having determined in this way (with a certain degree of probability) the strength of the enemy's resistance, we evaluate our forces and strive to achieve an advantage over them, or, if this is not possible, we bring them to the highest degree available to us. But our adversary strives for the same; hence again arises competition, which contains in its very concept the striving for the extreme. This constitutes the third interaction and the third extreme that we face.

Changes under the influence of reality. Soaring in the realm of abstract concepts, reason finds no limits anywhere and reaches the last extremes. And this is quite natural, since he deals with an extreme - with a conflict of forces left to their own devices and not subject to any other laws than those that are inherent in themselves. Therefore, if we wanted to take the abstract concept of war as the only starting point for determining the goals that we would put forward and the means that we would use, then in the presence of constant interaction between the warring parties, we would certainly fall into extremes, representing only a play of concepts. , deduced with the help of a barely noticeable thread of ingenious logical constructions. If, strictly adhering to the absolute conception of war, one solves all difficulties with a single stroke of the pen and adheres with logical consistency to the view that one must always be ready to meet extreme resistance and develop extreme efforts oneself, then such a stroke of the pen would be a purely bookish invention that has nothing to do with to reality.

Even if we assume that this extreme limit of tension is something absolute, which can be easily established, we still have to admit that the human spirit would hardly submit to such logical phantasmagories. In many cases, a waste of energy would be required; it would be counterbalanced by other principles of public policy; there would be a need for such an effort of the will that would not be in accordance with the intended goal, and therefore could not be achieved, for the human will never draws its strength from logical tricks.

A completely different picture is presented when we pass from abstraction to reality. In the realm of the abstract, optimism dominated everything. We imagined one side to be the same as the other. Each of them not only strived for perfection, but also achieved it. But is it really possible? This could only happen if:

• if the war were an absolutely isolated act, arising quite suddenly and not connected with the previous state life;
• if it consisted of only one decisive moment or of a series of simultaneous decisive acts;
• if it contained the final decision in itself, and it would not be influenced by an early consideration of the political situation that will develop after its end.

War is never an isolated act. Regarding the first condition, it should be noted that the opponents are not purely abstract persons for each other; Nor can they be abstract in relation to that factor in the complex of resistance which does not rest on external conditions, namely, the will. This will is not something completely unknown; its "tomorrow" is made today. War does not spring up suddenly; its dissemination (Verbreitung) cannot be a matter of one moment. Therefore, each of the two opponents can judge the other on the basis of what he is and what he does, and not on the basis of what he, strictly speaking, should be and what he should do. Man, due to his imperfection, never reaches the limit of the absolutely best, and thus the manifestations of shortcomings on both sides serve as a moderating beginning.

War does not consist of a single blow that has no extension in time. The second point leads to the following remarks. If the outcome of a war depended on only one decisive moment, or on several simultaneous decisive acts, then all preparations would tend to be extreme, because any omission would be irreparable. In such a case, the enemy's preparations, insofar as they are known to us, would be the only thing from the world of reality that would give us some measure, while the rest would belong to abstraction. But since the resolution of a war lies in a series of successive acts, it is natural that each preceding act, with all the phenomena that accompany it, can serve as a measure for the next; thus, here, too, reality crowds out the abstract and moderates the striving for extremes.

There is no doubt that any war would consist of one decisive or several simultaneous decisive clashes, if the means intended for the struggle were or could be exposed at once. An unsuccessful decision inevitably reduces the means of struggle, and if they were all used in the first battle, then the second would be unthinkable. The hostilities that would then take place would essentially be only a continuation of the first.

However, we have seen that already in preparation for war, consideration of the concrete situation displaces abstract concepts and some real scale is worked out to replace the premise of extreme tension; thus, for this reason alone, the opponents in their interaction will not reach the limit of the tension of their forces, and not all forces will be deployed from the very beginning.

But by the nature and character of these forces, they cannot be applied and put into action all at once. These forces are the armed forces proper, the country with its surface and population, and the allies.

The country, with its surface and population, besides being the source of all armed forces in the true sense of the word, constitutes in itself one of the fundamental quantities determining the course of a war; part of the country forms a theater of operations; areas not included in the latter have a noticeable effect on it.

Of course, it can be assumed that all the mobile fighting forces will enter into action at the same time; but this is impossible with regard to fortresses, rivers, mountains, population, etc., in a word, the whole country, unless the latter is so small that the first act of war could embrace it entirely. Further, the cooperation of the Allies does not depend on the will of the belligerents. In the nature of international relations there are factors of such a nature that determine the entry of the allies into the war only later; sometimes allies will help only to restore the already lost balance.

In what follows, we will dwell in detail on the consideration of the fact that the part of the forces of resistance, which cannot be immediately put into action, often makes up a much larger proportion of them than it seems at first glance; thanks to this, even in cases where the first decisive clash is played out with great force and to a large extent upsets the balance of forces, the last one can still be restored. Here we will confine ourselves to pointing out that the nature of war does not allow for the complete simultaneous collection of all forces. This circumstance in itself cannot serve as a basis for lowering the tension of forces for the first decisive action: after all, the unfavorable outcome of the first collision is always significant damage to which no one will voluntarily incur. The more significant the first success, the more beneficial its effect on subsequent ones, despite the fact that it is not the only one that determines the final victory. However, the foreseeing of the possibility of delaying the achievement of victory leads to the fact that the human spirit, in its aversion to excessive exertion of forces, hides behind this pretext and does not concentrate and exert its forces in due measure in the first decisive act. All those omissions that one “side admits due to its weakness serve as an objective basis for the other side to wear out its tension; here again there is an interaction, thanks to which the desire for extremes is reduced to a degree of moderate tension.

The outcome of a war is never something absolute. Finally, even the final, decisive act of the entire war as a whole cannot be regarded as something absolute, for the defeated country often sees in it only a transient evil that can be corrected in the future by subsequent political relations. How much such a view should moderate the tension and intensity of efforts is self-evident.

The possibilities of real life crowd out extremes and abstract concepts. Thus, war is freed from the harsh law of extreme exertion. Once one ceases to be afraid and strive for extremes, then the mind gets the opportunity to set the limits of the required exertion of forces. The data arising from the phenomena of real life are evaluated on the basis of the laws of probability. Since both adversaries have already ceased to be abstract concepts, but are individual states and governments, since war is no longer an abstract concept, but a peculiarly evolving course of actions, then real phenomena will serve as data for revealing the expected unknown.

Proceeding from the nature of the organization, the condition and position of the enemy, and guided by the theory of probability, each of the belligerents will build its own assessment of his intentions, and accordingly plan his own actions.

The political goal of the war again comes to the fore. Here again, a topic that we have already considered, the political goal of war, falls into the field of our study. The law of extremes - the intention to disarm the enemy, to crush him - has so far obscured this goal to a certain extent. But, since the law of extremes loses its strength, and with it the desire to crush the enemy recedes, the political goal again comes to the fore. If the whole discussion of the necessary exertion of forces is only a calculation of probabilities based on certain persons and circumstances, then the political goal as the initial motive must be a very significant factor in this complex. The less sacrifice we demand from our adversary, the less resistance we can expect from him. But the more insignificant our demands, the weaker will be our preparation. Further, the smaller our political goal, the lower the price it has for us and the easier it is to refuse to achieve it, and therefore our efforts will be less significant.

Thus, the political goal, which is the original motive of war, serves as a measure both for the goal to be achieved by military action and for determining the amount of effort required. Since we are dealing with reality, and not with abstract concepts, and the political goal cannot be considered abstractly, in itself; it depends on the relationship between the two states. One and the same political goal can have a very different effect not only on different peoples, but also on the same people in different eras. Therefore, a political goal can be taken as a measure only by clearly imagining its effect on the masses of the people, whom it should stir up. That is why in war it is necessary to take into account the natural properties of these masses. It is easy to understand that the results of our calculation can be extremely different depending on whether the masses are dominated by elements that act on the tension of war in an upward direction or in a downward direction. Relations between two peoples, two states may be so strained, such a sum of hostile elements may accumulate in them, that a completely insignificant political pretext for war in itself will cause tension far exceeding the significance of this pretext, and will cause a genuine explosion.

All this concerns the efforts evoked in both states by the political goal, as well as the goal that will be set for military operations. Sometimes a political goal may coincide with a military one, such as the conquest of known regions. Sometimes a political goal will not in itself be suitable to serve as an expression of the goal of military action. Then, as the latter, something should be put forward that can be considered equivalent to the intended political goal and suitable for exchange for it when making peace. But even in this case, one must keep in mind the individual characteristics of the states concerned. There are circumstances in which the equivalent must greatly exceed the required political concession in order to achieve the latter. The political goal is all the more decisive for the scale of the war, the more indifferent they are to the last mass and the less strained in other matters the relations between the two states. There are cases when it alone determines the degree of mutual efforts.

Since the goal of military operations must be equivalent to the political goal, the former will decrease along with the decline of the latter, and moreover, the more complete the dominance of the political goal. This explains that war, without violating its nature, can be embodied in forms that are very diverse in meaning and intensity, ranging from a war of extermination to the deployment of simple armed surveillance. The latter leads us to a new question, which we have yet to develop and answer.

This does not yet explain the pauses in the development of hostilities. However insignificant the mutual political demands of the two adversaries, however weak the forces put forward on both sides, however insignificant the task set by military operations, can the development of the war stop even for a single moment? This is a question penetrating deep into the very essence of the subject.

Each action requires a certain amount of time to complete, which we will call the duration of the action. The latter may be greater or less, depending on the haste put into it by the acting side.

This greater or lesser degree of haste does not interest us at the present moment. Everyone does their job in their own way. The procrastinator conducts his work painstakingly not because he wants to spend more time on it, but because it is characteristic of his nature, and in a hurry he would do it worse. Therefore, the time spent depends on internal causes, and its amount is the duration of the action.

If we allow each action in war to have its proper duration, we shall be forced, at least at first glance, to admit that any expenditure of time beyond this duration (i.e. suspension of hostilities) is meaningless. At the same time, it should not be forgotten that here we are not talking about the advance of one or another enemy, but about the progressive course of hostilities as a whole.

There can be only one reason for delaying action, and it would seem that only one side can always have it. If both sides prepared for a fight, then some hostile principle prompted them to do so; as long as they have not laid down their arms, that is, they have not made peace, this hostile principle remains in force; it can be temporarily silenced in one of the belligerents only on the condition that the latter wants to wait for a more favorable time for action. At first glance, it would seem that this condition can be present only for one of the parties, because it eo ipso (thus) becomes the opposite principle for the other. Once in the interests of one - to act, in the interests of the other - to wait.

A complete balance of forces cannot cause a suspension in the development of hostilities, since in this case the side that has set itself a positive task (the attacker) must continue the offensive.

Finally, let us imagine an equilibrium in the sense that he who has a positive political goal of the war, and therefore has a stronger motive to attack, at the same time has lesser forces, so that the equilibrium is obtained from a combination of motives and forces; in this case, it must be said that if there is no reason to expect a change in the state of equilibrium, both sides should make peace; if a change in the balance is foreseen, then it can be favorable only for one of the parties, and therefore should encourage the other to take action.

Clausewitz K. About war. - M.: Gosvoenizdat, 1934. / Clausewitz K. Vom Krieg. 1832/34.

Conflictology and conflicts

Definition of war, causes of wars, classification of wars

Information about the definition of war, causes of wars, classification of wars

Definition

Wars in human history

Causes of wars and their classification

Historical types of wars

Theories on the origin of wars

Behavioral theories

Evolutionary psychology

Sociological theories

Demographic theories

Rationalist theories

Economic theories

Marxist theory

The theory of the origin of wars in political science

Objectivist position

The goals of the parties in the war

Consequences of the war

History of the Cold War

War time

Declaration of war

Martial law

War activities

Prisoners of war

Military establishment

War is- a conflict between political entities (states, tribes, political groups, etc.), taking place in the form of hostilities between their armed forces. According to Clausewitz, "war is the continuation of politics by other means." The main means of achieving the goals of war is organized armed struggle as the main and decisive means, as well as economic, diplomatic, ideological, informational and other means of struggle. In this sense, war is organized armed violence, the purpose of which is to achieve political goals.

Total war is armed violence carried to extreme limits. The main tool in the war is the army.

War - armed struggle between large groups (communities) of people (states, tribes, parties); regulated by laws and customs - a set of principles and norms of international law that establish the obligations of the belligerents (ensuring the protection of the civilian population, regulating the treatment of prisoners of war, prohibiting the use of especially inhuman types of weapons).

Wars are an integral part of human life. The development of wars is the result of technological and demographic changes. It is a process in which long periods of strategic and technical stability give way to sudden changes. The characteristics of wars change in accordance with the development of means and methods of warfare, as well as changes in the balance of power in the international arena. Although it was in wars that the face of the modern world was determined, knowledge about wars was and remains insufficient to ensure the interests of the security of mankind. As Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences A.A. Kokoshin, "at present, the degree of knowledge of wars - a special state of society - is not adequate to the role of this political and social phenomenon both in the modern system of world politics and in the life of individual states" .

Until recently, the declaration of war, regardless of its goals, was considered the inalienable right of every state (jus ad bellum), the highest manifestation of its sovereignty in international relations. However, as the political weight of non-state actors (international non-governmental organizations, ethnic, religious and other groups) grows, there has been a tendency for states to lose their monopoly on solving the problems of war and peace. As early as 1977, Additional Protocol II to the 1949 Geneva Convention, which regulates the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts, placed the obligations previously developed for states on non-state actors (rebel armed forces under organized command and control of part of the national territory). In the light of this trend, war can be defined as organized armed violence used by subjects of international relations to achieve political goals.

2. Changing the scale of wars. If until the middle of the twentieth century. wars became more and more large, then from the second half of the twentieth century. there has been a reverse trend - a decrease in the number of large and an increase in the number of small and medium-sized wars. At the same time, the previous trend of growth in the destructiveness and extermination of wars has been preserved. As the Russian researcher V.V. Serebryannikov, “medium and small wars in the aggregate used by the subjects of international relations to achieve political goals.

The development of the concepts of wars without military actions ("non-military wars") has become an actual direction of military-political research. The threats posed by international terrorism, organized crime, weak states, smuggling of human beings and dangerous substances, environmental disasters, disease and uncontrolled migration cannot be separated from wars and military conflicts. It is no coincidence that the discussions of the late 1990s of the twentieth century. about the emergence of "new wars" coincided with the discussion of "new security threats" - threats or risks that are supranational or non-military in nature. Today, the opinion that modern warfare is "the continuation of politics by violent methods, in which armed struggle is not the only and main means" is becoming more and more widespread. Meanwhile, it is the use of weapons as a set of technical means of suppressing or subjugating the enemy, providing for the possibility of his physical destruction, that makes it possible to separate war from other types of political conflict.

War as a social phenomenon does not turn into an anomaly, but only transforms, losing its former features and acquiring new features. Back in the 20th century, the necessary signs of war were:

1) opposing sides that have a fairly definite status in the system of international relations and participate in hostilities;

2) a clear subject of dispute between opponents;

3) clear spatial parameters of armed struggle, i.e. the presence of a localized battlefield and the division of enemy territory into rear and front.

Today, these signs of war have become optional. Summarizing some data on wars that have taken place since the beginning of the 20th century, a number of trends can be identified.

1. More frequent wars. Frequency of wars in the 20th century fluctuated, but in general exceeded the average frequency of wars in the entire known history of mankind by about 1.5 times. More than 60 of the 200 member countries of the UN have had hostilities. In the 2,340 weeks that passed between 1945 and 1990, there was not a single war on earth for just three weeks. In the 90s of the twentieth century, more than 100 wars took place in the world, in which more than 90 states participated and up to 9 million people died. In 1990 alone, the Stockholm Peace Research Institute counted 31 armed conflicts.

2. Changing the scale of wars. If until the middle of the twentieth century. wars became more and more large, then from the second half of the twentieth century. there has been a reverse trend - a decrease in the number of large and an increase in the number of small and medium-sized wars. At the same time, the previous trend of growth in the destructiveness and extermination of wars has been preserved. As the Russian researcher V.V. Serebryannikov, "medium and small wars in the aggregate, as it were, replace a big war, stretching its grave consequences in time and space." Data on armed conflicts that took place after the Second World War indicate that there are more and more clashes that have not reached the threshold of a “real” war.

3. Changing the methods of warfare. Due to the inadmissibility of full-scale armed struggle with the use of weapons of mass destruction in modern wars, it is increasingly moving into the background and is supplemented by diplomatic, economic, information-psychological, reconnaissance-sabotage and other forms of struggle. An important attribute of modern wars has become the tactics of "building bridges" between the military and the population of the enemy.

4. Changing the structure of military losses. The civilian population of the belligerents is increasingly turning into an object of armed influence, which leads to an increase in the proportion of victims among the civilian population. During the First World War, civilian casualties accounted for 5% of the total number of casualties, in World War II 48%, during the Korean War - 84%, in Vietnam and Iraq - more than 90%.

5. Expansion of the scale of participation in wars by non-state actors of regular armies, which have the most advanced technical means, are underground informal armed groups.

6. Expanding the set of reasons for unleashing wars. If the first half of the 20th century was a period of struggle for world domination, today the reasons for unleashing wars are due to contradictory trends in the growth of universality and fragmentation of the world. The clashes in Angola, Korea and Vietnam that took place after the Second World War were nothing more than a manifestation of the confrontation between the superpowers of the USSR and the USA, which, being holders of nuclear weapons, could not afford to enter into an open armed struggle. Another characteristic cause of wars and military conflicts in the 60s of the twentieth century. became the national self-determination of the peoples of Asia, Africa, Latin America. Wars of national liberation often turned out to be puppet wars, in which one or another superpower tried to use local militias to expand and strengthen its sphere of influence. In the 90s of the twentieth century. there have been new causes of armed conflicts: interethnic relations (for example, in the former Soviet republics, the Balkans and Rwanda), the weakness of states, rivalry for control over natural resources. Thus, along with disputes about statehood, disputes over rule within states became established as a significant cause of conflicts. In addition, there have been religious causes of armed conflicts.

7. Blurring the line between war and peace. In countries in political instability, such as Nicaragua, Lebanon, Afghanistan, troops used weapons and entered settlements without declaring war. A separate aspect of this trend is the development of international crime and terrorism and the fight against them, which can take on the character of hostilities, but be carried out by law enforcement forces or with their participation.

Militarism and militancy often accompanied periods of the most intensive development of peoples and served as a means of their self-assertion of their elites in the international arena. From the second half of the twentieth century. and especially since the end of the Cold War, the relationship between war and human progress has changed. With the release of political systems to the level of organization that requires sustainable development, war as a means of resolving economic, social, ideological, and environmental contradictions becomes more and more “archaic”. Nevertheless, the expansion of the circle of participants in international relations, the incompleteness of the formation of the post-bipolar system of international relations, as well as the revolution in military affairs, which makes the means of armed struggle more accessible, predetermine the prospects for the development of military theory and practice in the new century.

Wars in human history

War is a constant companion of human history. Up to 95% of all societies known to us have resorted to it to resolve external or internal conflicts. According to scientists, over the past fifty-six centuries, there have been about 14,500 wars in which more than 3.5 billion people died.

According to an extremely common belief in antiquity, the Middle Ages and Modern Times (J.-J. Rousseau), primitive times were the only peaceful period in history, and primitive man (an uncivilized savage) was a creature devoid of any militancy and aggressiveness. However, the latest archaeological studies of prehistoric sites in Europe, North America and North Africa indicate that armed clashes (obviously between individuals) took place as early as the Neanderthal era. An ethnographic study of modern hunter-gatherer tribes shows that in most cases attacks on neighbors, the forcible seizure of property and women are the harsh reality of their lives (Zulus, Dahomey, North American Indians, Eskimos, tribes of New Guinea).

The first types of weapons (clubs, spears) were used by primitive man as early as 35 thousand BC, but the earliest cases of group combat date back only to 12 thousand BC. - only from now on can we talk about the war.

The birth of war in the primitive era was associated with the appearance of new types of weapons (bow, sling), which for the first time made it possible to fight at a distance; henceforth, the physical strength of the combatants was no longer of exceptional importance, dexterity and skill began to play an important role. The beginnings of a battle technique (coverage from the flank) arose. The war was highly ritualized (numerous taboos and prohibitions), which limited its duration and losses.

An essential factor in the evolution of warfare was the domestication of animals: the use of horses gave nomads an advantage over settled tribes. The need for protection from their sudden raids led to fortification; the first known fact is the fortress walls of Jericho (about 8 thousand BC). Gradually, the number of participants in wars increased. However, there is no unanimity among scientists about the size of prehistoric "armies": the numbers vary from a dozen to several hundred warriors.

The emergence of states contributed to the progress of military organization. The growth in the productivity of agricultural production allowed the elite of ancient societies to accumulate funds in their hands, which made it possible:

increase the size of armies and improve their fighting qualities;

much more time was devoted to the training of soldiers;

the first professional military formations appeared.

If the armies of the Sumerian city-states were small peasant militias, then the later ancient Eastern monarchies (China, Egypt of the New Kingdom) already had relatively large and fairly disciplined military forces.

The main component of the ancient Eastern and ancient army was the infantry: initially operating on the battlefield as a chaotic crowd, it later turned into an extremely organized fighting unit (Macedonian phalanx, Roman legion). In different periods, other “arms of the armed forces” also gained importance, such as, for example, war chariots, which played a significant role in the Assyrian campaigns of conquest. The importance of military fleets also increased, primarily among the Phoenicians, Greeks and Carthaginians; the first naval battle known to us took place around 1210 BC. between the Hittites and the Cypriots. The function of the cavalry was usually reduced to auxiliary or reconnaissance. Progress was also observed in the field of weapons - new materials are used, new types of weapons are invented. Bronze ensured the victories of the Egyptian army of the era of the New Kingdom, and iron contributed to the creation of the first ancient Eastern empire - the New Assyrian state. In addition to the bow, arrows and spears, the sword, ax, dagger, and dart gradually came into use. Siege weapons appeared, the development and use of which reached a peak in the Hellenistic period (catapults, battering rams, siege towers). Wars acquired a significant scope, involving a large number of states into their orbit (the wars of the Diadochi, etc.). The largest armed conflicts of antiquity were the wars of the Neo-Assyrian kingdom (second half of the 8th–7th centuries), the Greco-Persian wars (500–449 BC), the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC), the conquests of Alexander the Great (334–323 BC) and the Punic Wars (264–146 BC).

In the Middle Ages, the infantry lost its primacy to the cavalry, which was facilitated by the invention of stirrups (8th century). The heavily armed knight became the central figure on the battlefield. The scale of the war compared with the ancient era was reduced: it turned into an expensive and elite occupation, the prerogative of the ruling class and acquired a professional character (the future knight underwent a long training). Small detachments took part in the battles (from several dozen to several hundred knights with squires); only at the end of the classical Middle Ages (14th-15th centuries), with the emergence of centralized states, did the number of armies increase; the importance of the infantry increased again (it was the archers that ensured the success of the British in the Hundred Years War). Military operations at sea were of a secondary nature. But the role of castles has unusually increased; the siege became the main element of the war. The largest wars of this period were the Reconquista (718–1492), the Crusades, and the Hundred Years' War (1337–1453).

The turning point in military history was the spread from the middle of the 15th century. in Europe, gunpowder and firearms (arquebuses, cannons); the first case of their use is the battle of Agincourt (1415). From now on, the level of military equipment and, accordingly, the military industry has become the unconditional determinant of the outcome of the war. In the late Middle Ages (16th - first half of the 17th century), the technological advantage of the Europeans allowed them to expand outside their continent (colonial conquests) and at the same time put an end to the invasions of nomadic tribes from the East. The importance of naval warfare increased sharply. Disciplined regular infantry ousted the knightly cavalry (see the role of the Spanish infantry in the wars of the 16th century). The largest armed conflicts of the 16th-17th centuries. were the Italian Wars (1494–1559) and the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648).

In the centuries that followed, the nature of warfare underwent rapid and fundamental changes. Military technology has progressed unusually rapidly (from the musket of the 17th century to nuclear submarines and supersonic fighters in the early 21st century). New types of weapons (missile systems, etc.) have strengthened the remote nature of the military confrontation. The war became more and more massive: the institution of recruiting and who replaced it in the 19th century. the institute of universal conscription made the armies truly nationwide (more than 70 million people participated in the 1st world war, over 110 million in the 2nd), on the other hand, the whole society was already involved in the war (women's and children's labor in military enterprises in the USSR and the USA during the 2nd World War). Human losses reached an unprecedented scale: if in the 17th century. they amounted to 3.3 million, in the 18th century. - 5.4 million, in the 19th - early 20th century. - 5.7 million, then in the 1st World War - more than 9 million, and in the 2nd World War - over 50 million. Wars were accompanied by a grandiose destruction of material wealth and cultural values.

By the end of the 20th century "Asymmetric wars" have become the dominant form of armed conflicts, characterized by a sharp disparity in the capabilities of the belligerents. In the nuclear age, such wars are of great danger, since they encourage the weak side to violate all established laws of war and resort to various forms of deterrence tactics up to large-scale terrorist attacks (the tragedy of September 11, 2001 in New York).

A change in the nature of the war and an intense arms race gave rise in the first half of the 20th century. a powerful anti-war trend (J. Jaures, A. Barbusse, M. Gandhi, projects of general disarmament in the League of Nations), which especially intensified after the creation of weapons of mass destruction, which called into question the very existence of human civilization. The United Nations began to play the leading role in maintaining peace, proclaiming its task to "save future generations from the scourge of war"; in 1974 the UN General Assembly qualified military aggression as an international crime. Articles on the unconditional renunciation of war (Japan) or on the prohibition of the creation of an army (Costa Rica) were included in the constitutions of some countries.

Causes of wars and their classification

The main reason for the emergence of wars is the desire of political forces to use armed struggle to achieve various foreign and domestic political goals.

With the emergence of mass armies in the 19th century, xenophobia (hatred, intolerance towards someone or something alien, unfamiliar, unusual, perception of the alien as incomprehensible, incomprehensible, and therefore dangerous and hostile) became an important tool for mobilizing the population for war, elevated to the rank worldview. On its basis, national, religious or social enmity is easily fomented, and therefore, since the 2nd half of the 19th century, xenophobia has been the main tool for inciting wars, directing aggression, certain manipulations of the masses within the state, etc.

On the other hand, European societies that survived the devastating wars of the 20th century began to strive to live in peace. Very often, members of such societies live in fear of any shocks. An example of this is the ideologeme "If only there were no war", which prevailed in Soviet society after the end of the most destructive war of the 20th century - World War II.

For propaganda purposes, wars are traditionally divided into:

fair;

unfair.

Just wars include wars of liberation - for example, individual or collective self-defense against aggression in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter or a national liberation war against colonialists in the exercise of the right to self-determination. In the modern world, wars waged by separatist movements (Abkhazia, Ulster, Kashmir, Palestine) are considered formally fair, but disapproved.

To unfair - predatory or illegal (aggression, colonial wars). In international law, a war of aggression is qualified as an international crime. In the 1990s, such a concept as a humanitarian war appeared, which formally is aggression in the name of higher goals: the prevention of ethnic cleansing or humanitarian assistance to civilians.

According to their scale, wars are divided into world and local (conflicts).

The division of wars into "external" (external warfare) and "internal" (internal warfare) is also important.

air war

naval war

Local war

Nuclear war

colonial war

Information war

The classification of wars is based on a variety of criteria. Based on the goals, they are divided into predatory (raids of the Pechenegs and Polovtsians on Russia in the 9th - early 13th centuries), aggressive (wars of Cyrus II 550-529 BC), colonial (French-Chinese war 1883-1885), religious (Huguenot Wars in France 1562–1598), dynastic (War of the Spanish Succession 1701–1714), trade (Opium Wars 1840–1842 and 1856–1860), national liberation (Algerian War 1954–1962), patriotic (Patriotic War 1812), revolutionary (France's wars with the European coalition 1792–1795).

According to the scope of hostilities and the number of forces and means involved, wars are divided into local (waged on a limited territory and by small forces) and large-scale. The former include, for example, wars between ancient Greek city-states; to the second - the campaigns of Alexander the Great, the Napoleonic Wars, etc.

According to the nature of the opposing sides, civil and external wars are distinguished. The first, in turn, are subdivided into apex, waged by factions within the elite (the War of the Scarlet and White Roses 1455–1485), and interclass wars against the ruling class of slaves (Spartacus’s war 74–71 BC), peasants (the Great Peasant War in Germany 1524-1525), townspeople/bourgeoisie (civil war in England 1639-1652), social lower classes in general (civil war in Russia 1918-1922). External wars are subdivided into wars between states (the Anglo-Dutch wars of the 17th century), between states and tribes (Caesar's Gallic Wars 58–51 BC), between coalitions of states (the Seven Years' War 1756–1763), and between metropolises and colonies. (Indochina War 1945–1954), world wars (1914–1918 and 1939–1945).

In addition, wars are distinguished by the methods of waging - offensive and defensive, regular and partisan (guerrilla) - and by the place of waging: land, sea, air, coastal, fortress and field, to which arctic, mountain, urban, wars are sometimes added. desert, war in the jungle.

The moral criterion is also taken as the principle of classification - fair and unjust wars. A "just war" is a war waged to protect order and law and, ultimately, peace. Its prerequisites are that it must have a just cause; it should be begun only when all peaceful means have been exhausted; it should not go beyond the achievement of the main task; the civilian population should not suffer from it. The idea of ​​a "just war", which goes back to the Old Testament, ancient philosophy and St. Augustine, received theoretical formalization in the 12th-13th centuries. in the writings of Gratian, the decretalists, and Thomas Aquinas. In the late Middle Ages, its development was continued by neo-scholastics, M. Luther and G. Grotius. It regained relevance in the 20th century, especially in connection with the emergence of weapons of mass destruction and the problem of "humanitarian military actions" designed to stop genocide in one country or another.

Historical types of wars

Wars of the Ancient World

Painting "Battle of Zama", 202 BC. e. drawn by Cornelis Court (1567)

Aggressive campaigns of ancient states with the aim of enslaving tribes that were at a lower stage of social development, collecting tribute and capturing slaves (for example, the Gallic War, the Marcomannic War, etc.);

Interstate wars with the aim of seizing territories and robbing conquered countries (for example, Punic Wars, Greco-Persian Wars);

Civil wars between various factions of the aristocracy (for example, the wars of the Diadochi for the division of the empire of Alexander the Great in 321-276 BC);

slave uprisings (for example, the slave uprising in Rome under the leadership of Spartacus);

popular uprisings of peasants and artisans (the uprising of the "Red-brows" in China).

Wars of the Middle Ages

Religious Wars: Crusades, Jihad;

Dynastic Wars (for example, the War of the Scarlet and White Roses in England);

Wars for the creation of centralized nation-states (for example, the war for the unification of Russian lands around Moscow in the 14th-15th centuries);

Peasant wars-uprisings against state power (for example, the Jacquerie in France, the Peasant War in Germany (Bauernkrieg)).

Wars of modern and modern times

Colonial wars of capitalist countries for the enslavement of the peoples of Asia, Africa, America, Oceania (for example, the Opium Wars);

Conquest wars of states and coalitions of states for hegemony (for example, the Northern War, the American-Mexican War, the Korean War, the Ethiopian-Eritrean War), wars for world domination (Seven Years' War, Napoleonic Wars, the First and Second World Wars);

Civil wars accompanying the development of socialist and bourgeois-democratic revolutions. Often civil wars merge with wars against foreign intervention (Civil War in China);

National liberation wars of the peoples of dependent and colonial countries against the colonialists, for the establishment of state independence or for its preservation, against attempts to restore the colonial regime (for example, the Algerian War; the colonial war of Portugal, etc.);

Revolutions often end in wars, or to some extent they are [There are no winners in a war - only losers.]

Post-industrial wars

It is believed that post-industrial wars are primarily diplomatic and espionage confrontations.

urban guerilla

Humanitarian War (Kosovo War)

counter-terrorist operation

Interethnic conflict (e.g. Bosnian War, Karabakh War)

The main types of wars of the slave society were:

Wars of slave-owning states for the enslavement of tribes that were at a lower stage of social development (for example, the wars of Rome against the Gauls, Germans, etc.); Wars between the slave-owning states themselves with the aim of seizing territories and robbing the conquered countries (for example, the Punic Wars of Rome against Carthage in the 3rd-2nd centuries BC, etc.); Wars between various groups of slave owners (for example, the war of the Diadochi for the division of the empire of Alexander the Great in 321-276 BC); Wars as slave uprisings (for example, the uprising of slaves in Rome under the leadership of Spartacus in 73-71 BC, etc.); popular uprisings of peasants and artisans (the uprising of the "Red-brows" in the 1st century AD in China, etc.).

The main types of wars of feudal society were:

Wars between feudal states (for example, the Hundred Years War between England and France 1337-1453); internecine feudal wars for the expansion of possessions (for example, the War of the Scarlet and White Roses in England in 1455-85); Wars for the creation of centralized feudal states (for example, the war for the unification of Russian lands around Moscow in the 14th-15th centuries); Wars against foreign invasions (for example, the war of the Russian people against the Tatar-Mongols in the 13th-14th centuries). Feudal exploitation gave rise to: peasant wars-uprisings against the feudal lords (for example, the peasant uprising led by I. I. Bolotnikov in 1606-07 in Russia); uprisings of the urban population against feudal exploitation (for example, the Paris uprising of 1356-58).

The wars of the era of pre-monopoly capitalism can be classified into the following main types:

Colonial wars of the capitalist countries for the enslavement of the peoples of Asia, Africa, America, Oceania; aggressive wars of states and coalitions of states for hegemony (for example, the Seven Years' War of 1756-63, etc.); revolutionary anti-feudal, national liberation wars (for example, the wars of revolutionary France at the end of the 18th century); Wars for national reunification (for example, the wars for the unification of Italy in 1859-70); liberation wars of the peoples of the colonies and dependent countries (for example, popular uprisings in India in the 18th and 19th centuries against English rule), civil wars and uprisings of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie (for example, the revolutionary war of the Paris Commune of 1871).

In the era of imperialism, the struggle between monopolistic associations outgrows national boundaries and turns into a struggle between the main imperialist powers for the forcible redivision of an already divided world. The intensification of the struggle of the imperialists expands their military clashes to the scale of world wars.

The main types of wars of the era of imperialism are:

Imperialist wars for the redivision of the world (for example, the Spanish-American War of 1898, the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05, World War I of 1914-18); civil liberation wars of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie (Civil War in the USSR 1918-20). The main types of wars of the era of imperialism also include national liberation wars of the oppressed peoples (for example, popular uprisings in Cuba in 1906, in China in 1906-11).

Under modern conditions, the only source of war is imperialism. The main types of wars of the modern era are:

Wars between states with opposite social systems, civil wars, wars of national liberation, wars between capitalist states. World War II 1939-45, in view of its complex and contradictory nature, occupies a special place among the wars of the modern era.

Wars between states with opposite social systems are engendered by the aggressive aspirations of imperialism to destroy the social gains of the peoples of socialist countries or countries that have embarked on the path of building socialism (for example, the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union of 1941–45 against fascist Germany and its allies that attacked the USSR).

Civil wars accompany the development of socialist and bourgeois-democratic revolutions, or they are an armed defense of people's conquests against bourgeois counter-revolution and fascism. Civil wars often merge with the war against imperialist intervention (the national revolutionary war of the Spanish people against the fascist rebels and the Italo-German interventionists in 1936-39, etc.).

National liberation wars are the struggle of the peoples of dependent and colonial countries against the colonizers, for the establishment of state independence or for its preservation, against attempts to restore the colonial regime (for example, the war of the Algerian people against the French colonialists in 1954-62; the struggle of the peoples of Egypt against the Anglo-Franco- Israeli aggression in 1956; the struggle of the peoples of South Vietnam against the American invaders, which began in 1964, etc.). Under present-day conditions, the national liberation struggle to win national independence is closely intertwined with the social struggle for the democratic reorganization of public life.

Wars between capitalist states are engendered by the aggravation of contradictions between them in the struggle for world domination (World Wars I and II). The 2nd World War was generated by the aggravation of imperialist contradictions between the bloc of fascist states led by fascist Germany and the Anglo-French bloc and began as unjust, predatory, especially on the part of Germany and its allies. However, Hitler's aggression posed the greatest threat to humanity, the occupation of many countries by the Nazis doomed their peoples to extermination. Therefore, the fight against fascism became a national task of all freedom-loving peoples, which led to a change in the political content of the war, which acquired a liberating, anti-fascist character. The attack of fascist Germany on the USSR completed the process of this transformation. The USSR was the main force of the anti-Hitler coalition (USSR, USA, Great Britain, France) in World War II, which led to victory over the fascist bloc. The Soviet Armed Forces made the main contribution to saving the peoples of the world from the threat of enslavement by the fascist invaders.

In the post-war period, the process of economic integration of the capitalist countries, the unification of the forces of reaction against socialism, takes place, which, however, does not eliminate sharp contradictions and conflicts between the capitalist states, which, under certain conditions, can become a source of war between them.

Theories on the origin of wars

At all times, people have tried to comprehend the phenomenon of war, to reveal its nature, to give it a moral assessment, to develop methods for its most effective use (the theory of military art) and to find ways to limit or even eradicate it. The most controversial was and continues to be the question of the causes of wars: why do they happen if most people do not want them? It gives a variety of answers.

Theological interpretation, which has Old Testament roots, is based on the understanding of war as an arena for the realization of the will of God (gods). Its adherents see war as either a way of establishing the true religion and rewarding the pious (the conquest of the "Promised Land" by the Jews, the victorious campaigns of the Arabs who converted to Islam), or a means of punishing the wicked (the destruction of the kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians, the defeat of the Roman Empire by the barbarians).

The concrete historical approach, dating back to antiquity (Herodotus), connects the origin of wars solely with their local historical context and excludes the search for any universal causes. At the same time, the role of political leaders and rational decisions taken by them is inevitably accentuated. Often the outbreak of war is perceived as the result of a random combination of circumstances.

The psychological school occupies an influential position in the tradition of studying the phenomenon of war. Even in ancient times, the belief (Thucydides) dominated that war is a consequence of bad human nature, an innate tendency to “do” chaos and evil. In our time, this idea was used by Z. Freud when creating the theory of psychoanalysis: he argued that a person could not exist if his inherent need for self-destruction (the death instinct) was not directed to external objects, including other individuals, other ethnic groups and other confessional groups. The followers of Z. Freud (L. L. Bernard) considered the war as a manifestation of mass psychosis, which is the result of the suppression of human instincts by society. A number of modern psychologists (E.F.M. Darben, J. Bowlby) reworked Freud's theory of sublimation in the gender sense: a tendency to aggression and violence is a property of male nature; suppressed in peaceful conditions, it finds the necessary exit to the battlefield. Their hope for the deliverance of mankind from war is associated with the transfer of control levers into the hands of women and with the assertion of feminine values ​​in society. Other psychologists interpret aggressiveness not as an integral feature of the male psyche, but as a result of its violation, citing as an example politicians obsessed with war mania (Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini); they believe that for the onset of an era of universal peace, an effective system of civilian control is sufficient, which closes access to power for madmen.

A special branch of the psychological school, founded by K. Lorenz, is based on evolutionary sociology. Its adherents consider war to be an extended form of animal behavior, primarily an expression of male rivalry and their struggle for possession of a certain territory. They emphasize, however, that although war was of natural origin, technological progress has increased its destructive nature and brought it to a level unbelievable for the animal world, when the very existence of humanity as a species is threatened.

The anthropological school (E. Montague and others) resolutely rejects the psychological approach. Social anthropologists prove that the tendency to aggression is not inherited (genetically), but is formed in the process of education, that is, it reflects the cultural experience of a particular social environment, its religious and ideological attitudes. From their point of view, there is no connection between the various historical forms of violence, because each of them was generated by its own specific social context.

The political approach is based on the formula of the German military theorist K. Clausewitz (1780–1831), who defined war as “the continuation of politics by other means”. His numerous adherents, beginning with L. Ranke, deduce the origin of wars from international disputes and the diplomatic game.

An offshoot of the political science school is the geopolitical direction, whose representatives see the main cause of wars in the lack of "living space" (K. Haushofer, J. Kieffer), in the desire of states to expand their borders to natural boundaries (rivers, mountain ranges, etc.) .

Dating back to the English economist T. R. Malthus (1766–1834), the demographic theory considers war as the result of an imbalance between the population and the amount of means of subsistence and as a functional means of restoring it by destroying demographic surpluses. Neo-Malthusians (W. Vogt and others) believe that war is immanent in human society and is the main engine of social progress.

At present, the sociological approach remains the most in demand in the interpretation of the phenomenon of war. In contrast to the followers of K. Clausewitz, his supporters (E. Ker, H.-U. Wehler and others) consider war to be a product of internal social conditions and the social structure of the warring countries. Many sociologists are trying to develop a universal typology of wars, to formalize them taking into account all the factors influencing them (economic, demographic, etc.), to model trouble-free mechanisms for preventing them. The sociostatistical analysis of wars, proposed back in the 1920s, is actively used. L.F. Richardson; at present, numerous predictive models of armed conflicts have been created (P. Breke, participants in the Military Project, Uppsala Research Group).

Popular among specialists in international relations (D. Blaney and others), information theory explains the emergence of wars by a lack of information. According to its adherents, war is the result of a mutual decision - the decision of one side to attack and the decision of the other to resist; the losing side always turns out to be the one that inadequately assesses its capabilities and the capabilities of the other side - otherwise it would either renounce aggression or capitulate in order to avoid unnecessary human and material losses. Therefore, knowledge of the enemy's intentions and his ability to wage war (effective reconnaissance) is of decisive importance.

Cosmopolitan theory links the origin of war with the antagonism of national and supranational, universal interests (N. Angel, S. Strechi, J. Dewey). It is used primarily to explain armed conflicts in the age of globalization.

Supporters of the economic interpretation consider war to be a consequence of the rivalry of states in the sphere of international economic relations, anarchic in nature. The war is started to obtain new markets, cheap labor, sources of raw materials and energy. This position is shared, as a rule, by scientists of the left direction. They argue that the war serves the interests of the propertied strata, and all its hardships fall on the lot of the disadvantaged groups of the population.

The economic interpretation is an element of the Marxist approach, which treats any war as a derivative of a class war. From the point of view of Marxism, wars are waged to strengthen the power of the ruling classes and to split the world proletariat through appeal to religious or nationalist ideals. Marxists argue that wars are the inevitable result of the free market and the system of class inequality, and that they will sink into oblivion after the world revolution.

Behavioral theories

Psychologists such as E.F.M. Durban and John Bowlby argue that humans are inherently aggressive. It is fueled by sublimation and projection, when a person turns his discontent into prejudice and hatred of other races, religions, nations or ideologies. According to this theory, the state creates and maintains a certain order in local societies and at the same time creates a basis for aggression in the form of war. If war is an integral part of human nature, as many psychological theories suggest, then it will never be completely eliminated.

The Italian psychoanalyst Franco Fornari, a follower of Melanie Klein, suggested that war is a paranoid or projective form of longing. Fornari argued that war and violence develop on the basis of our "need for love": our desire to preserve and protect the sacred object to which we are attached, namely to the mother and our connection with her. For adults, the nation is such a sacred object. Fornari focuses on sacrifice as the essence of war: the desire of people to die for their country and the desire to give themselves for the good of the nation.

Although these theories may explain why wars exist, they do not explain why they occur; at the same time, they do not explain the existence of some cultures that do not know wars as such. If the inner psychology of the human mind is unchanging, then such cultures should not exist. Some militarists, such as Franz Alexander, argue that the state of the world is an illusion. The periods commonly referred to as "peaceful" are actually periods of preparation for a future war, or a situation in which the warlike instincts are suppressed by a stronger state, such as Pax Britannica.

These theories are allegedly based on the will of the vast majority of the population. However, they do not take into account the fact that only a small number of wars in history were really the result of the will of the people. Much more often, the people are forcibly drawn into the war by their rulers. One theory that focuses on political and military leaders was developed by Maurice Walsh. He argued that the vast majority of the population is neutral in relation to war, and that wars happen only when leaders come to power with a psychologically abnormal attitude towards human life. Wars are started by rulers who deliberately seek to fight - such as Napoleon, Hitler and Alexander the Great. Such people become heads of state in times of crisis, when the population is looking for a leader with a strong will, who, as they think, is able to solve their problems.

Evolutionary psychology

Proponents of evolutionary psychology tend to argue that human warfare is analogous to the behavior of animals that fight over territory or compete for food or a mate. Animals are inherently aggressive, and in the human environment, such aggressiveness results in wars. However, with the development of technology, human aggressiveness has reached such a limit that it began to threaten the survival of the entire species. One of the first adherents of this theory was Konrad Lorentz.

Such theories have been criticized by scientists such as John G. Kennedy, who argued that organized, sustained human wars were fundamentally different from animal turf fights—and not just in terms of technology. Ashley Montague points out that social factors and upbringing are important factors in determining the nature and course of human wars. War is, after all, a human invention that has its own historical and social roots.

Sociological theories

Sociologists have long studied the causes of wars. There are many theories on this subject, many of which contradict each other. Supporters of one of the schools of Primat der Innenpolitik (Priority of internal politics) take as a basis the work of Eckart Kehr and Hans-Ulrich Wehler, who believed that war is a product of local conditions, and only the direction of aggression is determined by external factors. Thus, for example, the First World War was not the result of international conflicts, conspiracies or imbalances of power, but the result of the economic, social and political situation in each country involved in the conflict.

This theory differs from the traditional Primat der Außenpolitik (Foreign Policy Priority) approach of Carl von Clausewitz and Leopold von Ranke, who argued that war and peace are a consequence of the decisions of statesmen and the geopolitical situation.

Demographic theories

Demographic theories can be subdivided into two classes Malthusian theories and youth predominance theories.

According to Malthusian theories, the causes of wars lie in population growth and lack of resources.

Pope Urban II, in 1095, on the eve of the First Crusade, wrote: “The land that you have inherited is surrounded on all sides by sea and mountains, and it is too small for you; it barely feeds the people. That is why you kill and torture each other, wage wars, that is why so many of you die in civil strife. Quiet your hatred, let the enmity end. Enter the road to the Holy Sepulcher; reclaim this land from the wicked race and claim it for yourself."

This is one of the first descriptions of what was later called the Malthusian theory of war. Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) wrote that the population always increases as long as its growth is not limited by war, disease or famine.

Supporters of the Malthusian theory believe that the relative decrease in the number of military conflicts in the last 50 years, especially in developing countries, is a consequence of the fact that new technologies in agriculture are able to feed a much larger number of people; at the same time, the availability of contraceptives has led to a significant decline in the birth rate.

Youth dominance theory.

Average age by country. The predominance of youth is present in Africa and to a slightly lesser extent in South and Southeast Asia and Central America.

Youth dominance theory differs significantly from Malthusian theories. Its adherents believe that the combination of a large number of young men (as it is graphically represented in the Age and Sex Pyramid) with a lack of permanent peaceful work leads to a great risk of war.

Whereas Malthusian theories focus on the tension between growing populations and the availability of natural resources, youth dominance theory focuses on the tension between the number of poor, non-inheriting young males and available job positions in the existing social division of labor.

French sociologist Gaston Bouthoul, American sociologist Jack A. Goldstone, American political scientist Gary Fuller, and German sociologist Gunnar Heinsohn made a great contribution to the development of this theory. Samuel Huntington developed his theory of the Clash of Civilizations, largely using youth dominance theory:

I don't think Islam is more aggressive than any other religion, but I suspect that more people have died at the hands of Christians throughout history than at the hands of Muslims. Demographics is a key factor here. By and large, the people who go out to kill other people are men between the ages of 16 and 30. During the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s there was a high birth rate in the Muslim world and this led to a huge skew towards youth. But he will inevitably disappear. The birth rate in Islamic countries is falling; in some countries - rapidly. Initially, Islam was spread by fire and sword, but I don't think there is an inherited aggressiveness in Muslim theology."

The theory of youth dominance was created only recently, but has already acquired a great influence on US foreign policy and military strategy. Both Goldstone and Fuller advised the US government. CIA Inspector General John L. Helgerson referred to this theory in his 2002 report, The National Security Implications of Global Demographic Change.

According to Heinsohn, who first proposed the youth-dominated theory in its most general form, skew occurs when 30 to 40 percent of a country's male population belongs to the "explosive" age group of 15 to 29 years. Usually this phenomenon is preceded by an explosion in the birth rate, when there are 4-8 children per woman.

In the case when there are 2.1 children per woman, the son takes the place of the father, and the daughter takes the place of the mother. A total fertility rate of 2.1 leads to the replacement of the previous generation, while a lower coefficient leads to the extinction of the population.

In the case when 4-8 children are born in the family, the father must provide his sons with not one, but two or four social positions (jobs) so that they have at least some prospects in life. Given that the number of respected positions in society cannot increase at the same rate as the amount of food, textbooks and vaccines, many "angry young men" find themselves in a situation where their youthful rage turns into violence.

There are too many of them demographically,

They are unemployed or stuck in a disrespectful, low-paying position,

Often they are not able to have a sexual life until their earnings allow them to start a family.

Religion and ideology in this case are secondary factors and are used only to give violence a semblance of legality, but in themselves they cannot serve as a source of violence if there is no predominance of youth in a society. Accordingly, supporters of this theory consider both "Christian" European colonialism and imperialism, as well as today's "Islamic aggression" and terrorism, as the result of a demographic imbalance. The Gaza Strip is a typical illustration of this phenomenon: increased aggressiveness of the population caused by an excess of young unsettled men. And for contrast, the situation can be compared with neighboring relatively peaceful Lebanon.

Another historical example where youth played a big role in uprisings and revolutions is the French Revolution of 1789. The economic depression in Germany played an important role in the birth of Nazism. The genocide in Rwanda in 1994 could also be a consequence of the serious predominance of youth in society.

Although the relationship between population growth and political stability has been known since the National Security Study Memorandum 200 was published in 1974, neither governments nor the World Health Organization have taken birth control measures to prevent terrorist attacks. threats. Prominent demographer Stephen D. Mumford attributes this to the influence of the Catholic Church.

The theory of youth dominance has become the object of statistical analysis by the World Bank Population Action International, and the Berlin Institute for Demography and Development (Berlin-Institut für Bevölkerung und Entwicklung). Detailed demographic data is available for most countries in the US Census Bureau's international database.

Youth dominance theory has been criticized for statements that lead to racial, gender, and age "discrimination."

Rationalist theories

Rationalist theories assume that both parties to the conflict act reasonably and proceed from the desire to obtain the greatest benefit with the least loss on their part. Based on this, if both sides knew in advance how the war would end, it would be better for them to accept the results of the war without battles and without unnecessary sacrifices. Rationalist theory puts forward three reasons why some countries are unable to agree among themselves and instead go to war: the problem of indivisibility, asymmetric information with deliberate misleading, and the inability to rely on the promises of the enemy.

The problem of indivisibility arises when two parties cannot reach a mutual agreement through negotiation because the thing they seek to possess is indivisible and can only belong to one of them. An example is the wars for the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

The problem of information asymmetry arises when two states cannot calculate in advance the probability of victory and reach an amicable agreement because each of them has military secrets. They can't open the cards as they don't trust each other. At the same time, each side tries to exaggerate its own strength in order to bargain for additional advantages. For example, Sweden tried to mislead the Nazis about its military potential by playing the card of "Aryan superiority" and showing Hermann Göring elite troops dressed as ordinary soldiers.

The Americans made the decision to enter the Vietnam War, knowing full well that the communists would fight back, but underestimating the ability of the guerrillas to resist the US regular army.

Finally, negotiations to prevent war may end in failure due to the inability of states to respect the rules of fair play. The two countries could have avoided war if they had stuck to the original agreements. But in the deal, one party gets such privileges that it becomes stronger and starts demanding more and more; as a result, the weaker side has no choice but to defend itself.

The rationalist approach can be criticized in many ways. The assumption of mutual settlement of profits and costs looks doubtful - for example, in cases of genocide during World War II, when no alternative was left to the weak side. Rationalists believe that the state acts as a whole, united by one will, and the leaders of the state are reasonable and able to objectively assess the likelihood of success or failure, with which supporters of the behavioral theories mentioned above cannot agree.

Rationalist theories are usually well applied in game theory, and not in modeling the economic decisions that underlie any war.

Economic theories

Another school holds the theory that war can be seen as an increase in economic competition between countries. Wars start as an attempt to take over markets and natural resources and, as a result, wealth. Representatives of the far-right political circles, for example, argue that the strong have a natural right to everything that the weak cannot keep. Some centrist politicians also use economic theory to explain wars.

“Is there even one man, even one woman, even a child, in the world who does not know that the causes of war in the modern world lie in industrial and commercial competition?” — Woodrow Wilson, September 11, 1919, St. Louis

“I spent 33 years and four months in the military and most of that time I worked as a high-profile thug working for Big Business, Wall Street and bankers. In short, I am a racketeer, a gangster of capitalism." - one of the most senior and most decorated Marines (rewarded with two Medals of Honor) Major General Smadley Butler (the main candidate from the US Republican Party to the Senate) in 1935.

The problem with the economic theory of capitalism is that it is impossible to name a single major military conflict that was started by the so-called Big Business.

Marxist theory

The theory of Marxism proceeds from the fact that all wars in the modern world are due to conflicts between classes and between imperialist forces. These wars are part of the natural evolution of the free market and will only disappear when the World Revolution occurs.

The theory of the origin of wars in political science

Statistical analysis of war was pioneered by World War I researcher Lewis Fry Richardson.

There are several different schools of international relations. Proponents of realism in international relations argue that states' primary motivation is their own security.

Another theory deals with the issue of power in international relations and the Transition of Power Theory, which builds the world into a certain hierarchy and explains the largest wars as a challenge to the incumbent hegemon by a Great Power that is not subject to its control.

Objectivist position

Ayn Rand, the founder of objectivism and the advocate of rational individualism and laissez-faire capitalism, argued that if a person wants to resist war, he must first resist the state-controlled economy. She believed that there would be no peace on earth as long as people adhere to herd instincts and sacrifice individuals for the sake of the collective and its mythical "good".

The goals of the parties in the war

The direct aim of war is to impose one's will on the enemy. At the same time, the initiators of the war often pursue indirect goals, such as: strengthening their domestic political positions (“a small victorious war”), destabilizing the region as a whole, diverting and binding enemy forces. In modern times, for the side that directly started the war, the goal is a world better than the pre-war one (Liddell-Harth, "Strategy of indirect action").

For the side experiencing aggression from the side of the enemy who unleashed the war, the goal of the war automatically becomes:

Ensuring one's own survival;

Confronting an adversary who wants to impose his will;

Prevention of recurrence of aggression.

In real life, there is often no clear line between the attacking and defending sides, because both sides are on the verge of an open manifestation of aggression, and which of them will start on a large scale first is a matter of chance and the tactics adopted. In such cases, the goals of the war on both sides are the same - to impose their will on the enemy in order to improve their pre-war position.

Based on the foregoing, we can conclude that the war can be:

Completely won by one of the opposing sides - either the will of the aggressor is fulfilled, or, for the defending side, the attacks of the aggressor are successfully suppressed and its activity is suppressed;

The goals of neither side have been achieved to the end - the will of the aggressor (s) has been fulfilled, but not completely;

Thus, the Second World War was won by the troops of the anti-Hitler coalition, since Hitler failed to achieve his goals, and the authorities and troops of Germany and its allies unconditionally capitulated and surrendered to the authorities of the victorious side.

The Iran-Iraq war was not won by anyone - because neither side was able to impose its will on the enemy, and by the end of the war, the situation of the warring parties did not differ qualitatively from the pre-war one, apart from being exhausted by the military operations of both states.

Consequences of the war

The negative consequences of wars, in addition to the death of people, include the complex that is designated as a humanitarian catastrophe: famine, epidemics, population displacements. Modern wars are associated with huge human and material losses, with unprecedented destruction and disasters. For example, losses in the wars of European countries (killed and died from wounds and diseases) amounted to: in the 17th century - 3.3 million people, in the 18th century - 5.4, in the 19th and early 20th centuries (before the First World War) - 5.7, in the First World War - over 9, in the Second World War (including those killed in Nazi concentration camps) - over 50 million people.

The positive consequences of wars include the exchange of information (thanks to the Battle of Talas, the Arabs learned from the Chinese the secret of making paper) and "acceleration of the course of history" (left-wing Marxists consider war to be a catalyst for social revolution), as well as the removal of contradictions (war as a dialectical moment of denial in Hegel). Some researchers also refer to the following factors as positive for human society as a whole (not for a person):

War returns biological selection to human society, when the offspring are left the most adapted to survival, since under normal conditions of the human community, the operation of the laws of biology when choosing a partner is greatly weakened;

For the duration of hostilities, all the prohibitions that are imposed on a person in society in normal times are removed. As a result, war can be viewed as a way and method of relieving psychological stress within the whole society.

Fear of the imposition of someone else's will, fear in the face of danger is an exceptional stimulus to technological progress. It is no coincidence that many novelties are invented and appear first for military needs and only then find their application in civilian life.

Improvement of international relations at the highest level and appeal of the world community to such values ​​as human life, peace, etc. in the post-war period. Example: the creation of the League of Nations and the United Nations as a reaction to the First and Second World Wars, respectively.

History of the Cold War

The Cold War is a global geopolitical, economic and ideological confrontation between the Soviet Union and its allies, on the one hand, and the United States and its allies, on the other, which lasted from the mid-1940s to the early 1990s. The reason for the confrontation was the fear of Western countries (primarily Great Britain and the United States) that part of Europe would fall under the influence of the USSR.

One of the main components of the confrontation was ideology. The deep contradiction between the capitalist and socialist models, the impossibility of convergence, in fact, is the main cause of the Cold War. The two superpowers, the victors in World War II, tried to rebuild the world according to their ideological guidelines. Over time, confrontation became an element of the ideology of the two sides and helped the leaders of the military-political blocs to consolidate allies around them "in the face of an external enemy." A new confrontation required the unity of all members of the opposing blocs.

The term "cold war" was first used on April 16, 1947 by Bernard Baruch, adviser to US President Harry Truman, in a speech before the South Carolina House of Representatives.

The internal logic of the confrontation required the parties to participate in conflicts and interfere in the development of events in any part of the world. The efforts of the USA and the USSR were directed, first of all, to dominance in the military sphere. From the very beginning of the confrontation, the process of militarization of the two superpowers unfolded.

The US and the USSR created their own spheres of influence, securing them with military-political blocs - NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

The Cold War was accompanied by a race of conventional and nuclear arms that every now and then threatened to lead to a third world war. The most famous of these cases, when the world was on the brink of disaster, was the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. In this regard, in the 1970s, both sides made efforts to "defeat" international tension and limit arms.

The growing technological backwardness of the USSR, along with the stagnation of the Soviet economy and exorbitant military spending in the late 1970s and early 1980s, forced the Soviet leadership to undertake political and economic reforms. The course of perestroika and glasnost announced by Mikhail Gorbachev in 1985 led to the loss of the leading role of the CPSU, and also contributed to the economic collapse in the USSR. Ultimately, the USSR, burdened by the economic crisis, as well as social and interethnic problems, collapsed in 1991.

Periodization of the Cold War

Stage I - 1947-1955 - creation of a two-block system

II stage - 1955-1962 - period of peaceful coexistence

Stage III - 1962-1979 - period of detente

Stage IV - 1979-1991 - arms race

Manifestations of the Cold War

Bipolar world in 1959

Bipolar World at the Apogee of the Cold War (1980)

Acute political and ideological confrontation between the communist and Western liberal systems, which engulfed almost the entire world;

creation of a system of military (NATO, Warsaw Treaty Organization, SEATO, CENTO, ANZUS, ANZUK) and economic (EEC, CMEA, ASEAN, etc.) unions;

forcing the arms race and military preparations;

a sharp increase in military spending;

recurring international crises (Berlin Crisis, Caribbean Crisis, Korean War, Vietnam War, Afghan War);

the tacit division of the world into "spheres of influence" of the Soviet and Western blocs, within which the possibility of intervention was tacitly allowed in order to maintain a regime pleasing to one or another bloc (Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Grenada, Vietnam, etc.)

the rise of the national liberation movement in colonial and dependent countries and territories (partly inspired from outside), the decolonization of these countries, the formation of the "third world", the Non-Aligned Movement, neo-colonialism;

creation of an extensive network of military bases (first of all, the United States) on the territory of foreign states;

waging a massive "psychological war", the purpose of which was to promote their own ideology and way of life, as well as to discredit the official ideology and way of life of the opposite bloc in the eyes of the population of "enemy" countries and the "third world". For this purpose, radio stations were created that broadcast to the territory of the countries of the "ideological enemy", the production of ideologically directed literature and periodicals in foreign languages ​​was financed, and class, racial, and national contradictions were actively used.

reduction of economic and humanitarian ties between states with different socio-political systems.

boycotts of some Olympic Games. For example, the United States and a number of other countries boycotted the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow. In response, the USSR and most socialist countries boycotted the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles.

In Eastern Europe, communist governments, deprived of Soviet support, were removed even earlier, in 1989-1990. The Warsaw Pact officially ended on July 1, 1991, and from that moment on, the end of the Cold War can be counted.

The Cold War was a gigantic mistake that cost the world enormous effort and huge material and human losses in the period 1945-1991. It is useless to find out who was more or less to blame for this, to blame or whitewash someone - politicians both in Moscow and in Washington bear the same responsibility for this.

The beginning of Soviet-American cooperation did not portend anything of the kind. President Roosevelt after the German attack on the USSR in June 1941 wrote that "this means the liberation of Europe from Nazi domination. At the same time, I do not think that we should worry about any possibility of Russian domination." Roosevelt believed that the great alliance of the victorious powers could continue to operate after the Second World War, subject to mutually acceptable norms of behavior, and he considered the prevention of mutual distrust between the allies one of his main tasks.

With the end of the war, the polarity of the world changed dramatically - the old colonial countries of Europe and Japan lay in ruins, but the Soviet Union and the United States moved forward, only slightly involved in the world balance of power until that moment and now filling a kind of vacuum formed after the collapse of the Axis countries. And from that moment on, the interests of the two superpowers came into conflict - both the USSR and the USA sought to expand the limits of their influence as far as possible, a struggle began in all directions - in ideology, in order to win the minds and hearts of people; in an effort to get ahead in the arms race in order to talk to the opposite side from a position of strength; in economic terms, to demonstrate the superiority of their social order; even in sports - as John F. Kennedy said, "a country's international prestige is measured by two things: nuclear missiles and Olympic gold medals."

The West won the Cold War, while the Soviet Union voluntarily lost it. Now, by disbanding the Warsaw Pact and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, breaking the Iron Curtain and uniting Germany, destroying the superpower and banning communism, Russia in the 21st century can make sure that not any ideology, but only geopolitical interests, prevail in Western political thinking. Having moved NATO's borders close to Russia's borders and deployed its military bases in half of the republics of the former USSR, American politicians are increasingly turning to the rhetoric of the Cold War era, demonizing Russia in the eyes of the world community. And yet I want to believe in the best - that the great powers of the East and West will not conflict, but will cooperate, adequately solving all problems at the negotiating table, without any pressure and blackmail, which was the dream of the greatest US president of the 20th century. It seems that this is quite feasible - in the coming era of globalization, Russia is slowly but surely integrating into the world community, Russian companies are entering foreign markets, and Western corporations are coming to Russia, and only a nuclear war can prevent, for example, Google and Microsoft from developing their high-tech products, and Ford manufacture their cars in Russia. Well, for millions of ordinary people in the world, the main thing is "so that there is no war ..." - neither hot nor cold.

A classic example of socio-political, economic and psychological antagonism is the Cold War. Having affected all spheres of social life, the Cold War reveals its consequences even now, which is the reason for the disputes about the end of this phenomenon. We will not touch on the date of the end of the Cold War, we will only try to understand the chronological framework of its beginning and outline our view of its essence.

First, it is impossible not to notice that history textbooks often contain the most opposing positions on certain issues. But among the dates that are contained in the vast majority of benefits, one can name the date of the beginning of the Cold War - March 6, 1946, Churchill's speech in Fulton.

However, in our opinion, the beginning of the Cold War dates back to the revolutionary events in Russia associated with the coming to power of the Bolsheviks. Then it was just beginning to smolder on the planet, without flaring up into a full-scale conflict. This is confirmed by the statement of the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs G.V. Chicherin in response to V. Wilson's remark that Soviet Russia would strive to enter the League of Nations, uttered at the Paris Peace Conference. He said the following: “Yes, she knocks, but not in order to get into the company of robbers who have discovered their predatory nature. It is knocking, the world workers' revolution is knocking. She knocks like an uninvited guest in Maeterlinck's play, the invisible approach of which chills the hearts with chilling horror, whose steps are already understood on the stairs, accompanied by the clang of a scythe - she knocks, she is already entering, she is already sitting at the table of the dumbfounded family, she is an uninvited guest - she is invisible death".

The absence of diplomatic relations between Soviet Russia and the United States for 16 years after October 1917 minimized any communication between the two countries, contributing to the spread of directly opposite attitudes towards each other. In the USSR - at the philistine level - hostility to the "country of capital and oppression of the working people" grew, and in the USA - again at the human level - the interest and sympathy for the state of "workers and peasants" grew almost in direct proportion. However, the political trials carried out in the 1930s against the “enemies of the people” and the constant violations of civil rights and freedoms by the authorities led to the formation and widespread of a sharply negative and extremely skeptical attitude not only towards the government of the USSR, but also towards the communist ideology as a whole. It was at this time, we believe, that the Cold War received its development in the ideological and political aspect. The internal policy of the Soviet Union led to the complete rejection of socialist and communist ideals not only in the United States, but throughout the Western world. The situation was further aggravated by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, concluded between the Soviet government and Nazi Germany in August 1939. However, in general, the pre-war period did not provide economic opportunities - the Great Depression and forced industrialization and collectivization in the USSR - for both states to turn mutual hostility into any kind of hot conflict. Yes, and President Roosevelt quite adequately built his foreign policy line in relation to the country of the Soviets, although this was more likely due to national interest.

We see that ideological contradictions lay at the beginning of the Cold War. The Soviet state actively opposed the ideology of communism and socialism to the Western powers, the former allies in the Entente. The thesis about the class struggle, the impossibility of peaceful coexistence of the states of the two formations, put forward by the Bolsheviks, led to the gradual sliding of the world towards a bipolar confrontation. On the American side, participation in the intervention against Soviet Russia was rather caused by the unwillingness to see the positions of Great Britain and France strengthened in Europe and Japan in the Far East. Thus, the pursuit of national interests on the one hand, which were in conflict with the needs of the other, and the tenets of communist ideology laid the foundation for a new system of relations between countries.

The paths of development of the allies in World War II after the victory over Nazi Germany diverged, in addition, the leaders of the two countries, Truman and Stalin, did not trust each other at all. It was obvious that both the USA and the USSR would aggressively expand their sphere of influence, although, in view of the appearance of nuclear weapons, by non-military means, since the use of the latter would result in the death of mankind or most of it.

The post-war world opened before the United States and the USSR boundless expanses of rivalry, often turning either into veiled diplomatic language or even open hostility. The second half of the 40s - the beginning of the 60s. not only did not resolve the disputes that already existed by that time, but also added new ones. Only the fact that the main languages ​​have been enriched with a huge number of terms and concepts regarding relations between the Soviet Union and the United States since the very beginning of the Cold War eloquently testifies to the real tension of the international situation: "iron curtain", "atomic diplomacy", "policy from a position of strength" , "Brinkmanship", "Domino Principle", "Doctrine of Liberation", "Enslaved Nations", "Crusade for Freedom", "Doctrine of Rolling Back Communism", "Massive Retaliation Strategy", "Nuclear Umbrella", "Missile Shield" ”, “missile lag”, “flexible response strategy”, “escalatory dominance”, “bloc diplomacy”, - about forty-five in all.

The Cold War system includes everything: economic war, political war, intelligence war. But the main war, in our opinion, is a psychological war, only victory in it is a real victory. A victory, the fruits of which can really be used in building a new world order. The countries built their internal and foreign policy lines on the basis of some of the anti-Soviet and anti-communist attitudes, others of the postulate of the hostility of imperialist circles. The practice of forcing the situation in public opinion was actively used. Governments have actively used a variety of means to "spill each other with slop", including such a powerful lever of pressure as education. The Cold War was (and still is) taught very one-sidedly, both in one country and in another. However, the vestige of this phenomenon is still the fact that so far we cannot abandon the negative attitude towards Western countries in the education system. We continue to consider many aspects of the general history and the history of the Fatherland through the prism of ideological prejudices, prejudice, from the position of antinomy "not like ours, it means bad."

Summing up, we can say that the Cold War is a rather eloquent historical phenomenon. On her example, you can show a lot, illustrate the various currents of modernity. In addition, the study of the Cold War brings us closer to a more objective assessment of history, which in turn should provide a more objective assessment of contemporary events.

War time

Wartime is the period when a state is at war with another state. In wartime, martial law is introduced in the country or in its individual regions.

The beginning of wartime is the declaration of a state of war or the actual start of hostilities.

The end of wartime is the declared day and hour of the cessation of hostilities.

Wartime is a period when a state is at war with another country. A state of war arises from the moment it is declared by the highest body of state power or from the moment the actual start of hostilities.

Wartime is the special conditions of life of the state and society associated with the occurrence of force majeure - war.

Each state is obliged to fulfill its functions to protect its citizens from external threats. In turn, to perform these functions, the laws of all countries provide for the expansion of the powers of the state with the simultaneous restriction of the rights and freedoms of citizens.

Legal Consequences

In accordance with the Federal Law "On Defense" in the Russian Federation, a state of war is declared by federal law in the event of an armed attack on the Russian Federation by another state or group of states, as well as if it is necessary to comply with international treaties of the Russian Federation. From the moment a state of war is declared or the actual start of hostilities, wartime begins, which expires from the moment the cessation of hostilities is announced, but not earlier than their actual cessation.

Emergency measures aimed at the defense of the country, associated with the restriction of civil liberties are taken by all states. During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln temporarily abolished fundamental civil rights. Woodrow Wilson did the same after the outbreak of World War I and Franklin Roosevelt during World War II.

Economic consequences

The economic consequences of wartime are characterized by excessive expenditures of the state budget for defense needs. All resources of the country are directed to meet the needs of the army. Gold and foreign exchange reserves are put into circulation, the expenditure of which is highly undesirable for the state. As a rule, these measures lead to hyperinflation.

Social Consequences

The social consequences of wartime are characterized, first of all, by a significant deterioration in the standard of living of the population. The transfer of the economy to the fulfillment of military needs requires the maximum concentration of economic potential in the military sector. This entails an outflow of funds from the social sphere. In conditions of extreme necessity, in the absence of the ability to ensure a commodity-money turnover, the food system can switch to a rationing basis with a strict metered supply of food per person.

Declaration of war

The declaration of war is expressed in a special kind of solemn actions indicating that the peace between these states has been violated and an armed struggle is coming between them. The declaration of war already in antiquity is recognized as an act required by public morality. The ways of declaring war are very different. At first, they are symbolic. The ancient Athenians, before the start of the war, threw a spear into the enemy country. The Persians demanded land and water as a sign of submission. The declaration of war in ancient Rome was distinguished by special solemnity, where the execution of these rites was entrusted to the so-called fetials. In medieval Germany, the act of declaring war was called "Absagung" (Diffidatio).

According to the views prevailing among the French, it was considered necessary that at least 90 days elapsed from the moment war was declared to the start of it. Later, namely from the 17th century, the declaration of war was expressed in the form of special manifestos, but very often the clash began without prior warning (Seven Years' War). Before the war, Napoleon I issued a proclamation only for his troops. The special acts of declaring war are no longer in use. Usually, a war is preceded by a break in diplomatic relations between states. Thus, in 1877 (the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878) the Russian government did not send a formal declaration of war to the sultan, but limited itself to informing the Porte, through its chargé d'affaires, that diplomatic relations between Russia and Turkey had been interrupted. Sometimes the moment of the outbreak of war is determined in advance in the form of an ultimatum, in which it is announced that failure to comply with this requirement within a certain time will be considered a legitimate reason for war (the so-called casus belli).

The Constitution of the Russian Federation does not grant any state body the right to declare war; the president has only the right to impose martial law in the event of aggression or the threat of aggression (defensive war).

Martial law

Martial law is a special legal regime in a state or part of it, which is established by a decision of the highest body of state power in the event of aggression against the state or an immediate threat of aggression.

Martial law usually provides for a significant restriction of certain rights and freedoms of citizens, including such basic ones as freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, the right to judicial review of cases, the right to inviolability of property, etc. In addition, judicial and executive power may be transferred to military courts and military commanders.

The procedure for introducing and the regime of martial law are determined by law. On the territory of the Russian Federation, the procedure for introducing, maintaining and lifting the martial law regime is defined in the federal constitutional law "On Martial Law".

Transfer of the armed forces to martial law

Transfer to martial law is the initial stage of the strategic deployment of the Armed Forces, the process of their reorganization in accordance with the requirements of the war. It includes bringing the armed forces to the highest degree of combat readiness with their mobilization, bringing formations, formations and units to full combat readiness.

It can be carried out in stages or one-time, for all or part of the armed forces, by regions and directions. The decision on these actions is taken by the highest political leadership of the state and implemented through the Ministry of Defense.

The state of war entails a number of legal consequences: the termination of diplomatic and other relations between the belligerent states, the termination of international treaties, etc.

In wartime, certain criminal legal acts, or parts of these normative acts, come into force, toughening responsibility for certain crimes. At the same time, the fact of committing a crime in wartime is a qualifying sign of certain elements of military crimes.

According to Part 1 of Art. 331 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, criminal liability for crimes against military service committed in wartime or in a combat situation is determined by wartime legislation of the Russian Federation.

In an exceptionally difficult situation, changes in criminal proceedings are possible, or the complete abolition of its individual stages. So in the besieged Leningrad during the blockade, the Decree of the local authorities was in force, ordering law enforcement agencies to shoot marauders, robbers and robbers detained at the crime scene. Thus, the entire criminal process was limited to two stages - detention and execution of punishment, bypassing the preliminary investigation, court hearing, appeal and cassation proceedings.

Martial law is a special state-legal regime temporarily introduced by the highest state power in the country or its individual parts in an emergency; it is characterized by the introduction of special (emergency) measures in the interests of protecting the state. The most significant features of the Martial Law are: the expansion of the powers of military command and control; the imposition on citizens of a number of additional duties related to the defense of the country; restriction of the rights and freedoms of a citizen and a person. In areas declared under Martial Law, all functions of state power in the field of defense, ensuring public security and public order are transferred to military control bodies. They have been granted the right to impose additional obligations on citizens and legal entities (involve in labor service, seize vehicles for defense needs, etc.), regulate public order in accordance with the requirements of the social situation (restrict traffic, prohibit entry and exit in areas declared on Martial Law, regulate the working hours of enterprises, institutions, etc.). For disobedience to these bodies, for crimes directed against the security of the country and damaging its defense, if they are committed in areas declared under Martial Law, the perpetrators are held accountable under the laws of wartime. In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Martial Law is introduced on the territory of the Russian Federation or in its individual areas in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation or an immediate threat of aggression by the President of the Russian Federation with an immediate notification of this to the Federation Council and the State Duma. The approval of decrees on the introduction of Martial Law is within the competence of the Federation Council. - Shapinsky V.I.

Street fight and others.

Combat operations are a military and universal concept that describes an emergency situation of armed confrontation between specially trained groups of people (usually parts of the regular armed forces of nation states).

Military science understands combat operations as the organized use of forces and means for the performance of assigned combat missions by units, formations and associations of branches of the Armed Forces (that is, the conduct of war at the operational, operational-tactical and tactical levels of the organization).

Waging war at a higher, strategic level of an organization is called military action. Thus, combat operations are included in military operations as an integral part - for example, when the front conducts military operations in the form of a strategic offensive operation, the armies and corps that are part of the front conduct combat operations in the form of offensives, envelopments, raids, and so on.

Battle - an armed battle (collision, battle, battle) between two or more parties that are at war with each other. The name of the battle, as a rule, stems from the area where it took place.

In the military history of the 20th century, the concept of battle describes the totality of the battles of individual battalions as part of a common major operation, for example, the Battle of Kursk. Battles differ from battles in their scale and often decisive role in the outcome of the war. Their duration could reach several months, and their geographical extent - tens and hundreds of kilometers.

In the Middle Ages, battles were usually one related event and lasted a maximum of a few days. The battle took place in a compact area, usually in open areas, which could be fields or, in some cases, frozen lakes. The places of battles were imprinted in the people's memory for a long time, monuments were often erected on them and a special emotional connection was felt with them.

Since the middle of the 19th century, the concepts of "battle", "battle", "operation" have often been used as a synonym. For example: Battle of Borodino and Battle of Borodino.

Combat is the main active form of action of military units (subunits, units, formations) on a tactical scale, an organized armed clash, limited in area and time. It is a set of strikes, fire and maneuver of troops coordinated in terms of purpose, place and time.

Combat can be defensive or offensive.

Military blockade - military actions aimed at isolating an enemy (enemy) object by cutting off its external relations. The military blockade is designed to prevent or minimize the transfer of reinforcements, the delivery of military equipment and logistics, and the evacuation of valuables.

The objects of military blockade can be:

individual states

cities, fortified areas, points of strategic and operational importance with military garrisons,

large groupings of troops in theaters of operations and the armed forces as a whole

economic regions

strait zones, bays

naval bases, ports.

The blockade of a city or fortress with the intention to further capture this object is called a siege.

The goals of the military blockade:

undermining the military and economic power of the state

depletion of forces and means of a blockable group of enemy armed forces

creating favorable conditions for its subsequent defeat

force the enemy to surrender

prohibition of the transfer of enemy forces to other directions.

The blockade can be complete or partial, carried out on a strategic and operational scale. A blockade carried out on a tactical scale is called a blockade. A strategic military blockade may be accompanied by an economic blockade.

Depending on the geographical location of the object of the blockade and the forces and means involved, the blockade can be land, air, sea or mixed.

The land blockade is carried out by the ground forces in cooperation with aviation and air defense forces. The land blockade was used already in the wars of the ancient world - for example, in the Trojan War. In the XVII-XIX centuries, it was often used to capture powerful fortresses.

An air blockade is usually part of a land and sea blockade, but if the decisive role is played by aviation, it is called an air blockade. An air blockade is carried out by aviation and air defense forces in order to prevent or minimize the external communications of the blocked object by air (in order to prevent the receipt of materiel and reinforcements, as well as evacuation by air) by destroying enemy aircraft both in the air and at landing airfields and takeoff. On coastal axes, an air blockade is usually combined with a sea blockade.

The naval blockade is carried out by the actions of the Navy - surface ships, submarines, aircraft carrier and base aviation - to patrol the approaches to the coast, install minefields in the areas of ports, naval bases, on sea (ocean) communications, launch rocket and bomb air and artillery strikes on important ground targets, as well as the destruction of all enemy ships at sea and at bases, and aviation - in the air and at airfields.

Diversion (from Latin diversio - deviation, diversion) - actions of sabotage groups (units) or individuals behind enemy lines to disable military, industrial and other facilities, disrupt command and control, destroy communications, nodes and communication lines, destroy manpower and military equipment, the impact on the moral and psychological state of the enemy.

Ambush - a hunting technique; the advance and carefully disguised location of a military unit (hunter or partisan) on the most probable enemy movement routes in order to defeat him with a surprise strike, capture prisoners and destroy military equipment; in the activities of law enforcement agencies - the secret placement of a capture group at the place of the alleged appearance of a criminal in order to detain him.

Counteroffensive - a kind of offensive - one of the main types of military operations (along with defense and oncoming combat). A distinctive feature from a simple offensive is that the side intending to launch a large-scale counterattack first exhausts the enemy as much as possible, knocking out the most combat-ready and mobile units from his ranks, while using all the advantages that a pre-prepared and targeted position gives.

In the course of an offensive, the troops, unexpectedly for the enemy, seize the initiative and impose their will on the enemy. The greatest consequences for the enemy come from the fact that, in contrast to the defense, where the rear units are pulled back from the front line, the advancing enemy pulls them as close as possible in order to be able to supply his advancing troops. When the enemy's onslaught is stopped and units of the defenders go over to the counteroffensive, the rear units of the attackers turn out to be defenseless and most often fall into the "cauldron".

A counterattack is a blow inflicted by troops of an operational formation (front, army, army corps) in a defensive operation to defeat an enemy grouping of troops that has broken through into the depths of the defense, restore the lost position and create favorable conditions for launching a counteroffensive.

It can be carried out in one or several directions by forces of the second echelons, operational reserves, part of the forces of the first echelon, as well as by troops withdrawn from secondary sectors of the front. It is supported by the main aviation forces and a specially created artillery group. On the direction of the counterattack, airborne assault forces can be landed and raid detachments can be used. As a rule, it is applied along the flanks of the wedged enemy grouping.

It can be carried out directly on the main forces of the advancing enemy to cut them and force them out of the occupied area. Under any conditions, the counterattack should, as far as possible, rely on those sectors of the front where the enemy was stopped or detained. If this is not possible, the beginning of the counterattack takes the form of an oncoming battle.

Offensive - the main type of military operations (along with defense and meeting combat), based on the attacking actions of the armed forces. It is used to defeat the enemy (destruction of manpower, military equipment, infrastructure facilities) and capture important areas, lines and objects on enemy territory.

Counteroffensive near Moscow, 1941

In accordance with the military doctrines of most states and military blocs, the offensive, as a type of military action, is given preference over defensive military actions.

The offensive consists in striking the enemy with various combat weapons on land, in the air and at sea, destroying the main groupings of his troops and resolutely using the success achieved by rapidly advancing his troops and enveloping the enemy. The scale of the offensive can be strategic, operational and tactical.

The offensive is carried out with full effort, at a high pace, non-stop day and night, in any weather, with close cooperation of all units

During the offensive, troops seize the initiative and impose their will on the enemy. The purpose of the offensive is to achieve a certain success, to consolidate which it is possible to go on the defensive or, alternatively, to attack in other sectors of the front.

Defense is a type of military action based on the defensive actions of the armed forces. It is used to frustrate or stop an enemy offensive, to hold important areas, lines and facilities on one's territory, to create conditions for going on the offensive, and for other purposes.

It consists in defeating the enemy with fire (in a nuclear war and nuclear) strikes, repelling his fire and nuclear strikes, offensive actions taken on land, in the air and at sea, countering enemy attempts to seize held lines, areas, objects, defeating his invading groupings of troops .

Defense can be of strategic, operational and tactical importance. The defense is organized in advance or is carried out as a result of the transition of enemy troops to the offensive. Usually, along with repulsing enemy strikes, defense also includes elements of offensive operations (delivering retaliatory, counter and preemptive fire strikes, conducting counterattacks and counterattacks, defeating an attacking enemy in areas of his base, deployment and at the starting lines), the proportion of which characterizes the level her activity.

In the ancient world and in the Middle Ages, fortified cities, fortresses, castles were used for defense. With the equipping of armies (from the 14th-15th centuries) with firearms, the construction of field defensive fortifications, mainly earthen ones, began, which were used to fire at the enemy and shelter from his cores and bullets. The appearance in the middle of the 19th century of rifled weapons, which had a greater rate of fire and range of fire, necessitated the improvement of defense methods. To increase its stability, the battle formations of the troops began to echelon in depth.

Siege - a prolonged military blockade of a city or fortress with the intention of capturing the object with a subsequent assault or forcing the garrison to capitulate as a result of the exhaustion of its forces. The siege begins if there is resistance from the city or fortress, if the surrender is rejected by the defenders and the city or fortress cannot be captured quickly. The besiegers usually completely blockade the object, disrupting the supply of ammunition, food, water and other resources. During a siege, attackers can use siege weapons and artillery to destroy fortifications and dig undermining to penetrate inside the object. The emergence of the siege as a method of warfare is associated with the development of cities. During excavations of ancient cities in the Middle East, signs of protective structures in the form of walls were found. During the Renaissance and the early modern period, the siege was the main mode of warfare in Europe. The glory of Leonardo da Vinci as the creator of fortifications is commensurate with his fame as an artist. Medieval military campaigns mostly relied on the success of sieges. In the Napoleonic era, the use of more powerful artillery weapons led to a decrease in the importance of fortifications. By the beginning of the 20th century, the fortress walls were replaced by ditches, and the fortress castles were replaced by bunkers. In the 20th century, the meaning of the classical siege almost disappeared. With the advent of mobile warfare, a single heavily fortified stronghold is no longer as decisive as it used to be. The siege method of warfare has exhausted itself with the advent of the possibility of delivering huge amounts of destructive weapons to a strategic target.

Retreat is the forced or deliberate abandonment by troops of the occupied lines (regions) and their withdrawal to new lines in the depths of their territory in order to create a new grouping of forces and means for conducting subsequent military operations. The retreat is carried out on an operational and strategic scale.

Troops were forced to resort to retreat in many wars of the past. Thus, in the Patriotic War of 1812, Russian troops under the command of M. I. Kutuzov deliberately retreated from Moscow in order to replenish the army and prepare a counteroffensive. In the same war, Napoleon's army was forced to retreat from Moscow to Smolensk, Vilna, in order to avoid defeat from the blows of Russian troops.

In the first period of the Great Patriotic War, Soviet troops, while conducting active defensive operations, were forced to retreat in order to withdraw units and formations from the blows of superior enemy forces and gain time to create a stable defense by the forces of strategic reserves and retreating troops. The retreat was carried out mainly in an organized manner, by order of the senior commander. To ensure the withdrawal of the main forces from the battle, the most threatening enemy groupings were usually attacked by aircraft and artillery, measures were taken to covertly withdraw the main forces to lines favorable for defensive operations, and counterattacks (counterattacks) were launched against the enemy groupings that had broken through. The retreat usually ended with the transition of troops to the defense at the indicated line.

11.5 Naval warfare

Prisoners of war

Prisoner of war - this is the name of a person taken during the war by the enemy with weapons in his hands. Under existing military laws, a prisoner of war who surrenders voluntarily to avoid danger does not deserve leniency. According to our military regulations on punishment, the head of the detachment, who laid down a weapon in front of the enemy or concluded capitulation with him, without fulfilling his duty on duty and in accordance with the requirements of military honor, is excluded from service with deprivation of rank; if the surrender is made without a fight, despite the possibility of defending himself, then he is subject to the death penalty. The same execution is subject to the commandant of a fortified place, who surrendered it without fulfilling his duty in accordance with the duty of the oath and in accordance with the requirements of military honor. The fate of V. at different times and in different countries was not the same. The barbarian peoples of antiquity and the Middle Ages often killed all captives without exception; the Greeks and Romans, although they did not do this, turned the captives into slavery and freed them only for a ransom corresponding to the title of the captive. With the spread of Christianity and enlightenment, V.'s fate also began to be eased. Officers are sometimes released on parole that they will not fight against the state they were in captivity during the war or for a certain time. Anyone who breaks his word is considered dishonorable and may be executed if he is recaptured. According to Austrian and Prussian laws, officers who escaped from captivity contrary to their word of honor are dismissed from service. Captured lower ranks are sometimes used for state work, which, however, should not be directed against their fatherland. V.'s property, excluding weapons, is considered inviolable. During the war, military equipment can be exchanged with the consent of the belligerents, and usually an equal number of people of the same rank are exchanged. At the end of the war, V. are released to their homeland without any ransom for them.

The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation include the ground forces, the air force, the navy, as well as such separate types of troops as space and airborne troops and the Strategic Missile Forces. The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation are one of the most powerful in the world, numbering more than a million people, they are distinguished by the presence of the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world and a well-developed system of means of delivering them to targets.

The Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation is the President of the Russian Federation (Part 1, Article 87 of the Constitution of Russia).

In the event of aggression against the Russian Federation or an immediate threat of aggression, he introduces martial law on the territory of the Russian Federation or in certain areas of it, in order to create conditions for repelling or preventing it, with an immediate report on this to the Federation Council and the State Duma for approval of the relevant decree (regime martial law is determined by the federal constitutional law of January 30, 2002 No. 1-FKZ "On martial law"). To resolve the issue of the possibility of using the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation outside the territory of the Russian Federation, an appropriate resolution of the Federation Council is required.

The President of Russia also forms and heads the Security Council of the Russian Federation (clause “g” of Article 83 of the Constitution); approves the military doctrine of the Russian Federation (clause “h” of article 83); appoints and dismisses the high command of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (paragraph “l” of article 83).

The direct command of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (except for the civil defense troops, border and internal troops) is carried out by the Ministry of Defense of Russia.

History of the Russian army

Army of Ancient Russia

Army of Moscow Russia

Army of the Russian Empire

white army

Armed forces of the USSR

History of the Red Army

Armed forces of the Russian Federation

Armed Forces of Belarus

Armed forces of Ukraine

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had the Armed Forces common to all republics (including the RSFSR), in contrast to the departments of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation were organized on May 7, 1992 by decree of the President of the Russian Federation B.N. Yeltsin as the successor to the Soviet Army and Navy. December 15, 1993 adopted the Charter of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.

The peacekeeping forces of the Russian Army took part in containing a number of armed conflicts on the territory of the former USSR: the Moldovan-Pridnestrovian conflict, the Georgian-Abkhaz and Georgian-South Ossetian.

The 201st motorized rifle division was left in Tajikistan in the conditions of the beginning of the civil war of 1992-1996.

The question of the neutrality of Russia's role in these conflicts is debatable; in particular, Russia is reproached for actually taking the side of Armenia in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. Supporters of this view prevail in Western countries, which are increasing pressure on Russia to withdraw troops from Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Proponents of the opposite point of view point out that Western countries are thus pursuing their national interests, fighting the growth of Russian influence in Armenia, Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, in which pro-Russian sentiment has won.

The Russian army took part in two Chechen wars - 1994-96 ("restoration of constitutional order") and 1999 - in fact until 2006 ("counter-terrorist operation") - and in the war in South Ossetia in August 2008 ("Operation to enforce peace") .

Structure of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation

Air Force

Ground troops

Navy

Types of troops of the Armed Forces

space troops

Airborne Troops

The Armed Forces consist of three branches of the Armed Forces, three branches of service, Logistics of the Armed Forces, the Quartering and Arrangement Service of the Ministry of Defense, railway troops and other troops not included in the branches of the Armed Forces.

According to press reports, the concept documents for long-term planning, which are being developed in the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, provide for the solution of a number of fundamental tasks in the field of defense and military construction:

Preservation of the potential of strategic deterrence forces, capable of inflicting damage in response, the extent of which would cast doubt on the achievement of the goal of any possible aggression against Russia. Ways to solve the problem - balanced development and maintenance at a sufficient level of the combat strength of the strategic nuclear forces and missile and space defense forces. By 2010, Russia will have two missile armies in the Strategic Missile Forces with 10-12 missile divisions (as of 2004 - three armies and 17 divisions), armed with mobile and silo missile systems. At the same time, heavy 15A18 missiles equipped with ten warheads will remain on combat duty until 2016. The Navy should have 13 strategic nuclear missile submarines with 208 ballistic missiles, and the Air Force - 75 Tu-160 and Tu-95MS strategic bombers;

Increasing the capabilities of the Armed Forces to a level that ensures a guaranteed repulse of modern and possible future military threats to Russia. To this end, in five potentially dangerous strategic directions (Western, Southwestern, Central Asian, Southeastern and Far Eastern), self-sufficient groupings of troops and forces will be created, designed to neutralize and localize armed conflicts;

Improving the structure of military command. Starting from 2005, the General Staff will be transferred to the functions of the combat use of troops and forces. The main commands of the branches and the command of the branches of the armed forces will be responsible only for the training of their troops, their development and comprehensive support;

Ensuring the independence of Russia in terms of the development and production of weapons and military equipment of strategic importance.

In 2006, the State Armaments Development Program for 2007-2015 was approved.

Sources

glossary.ru - Service of thematic explanatory dictionaries Glossary

krugosvet.ru - online encyclopedia Around the World

wikipedia - the free encyclopedia of Wikipedia

falange.ru - Great historical battles and wars

The whole history of mankind is riddled with wars and conflicts. And even today you can often hear about such things in the news. So what is war? It is necessary to initially give a brief general definition of this term.

What are armed actions, struggle and manifestation of aggression between peoples, states, tribes, cities (any large organized group of people). In this countermeasures, the means of both physical and ideological and economic influence are used.

What is war? It is necessarily a struggle between organized social groups. The confrontation between organizations within the country for and economic dominance using forceful methods and on a countrywide scale is called the War for state power is called a revolution.

What is war in terms of history? Over the past five and a half thousand years, according to the calculations of historians, there have been about fourteen and a half thousand wars. This includes large and small conflicts, including two world wars. More than three and a half billion people died during these confrontations.

In the modern world, in connection with the end of the so-called "cold war" between the Soviet Union and which took place in the second half of the last century, the probability and danger of using nuclear weapons in armed conflicts has significantly decreased. As you know, such weapons have a huge destructive power.

What is war today? Even in the twenty-first century, local conflicts continue. Basically, they are connected with territorial, religious, national disagreements, separatist movements, tribal strife and other things (in history this is called "the essence of war"). Societies such as the International Community strive to create systems of interstate relations that would eliminate the threat of force.

What is war in symbolism? It is a symbol of reunion and separation, establishing order and eliminating disorder. In religion, it is a symbol of the eternal confrontation between evil and good forces, a symbol of the conflict between Light and Darkness. However, the war in mysticism and esotericism is more of a spiritual battle to achieve unity.

What is war in art and science? This process can be viewed as an act of violence, which aims to force the opponent (opponent, oppositionist) to carry out the will imposed by force. To oppose this act of aggression, the inventions of the sciences and arts are used. Thus, war (like any physical or moral violence) is only a means. But the goal can be called precisely the imposition of one's own will on the enemy.

The purpose of military operations is to destroy the enemy, disarm him, deprive him of the ability to resist. War occurs mainly due to two different factors: hostile intent and feeling. However, the decisive, final act of war cannot be viewed as something absolute, since the defeated country sees in it only an evil that can be completely eliminated in the future (this is called "extended time of war").

Today, probably, every Ukrainian is familiar with such terms as “ATO”, “war in Donbass”, “martial law”. In order to be convinced of this, you can simply turn on the news bulletin of any media or look at some photos of the ATO in Ukraine. But, despite numerous disputes, few are guided in this subject. In this article you will find the answer to the question: "What is ATO in Ukraine?" - as well as an analysis of important aspects of this problem. The events of the last year in Ukraine have caused a huge public outcry and require a meaningful assessment. The article will contain several photos of the ATO in Ukraine.

The first mention of the term ATO

As you know, after the turbulent events of Euromaidan and the coup d'état in Kyiv, mass rallies and demonstrations in the southeastern part of the country, which were accompanied by the seizure of government institutions, completely changed. What is the ATO, in Ukraine they learned after the statement of the deputy of the Supreme Council Gennady Moskal that the former head of the SBU planned the ATO to clean up the Maidan. Now this word has a completely different meaning for Ukrainians and is associated with trouble. This was especially felt by the inhabitants of the eastern regions.

Concept definition

If we talk about a clear and precise definition of the word "ATO", then this is an abbreviation that stands for "anti-terrorist operation." This abbreviation refers to a set of measures and methods aimed at preventing or suppressing terrorist acts or crimes that are committed with terrorist intent.

In Ukrainian legislation, there is a corresponding law, which is called "On the fight against terrorism". On the basis of this law, the country's parliament decided to conduct the ATO in the east of Ukraine. But many experts criticized this decision, citing the fact that it is still necessary to prove who the terrorists are in this situation and on what basis the anti-terrorist operation will be carried out. It should be noted that at that time (March-April 2014) there were many disputes about the legitimacy of the Kiev authorities.

Conditions for conducting an anti-terrorist operation

Speaking from the point of view of legislation, the ATO is carried out in order to save the lives of ordinary civilians from the criminal activities of terrorists. The aforementioned law clearly spells out all the conditions for conducting an anti-terrorist operation. Among them is the presence of a real immediate threat to the health and life of people, the interests of the whole society or country.

The Ukrainian authorities saw anti-government rallies and demonstrations in the south-east of the state as a threat to the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Separatist slogans in the east were indeed present, but they were proclaimed by the citizens of the country who gathered at the rallies, who thus expressed their political position. Therefore, it is rather difficult to judge how justified the actions of the authorities are.

Agencies involved in ATO

Again, from the point of view of the law, the anti-terrorist operation should be carried out by special forces to combat terrorism. In this case, however, despite all the norms of the law, employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the border service, the Ministry of Defense and the regular Ukrainian army were involved in the anti-terrorist operation in the East of Ukraine. Separately, we can talk about volunteers (a phenomenon out of the ordinary when conducting an anti-terrorist operation). These include the National Guard of Ukraine, as well as a huge number of volunteer battalions. Among the main and more famous are: Aidar, Dnepr-1, Azov, Donbass and many others.

At the beginning of the campaign, the chief policeman of Ukraine, the Minister of Internal Affairs, led the anti-terrorist operation. This also raises doubts about the justification of the ATO, since special services should lead such operations. What is ATO in Ukraine? Is it a police action?

The powers of the military in the ATO zone are very significant. During the anti-terrorist operation, the security forces are allowed almost everything. From the usual checking of documents of suspicious citizens to detention and even murder. During the operation, the military can enter private buildings and territories. Use people's personal funds to prevent terrorist attacks.

The territory of the anti-terrorist operation

Also, a rather interesting point in the conduct of the ATO is the fact that such operations are local in nature, which means that the ATO cannot be carried out in such a large region as the East of Ukraine. Such operations are carried out to free hostages from a building occupied by terrorists, a water area, a vehicle, a piece of land, or, at most, to clear a city district from criminals.

Many cities of Ukraine fell under the anti-terrorist operation. In the ATO zone at the moment there are: Donetsk, Luhansk, Alchevsk, Gorlovka, Avdeevka, Artemovsk, Happiness, Anthracite and many others.

The beginning of the armed conflict in Ukraine

As mentioned earlier, the events of the antiterrorist operation in Ukraine were associated with protests and demonstrations in the east of the country. 2014 in Donetsk and Kharkiv proclaimed the People's Republics and announced their intention to hold a nationwide referendum on the self-determination of the regions. The beginning of the ATO in Ukraine is directly related to the statement of the President of the country Oleksandr Turchynov. He announced the start of an anti-terrorist operation with the participation of the Ukrainian army almost immediately moved to the Donbass. The first blood was shed in Slavyansk: the commander of the Alpha special unit, Gennady Bilichenko, was killed.

It should be noted that the state contributed in every possible way to attracting volunteers. In the media, everyone who went to fight in the Donbass began to be called "heroes of Ukraine." The ATO was gaining momentum, armed units began to form on both sides, the conflict entered its most acute phase.

The acute phase of the antiterrorist operation

The period of spring and summer of 2014 in Donbass is very eventful. Therefore, the most important of them should be considered. To better understand the situation. The first and very bloody confrontations were in Slavyansk, Mariupol. The Ukrainian army pushed back the militia forces in these regions. Long and no less bloody were the battles for the Donetsk airport, which eventually passed into the hands of the militia. Since June 2014, supporters of the DPR and LPR have been pressed on all fronts, trying to cut off the republics from the border with Russia, as well as to divide them themselves.

Very important and bloody battles began in August. The people's republics were on the verge of defeat, but, having successfully defended their positions on Saur-Mogila, as well as in the battles near Ilovaisk, having surrounded and actually destroyed a large grouping of troops of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, they launched a counteroffensive and, capturing vast territories, reached the Sea of ​​Azov. Losses of Ukraine in the ATO after went to the thousands. This forced the leadership of the state to enter into peace negotiations.

Peace process and conflict escalation in winter 2015

After a series of agreements (Minsk agreements of September 5, 2014), there was a slight lull. But the shelling of the peaceful cities of Donbass did not stop. This led to renewed conflict in the winter of 2015. As a result of long and difficult battles near Debaltseve, the city was taken by the militia. The Ukrainian army was again in the cauldron and suffered horrendous losses. The authorities of Ukraine and the People's Republics, with the assistance of the presidents of Germany, France and Russia, again concluded a truce on February 12, 2015 in the city of Minsk. The peace agreement is not respected, but there are no significant military clashes yet. It is very difficult to talk about the future of the conflict.

Losses of Ukraine in the ATO

It is quite difficult to calculate the exact number of losses of the Ukrainian side due to the fact that it consists of a large number of armed formations that do not depend on each other, and some even on the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. According to the current president of the country, Petro Poroshenko, the losses of the Ukrainian army as of the beginning of May 2015 amount to 1,549 people killed. But the figure looks clearly implausible. Therefore, one should resort to the reports of international organizations on this issue. According to the UN, the losses of the Ukrainian side are more than 4,500 people killed and about 10,000 wounded. Regarding military equipment, about 1000 units were destroyed. Many participants in the ATO should receive appropriate social security. Benefits to the participants of the ATO Ukraine, represented by almost all politicians, has repeatedly promised. Judging by the losses, we can say that the conflict is really significant and deep.

Such a detailed answer can be given to the question: “What is ATO in Ukraine?”. This armed conflict divided the Ukrainian society after the revolutionary events in February 2014 in Kyiv. Significant losses of the parties, a massive flow of refugees indicate that Kyiv's policy is not as justified as it seems to many Ukrainians. Any government must understand that it is not personal interests, not the territorial integrity of the state that have value, but first of all - human life.