Causes of the war In 2010, Libya's GDP growth was 4.2% per year, which, given the global economic crisis, is a fairly high figure. GDP per capita ($14.2 thousand in 2010) was the highest in North Africa. Approximately half of oil revenues

Definition

Wars in human history

Causes military operations and their classifications

Historical types hostilities

Theories of the origin of hostilities

Behavioral theories

Evolutionary psychology

Sociological theories

Demographic theories

Rationalist theories

Economic theories

Marxist theory

The theory of the emergence of military actions in political science

Objectivism position

Goals of the parties in the war

Consequences of the war

History of the Cold War

War time

Declaration of war

Martial law

Fighting

Prisoners of war

Armed forces

War is- a conflict between political entities (states, tribes, political groups, etc.), occurring in the form of wars 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 whose purpose is to achieve political goals.

Total war is armed violence taken to extreme limits. The main weapon in war is the army.

War is an armed struggle between large groups (communities) of people ( states, tribes, parties); governed by laws and customs - a set of principles and norms of international law that establish the responsibilities of the warring parties (ensuring the protection of the civilian population, regulating the treatment of prisoners of war, prohibiting the use of particularly inhumane weapons).

Wars are an integral part of human life. The evolution of warfare is the result of technological and demographic changes. It is one in which long periods of strategic and technical stability are followed by sudden changes. The characteristics of military operations 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 military operations that the shape of the modern world was determined, knowledge about military operations was and remains insufficient to ensure the security interests of mankind. As noted by Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences A.A. Kokoshin, “at present, the degree of study of military operations - a special state of society - is not adequate to the role of this political and social phenomenon in the modern world system politicians, and in the lives of individuals 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 is a tendency for states to lose their monopoly on solving problems of war and peace. Already in 1977, Additional Protocol II to the 1949 Geneva Convention, regulating the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts, imposed the obligations previously developed for states on non-state actors (armed rebel forces under organized command and controlling part of the national territory). In light of this trend, war can be defined as organized armed violence used by actors in international relations to achieve political goals.

A current area of ​​military-political research has been the development of concepts of military operations without wars (“non-military military operations”). Threats posed by international terrorism, organized crime, weak states, trafficking in people and dangerous substances, environmental disasters, disease and uncontrolled migration cannot be separated from hostilities and military conflicts. It is no coincidence that the discussions of the late 1990s of the twentieth century. about the emergence of “new hostilities” coincided with a discussion of “new security threats” - threats or risks that are supranational or non-military in nature. Today, the view that modern war is a “continuation of politicians by violent methods in which armed struggle is not the only and primary means.” 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.

1) warring parties that have a fairly defined status in the system of international relations and participate in wars;

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

1. Increasing hostilities. Frequency of hostilities in the 20th century. fluctuated, but overall exceeded the average frequency of military operations for the entire known history of mankind by approximately 1.5 times. There was fighting in more than 60 of the 200 UN member countries. In the 2,340 weeks between 1945 and 1990, there was only three weeks without a single war on earth. In the 90s of the twentieth century, more than 100 military actions 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. Change in the scale of military operations. If until the middle of the twentieth century. Wars became increasingly larger, then from the second half of the twentieth century. a reverse trend has emerged - a decrease in the number of large and an increase in the number of small and medium-sized combat operations. At the same time, the previous trend of increasing destructiveness and destructiveness of military operations has been preserved. As noted by Russian researcher V.V. Serebryannikov, “medium and small wars are collectively used by subjects of international relations to achieve political goals.

A current area of ​​military-political research has been the development of concepts of combat operations without wars (“non-military military actions”). Threats posed by international terrorism, organized crime, weak states, smuggling trade people and hazardous substances, environmental disasters, diseases and uncontrolled migration, cannot be separated from hostilities and military conflicts. It is no coincidence that the discussions of the late 1990s of the twentieth century. about the emergence of “new military actions” coincided with a discussion of “new security threats” - threats or risks that are supranational or non-military in nature. Today, the view that modern war is “the continuation of politics by violent methods, in which armed struggle is not the only and main means,” is becoming increasingly 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 previous features and acquiring new features. Back in the 20th century, the necessary signs of war were:

1) warring parties that have a fairly defined status in the system of international relations and participate in military operations;

2) a clear subject of dispute between opponents;

3) clear spatial parameters of the 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 A number of trends can be identified regarding the hostilities that have taken place since the beginning of the twentieth century.

1. Increased frequency of hostilities. Frequency of military operations in the 20th century. fluctuated, but overall exceeded the average frequency of hostilities for the entire known history of mankind by approximately 1.5 times. There was fighting in more than 60 of the 200 UN member countries. In the 2,340 weeks between 1945 and 1990, there was only three weeks without a single war on earth. In the 90s of the twentieth century, more than 100 military actions 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. Change in the scale of hostilities. If until the middle of the twentieth century. Wars became increasingly larger, then from the second half of the twentieth century. a reverse trend has emerged - a decrease in the number of large and an increase in the number of small and medium-sized military actions. At the same time, the previous trend of increasing destructiveness and destructiveness of military operations has been preserved. As noted by Russian researcher V.V. Serebryannikov, “medium and small wars in the aggregate seem to replace a big war, extending its grave consequences in time and space.” Data Armed conflicts that have occurred since the Second World War indicate that there are more and more clashes that do not reach the threshold of a “real” war.

3. Changing methods of warfare. Due to the inadmissibility of full-scale use of weapons of mass destruction, the actual armed struggle in modern military operations 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 military operations has become the tactic of “building bridges” between the military and the enemy population.

4. Changing the structure of military losses. The civilian population of the warring parties is increasingly becoming the target of armed influence, which leads to an increase in the proportion of casualties among the civilian population. During the First World War, civilian losses amounted to 5% of the total number of casualties, in the Second World War 48%, during the Korean War - 84, in Vietnam and Iraq - more than 90%.

5. Expanding the scope of participation in hostilities by non-state actors of regular armies, possessing the most advanced technical means, are underground informal armed groups.

6. Expanding the set of grounds for initiating hostilities. If the first half of the twentieth century was period struggle for world domination, then today the reasons for the outbreak of hostilities 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 World War II were nothing more than a manifestation of the confrontation between the superpowers of the USSR and the USA, which, being the owners of nuclear weapons, could not afford to engage in open armed struggle. Another characteristic cause of hostilities and military conflicts in the 60s of the twentieth century. became the national self-determination of the peoples of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Wars of national liberation often turned out to be proxy battles, in which one or another superpower tried to use local armed groups to expand and strengthen its sphere of influence. In the 90s of the twentieth century. New causes of armed conflict have emerged: interethnic relations (for example, in the former Soviet republics, the Balkans and Rwanda), the weakness of states, competition for natural resources. Thus, along with disputes about statehood, disputes around governance within states have become established as a significant cause of conflict. In addition, religious reasons for armed conflicts have emerged.

7. Blurring the line between war and peace. In countries experiencing political instability, such as Lebanon and Afghanistan, troops used weapons and entered populated areas 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 nature of military action, but is carried out by law enforcement forces or with their participation.

Militarism and belligerence often accompanied periods the most intensive development of peoples and served as a means of self-affirmation for 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 political systems reaching the company level, which requires sustainable development, war as a means of resolving economic, social, ideological, and environmental contradictions is becoming more and more “archaic.” However, the expansion of the circle of participants in international relations, the incompleteness process the formation of a post-bipolar system of international relations, as well as a revolution in military affairs, making 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 an invariable 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 military operations in which more than 3.5 billion people died.

According to an extremely widespread belief in antiquity, the Middle Ages and Modern Times (J.-J. Rousseau), primitive times were the only peaceful period of history, and primitive man (an uncivilized savage) was a creature devoid of any belligerence or aggressiveness. However, the latest archaeological studies of prehistoric sites in Europe, North America and North Africa indicate that armed conflicts (apparently 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, violent seizure of property and women are the harsh reality of their lives (Zulus, Dahomeans, 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 war.

The birth of war in the primitive era was associated with the emergence of new types of weapons (bow, sling), which for the first time made it possible to fight at a distance; from now on, the physical strength of those fighting was no longer of exceptional importance; dexterity and dexterity began to play a large role. The beginnings of a battle technique (flanking) emerged. The war was highly ritualized (numerous taboos and prohibitions), which limited its duration and losses.

A significant factor in the evolution of warfare was the domestication of animals: the use of horses gave nomads an advantage over sedentary tribes. The need for protection from their sudden attacks led to the emergence of fortifications; the first known fact is the fortress walls of Jericho (about 8 thousand BC). The number of participants gradually increased, but there is no consensus among scientists about the size of prehistoric “armies”: figures vary from a dozen to several hundred warriors.

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

increase the size of armies and improve their fighting qualities;

much more time was devoted to training soldiers;

The first professional military units appeared.

If the armies of the Sumerian city-states were small peasant militias, then the later ancient Eastern monarchies (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 acting on the battlefield as a chaotic crowd, it later turned into an extremely organized combat unit (Macedonian phalanx, Roman legion). At different periods, other “arms of arms” also gained importance, such as war chariots, which played a significant role in the conquests of the Assyrians. The importance of military fleets also increased, especially among the Phoenicians, Greeks and Carthaginians; The first known naval battle took place around 1210 BC. between the Hittites and the Cypriots. The function of 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. ensured the victories of the Egyptian army of the New Kingdom era, and contributed to the creation of the first ancient Eastern empire - the New Assyrian state. In addition to the bow, arrows and spear, the sword, axe, 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 significant proportions, drawing a large number of states into their orbit (wars of the Diadochi, etc.). The largest armed conflicts of antiquity were the wars of the New 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, infantry lost its primacy to cavalry, which was facilitated by stirrups (8th century). A heavily armed knight became the central figure on the battlefield. The scale of war was reduced in comparison with the ancient era: it turned into an expensive and elitist occupation, into the prerogative of the ruling class and acquired a professional character (the future knight underwent long training). Small detachments (from several dozen to several hundred knights with squires) took part in the battles; only at the end of the classical Middle Ages (14-15 centuries), with the emergence of centralized states, the number of armies increased; The importance of infantry increased again (it was the archers who ensured the success of the British in the Hundred Years War). Combat operations at sea were of a secondary nature. But the role of castles has increased unusually; the siege became the main element of the war. The most large-scale military actions of this period were the Reconquista (718-1492), the Crusades and the Hundred Years' War (1337-1453).

A turning point in military history was the spread from the mid-15th century. V Europe gunpowder and firearms (arquebuses, cannons); the first time they were used was the Battle of Agincourt (1415). From now on, the level of military equipment and, accordingly, the military industry became an absolute determinant of the outcome of the war. In the late Middle Ages (16th - first half of the 17th century), the technological advantage of Europeans allowed them to expand beyond 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 drove out advantage Valeria (see the role of the Spanish infantry in military operations of the 16th century). The largest armed conflicts of the 16th-17th centuries. there were the Italian Wars (1494-1559) and the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648).

In the centuries that followed, the nature of war underwent rapid and fundamental changes. Military technology progressed unusually quickly (from the musket of the 17th century to nuclear submarines and supersonic fighters of the early 21st century). New types of weapons (missile systems, etc.) have strengthened the remote nature of military confrontation. The war became more and more widespread: the institution of conscription and the one that replaced it in the 19th century. the institution of universal conscription made armies truly national (more than 70 million people took part 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 child labor in military enterprises in the USSR and 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 centuries. - 5.7 million, then in the 1st World War - more than 9 million, and in the 2nd World War - over 50 million. The wars were accompanied by the grandiose destruction of material wealth and cultural values.

By the end of the 20th century. The dominant form of armed conflicts has become “asymmetrical wars”, characterized by a sharp inequality of capabilities of the warring parties. In the nuclear age, such wars are fraught with great danger, since they encourage the weaker side to violate all established laws wars and resort to various forms of intimidation tactics up to and including large-scale terrorist attacks (the tragedy of September 11, 2001 in New York).

The changing nature of war and the intense arms race gave rise in the first half of the 20th century. a powerful anti-war tendency (J. Jaurès, A. Barbusse, M. Gandhi, projects for 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 UN began to play a leading role in preserving peace, declaring its task “to save future generations from the scourge of war”; in 1974 the UN General Assembly qualified military aggression as an international crime. The basic laws of some countries included articles on unconditional renunciation of war () or a ban on the creation of an army (Costa Rica).

Causes of hostilities and their classifications

The main reason for the outbreak of hostilities 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, the perception of someone else as incomprehensible, incomprehensible, and therefore dangerous and hostile), became an important tool for mobilizing the population for war. worldview. On its basis, national, religious or social enmity is easily incited, and therefore, since the 2nd half of the 19th century, xenophobia has been the main tool for inciting hostilities, the direction of 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 was 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 military actions include liberation actions - 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.

Unjust - aggressive or unlawful (aggression, colonial wars). In international law, aggressive war is classified as an international crime. In the 1990s, such a concept as a humanitarian war appeared, which is formally aggression in the name of higher goals: preventing ethnic cleansing or humanitarian assistance to civilians.

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

The division of combat operations into “external warfare” and “internal warfare” is also important.

Air war

Naval warfare

Local war

Nuclear war

Colonial War

Information war

The classification of military actions is based on a variety of criteria. Based on their goals, they are divided into predatory (Pecheneg and Cuman raids on Mother Rus' in the 9th - early 13th centuries), conquest (wars of Cyrus II 550-529 BC), colonial (Franco-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 of 1812), revolutionary (wars France with the European coalition 1792-1795).

Based on the scope of wars and the number of forces and means involved, wars are divided into local (conducted in a limited area and by small forces) and large-scale. The first include, for example, wars between ancient Greek policies; to the second - the campaigns of Alexander the Great, the Napoleonic Wars, etc.

Based on the nature of the warring parties, civil and external wars are distinguished. The first, in turn, are divided into apex ones, waged by factions within the elite (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 (Great Peasant War in Republic of Germany 1524-1525), townspeople/bourgeoisie (class struggle in Britain 1639-1652), social lower classes in general ( class struggle V Russian Federation 1918-1922). External wars are divided into wars between states (Anglo-Dutch wars of the 17th century), between states and tribes (Caesar's Gallic Wars 58-51 BC), between coalitions of states (Seven Years' War 1756-1763), between metropolises and colonies (Indochina War 1945-1954), world wars (1914-1918 and 1939-1945).

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

The moral criterion - just and unjust wars - is also taken as a classification principle. A “just war” refers to a war waged to protect order and law and, ultimately, peace. Its essential conditions are that it must have a just cause; it should only be started when all peaceful means have been exhausted; it should not go beyond achieving the main task; The civilian population should not suffer from it. The idea of ​​a “just war,” dating back to the Old Testament, ancient philosophy and St. Augustine, received theoretical formalization in the 12th and 13th centuries. in the works 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 again gained relevance in the 20th century, especially in connection with the advent of weapons of mass destruction and the problem of “humanitarian military actions” designed to stop genocide in a particular country.

height="261" src="/pictures/investments/img783285_3-3_Grazhdanskaya_voyna_1917-1920.jpg" title="3.3 Civil War 1917-1920" width="572"> !}

Historical types of warfare

Wars of the Ancient World

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

Conquest 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, the Punic Wars, the Greco-Persian Wars);

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

slave revolts (for example, the slave revolt in Rome led by Spartacus);

popular uprisings of peasants and artisans (the “Red Brows” uprising in China).

Wars of the Middle Ages

Religious wars: Crusades, Jihad;

Dynastic wars (for example, the War of the Scarlet and White Roses in Great Britain);

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

Peasant wars-revolts against the state authorities(for example, Jacquerie in France, Peasants' War Federal Republic of Germany(Bauernkrieg)).

Wars of New and Contemporary Times

Asia, Africa, America, Oceania (for example, Opium Wars);

Wars of conquest of states and coalitions of states for hegemony (for example, the Northern War, the Mexican-American War, the Korean War, the Ethiopian-Eritrean War), wars for world power(Seven Years' War, Napoleonic Wars, World War I and World War II);

Civil wars accompanying the development of socialist and bourgeois-democratic revolutions. Civil wars often merge with fighting against external intervention (class struggle 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 Portuguese colonial war, etc.);

Revolutions often end in military action, or to some extent are them [In war, there are no winners - only losers.]

Post-industrial wars

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

Urban guerrilla

Humanitarian War (Kosovo War)

Counter-terrorism operation

Inter-ethnic conflict (eg Bosnian War, Karabakh War)

The main types of military actions of a slave society were:

Wars of slave 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 states themselves with the aim of seizing territories and robbing conquered countries (for example, the Punic Wars of Rome against Carthage in the 3rd-2nd centuries BC, etc.); wars between different 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 slave uprising 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 and etc.).

The main types of warfare in feudal society were:

Wars between feudal states (for example, the Hundred Years' War between Britain and France 1337-1453); internecine feudal wars for the expansion of possessions (for example, the War of the Roses in Britain in 1455-85); wars for the creation of centralized feudal states (for example, the war for merger of enterprises 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 and uprisings against the feudal lords (for example, the peasant uprising led by I. I. Bolotnikov in 1606-07 Russian Federation); uprisings of the urban population against feudal exploitation (for example, the Parisian uprising of 1356-58).

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

Colonial wars of capitalist countries for the enslavement of peoples 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, wars for merger of enterprises Italy in 1859-70); liberation wars of the peoples of 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 of enterprises outgrows national boundaries and turns into a struggle between the main imperialist powers for the violent redivision of an already divided world. The intensification of the struggle of the imperialists is expanding their military clashes to the scale of world military operations.

The main types of military operations 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 (class struggle in the USSR 1918–20). The main types of military actions of the era of imperialism also included national liberation wars of oppressed peoples (for example, popular uprisings in Cuba in 1906, in China in 1906-11).

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

Wars between states with opposing social systems, civil wars, national liberation wars, wars between capitalist states. The 2nd World War of 1939–45, due to its complex and contradictory nature, occupies a special place among the military actions of the modern era.

Wars between states with opposing social systems are generated 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 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (CCCP) of 1941-45 against the fascist forces that attacked the USSR Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) and its allies).

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

National liberation wars are the struggle 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 war of the Algerian people against the French colonialists in 1954-62; the struggle of the peoples of Egypt against the Anglo-French Israeli aggression in 1956; the struggle of the peoples of South Vietnam against the American invaders, which began in 1964, etc.). In modern conditions, the national liberation struggle for winning national independence is closely intertwined with the social struggle for the democratic reorganization of public life.

Wars between capitalist states are generated by the exacerbation of contradictions between them in the struggle for world domination (1st and 2nd world wars). The 2nd World War was generated by the exacerbation of imperialist contradictions between the bloc of fascist states led by the fascist Republic of Germany and the Anglo-French bloc and began as unjust and aggressive, especially on the part of the Republic of Germany and its allies. However, Hitler's aggression posed the greatest threat to humanity; the Nazi occupation of many countries doomed their people to extermination. Therefore, the fight against fascism became a national task for all freedom-loving peoples, which led to a change in the political content of the war, which acquired a liberation, anti-fascist character. The attack of the fascist Federal Republic of Germany on the USSR ended process this transformation. The USSR was the main force of the anti-Hitler coalition (USSR, USA, Great Britain, ) in the 2nd World War, which led to victory over the fascist bloc. The Soviet Armed Forces made a major contribution to saving the peoples of the world from the threat of enslavement by fascist invaders.

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

Theories of the origin of hostilities

At all times, people have tried to comprehend the phenomenon of war, identify its nature, give it a moral assessment, develop methods for its most effective use (the theory of military art) and find ways to limit or even eradicate it. The most controversial question has been and continues to be about the causes of hostilities: why do they happen if the majority of people do not want them? A wide variety of answers are given to this question.

Theological interpretation, which has Old Testament roots, is based on the understanding of war as an arena for the implementation of the will of God (gods). Its adherents see in war 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 specific historical approach, dating back to antiquity (Herodotus), connects the origin of military actions solely with their local historical context and excludes the search for any universal causes. At the same time, the role of political leaders and the rational decisions they make is inevitably emphasized. 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 prevailing belief (Thucydides) was 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 S. Freud when creating the theory of psychoanalysis: he argued that a person could not exist if his inherent need for self-destruction (death instinct) was not directed towards external objects, including other individuals, other ethnic groups , other religious groups. Followers of S. Freud (L.L. Bernard) viewed 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) have reworked the Freudian theory of sublimation in a gender sense: the tendency to aggression and violence is a property of male nature; suppressed in peaceful conditions, it finds the necessary outlet on the battlefield. Their hope for ridding humanity of war is associated with the transfer of control levers into the hands of women and with the establishment 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 the mania of war (Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini); they believe that for the advent of an era of universal peace, an effective system of civil control is sufficient to deny access to power to 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 rivalry males and their struggle for possession of a certain territory. They emphasize, however, that although war had a natural origin, technological progress has increased its destructive nature and brought it to a level unthinkable 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 upbringing, 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, since 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.” Its many adherents, starting with L. Ranke, derive the origin of military actions from international disputes and the diplomatic game.

An offshoot of the political science school is the geopolitical direction, whose representatives see the main reason for hostilities 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.). ).

Going back to the English economist T.R. Malthus (1766-1834), demographic theory considers war as a 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 (U. 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 popular when interpreting the phenomenon of war. In contrast to the followers of K. Clausewitz, his supporters (E. Kehr, H.-U. Wehler, etc.) consider war to be a product of the internal social conditions and social structure of the warring countries. Many sociologists are trying to develop a universal typology of military actions, formalize them taking into account all the factors influencing them (economic, demographic, etc.), and model fail-safe mechanisms for their prevention. The sociostatistical analysis of combat operations, proposed back in the 1920s, is actively used. L.F.Richardson; Currently, numerous predictive models of armed conflicts have been created (P. Breke, participants in the “Military Project”, Uppsala Research Group).

Information theory, popular among specialists in international relations (D. Blaney and others), explains the occurrence of hostilities 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 is always the one that inadequately assesses its capabilities and the capabilities of the other side - otherwise it would either refuse 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 intelligence) becomes crucial.

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

Supporters of the economic interpretation consider war to be a consequence rivalry 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 left-wing scientists. They argue that the war serves the interests of the propertied strata, and all its hardships fall on the share 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 class war. From the point of view of Marxism, wars are fought to strengthen the power of the ruling classes and to split the world proletariat through appeals to religious or nationalist ideals. Marxists argue that wars are the inevitable result of free market and systems of class inequality and that they will disappear into oblivion after the world revolution.

Behavioral theories

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

Italian psychoanalyst Franco Fornari, a follower of Melanie Klein, suggested that war is a paranoid or projective form of melancholy. Fornari argued that war and violence develop from our “need for love”: our desire to preserve and protect the sacred object to which we are attached, namely the mother and our connection with her. For adults, such a sacred object is the nation. 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 can 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 combat as such. If the inner psychology of the human mind is unchanged, then such cultures should not exist. Some militarists, such as Franz Alexander, argue that the state of the world is an illusion. Periods commonly called "peaceful" are actually periods of preparation for a future war or a situation where warlike instincts are suppressed by a stronger state, such as the Pax Britannica.

These theories are supposedly based on the will of the overwhelming majority of the population. However, they do not take into account the fact that only a small number of military actions in history were truly the result of the will of the people. Much more often, people are forced into war by their rulers. One of the theories that puts political and military leaders at the forefront was developed by Maurice Walsh. He argued that the vast majority of the population is neutral towards war, and that wars only happen when leaders with a psychologically abnormal attitude towards human life come to power. 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, they think, can solve their problems.

Evolutionary psychology

Proponents of evolutionary psychology tend to argue that human warfare is analogous to the behavior of animals who fight over territory or compete for food or a mate. Animals are aggressive by nature, and in the human environment, such aggressiveness results in wars. However, with the development of technology, human aggressiveness 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 Lorenz.

Such theories were criticized by scientists such as John G. Kennedy, who believed that the organized, long-lasting warfare of humans was fundamentally different from the fighting over territory of animals—and not just in terms of technology. Ashley Montague points out that social factors and education are important factors in determining the nature and course of human warfare. War is still a human invention that has its own historical and social roots.

Sociological theories

Sociologists have long studied the causes of hostilities. There are many theories on this matter, many of which contradict each other. Proponents of one of the schools of Primat der Innenpolitik (Priority of Domestic Policy) take as a basis the work of Eckart Kehr and Hans-Ulrich Wehler, who believed that war is goods 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, secret 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 approach of Primat der AuÄenpolitik (Priority of Foreign Policy) of Carl von Clausewitz and Leopold von Ranke, who argued that war and peace are a consequence of the decisions of politicians and the geopolitical situation.

Demographic theories

Demographic theories can be divided into two classes: Malthusian theories and Youth Predominance theories.

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

Pope Urban II in 1095, on the eve of the First Crusade, wrote: “The land you have inherited is surrounded on all sides by sea and mountains, and it is too small for you; it barely provides food for 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 hostility end. Take the road to the Holy Sepulcher; reclaim this land from the wicked race and take it for yourselves.”

This is one of the first descriptions of what was later called the Malthusian theory of war. Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) wrote that population always increases until its growth is 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 (developments) 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.

The theory of youth dominance.

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

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

While Malthusian theories focus on the contradiction between growing population and the availability of natural resources, the youth dominance theory focuses on the discrepancy between the number of poor, non-inheriting young men and the available job positions in the existing social system of division of labor.

Big contribution The development of this theory was contributed by the French sociologist Gaston Bouthoul, the American sociologist Jack A. Goldstone, the American political scientist Gary Fuller, and the German sociologist Gunnar Heinsohn. Samuel Huntington developed his theory of the Clash of Civilizations, in many ways using the theory of youth dominance:

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

The theory of youth dominance was recently created, but has already gained great influence on US foreign policy and military strategy. Both Goldstone and Fuller advised the American 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 theory of youth dominance 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 a birth rate explosion, when there are 4-8 children per woman.

In the case where 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 results in replacement of the previous generation, while a lower rate leads to population extinction.

In the case when 4-8 children are born in a family, the father must provide his sons with not one, but two or four social positions ( work), 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 supply of food, textbooks and vaccines, many “angry young men” find themselves in situations where their youthful anger spills over into violence.

There are too many of them demographically

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

They often do not have the opportunity to have a sexual life until their earnings allow them to start a family.

Behavioral theories

Psychologists, for example E. Durban and John Bowlby, argue that aggression is inherent in humans by nature. It is fueled by sublimation and projection, where a person turns his grievances into prejudice and hatred towards other races, religions, nations or ideologies. According to this theory, the state creates and maintains a certain order in local society and at the same time creates the basis for aggression in the form of war. If war is an integral part of human nature, as many psychological theories assume, then it will never be completely eradicated.

Sigmund Freud considered aggressiveness to be one of the basic instincts that determine the psychological “springs”, direction and meaning of human existence, and based on this position, S. Freud even refused to participate in the peace movement, since he considered wars an inevitable consequence of periodic outbreaks of human aggressiveness.

One of the theories that puts political and military leaders at the forefront was developed by Maurice Walsh. He argued that the vast majority of the population is neutral towards war, and that wars only happen when leaders with a psychologically abnormal attitude towards human life come to power. 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, they think, can solve their problems.

Evolutionary psychology

Proponents of evolutionary psychology tend to argue that human warfare is analogous to the behavior of animals who fight for territory or compete for food or a mate. Animals are aggressive by nature, and in the human environment, such aggressiveness results in wars. However, with the development of technology, human aggressiveness 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 Lorenz.

Such theories were criticized by scientists such as John G. Kennedy, who believed that the organized, long-lasting warfare of humans was fundamentally different from the turf fighting of animals - and not just in terms of technology. Ashley Montague points out that social factors and education are important factors in determining the nature and course of human wars. War is still a human invention that has its own historical and social roots.

Sociological theories

Sociologists have long studied the causes of war. There are many theories on this matter, many of which contradict each other. Proponents of one of the schools of Primat der Innenpolitik (Priority of Domestic Policy) 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, secret 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 (Priority of Foreign Policy) 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 divided into two classes: Malthusian theories and youth dominance theories.

Malthusian theories

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

Youth dominance theory

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

The theory of youth dominance differs significantly from Malthusian theories. Its supporters believe that the combination of a large number of young men (as graphically represented in the Age-Sex Pyramid) with a lack of permanent peaceful work leads to a high risk of war.

While Malthusian theories focus on the contradiction between a growing population and the availability of natural resources, the youth dominance theory focuses on the discrepancy between the number of poor, non-inheriting young men and the available job positions in the existing social system of division of labor.

Samuel Huntington developed his theory of the Clash of Civilizations, largely using the theory of youth dominance: “I do not think that Islam is a more aggressive religion than any other, but I suspect that throughout history more people have died at the hands of Christians than at the hands of Muslims.” . The key factor here is demographics. By and large, people who go out to kill other people are men between the ages of 16 and 30. During the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, the Muslim world had high birth rates and this led to a huge skew towards youth. But he will inevitably disappear. Birth rates in Islamic countries are falling; in some countries - rapidly. Islam was originally spread by fire and sword, but I don't think there is an inherited aggressiveness in Muslim theology."

Economic theories

Another school of thought holds that war can be seen as an increase in economic competition between countries. Wars begin as an attempt to control markets and natural resources and, as a result, wealth. Representatives of the ultra-right political circles, for example, argue that the strong have a natural right to everything that the weak are unable to keep. Some centrist politicians also rely on economic theory to explain wars.

Marxist theory

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

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 significant restrictions on certain rights and freedoms of citizens, including such basic ones as freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, the right to trial, the right to inviolability of property, etc. In addition, judicial and executive powers may be transferred to military courts and military command.

The procedure for introducing and the regime of Martial Law are determined by law. On the territory of Russia, the procedure for introducing, maintaining and canceling the martial law regime is defined in the federal constitutional law “On Martial Law”.

Fighting

Combat operations are the organized use of forces and means of the armed forces to perform combat missions.

Types of wars:

Hostilities;

Military blockade;

Sabotage;

Counter-offensive;

Counterstrike;

Offensive;

Retreat;

Street fight and others

Historical types of wars

Wars of the Ancient World

Conquest 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, the Punic Wars, the Greco-Persian Wars);

wars between different 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 revolts (for example, the slave revolt in Rome led by Spartacus);

Wars of the Middle Ages

Religious wars: Crusades, Jihad;

Dynastic wars (for example, the Wars of the Roses in England);

Peasant wars-revolts against oppression (for example, the Jacquerie in France, the Peasants' War in Germany (Bauernkrieg)).

Wars of New and Contemporary Times

Colonial wars of capitalist countries for the enslavement of the peoples of Asia, Africa, America, Oceania (for example, the First Opium War and the Second Opium War);

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

Definition of war, causes of wars, classification of wars

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

Definition

Wars in human history

Causes of wars and their classifications

Historical types of wars

Theories of the origin of wars

Behavioral theories

Evolutionary psychology

Sociological theories

Demographic theories

Rationalist theories

Economic theories

Marxist theory

The theory of the emergence of wars in political science

Objectivism position

Goals of the parties in the war

Consequences of the war

History of the Cold War

War time

Declaration of war

Martial law

Hostilities

Prisoners of war

Armed forces

War is- a conflict between political entities (states, tribes, political groups, etc.), occurring 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 whose purpose is to achieve political goals.

Total war is armed violence taken to extreme limits. The main weapon in war is the army.

War is an armed struggle between large groups (communities) of people (states, tribes, parties); governed by laws and customs - a set of principles and norms of international law that establish the responsibilities of the warring parties (ensuring the protection of civilians, regulating the treatment of prisoners of war, prohibiting the use of particularly inhumane 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 are followed by 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 shape of the modern world was determined, knowledge about wars was and remains insufficient to ensure the security interests of mankind. As noted by Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences A.A. Kokoshin, “at present, the degree of study 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 is a tendency for states to lose their monopoly on solving problems of war and peace. Already in 1977, Additional Protocol II to the 1949 Geneva Convention, regulating the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts, imposed the obligations previously developed for states on non-state actors (armed rebel forces under organized command and controlling part of the national territory). In light of this trend, war can be defined as organized armed violence used by actors in international relations to achieve political goals.

2. Changing the scale of wars. If until the middle of the twentieth century. wars became increasingly larger, then from the second half of the twentieth century. a reverse trend has emerged - 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 increasing destructiveness and destructiveness of wars has been preserved. As noted by Russian researcher V.V. Serebryannikov, “medium and small wars are collectively used by subjects of international relations to achieve political goals.

A current area of ​​military-political research has been the development of concepts of wars without military action (“non-military wars”). Threats posed by international terrorism, organized crime, weak states, trafficking in people 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 a discussion of “new security threats” - threats or risks that are supranational or non-military in nature. Today, the view that modern war is “the continuation of politics by violent methods, in which armed struggle is not the only and main means,” is becoming increasingly 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 previous features and acquiring new features. Back in the 20th century, the necessary signs of war were:

1) warring parties that have a fairly defined status in the system of international relations and participate in hostilities;

2) a clear subject of dispute between opponents;

3) clear spatial parameters of the 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 occurred since the beginning of the twentieth century, a number of trends can be identified.

1. Increasing frequency of wars. Frequency of wars in the 20th century. fluctuated, but overall exceeded the average frequency of wars for the entire known history of mankind by about 1.5 times. Military action took place in more than 60 of the 200 UN member countries. In the 2,340 weeks between 1945 and 1990, there was only three weeks without a single war on earth. 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 increasingly larger, then from the second half of the twentieth century. a reverse trend has emerged - 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 increasing destructiveness and destructiveness of wars has been preserved. As noted by Russian researcher V.V. Serebryannikov, “medium and small wars in the aggregate seem to replace a big war, extending its grave consequences in time and space.” Data on armed conflicts since World War II indicate that there are more and more clashes that fall short of the threshold of “real” war.

3. Changing methods of warfare. Due to the inadmissibility of full-scale warfare using weapons of mass destruction, the actual armed struggle in modern wars 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 tactic of “building bridges” between the military and the enemy population.

4. Changing the structure of military losses. The civilian population of the warring parties is increasingly becoming the target of armed influence, which leads to an increase in the proportion of casualties among the civilian population. During the First World War, civilian losses amounted to 5% of the total number of casualties, in the Second World War 48%, during the Korean War - 84, in Vietnam and Iraq - more than 90%.

5. Expanding the scope of participation in wars by non-state actors of regular armies, possessing the most advanced technical means, are underground informal armed groups.

6. Expanding the set of grounds for starting wars. If the first half of the twentieth century was a period of struggle for world domination, today the reasons for the outbreak of 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 World War II were nothing more than a manifestation of the confrontation between the superpowers of the USSR and the USA, which, being the owners of nuclear weapons, could not afford to engage in 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, and Latin America. Wars of national liberation often turned out to be proxy wars, in which one or another superpower tried to use local armed groups to expand and strengthen its sphere of influence. In the 90s of the twentieth century. New causes of armed conflict have emerged: inter-ethnic relations (for example, in the former Soviet republics, the Balkans and Rwanda), the weakness of states, competition for control of natural resources. Thus, along with disputes about statehood, disputes around governance within states have become established as a significant cause of conflict. In addition, religious reasons for armed conflicts have emerged.

7. Blurring the line between war and peace. In countries experiencing political instability, such as Nicaragua, Lebanon, and Afghanistan, troops used weapons and entered populated areas 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 nature of military operations, but is carried out by law enforcement forces or with their participation.

Militarism and belligerence often accompanied periods of the most intensive development of peoples and served as a means of self-affirmation for 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 political systems reaching 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.” However, the expansion of the circle of participants in international relations, the incompleteness of the process of forming a post-bipolar system of international relations, as well as the revolution in military affairs, making 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 an invariable 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 the extremely widespread belief in antiquity, the Middle Ages and the New Age (J.-J. Rousseau), primitive times were the only peaceful period of history, and primitive man (an uncivilized savage) was a creature devoid of any belligerence or aggressiveness. However, the latest archaeological studies of prehistoric sites in Europe, North America and North Africa indicate that armed conflicts (apparently 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, violent seizure of property and women are the harsh reality of their lives (Zulus, Dahomeans, 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 war.

The birth of war in the primitive era was associated with the emergence of new types of weapons (bow, sling), which for the first time made it possible to fight at a distance; from now on, the physical strength of those fighting was no longer of exceptional importance; dexterity and dexterity began to play a large role. The beginnings of a battle technique (flanking) emerged. The war was highly ritualized (numerous taboos and prohibitions), which limited its duration and losses.

A significant factor in the evolution of warfare was the domestication of animals: the use of horses gave nomads an advantage over sedentary tribes. The need for protection from their sudden attacks led to the emergence of fortifications; the first known fact is the fortress walls of Jericho (about 8 thousand BC). The number of participants in the wars gradually increased. However, there is no consensus among scientists about the size of prehistoric “armies”: figures vary from a dozen to several hundred warriors.

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

increase the size of armies and improve their fighting qualities;

much more time was devoted to training soldiers;

The first professional military units 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 acting on the battlefield as a chaotic crowd, it later turned into an extremely organized combat unit (Macedonian phalanx, Roman legion). At different periods, other “arms of arms” also gained importance, such as war chariots, which played a significant role in the conquests of the Assyrians. The importance of military fleets also increased, especially among the Phoenicians, Greeks and Carthaginians; The first known naval battle took place around 1210 BC. between the Hittites and the Cypriots. The function of 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 New Kingdom era, and iron contributed to the creation of the first ancient Eastern empire - the New Assyrian state. In addition to the bow, arrows and spear, the sword, axe, 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 significant proportions, drawing a large number of states into their orbit (wars of the Diadochi, etc.). The largest armed conflicts of antiquity were the wars of the New Assyrian kingdom (second half of the 8th–7th centuries), the Greco-Persian wars (500–449 BC), the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC), and the conquests of Alexander the Great (334–323 BC) and the Punic Wars (264–146 BC).

In the Middle Ages, infantry lost its primacy to cavalry, which was facilitated by the invention of stirrups (8th century). A heavily armed knight became the central figure on the battlefield. The scale of war was reduced in comparison with the ancient era: it turned into an expensive and elitist occupation, into the prerogative of the ruling class and acquired a professional character (the future knight underwent long training). Small detachments (from several dozen to several hundred knights with squires) took part in the battles; only at the end of the classical Middle Ages (14th–15th centuries), with the emergence of centralized states, the number of armies increased; The importance of infantry increased again (it was the archers who 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 increased unusually; 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).

A turning point in military history was the spread from the mid-15th century. in Europe, gunpowder and firearms (arquebuses, cannons); the first time they were used was the Battle of Agincourt (1415). From now on, the level of military equipment and, accordingly, the military industry became an absolute determinant of the outcome of the war. In the late Middle Ages (16th - first half of the 17th century), the technological advantage of Europeans allowed them to expand beyond 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 replaced 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. there were the Italian Wars (1494–1559) and the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648).

In the centuries that followed, the nature of war underwent rapid and fundamental changes. Military technology progressed unusually quickly (from the musket of the 17th century to nuclear submarines and supersonic fighters of the early 21st century). New types of weapons (missile systems, etc.) have strengthened the remote nature of military confrontation. The war became more and more widespread: the institution of conscription and the one that replaced it in the 19th century. the institution of universal conscription made armies truly national (more than 70 million people took part in the 1st World War, over 110 million in the 2nd World War), on the other hand, the whole society was already involved in the war (women’s and child 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 centuries. - 5.7 million, then in the 1st World War - more than 9 million, and in the 2nd World War - over 50 million. The wars were accompanied by the grandiose destruction of material wealth and cultural values.

By the end of the 20th century. The dominant form of armed conflicts has become “asymmetrical wars”, characterized by a sharp inequality of capabilities of the warring parties. In the nuclear era, such wars are fraught with great danger, since they encourage the weaker side to violate all established laws of war and resort to various forms of intimidation tactics, including large-scale terrorist attacks (the tragedy of September 11, 2001 in New York).

The changing nature of war and the intense arms race gave rise in the first half of the 20th century. a powerful anti-war tendency (J. Jaurès, A. Barbusse, M. Gandhi, projects for 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 UN began to play a leading role in preserving peace, declaring its task “to save future generations from the scourge of war”; in 1974 the UN General Assembly qualified military aggression as an international crime. The constitutions of some countries included articles on an unconditional renunciation of war (Japan) or a ban on the creation of an army (Costa Rica).

Causes of wars and their classifications

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

With the emergence of mass armies in the 19th century, xenophobia (hatred, intolerance towards someone or something alien, unfamiliar, unusual, the perception of someone else as incomprehensible, incomprehensible, and therefore dangerous and hostile), became an important tool for mobilizing the population for war. worldview. On its basis, national, religious or social enmity is easily incited, and therefore, since the 2nd half of the 19th century, xenophobia has been the main tool for inciting wars, channeling 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 was 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 liberation wars - 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.

Unjust - aggressive or unlawful (aggression, colonial wars). In international law, aggressive war is classified as an international crime. In the 1990s, such a concept as a humanitarian war appeared, which is formally aggression in the name of higher goals: preventing ethnic cleansing or humanitarian assistance to civilians.

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

The division of wars into “external warfare” and “internal warfare” is also important.

Air war

Naval warfare

Local war

Nuclear war

Colonial War

Information war

The classification of wars is based on a variety of criteria. Based on their goals, they are divided into predatory (Pecheneg and Cuman raids on Rus' in the 9th – early 13th centuries), conquest (wars of Cyrus II 550–529 BC), colonial (Franco-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 (wars of France with the European coalition 1792–1795).

Based on the scope of military operations and the number of forces and means involved, wars are divided into local (conducted in a limited area and by small forces) and large-scale. The first include, for example, wars between ancient Greek policies; to the second - the campaigns of Alexander the Great, the Napoleonic Wars, etc.

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

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

The moral criterion – just and unjust wars – is also taken as a classification principle. A “just war” refers to a war waged to protect order and law and, ultimately, peace. Its essential conditions are that it must have a just cause; it should only be started when all peaceful means have been exhausted; it should not go beyond achieving the main task; The civilian population should not suffer from it. The idea of ​​a “just war,” dating back to the Old Testament, ancient philosophy and St. Augustine, received theoretical formalization in the 12th–13th centuries. in the works 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 again gained relevance in the 20th century, especially in connection with the advent of weapons of mass destruction and the problem of “humanitarian military actions” designed to stop genocide in a particular country.

Historical types of wars

Wars of the Ancient World

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

Conquest 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, the Punic Wars, the 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 revolts (for example, the slave revolt in Rome led by Spartacus);

popular uprisings of peasants and artisans (the “Red Brows” uprising in China).

Wars of the Middle Ages

Religious wars: Crusades, Jihad;

Dynastic wars (for example, the Wars of the Roses in England);

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

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

Wars of New and Contemporary Times

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

Wars of conquest of states and coalitions of states for hegemony (for example, the Northern War, the Mexican-American War, the Korean War, the Ethiopian-Eritrean War), wars for world domination (the Seven Years' War, the 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 external intervention (Chinese Civil War);

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 Portuguese colonial war, etc.);

Revolutions often end in wars, or to some extent are them [In war there are no winners - only losers.]

Post-industrial wars

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

Urban guerrilla

Humanitarian War (Kosovo War)

Counter-terrorism operation

Inter-ethnic conflict (eg Bosnian War, Karabakh War)

The main types of wars in slave society were:

Wars of slave 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 states themselves with the aim of seizing territories and robbing conquered countries (for example, the Punic Wars of Rome against Carthage in the 3rd-2nd centuries BC, etc.); Wars between different 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 slave uprising in Rome under the leadership of Spartacus in 73-71 BC, etc.); popular uprisings of peasants and artisans (the “Red Brows” uprising in the 1st century AD in China, etc.).

The main types of wars in 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 and 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 Parisian uprising of 1356-58).

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

Colonial wars of 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 of national reunification (for example, the wars of Italian unification in 1859-70); liberation wars of the peoples of 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 violent redivision of an already divided world. The intensification of the struggle of the imperialists is expanding 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 Russian-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 oppressed peoples (for example, popular uprisings in Cuba in 1906, in China in 1906-11).

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

Wars between states with opposing social systems, civil wars, national liberation wars, wars between capitalist states. The 2nd World War of 1939-45, due to its complex and contradictory nature, occupies a special place among the wars of the modern era.

Wars between states with opposing social systems are generated 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 Nazi Germany and its allies that attacked the USSR).

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

National liberation wars are the struggle 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 war of the Algerian people against the French colonialists in 1954-62; the struggle of the peoples of Egypt against the Anglo-French Israeli aggression in 1956; the struggle of the peoples of South Vietnam against the American invaders, which began in 1964, etc.). In modern conditions, the national liberation struggle for winning national independence is closely intertwined with the social struggle for the democratic reorganization of public life.

Wars between capitalist states are generated by the aggravation of contradictions between them in the struggle for world domination (World Wars 1 and 2). 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 and aggressive, especially on the part of Germany and its allies. However, Hitler's aggression posed the greatest threat to humanity; the Nazi occupation of many countries doomed their people to extermination. Therefore, the fight against fascism became a national task for all freedom-loving peoples, which led to a change in the political content of the war, which acquired a liberation, anti-fascist character. The attack of Nazi 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 2, which led to victory over the fascist bloc. The Soviet Armed Forces made a major contribution to saving the peoples of the world from the threat of enslavement by fascist invaders.

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

Theories of the origin of wars

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

Theological interpretation, which has Old Testament roots, is based on the understanding of war as an arena for the implementation of the will of God (gods). Its adherents see in war 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 the rational decisions they make is inevitably emphasized. 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 prevailing belief (Thucydides) was 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 S. Freud when creating the theory of psychoanalysis: he argued that a person could not exist if his inherent need for self-destruction (death instinct) was not directed towards external objects, including other individuals, other ethnic groups , other religious groups. Followers of S. Freud (L.L. Bernard) viewed 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) have reworked the Freudian theory of sublimation in a gender sense: the tendency to aggression and violence is a property of male nature; suppressed in peaceful conditions, it finds the necessary outlet on the battlefield. Their hope for ridding humanity of war is associated with the transfer of control levers into the hands of women and with the establishment 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 the mania of war (Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini); they believe that for the advent of an era of universal peace, an effective system of civil control is sufficient to deny access to power to 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 had a natural origin, technological progress has increased its destructive nature and brought it to a level unthinkable 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 upbringing, 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, since 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.” Its many adherents, starting with L. Ranke, derive 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.) .

Going back to the English economist T.R. Malthus (1766–1834), demographic theory views war as a result of an imbalance between population and the amount of means of subsistence and as a functional means of restoring it by destroying demographic surpluses. Neo-Malthusians (U. 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 popular when interpreting the phenomenon of war. In contrast to the followers of K. Clausewitz, his supporters (E. Kehr, H.-W. Wehler, etc.) 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, formalize them taking into account all the factors influencing them (economic, demographic, etc.), and model fail-safe mechanisms for their prevention. The sociostatistical analysis of wars, proposed back in the 1920s, is actively used. L.F.Richardson; Currently, numerous predictive models of armed conflicts have been created (P. Breke, participants in the “Military Project”, Uppsala Research Group).

Information theory, popular among specialists in international relations (D. Blaney and others), explains the occurrence 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 is always the one that inadequately assesses its capabilities and the capabilities of the other side - otherwise it would either refuse 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 intelligence) becomes crucial.

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

Supporters of the economic interpretation consider war to be a consequence of rivalry between states in the sphere of international economic relations, which are 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 left-wing scientists. They argue that the war serves the interests of the propertied strata, and all its hardships fall on the share 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 class war. From the point of view of Marxism, wars are fought to strengthen the power of the ruling classes and to split the world proletariat through appeals 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 disappear into oblivion after the world revolution.

Behavioral theories

Psychologists such as E. F. M. Durban and John Bowlby argue that it is the nature of humans to be aggressive. It is fueled by sublimation and projection, where a person turns his grievances into prejudice and hatred towards 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 the basis for aggression in the form of war. If war is an integral part of human nature, as many psychological theories assume, then it will never be completely eradicated.

Italian psychoanalyst Franco Fornari, a follower of Melanie Klein, suggested that war is a paranoid or projective form of melancholy. Fornari argued that war and violence develop from our “need for love”: our desire to preserve and protect the sacred object to which we are attached, namely the mother and our connection with her. For adults, such a sacred object is the nation. 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 can 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 unchanged, then such cultures should not exist. Some militarists, such as Franz Alexander, argue that the state of the world is an illusion. Periods commonly called "peaceful" are actually periods of preparation for a future war or a situation where warlike instincts are suppressed by a stronger state, such as the Pax Britannica.

These theories are supposedly based on the will of the overwhelming majority of the population. However, they do not take into account the fact that only a small number of wars in history were truly the result of the will of the people. Much more often, people are forcibly drawn into war by their rulers. One of the theories that puts political and military leaders at the forefront was developed by Maurice Walsh. He argued that the vast majority of the population is neutral towards war, and that wars only happen when leaders with a psychologically abnormal attitude towards human life come to power. 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, they think, can solve their problems.

Evolutionary psychology

Proponents of evolutionary psychology tend to argue that human warfare is analogous to the behavior of animals who fight for territory or compete for food or a mate. Animals are aggressive by nature, and in the human environment, such aggressiveness results in wars. However, with the development of technology, human aggressiveness 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 Lorenz.

Such theories were criticized by scientists such as John G. Kennedy, who believed that the organized, long-lasting warfare of humans was fundamentally different from the turf fighting of animals - and not just in terms of technology. Ashley Montague points out that social factors and education are important factors in determining the nature and course of human wars. War is still a human invention that has its own historical and social roots.

Sociological theories

Sociologists have long studied the causes of war. There are many theories on this matter, many of which contradict each other. Proponents of one of the schools of Primat der Innenpolitik (Priority of Domestic Policy) 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, secret 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 (Priority of Foreign Policy) 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 divided 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 which you have inherited is surrounded on all sides by sea and mountains, and it is too small for you; it barely provides food for 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 hostility end. Take the road to the Holy Sepulcher; reclaim this land from the wicked race and take it for yourselves.”

This is one of the first descriptions of what was later called the Malthusian theory of war. Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) wrote that population always increases until its growth is limited by war, disease or famine.

Proponents 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.

The theory of youth dominance.

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

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

While Malthusian theories focus on the contradiction between a growing population and the availability of natural resources, the youth dominance theory focuses on the discrepancy between the number of poor, non-inheriting young men and the available job positions in the existing social division of labor.

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

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

The theory of youth dominance was recently created, but has already gained great influence on US foreign policy and military strategy. Both Goldstone and Fuller advised the American 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 dominance 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 a birth rate explosion, when there are 4-8 children per woman.

In the case where 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 results in replacement of the previous generation, while a lower rate leads to population extinction.

In the case when 4-8 children are born in a 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 supply of food, textbooks and vaccines, many “angry young men” find themselves in situations where their youthful anger spills over into violence.

There are too many of them demographically

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

They often do not have the opportunity 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 legitimacy, but in themselves they cannot serve as a source of violence unless there is a preponderance of youth in the society. Accordingly, supporters of this theory view both “Christian” European colonialism and imperialism, as well as today’s “Islamic aggression” and terrorism, as a result of 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. By contrast, the situation can be compared with neighboring relatively peaceful Lebanon.

Another historical example where youth played a large role in uprisings and revolutions is the French Revolution of 1789. The economic depression in Germany played an important role in the emergence of Nazism. The genocide in Rwanda in 1994 may also have been a consequence of the severe dominance of youth in society.

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

The theory of youth predominance has become the object of statistical analysis by the World Bank Population Action International, and the Berlin Institute of 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.

The theory of youth dominance has been criticized for its statements leading to racial, gender and age "discrimination".

Rationalist theories

Rationalistic theories assume that both sides in a conflict act rationally and are based on 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, then 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 enemy's promises.

An indivisibility problem occurs when two parties cannot reach a mutual agreement through negotiation because the thing they seek to possess is indivisible and can only be owned by one of them. An example is the war over the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

The problem of information asymmetry arises when two states cannot calculate in advance the likelihood of victory and reach an amicable agreement because each of them has military secrets. They can't open the cards because 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 capabilities by playing the "Aryan superiority" card and showing Hermann Göring elite troops dressed as regular soldiers.

The Americans decided to enter the Vietnam War knowing full well that the Communists would resist, but underestimating the ability of the guerrillas to resist the regular US Army.

Finally, negotiations to prevent war may fail due to the failure of states to comply with the rules of fair play. The two countries could have avoided war if they had stuck to the original agreements. But according to the deal, one party receives such privileges that it becomes more powerful and begins to demand more and more; As a result, the weaker side has no choice but to defend itself.

The rationalist approach can be criticized on many points. The assumption of mutual calculation of benefits and costs is questionable - for example, in cases of genocide during the Second World War, when the weaker party was left with no alternative. Rationalists believe that the state acts as a whole, united by one will, and the leaders of the state are reasonable and are able to objectively assess the likelihood of success or failure, which supporters of the behavioral theories mentioned above cannot agree with.

Rationalist theories generally apply well to game theory rather than to modeling the economic decisions that underlie any war.

Economic theories

Another school of thought holds that war can be seen as an increase in economic competition between countries. Wars begin as an attempt to control markets and natural resources and, as a result, wealth. Representatives of the ultra-right political circles, for example, argue that the strong have a natural right to everything that the weak are unable to keep. Some centrist politicians also rely on economic theory to explain wars.

“Is there in this world at least one man, one woman, even a child, 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 for most of that time I worked as a high-class goon working for Big Business, Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I am a racketeer, a gangster of capitalism." - one of the highest-ranking and most decorated Marines (awarded two Medals of Honor) Major General Smedley Butler (the main candidate of the US Republican Party for 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 occur due to conflicts between classes and between imperialist forces. These wars are part of the natural development of the free market and they will disappear only when the World Revolution occurs.

The theory of the emergence of wars in political science

World War I researcher Lewis Fry Richardson was the first to undertake statistical analysis of the war.

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

Another theory examines the issue of power in international relations and the Theory of the Transition of Power, which builds the world into a certain hierarchy and explains major wars as a challenge to the incumbent hegemon from a Great Power that is not subject to his control.

Objectivism position

Ayn Rand, the creator of Objectivism and advocate of rational individualism and laissez-faire capitalism, argued that if a person wants to oppose war, he must first oppose 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.”

Goals of the parties in the war

The direct purpose of war is to impose one's will on the enemy. At the same time, the initiators of war often pursue indirect goals, such as: strengthening their internal political position (“small victorious war”), destabilizing the region as a whole, distracting and tying up 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-Hart, “The Strategy of Indirect Action”).

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

Ensuring your own survival;

Confronting an enemy who wants to impose his will;

Preventing relapse 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 adopted tactics. In such cases, the war goals of both sides are the same - imposing their will on the enemy in order to improve their pre-war position.

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

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

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

Thus, World War II 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 position of the warring parties was not qualitatively different from the pre-war one, apart from being exhausted by the fighting of both states.

Consequences of the war

The negative consequences of wars, in addition to the loss of life, include the complex that is designated as a humanitarian catastrophe: famine, epidemics, population movements. Modern wars are associated with enormous human and material losses, with unprecedented destruction and disasters. For example, losses in the wars of European countries (killed and those who died from wounds and diseases) were: 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 fascist 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 the secret of making paper from the Chinese) 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 negation in Hegel). Some researchers also consider the following factors to be positive for human society as a whole (not for humans):

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

During hostilities, all prohibitions that are imposed on a person in society in normal times are lifted. As a consequence, war can be considered as a way and method of relieving psychological tension within an entire society.

Fear of imposing someone else's will, fear of danger is an exceptional incentive for technical progress. It is no coincidence that many new products are invented and appear first for military needs and only then find their application in peaceful life.

Improvement of international relations at the highest level and the 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 UN as a reaction to the First and Second World Wars, respectively.

History of the Cold War

The Cold War was 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 USA) 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 reason for the Cold War. The two superpowers, the winners of World War II, tried to rebuild the world according to their ideological principles. Over time, confrontation became an element of the ideology of the two sides and helped the leaders of military-political blocs consolidate allies around them “in the face of an external enemy.” The new confrontation required the unity of all members of the opposing blocs.

The expression “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 aimed primarily at dominance in the military sphere. From the very beginning of the confrontation, the process of militarization of the two superpowers unfolded.

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

The Cold War was accompanied by a conventional and nuclear arms race that continually threatened to lead to a third world war. The most famous of such cases when the world found itself on the brink of disaster was the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. In this regard, in the 1970s, both sides made efforts to “détente” international tensions 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 policy 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 an 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

Stage II - 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

A bipolar world at the apogee of the Cold War (1980)

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

creation of a system of military (NATO, Warsaw Pact Organization, SEATO, CENTO, ANZUS, ANZYUK) and economic (EEC, CMEA, ASEAN, etc.) alliances;

speeding up the arms race and military preparations;

a sharp increase in military spending;

periodically emerging international crises (Berlin Crisis, Cuban Missile Crisis, Korean War, Vietnam War, Afghan War);

the unspoken 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 (primarily the United States) on the territory of foreign countries;

waging a massive “psychological war”, the purpose of which was to propagate one’s 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 oriented literature and periodicals in foreign languages ​​was financed, and the intensification of class, racial, and national contradictions was actively used.

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

boycotts of some Olympic Games. For example, the USA 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, having lost Soviet support, were removed even earlier, in 1989-1990. The Warsaw Pact officially ended on July 1, 1991, and from that moment the end of the Cold War can be counted.

The Cold War was a gigantic mistake that cost the world enormous effort and enormous 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 in both Moscow and Washington bear equal responsibility for this.

The beginning of Soviet-American cooperation did not foretell anything like this. 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 preventing mutual distrust between the allies to be 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 global balance of forces until that moment and now filling a kind of vacuum created 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, to win the minds and hearts of people; in an effort to get ahead in the arms race in order to talk to the other side from a position of strength; in economic indicators - to demonstrate the superiority of their social system; even in sports - as John Kennedy said, "a country's international prestige is measured by two things: nuclear missiles and Olympic gold medals."

The West won the Cold War, and the Soviet Union voluntarily lost it. Now, having dissolved the Warsaw Treaty Organization and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, broken the Iron Curtain and united Germany, destroyed a superpower and banned communism, Russia in the 21st century can be convinced that not any ideology, but only geopolitical interests prevail in Western political thinking. Having moved the borders of NATO close to the borders of Russia, having located its military bases in half of the republics of the former USSR, American politicians are increasingly turning to the rhetoric of the Cold War, 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 cooperate, adequately solving all problems at the negotiating table, without any pressure and blackmail, which is what the greatest US president of the 20th century dreamed of. 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 to manufacture its cars in Russia. Well, for millions of ordinary people in the world, the main thing is “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 is revealing its consequences even now, which determines the debate about the end of this phenomenon. We will not touch upon the question of 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.

Firstly, one cannot help but 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 manuals, 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 Bolsheviks coming to power. 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 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, delivered 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, whose invisible approach shackles hearts with chilling horror, whose steps are already understood on the stairs, accompanied by the clank of a scythe - she knocks, she is already entering, she is already sitting down at the table of a 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 reduced any communication between the two countries to a minimum, contributing to the spread of diametrically opposed attitudes towards each other. In the USSR - at the philistine level - hostility towards the “country of capital and the oppression of workers” grew, and in the USA - again at the human level - interest and sympathy for the state of “workers and peasants” grew almost in direct proportion. However, the political trials carried out in the 30s against “enemies of the people” and constant violations by the authorities of civil rights and freedoms led to the formation and widespread dissemination of a sharply negative and extremely skeptical attitude not only towards the government of the USSR, but also towards communist ideology as a whole. It was at this time, we believe, that the Cold War developed in its ideological and political aspect. The internal policy of the Soviet Union led to the complete denial 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. 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 at the beginning of the Cold War there were ideological contradictions. The Soviet state actively opposed the ideology of communism and socialism to the Western powers, former allies in the Entente. The thesis about class struggle and the impossibility of peaceful coexistence between states of two formations, put forward by the Bolsheviks, led to the gradual sliding of the world towards bipolar confrontation. On the American side, participation in the intervention against Soviet Russia was most likely caused by a reluctance 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 conflicted with the needs of the other, and the tenets of communist ideology laid the foundation for a new system of relations between countries.

The development paths 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 emergence of nuclear weapons, by non-military means, since the use of the latter would result in the death of humanity or most of it.

The post-war world opened up vast expanses of rivalry for the USA and the USSR, which often turned into veiled diplomatic language, or even open hostility. Second half of the 40s - early 60s. Not only did they not resolve the disputes that already existed by that time, but they also added new ones. The mere 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 from the very beginning of the Cold War eloquently testifies to the real tension of the international situation: “iron curtain”, “nuclear diplomacy”, “power politics” , “brinksmanship”, “domino principle”, “liberation doctrine”, “captive nations”, “crusade for freedom”, “doctrine of rolling back communism”, “strategy of massive retaliation”, “nuclear umbrella”, “missile shield” ”, “missile gap”, “flexible response strategy”, “escalatory dominance”, “bloc diplomacy” - about forty-five in total.

The Cold War system includes everything: economic, political, 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 when building a new world order. Countries built their internal and foreign policy lines based on, some of them, anti-Soviet and anti-communist attitudes, others based on the postulate of hostility of imperialist circles. The practice of escalating the situation in public opinion was actively used. Governments actively used a variety of means to “throw mud at each other,” including such a powerful lever of pressure as education. The Cold War was (and still is) taught in a very one-sided way, both in one country and in another. However, the rudiment of this phenomenon remains the fact that we still cannot abandon the negative attitude towards Western countries in the education system. We continue to consider many aspects of general history and the history of the Fatherland through the prism of ideological prejudices, bias, from the position of the antinomy “not like ours means bad.”

To sum up, we can say that the Cold War is a rather eloquent historical phenomenon. Using her example, you can show a lot, illustrate the various trends of our time. In addition, studying 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 a period when a state is at war with another state. In times of war, 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 moment of 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 outbreak of hostilities.

Wartime is the special conditions of life of the state and society associated with the occurrence of a force majeure circumstance - 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 while simultaneously limiting 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 in the event of the need to implement international treaties of the Russian Federation. From the moment the state of war is declared or the actual start of hostilities, war time begins, which expires from the moment the cessation of hostilities is declared, but not earlier than their actual cessation.

Emergency measures aimed at the defense of the country related to 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 did the same during World War II.

Economic consequences

The economic consequences of wartime are characterized by excessive government budget spending on defense needs. All the country's resources are directed to meet the needs of the army. Gold and foreign exchange reserves are put into circulation, the use 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 transition of the economy to fulfill 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 commodity-money turnover, the food system can switch to a rationing basis with a strictly metered supply of products 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 broken and an armed struggle between them is ahead. The declaration of war has already been recognized in ancient times as an act required by national morality. The methods of declaring war are very different. At first they are symbolic in nature. The ancient Athenians, before starting a war, threw a spear at the enemy country. The Persians demanded land and water as a sign of submission. The declaration of war was especially solemn in Ancient Rome, 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 prevailing views among the French, it was considered necessary that at least 90 days should elapse from the moment of declaration of war 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 notification (Seven Years' War). Before the war, Napoleon I issued a proclamation only for his troops. Special acts of declaring war have now fallen out of use. Usually a war is preceded by a break in diplomatic relations between states. Thus, the Russian government did not send a formal declaration of war to the Sultan in 1877 (Russian-Turkish War 1877-1878), but limited itself to informing the Porte, through its charge 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, which declares that failure to comply with this requirement within a certain period will be considered a legal reason for war (the so-called casus belli).

The Constitution of the Russian Federation does not grant any government body the right to declare war; the president only has the power to declare martial law in the event of aggression or 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 significant restrictions on certain rights and freedoms of citizens, including such basic ones as freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, the right to trial, the right to inviolability of property, etc. In addition, judicial and executive powers may be transferred to military courts and military command.

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, enforcing and canceling 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 war. Includes bringing the armed forces to the highest levels 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 armed forces or parts of them, by region and direction. The decision on these actions is made by the highest political leadership of the state and is implemented through the Ministry of Defense.

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

In wartime, certain criminal legal acts, or parts of these regulations, come into force, tightening liability for certain crimes. At the same time, the fact of committing a crime in wartime is a qualifying feature of certain 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 exceptionally difficult circumstances, changes in criminal proceedings or the complete abolition of individual stages are possible. Thus, in besieged Leningrad during the blockade, a resolution of local authorities was in force, ordering law enforcement agencies to shoot looters, robbers and robbers detained at the scene of a crime. 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 authority in the country or its individual parts in an emergency; characterized by the introduction of special (emergency) measures in the interests of protecting the state. The most significant features of Martial Law: expansion of the powers of military command and control bodies; imposing on citizens a number of additional responsibilities related to the defense of the country; restriction of the rights and freedoms of citizens and people. In areas declared under Martial Law, all functions of state power in the field of defense, ensuring public safety and public order are transferred to military authorities. They are given the right to impose additional duties on citizens and legal entities (involve them in labor conscription, confiscate vehicles for defense needs, etc.), regulate public order in accordance with the requirements of the public situation (limit street traffic, prohibit entry and exit into areas declared on Martial Law, regulate the operating 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 martial law. In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Martial Law is introduced on the territory of the Russian Federation or in some of its localities in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation or an immediate threat of aggression by the President of the Russian Federation with immediate notification of the Federation Council and the State Duma. Approval of decrees on the introduction of Martial Law falls within the competence of the Federation Council. -Shapinsky V.I.

Street fight and others.

Combat is 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 national states).

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

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

Battle - an armed engagement (clash, battle, fight) between two or more parties who are at war with each other. The name of the battle usually comes from the area where it took place.

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

In the Middle Ages, battles tended to be one connected event and lasted a few days at most. 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,” and “operation” have often been used as synonyms. For example: Battle of Borodino and Battle of Borodino.

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

The battle can be defensive or offensive.

Military blockade is military action aimed at isolating an enemy object by cutting off its external connections. The military blockade is intended to prevent or minimize the transfer of reinforcements, the delivery of military equipment and logistics, and the evacuation of valuables.

The objects of a 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 military 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 of subsequently capturing this object is called a siege.

Objectives of the military blockade:

undermining the military-economic power of the state

depletion of forces and means of the blocked group of enemy armed forces

creating favorable conditions for its subsequent defeat

forcing 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 blockade object and the forces and means involved, the blockade can be land, air, sea or mixed.

The ground blockade is carried out by ground forces in cooperation with aviation and air defense forces. Land blockades were already used in wars of the ancient world - for example, in the Trojan War. In the 17th-19th centuries it was often used to capture powerful fortresses.

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

A naval blockade is carried out by the actions of the Navy - surface ships, submarines, carrier-based and base aircraft - patrolling approaches to the coast, installing minefields in the areas of ports, naval bases, on sea (ocean) communications, launching missile and bomb air and artillery strikes against 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.

Sabotage (from Latin diversio - deviation, distraction) - 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, impact on the moral and psychological state of the enemy.

Ambush is a hunting technique; advance and carefully camouflaged placement of a military unit (hunter or partisans) on the most likely routes of movement of the enemy in order to defeat him with a surprise attack, capture prisoners and destroy military equipment; in the activities of law enforcement agencies - the secret placement of a capture group at the place where the criminal is expected to appear for the purpose of detaining him.

A counteroffensive is a type 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 provides.

During the offensive, 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, unlike defense, where the rear units are pulled away 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 on a counter-offensive, the rear units of the attackers find themselves defenseless and most often end up in a “cauldron”.

Counterstrike is a strike delivered by troops of an operational formation (front, army, army corps) in a defensive operation to defeat a group of enemy troops that has penetrated 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. In the direction of the counterattack, airborne assault forces can be landed and raid detachments can be used. As a rule, it is applied to the flanks of a wedged enemy group.

It can be carried out directly against the main forces of the advancing enemy in order to dissect them and oust them from the occupied area. In any conditions, the counterattack should, if possible, be based on those sections of the front where the enemy is stopped or detained. If this is not possible, the beginning of a counterattack takes the form of an oncoming battle.

Offensive is the main type of military action (along with defense and counter combat), based on the attacking actions of the armed forces. It is used to defeat the enemy (destroy manpower, military equipment, infrastructure) and capture important areas, borders 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.

An offensive consists of striking the enemy with various military means on land, in the air and at sea, destroying the main groupings of his troops and decisively using the success achieved by rapidly advancing one’s 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 tempo, 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 goal of the offensive is to achieve a certain success, to consolidate which a transition to defense or an offensive on other sectors of the front is possible.

Defense is a type of military action based on the protective actions of the armed forces. It is used to disrupt or stop the enemy’s offensive, to hold important areas, boundaries and objects on one’s territory, to create conditions for going on the offensive, and for other purposes.

Consists of defeating the enemy with fire (in nuclear war and nuclear) strikes, repelling his fire and nuclear strikes, offensive actions taken on the ground, in the air and at sea, countering the enemy’s attempts to seize held lines, areas, objects, defeating his invading groups of troops .

Defense can have strategic, operational and tactical significance. Defense is organized in advance or is carried out as a result of enemy troops going on the offensive. Usually, along with repelling enemy attacks, defense also includes elements of offensive actions (inflicting retaliatory, oncoming and preemptive fire strikes, conducting counterstrikes and counterattacks, defeating the attacking enemy in the areas of his base, deployment and initial lines), the proportion of which characterizes the level her activity.

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

A siege is a prolonged military blockade of a city or fortress with the intention of capturing the object by subsequent assault or forcing the garrison to capitulate as a result of exhaustion of its forces. The siege begins subject to resistance from the city or fortress, if capitulation is rejected by the defenders and the city or fortress cannot be captured quickly. The besiegers usually completely blockade the objective, disrupting the supply of ammunition, food, water and other resources. During a siege, attackers may use siege weapons and artillery to destroy fortifications and make tunnels to penetrate the site. The emergence of siege as a method of warfare is associated with the development of cities. During excavations of ancient cities in the Middle East, signs of defensive structures in the form of walls were discovered. During the Renaissance and early modern period, siege was the main method of warfare in Europe. Leonardo da Vinci's fame as a creator of fortifications is commensurate with his fame as an artist. Medieval military campaigns relied heavily on the success of sieges. During 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 with moats, and the fortress castles were replaced with bunkers. In the 20th century, the meaning of the classical siege almost disappeared. With the advent of mobile warfare, a single, heavily fortified fortress is no longer as crucial as it once was. The siege method of warfare has exhausted itself with the advent of the possibility of delivering huge volumes of destructive means to a strategic target.

Retreat is a forced or deliberate abandonment by troops of occupied lines (areas) and their withdrawal to new lines deep within their territory in order to create a new grouping of forces and assets for subsequent combat 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 and Vilna in order to avoid defeat from attacks by Russian troops.

In the first period of the Great Patriotic War, Soviet troops, conducting active defensive actions, were forced to retreat in order to withdraw units and formations from the attacks of superior enemy forces and gain time to create a stable defense with the forces of strategic reserves and retreating troops. The retreat was carried out mainly in an organized manner, on the orders of the senior commander. To ensure the exit of the main forces from the battle against the most threatening enemy groupings, air and artillery strikes were usually carried out, measures were taken to covertly withdraw the main forces to lines advantageous for conducting defensive operations, and counterattacks (counterstrikes) were launched against the enemy groupings that had broken through. The retreat usually ended with the troops moving to the defensive at the specified line.

Prisoners of war

Prisoner of war is the name given to a person captured by the enemy during a war with weapons in his hands. According to existing military laws, a prisoner of war who surrenders voluntarily to avoid danger does not deserve leniency. According to our military regulations on punishments, the leader of a detachment who lays down his weapon in front of the enemy or concludes capitulation with him, without fulfilling his duty according to duty and in accordance with the requirements of military honor, is expelled from service and deprived of ranks; If the surrender is made without a fight, despite the opportunity to defend oneself, then one is subject to the death penalty. The commandant of a fortified place who surrenders it without fulfilling his duty in accordance with the duty of the oath and in accordance with the requirements of military honor is subject to the same execution. V.'s fate was different at different times and in different countries. The barbarian peoples of antiquity and the Middle Ages often killed all prisoners without exception; The Greeks and Romans, although they did not do this, turned captives into slavery and released them only for a ransom corresponding to the rank of the captive. With the spread of Christianity and enlightenment, the fate of V. began to become easier. Officers are sometimes released on their word of honor that during the war or a certain time they will not fight against the state in which they were captured. Anyone who breaks his word is considered dishonest and may be executed if captured again. 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 government work, which, however, should not be directed against their fatherland. V.'s property, excluding weapons, is considered inviolable. During a war, military units can be exchanged with the consent of the warring parties, and usually an equal number of persons 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, air force, navy, as well as such individual branches of the military 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 personnel, distinguished by the presence of the world's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons 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 Russian Constitution).

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 localities in order to create conditions for its reflection or prevention, with immediate notification of this to the Federation Council and the State Duma for approval of the corresponding decree (regime martial law is determined by 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, a corresponding resolution of the Federation Council is necessary.

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 “z” of Article 83); appoints and dismisses the high command of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (clause “l” of Article 83).

Direct leadership of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (except for civil defense troops, border and internal troops) is exercised by the Russian Ministry of Defense.

History of the Russian army

Army of Ancient Rus'

Army of Muscovite Rus'

Army of the Russian Empire

White Army

USSR Armed Forces

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 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. On December 15, 1993, the Charter of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation was adopted.

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

The 201st Motorized Rifle Division was left in Tajikistan during the outbreak 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 siding with Armenia in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. Proponents of this view predominate 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 growing influence of Russia in Armenia, Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, where pro-Russian sentiments have won.

The Russian army took part in two Chechen wars - 1994-96 ("restoration of constitutional order") and 1999-actually until 2006 ("counter-terrorism operation") - and in the war in South Ossetia in August 2008 ("Peace Enforcement Operation") .

Structure of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation

Air Force

Ground troops

Navy

Branches of the Armed Forces

Space Force

Airborne troops

The Armed Forces consist of three branches of the Armed Forces, three branches of the armed forces, the Logistics of the Armed Forces, the Cantonment and Accommodation Service of the Ministry of Defense, railway troops and other troops not included in the branches of the Armed Forces.

According to press reports, conceptual documents of long-term planning, which are being developed by 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 development:

Preserving the potential of strategic deterrent forces capable of causing damage in response, the extent of which would call into question the achievement of the goal of any possible aggression against Russia. The way to solve the problem is the balanced development and maintenance of a sufficient level of combat strength of the strategic nuclear forces and missile and space defense forces. By 2010, Russia's Strategic Missile Forces will have two missile armies 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 be armed with 13 strategic nuclear missile submarines with 208 ballistic missiles, and the Air Force should be armed with 75 Tu-160 and Tu-95MS strategic bombers;

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

Improving the structure of military command. Starting from 2005, the functions of combat employment of troops and forces will be transferred to the General Staff. The main commands of the branches and 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 Arms 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 Wikipedia

falange.ru – Great historical battles and wars

No matter how much each of us individually strives for peace, wars continue to break out in different parts of our planet, almost never stopping. No matter how much we despise violence, military technology is becoming more and more complex and effective, and people continue to improve in the art of killing their own kind. Why is this happening? Why do wars happen? What mechanisms are pushing us to start more and more armed conflicts? There are several theories to explain these phenomena.

According to the definition of dictionaries, war is an organized armed struggle between states, nations (peoples), and social groups. In war, economic, political, ideological and other means of struggle can be used, but the main and decisive means is the armed forces: up to 95% of all societies known to us used the armed forces to resolve external or internal conflicts.

Wars are classified according to a variety of criteria:

Based on the goals: predatory, aggressive, colonial, religious, dynastic, commercial, national liberation, patriotic and revolutionary;

According to the scale of military operations and the number of forces and means involved: local and large-scale;

- by the nature of the warring parties: civilian and external. Civilians, in turn, are divided into elite, led by factions within the elite, and inter-class. External – for wars between states, between states and tribes, coalitions of states, between metropolises and colonies;

By methods and location: offensive and defensive, regular and partisan, land, sea, air, coastal, serf, and so on.

According to moral criteria: fair and unjust. A “just war” refers to a war waged to protect order and law and, ultimately, peace. The mandatory conditions for a “just war” are: the presence of a just cause; war should be started only when all peaceful means have been exhausted; it should not go beyond achieving the main goal; The civilian population should not suffer from it.

As for the causes of wars, in different historical periods different concepts came to the fore to explain them.

So, for example, there was theological interpretation, from the point of view of which, war is an arena for realizing the will of the gods. Adherents of this theory saw in war a way of establishing true religion and rewarding the pious (the conquest of the “Promised Land” by the Jews) 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).

Concrete historical approach, which developed in antiquity, connected the origin of wars only with their local historical context and denied the existence of any universal causes. Responsibility in this case was placed exclusively on political leaders and the decisions they made, and the outbreak of war itself was often perceived as the result of a random combination of circumstances.

A completely different approach to the study of the phenomenon of war was proposed by psychological school. The origins of this approach can be found in Ancient Greece, when the Greek historian Thucydides proposed that war is a consequence of bad human nature, the innate tendency of man to “do” chaos and evil. The same idea was used by S. Freud when creating the theory of psychoanalysis: he argued that a person could not exist if he did not direct his inherent need for self-destruction (the death instinct) to external objects, other individuals, other ethnic groups, other religious groups.

Followers of S. Freud viewed war as a manifestation of mass psychosis resulting from the suppression of human instincts by society. Further, Freud's theory of sublimation was reworked in a gender sense: some modern psychologists consider the tendency to aggression and violence to be an integral property of male nature; suppressed in peaceful conditions, this tendency must find the necessary outlet on the battlefield. From their point of view, humanity will get rid of wars only if the levers of control pass into the hands of women and feminine values ​​are established in society.

Other psychologists interpret aggressiveness not as a trait of the male psyche, but as a result of its violation, and argue that for the advent of an era of universal peace, it is necessary to create an effective system of civil control that would not allow madmen like Hitler, Napoleon and Mussolini to power.

A special branch of the psychological school was founded by K. Lorenz, an outstanding Austrian scientist, one of the founders of ethology - the science of animal behavior. From his point of view, war is an extended form of animal behavior and, first of all, an expression of the rivalry of males and their struggle for the possession of a certain territory.

Anthropological School rejects the psychological approach and proves that the tendency to aggression is not transmitted genetically, but is formed in the process of upbringing, reflecting the ideological, cultural and religious attitudes of a particular social environment. Various historical forms of violence were generated by their own social contexts, which means there is no connection between them.

At the core political approach lies the formula of the German military theorist K. Clausewitz, who defined war as “the continuation of policy by other means.” An offshoot of this school is geopolitical direction, whose representatives see the main reason for the outbreak of wars in the lack of “living space” and the desire of states to expand their borders to natural boundaries (rivers, mountain ranges, etc.).

Demographic theories can be divided into two classes: Malthusian theories, dating back to the English economist T.R. Malthus (1766–1834), and the theory of youth dominance.

According to Malthusian theories, the causes of wars lie in the imbalance between population and resources. In this case, wars act as functional means to restore this balance by destroying demographic surpluses. Neo-Malthusians believe that war is an integral part of human life and is the main engine of social progress.

The theory of youth dominance differs significantly from Malthusian theories. Its adherents believe that the presence of a large number of unsecured young men who do not inherit property leads to a high risk of war, given the lack of available jobs in the existing social system.

The German scientist G. Heinsohn, who first proposed the theory of youth predominance in its most general form, argues that the imbalance occurs when 30-40% of the country’s male population belongs to the “explosive” age group - from 15 to 29 years. Usually this phenomenon is preceded by a birth rate explosion, when there are 4-8 children per woman. And with a limited number of prestigious positions in society, many "angry young men" find themselves in situations where their youthful anger spills over into violence. Religion and ideology are auxiliary tools in order to give violence a semblance of legitimacy.

Currently, the most popular when interpreting the phenomenon of war remains sociological approach, which views war as a product of the internal social conditions and social structure of the warring countries.

Popular among international relations specialists information theory, which explains the occurrence 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 of the enemy - otherwise it would either refuse aggression or capitulate in order to avoid unnecessary human and material losses. Consequently, information about the enemy's intentions and his ability to wage war (effective intelligence) becomes crucial.

Cosmopolitan theory connects the origin of the war with the confrontation between national and supranational, universal human interests. It is used primarily to explain armed conflicts in the era of globalization.

Supporters economic interpretation They consider war to be a consequence of rivalry between states in the sphere of international economic relations: they start a war to obtain new markets, cheap labor, sources of raw materials and energy.

The economic interpretation is an element of the Marxist approach, which treats any war as a derivative of class war. From the point of view of Marxism, wars are fought to strengthen the power of the ruling classes and to split the world proletariat through appeals to religious or nationalist ideals. Wars are the inevitable result of a free market and a system of class inequality.

There are many theories, and modern scientists continue to try to understand their nature and find ways to rid humanity of such a destructive method of resolving conflicts. Perhaps someday this will happen, we can only hope. 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...