Apparat - A magazine about the new society. The nature of modern wars and armed conflicts briefly
Novosibirsk State Agricultural University
Economic Institute
Department of History, Political Science and Cultural Studies
ESSAY
MILITARY CONFLICTS IN THE MODERN WORLD
Performed:
Student 423 group
Smolkina E.I.
Checked:
Bakhmatskaya G.V.
Novosibirsk 2010
Introduction……………………………………………………………..3
1. Causes of wars and their classification…………...4
2. Military conflicts……………………………………………...7
Conclusion………………………………………………………….12
List of used literature………………………………...13
Introduction
War - a conflict between political entities (states, tribes, political groups), taking place in the form of hostilities between their armed forces. According to Clausewitz, "war is the continuation of politics by other means." The main means of achieving the goals of war is organized armed struggle as the main and decisive means, as well as economic, diplomatic, ideological, informational and other means of struggle. In this sense, war is organized armed violence, the purpose of which is to achieve political goals. Total war is armed violence carried to its extreme limits. The main tool in the war is the army.
Military writers usually define war as an armed conflict in which the rival factions are sufficiently evenly matched to make the outcome of the battle uncertain. Armed conflicts of militarily strong countries with tribes that are at a primitive level of development are called appeasements, military expeditions, or the development of new territories; with small states - interventions or reprisals; with internal groups - uprisings and rebellions. Such incidents, if the resistance is strong enough or prolonged in time, may reach sufficient magnitude to be classified as a "war".
The purpose of the work: to define the term war, find out the causes of its occurrence and determine the classification; to characterize the military conflict on the example of South Ossetia.
1. Causes of wars and their classification
The main reason for the emergence of wars is the desire of political forces to use armed struggle to achieve various foreign and domestic political goals.
With the emergence of mass armies in the 19th century, xenophobia (hatred, intolerance towards someone or something alien, unfamiliar, unusual, perception of the alien as incomprehensible, incomprehensible, and therefore dangerous and hostile) became an important tool for mobilizing the population for war, elevated to the rank worldview. On its basis, national, religious or social enmity is easily fomented, and therefore, from the 2nd half of XIX For centuries, xenophobia has been the main tool for instigating wars, directing aggression, and certain manipulations of the masses within the state.
On the other hand, European societies that survived the devastating wars of the 20th century began to strive to live in peace. Very often, members of such societies live in fear of any shocks. An example of this is the ideologeme "If only there were no war", which prevailed in Soviet society after the end of the most destructive war of the 20th century - World War II.
For propaganda purposes, wars are traditionally divided into just and unjust.
Just wars include wars of liberation - for example, individual or collective self-defense against aggression in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter or a national liberation war against colonialists in the exercise of the right to self-determination. IN modern world formally fair, but disapproved are wars waged by separatist movements (Chechnya, Ulster, Kashmir).
To unfair - predatory or illegal (aggression, colonial wars). In international law, a war of aggression is qualified as an international crime. In the 1990s, such a concept as a humanitarian war appeared, which formally is aggression in the name of higher goals: the prevention of ethnic cleansing or humanitarian assistance to civilians.
According to their scale, wars are divided into world and local (conflicts).
According to military doctrine Russian Federation dated 2000, the local war is the smallest scale modern war.
A local war, as a rule, is part of a regional ethnic, political, territorial or other conflict. Within the framework of one regional conflict, a number of local wars can be concluded (in particular, several local wars have already taken place during the Arab-Israeli conflict in 2009).
The main stages or phases of the conflict can be characterized as follows:
· Initial state of affairs; the interests of the parties involved in the conflict; their degree of understanding.
· The initiating party - the reasons and nature of its actions.
· Response measures; the degree of readiness for the negotiation process; possibility normal development and conflict resolution - changes in the initial state of affairs.
· Lack of mutual understanding, ie. understanding the interests of the opposite side.
· Mobilization of resources in defending their interests.
Use of force or threat of force (demonstrations of force) in the course of defending one's interests.
Professor Krasnov identifies six stages of conflict. From his point of view, the first stage of a political conflict is characterized by the formed attitude of the parties regarding a specific contradiction or group of contradictions. The second phase of the conflict is the determination of the strategy by the warring parties and the forms of their struggle to resolve the existing contradictions, taking into account the potential and possibilities for using various, including violent means, internal and international situations. The third stage is connected with the involvement of other participants in the struggle through blocs, alliances, and agreements.
The fourth stage is the escalation of the struggle, up to a crisis, gradually embracing all the participants from both sides and developing into a nationwide one. The fifth stage of the conflict is the transition of one of the parties to the practical use of force, at first for demonstrative purposes or on a limited scale. The sixth stage is an armed conflict, starting with a limited conflict (limitations on objectives, territories covered, scope and level of military operations, military means used) and capable, under certain circumstances, of developing into more high levels armed struggle (war as a continuation of politics) of all participants.
The author of this approach considers armed conflict as one of the forms of political conflict. The limitations of this approach are manifested in the abstraction from two important aspects: from the pre-conflict conditions and from the post-conflict stage in the development of political relations.
2. Military conflicts
The concept of "military conflict", the defining feature of which is only the application military force to achieve political goals, serves as an integrator for the other two - armed conflict and war. Military conflict - any clash, confrontation, a form of resolving contradictions between states, peoples, social groups with the use of military force. Depending on the goals of the parties and scale indicators, such as the spatial scope, the forces and means involved, the intensity of the armed struggle, military conflicts can be divided into limited (armed conflicts, local and regional wars) and unlimited ( World War). In relation to military conflicts, sometimes, most often in foreign literature, such terms as conflicts of small scale (low intensity), medium scale (medium intensity), large scale (high intensity) are used.
According to some researchers, a military conflict is a form of interstate conflict characterized by such a clash of interests of the warring parties that use military means with varying degrees of limitation to achieve their goals. Armed conflict - a conflict between medium and large social groups, in which the parties use weapons (armed formations), excluding the armed forces. Armed conflicts are open clashes with the use of weapons between two or more centrally led parties, uninterrupted for some time in a dispute over the control of the territory and its administration.
Other authors call contradictions between the subjects of military-strategic relations a military conflict, emphasizing the degree of aggravation of these contradictions and the form of their resolution (with the use of armed forces on a limited scale). Military experts understand armed conflict as any conflict with the use of weapons. In contrast, in a military conflict, the presence of political motives in the use of weapons is mandatory. In other words, the essence of a military conflict is the continuation of politics with the use of military violence.
Among military experts, there is the concept of a limited military conflict, a conflict associated with a change in the status of a territory that affects the interests of the state and with the use of means of armed struggle. In such a conflict, the number of opposing sides ranges from 7 to 30 thousand people, up to 150 tanks, up to 300 armored vehicles, 10-15 light aircraft, up to 20 helicopters.
The concept of "armed conflict", its essence and types.
Characteristic features of armed conflicts.
Security of the population in armed conflicts.
Behavior in the zone of armed conflict.
Social conflicts can take place with or without the use of violence. Armed conflict is considered to exist when military force is used.
In a number of cases, a local armed conflict is a form of indirect confrontation between the superpowers, which avoid direct armed conflict between themselves because of the fear of mutually assured destruction and act as active sponsors of the “Third World” states opposing each other (typical of the Cold War). A military (local) conflict can escalate into a war of varying intensity or prolonged hostility between states without the use of armed struggle.
The concept of "armed conflict", its essence and types
Most political scientists and military experts believe that the line between war and armed conflict is arbitrary. But there are a number of significant criteria that make it possible to determine the differences between them, as well as the place and role of each of these social phenomena in public life.
First, war is conditioned by the presence of fundamental contradictions - economic or political - and is waged with decisive goals. The resolution of contradictions with the help of military force is caused by the awareness and need to realize the vital interests of society and the state. Therefore, in the war there is always an organizational principle. In an armed conflict, as a rule, national-ethnic, clan, religious and other interests derived from the main ones and the contradictions caused by them come to the fore. Armed conflicts can take the form of spontaneous or deliberately organized uprisings, rebellions, military actions and incidents, depending on who owns the "conflict" interests, who is their bearer.
Secondly, the war leads to a qualitative change in the state of the entire country and the armed forces. Many state institutions begin to perform specific functions. The centralization of power, the concentration of all the forces of the country are intensifying, the economy and the entire life of society are being rebuilt to achieve victory. Full or partial mobilization of the armed forces and the economy is being carried out. An armed conflict, unlike a war, basically determines the state of the armed forces or their parts. fighting, as a rule, are conducted by part of the combat strength of peacetime troops.
Thirdly, in war, all forms of struggle are used by the relevant institutions of the state - political, diplomatic, informational, economic, armed, etc., and in armed conflicts, the parties may confine themselves to armed clashes, sometimes spontaneous, although the organized use of other forms of confrontation by them is not excluded, first of all - informational.
Fourth, from a legal point of view, war is characterized by such features as the formal act of its declaration (this is required by the Hague Convention of 1907), the severance of diplomatic relations between the belligerent states and the annulment of treaties that regulated the peaceful relations of these states, the introduction of martial law (a state of emergency ) on the territory of the belligerent states (or parts of it) and a number of others.
Thus, an armed conflict does not contain the main features inherent in war as a special state of society, as well as the necessary legal criteria that define it as a war. Therefore, the concept of "armed conflict" is not identical with the concept of "war" and vice versa. A well-known principle follows from this: any war is an armed conflict, but not any armed conflict is a war.
Armed conflict - one of the forms of resolving contradictions (national-ethnic, religious, etc.) with the use of armed violence, in which the state (states) does not go into a special state called war.
Military experts understand armed conflict as any conflict with the use of weapons: an armed conflict - a conflict between medium and large social groups in which the parties use weapons (armed formations), excluding the armed forces.
In the Russian Federation, armed conflict is officially understood as an armed incident, an armed action and other armed clashes of a limited scale that may result from an attempt to resolve national, ethnic, religious and other contradictions with the help of means of armed struggle(Military doctrine of the Russian Federation).
In accordance with the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation, an armed conflict may be international in nature (involving two or more states) or non-international, internal in nature (with armed confrontation within the territory of one state). An armed conflict is characterized by: high involvement in it and vulnerability of the local population; the use of irregular armed formations; widespread use of sabotage and terrorist methods; the complexity of the moral and psychological environment in which the troops operate; forced diversion of significant forces and resources to ensure the security of movement routes, areas and locations of troops (forces); danger of transformation into a local (international armed conflict) or civil (internal armed conflict) war.
Military conflict - any clash, confrontation, a form of resolving contradictions between states, peoples, social groups with the use of military force.
In a military conflict, the presence of political motives in the use of weapons is mandatory. In other words, the essence of a military conflict is the continuation of politics with the use of military violence.
After the Second World War, new approaches to the definition of armed conflicts arise and are approved. To date, several basic concepts have been formed in science that make it possible to investigate and evaluate armed conflicts.
One of these concepts took shape in the 1980s in the United States, and then began to be used by military specialists from other Western countries. Methodological basis these views was the general theory of conflict. According to this theory, armed conflict is a kind of social (political) conflict in which one or both parties seek to achieve their interests through military force. Proceeding from this position, Western military experts proposed to understand any military clash as an armed conflict, differentiating them depending on the intensity of hostilities.
Unlike Western theoretical thought, domestic military scientists much later began to deal with the theory of military conflict. For this reason, our military science has not yet developed a sufficiently coherent theoretical basis for their study. The lack of developments on the general theory of conflict did not allow Russian military specialists to conduct research on this problem until the end of the 1980s. Therefore, until recently, the concept of "armed conflict" was used as a synonym for "small", "limited" and "local" wars.
In the United States during the Vietnam War, work was carried out to create a special language for denoting certain phenomena and actions that made the right impression on the reader. All words that caused negative associations were excluded from the language: war, offensive, weapons for the destruction of manpower. Instead, neutral words were introduced: conflict, operation. Dead zones in which vegetation was destroyed by dioxins were called "sanitary cordons", napalm - "soft charge", concentration camps - "strategic villages", etc. Taboos were imposed and strictly observed on the use of a huge number of "normal" words. However, from the fact that the war began to be called a low-intensity armed conflict, the consequences for the population did not change. |
An armed conflict most often occurs on the border of a region (country). There are regional, local and inter-ethnic armed conflicts.
Regional armed conflict - conflict on the basis of regional contradictions (historical, territorial, economic, political, interethnic, etc.) between neighboring countries, communities or groups.
A region in this context is understood as a significant geographically or economically distinct part of a large country or continent (Siberia, the Urals, the Middle East, the Balkans, the Caucasus, the Mediterranean, etc.).
Local armed conflict - this is an armed clash with limited political and military-strategic goals, covering a relatively small number of participants and a limited geographical area within the region.
Local wars were fought in Yugoslavia and the Middle East (Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, etc.).
Armed inter-ethnic conflict - armed confrontation between armed formations or extremist groups of various ethnic and (or) religious orientations.
Often this is a clash between such groups and government forces and law enforcement forces. It is possible that the official authorities and strong structure States are directly or indirectly on the side of one of the conflicting national, territorial or religious groups (for example, Northern Ireland, Spain, Turkey, Iraq).
An armed interethnic conflict is characterized by:
Mutual territorial claims and the dispute about the justice of the borders that separate ethnic groups;
Mythologization of history and the active role of the historical memory of each conflicting party;
The presence of geopolitical allies for each conflicting party in the person of foreign (most often, neighboring) states;
The special role of the psychological factor, the informational and ideological struggle for the minds of the civilian population not directly involved in the armed conflict;
Lack of moral and legal restrictions actions of the conflicting parties, as well as the territorial boundaries of the conflict;
The danger of escalating into a large-scale conflict when carrying out terrorist acts with massive tragic consequences.
Characteristic features of armed conflicts
Armed conflicts have their own characteristics, causes, political and strategic goals, scale, intensity, duration, means of armed struggle, forms and methods of warfare, etc. Armed conflict is characterized by:
High involvement in it and vulnerability of the local population;
The use of irregular armed formations;
Widespread use of sabotage and terrorist methods;
The complexity of the moral and psychological environment in which the troops operate;
Forced diversion of significant forces and means to ensure the security of movement routes, areas and locations of troops (forces);
The danger of transformation into a local (international armed conflict) or civil (internal armed conflict) war.
In addition to the above, the features of armed conflicts are:
The focal nature of hostilities;
Uncertainty of the duration of hostilities;
Active participation in the development of the conflict of criminal structures;
Committing murders, acts of looting, pogroms;
An increase in the number of internally displaced persons and refugees, which intensifies the criminogenic situation;
Dependence on the intervention of world powers or their coalitions (economic and diplomatic support, participation in hostilities on one side or another, supply of weapons and military equipment, etc.);
Dependence on world public opinion (protests, denial of international support, economic and political blockade, etc.);
The absence of moral and legal restrictions on the actions of the conflicting parties, as well as the territorial boundaries of the conflict.
All these characteristic features were clearly manifested in the events of August 2008 in South Ossetia.
Public safety in armed conflicts
Despite the fact that numerous conventions on international humanitarian law and human rights have been adopted over the past 50 years, there are increasing examples of ill-treatment, torture and killing of defenseless civilians in armed conflicts. In modern wars, the proportion of civilians among war casualties has increased dramatically and is estimated to be 75%, and in some cases more.
In many conflicts, the belligerents direct their efforts against the civilian population in order to expel or liquidate part of the population, or to hasten military surrender.
Forced displacement is a characteristic feature of armed conflict. Today there are 30 million displaced persons, 80% of whom are women and children. Displaced persons are often systematically abused and lack adequate physical protection, forcing them to flee and leaving behind their property, homes and families.
Children suffer the most in armed conflict. More than 300,000 children under the age of 18 have been ruthlessly exploited during conflict as soldiers in government forces or opposition militias. Children were also used as sex slaves. They were brought in to support the war effort in other forms as well. The United Nations Children's Fund estimates that 2 million children have been killed as a direct result of armed conflict over the past decade. Three times as many children were injured or maimed for life. More children died of malnutrition and disease.
The UN, the International Committee of the Red Cross, regional organizations and many other international structures are paying increasing attention to the protection of civilians in armed conflicts. In addition to medicines and food, recommendations and reminders for the population are being developed. Here are some recommendations prepared on the basis of the developments of G. E. Tsvilyuk, A. V. Gostyushin, S. V. Petrov and other authors:
Behavior in the zone of armed conflict .
If you witnessed a shootout while at home:
Move away from the window immediately (lie down on the floor). Turn off the lights, move around the apartment crouching. Going to the side of the window, draw the curtains with a stick or mop. Shelter children in a bathroom, basement, cellar, or other shelter.
Do not go outside, warn the neighbors.
Together with your neighbors, barricade the doors to the entrance from the inside if there is a danger of thugs entering the house. Organize shift duty at the front door.
Use any means at hand for self-defense.
Go outside only after restoring order.
If you are outside during a shootout:
Immediately lie down on the ground or hide behind the nearest shelter (pole, car, tree, etc.), press against the wall of the house.
Try not to stay in open areas of the street and move by crawling or crouching so as not to become a victim of an accidental bullet.
In order not to suffer from shots, leave the dangerous area, choose a place to hide. Leave the city or danger zone.
Try to hide in churches, buildings of international organizations, medical facilities.
Observe the requirements of the military, the rules of disguise, curfew. Choose a safe route and travel time. Do not carry items or valuables that may attract the attention of patrols or looters.
Take every action thoughtfully. Save your energy, water and food.
Stay vigilant, look around often.
When you leave home, leave information for your family to find you.
If you are taken hostage:
Follow all instructions of armed people. Do not show your fear, refrain from unnecessary complaints, sudden movements and insults, but you can ask for medicine, water, warm clothes.
Your task is not to provoke the military to use weapons and harm you. Try to strike up a casual conversation, set up a friendly tone (in this case, the chances of survival increase, and you yourself can calm down).
Try to stay inconspicuous, reassure others, consider a plan of action in case of evacuation from the danger zone.
Use convenient moments of calm for evacuation.
Do not run out to meet the military and rescuers (you may be mistaken for the enemy).
In case of injury, try to move less to reduce blood loss, hold the wound with your hand, clothing, drag the wounded limb with a belt or handkerchief.
When using combat gases, breathe through a fabric (scarf, handkerchief, shirt), when consciousness fades, lie down on the floor (on your stomach) so that your tongue does not sink into your throat in case of fainting.
Although the modern world is quite civilized, war between states and within their borders remains one of the main methods of solving political problems. Despite the presence of international organizations and protector states, armed conflicts are not uncommon in African countries and in the East. Some states are in a state of constant sluggish armed confrontation. This nature of modern wars and armed conflicts is increasingly found in states where an ethnically diverse population is forced to live within a common border.
Types of wars depending on the scale of the conflict
Due to globalization, the nature of modern wars and armed conflicts is gradually changing. All members of a military-political or economic bloc can be drawn into an active power conflict. And today there are three most high-tech armies. These are Chinese troops: a hypothetical active war between two representatives of this list will automatically be of a large-scale nature. This means that it will take place over a large area without the formation of a united confrontation front.
The second, fundamentally different type of war is a local armed conflict. It either occurs between two or more countries within their borders, or takes place within one state. Armies of states, but not military blocs, participate in such a confrontation. It is distinguished by a small number of participants and assumes the presence of a front.
The nature of the fighting
The nature of modern wars and armed conflicts can be briefly presented in the form of pairs: active or sluggish, positional or generalized, interstate or civil, conventional or illegitimate... An active war is accompanied by the maintenance of the front or the conduct of sabotage activities, supporting constant hostilities.
A slow-moving war is often accompanied by a lack of significant collisions between opposing armies, while priority is given to sabotage or the rare use of remote attack means. Slow conflicts are often local and can continue even permanently in the absence of hostilities.
Such a situation is possible in regions with insufficiently formed statehood, which has neither the legitimate right nor the authority to initiate the conclusion of peace. The result of such a confrontation is the emergence of a local "hot" spot, which often requires the presence of a foreign peacekeeping contingent.
Conventional and illegitimate wars
This classification of the nature of modern wars implies their division depending on the observance of human rights and international agreements regarding the use of weapons. For example, conflicts involving terrorist organizations or self-proclaimed states that directly destroy or cause infrastructure damage existing countries, will be called illegitimate. Such are the conflicts with the use of prohibited weapons.
Military blocs can be formed against the participants in such conflicts by "global arbiters" in order to destroy organizations and armies whose tactics of warfare are contrary to international norms and conventions. However, this does not mean that conventional wars are ardently supported.
Conventional warfare simply does not violate international rules, and the opposing sides use authorized weapons and provide assistance to the wounded of their enemy. Convention wars are aimed at preserving the civilized image of warfare, which is designed to save the maximum number of human lives.
precision weapons
Due to the peculiarities of the technical equipment of large armies, priority in the conflicts in which they were involved is given to a global disarming strike. This type of warfare involves the comprehensive and simultaneous neutralization of known enemy military facilities. The concept involves the use of high-precision weapons designed to hit only military targets, providing maximum protection for the civilian population.
Distance Wars
An important feature of the nature of modern wars and armed conflicts is the maximum increase in the distance between the opposing armies in order to carry out remote attacks. They must be carried out with the maximum use of the means of delivery of ammunition and the minimum involvement of human resources. Priority is given to the means of warfare that ensure the safety of the soldier of his army. However, as the main military means, those are used that ensure the infliction of maximum damage to enemy troops. Artillery, navy, aviation, nuclear weapons should be cited as an example.
The ideological background of wars
In such a broad concept as the nature of modern wars and armed conflicts, OBZh as a field of knowledge highlights ideological training. This is the name of a system of values and knowledge that is natural for a certain nationality or artificially nurtured. It is aimed either at creation, or it brings up the goal of destroying its ideological opponents. A striking example is a direct follower of Christianity - radical Islamism.
In the Middle Ages, Christianity, as a very aggressive religion, led to numerous wars, including with the adherents of Islam. The latter were forced to defend their states and wealth during the Crusades. At the same time, Islam as a system of knowledge and as a religion was formed against aggressive Christianity. Since that moment, wars have taken on a character not only as a means of achieving advantages in geopolitics, but also as a measure to protect one's value system.
Religious and ideological wars
Strictly speaking, after the formation of various ideologies, power confrontations began to take on a religious character. Such is the nature of modern wars and armed conflicts, some of which, as in the inhumane Middle Ages, pursue the goal of seizing territories or wealth under favorable pretexts. Religion as an ideology is a powerful system of values that delineates a clear boundary between people. Then, in the understanding of opponents, the enemy is really an enemy that has no points of contact.
The Importance of Ideology in Modern Warfare
Having such an attitude, the soldier is more cruel, because he understands how far he is from his opponent in understanding even elementary things. It is much easier to fight armed with such beliefs, and the effectiveness of an ideologically prepared army is much higher. This also means that modern wars often arise not only because of the desire to gain geopolitical advantages, but also because of national and ideological differences. In psychology, this is called armed with which a soldier can forget about indulgence for the vanquished and about international conventions adopted to reduce casualties during wars.
Definition of an aggressor
The main paradox in the nature of modern wars and armed conflicts is the definition of an aggressor. Since in the context of globalization many countries are present in economic or political blocs, the warring parties may have a number of allies and indirect opponents. At the same time, one of the most important tasks of an ally is to support a friendly state, regardless of its correctness. This leads to international problems, some of which are provoked by distortions of reality.
Both frankly negative aspects and positive ones can be distorted. Such crises in international relations threaten war even to those states that did not participate in armed confrontation before fulfilling allied obligations. This is one of the paradoxical features of the nature of modern wars and armed conflicts. The content of the literature on geopolitics directly confirms such conclusions. Examples are easy to find in the military conflicts in Syria and Ukraine.
Prospects for the use of nuclear weapons
The hypothetical nature of modern wars and armed conflicts of the Russian Federation suggests the possible use of nuclear weapons. Their use can be justified by the UN Security Council both in relation to the Russian Federation and against other states. Such a development of events is possible for the reason that nuclear weapons are highly effective as a means of preemption and disarmament. Likewise, nuclear weapons, like WMD, have no disadvantages in terms of long-term damage to the environment. That is, in the case of the use of nuclear weapons in a certain territory, the defeat occurs due to the blast wave, but not due to radioactivity.
The nuclear reaction stops immediately after and therefore the territory will not be contaminated with radioactive substances. And unlike local wars, confrontations at the global level are of a different nature. In modern military conflicts, the main approaches are reduced to the maximum protection of the civilian population of the warring parties. This is one of the main pretexts by which the use of nuclear weapons to disarm an illegitimate adversary can be justified in global wars.
Prospects for the use of other weapons of mass destruction
Chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in a global war, as analysts assume, will not be used. It can be used by the warring parties within the framework of local conflicts. But armed confrontation on a global scale, in which small states are involved, can also lead to the use of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction by poorly equipped armies.
The army of the Russian Federation, China and NATO are parties to international conventions and have abandoned chemical and biological weapons. Moreover, the use of such weapons does not fully fit into the concept of a global disarming strike. But within the framework of local wars, and especially in the case of the emergence of terrorist organizations, such an outcome should be expected from non-governmental armies not burdened by international treaties and conventions. The use of chemical or biological weapons harms both armies.
Prevention of hostilities
The best war is the one that fails. It is strange, but such utopian ideals are possible even in conditions of constant "sabre-rattling" of weapons, which is often seen in the politics of Russia, NATO, and China. They often conduct demonstration exercises and improve their weapons. And as part of identifying the nature of modern wars and armed conflicts, the presentation of military means and achievements should be considered in the context of demonstrating one's own
This tactic allows you to show your army and thereby prevent an active attack by a potentially enemy state. For a similar purpose, nuclear weapons are stored today. It is quite obvious that its supply in the world is excessive, but developed countries contain it in in large numbers for the purpose of so-called nuclear deterrence.
This is one of the war prevention tactics that requires the possessor of WMD to have common sense and a desire to resolve conflicts through diplomacy. This also confirms that modern concept warfare is reduced to building up combat power. This is necessary in order to achieve victory with minimal consequences for your army and your own state. However, this applies to defensive wars, and in the conditions of a civilized world, the predominance in military power is not a sign of aggression - this is one of the tactics for preventing wars.
Novosibirsk State Agrarian University
Economic Institute
Department of History, Political Science and Cultural Studies
ESSAY
MILITARY CONFLICTS IN THE MODERN WORLD
Performed:
Student 423 group
Smolkina E.I.
Checked:
Bakhmatskaya G.V.
Novosibirsk 2010
Introduction……………………………………………………………..3
1. Causes of wars and their classification…………...4
2. Military conflicts……………………………………………...7
Conclusion………………………………………………………….12
List of used literature………………………………...13
Introduction
War - a conflict between political entities (states, tribes, political groups), taking place in the form of hostilities between their armed forces. According to Clausewitz, "war is the continuation of politics by other means." The main means of achieving the goals of war is organized armed struggle as the main and decisive means, as well as economic, diplomatic, ideological, informational and other means of struggle. In this sense, war is organized armed violence, the purpose of which is to achieve political goals. Total war is armed violence carried to its extreme limits. The main tool in the war is the army.
Military writers usually define war as an armed conflict in which the rival factions are sufficiently evenly matched to make the outcome of the battle uncertain. Armed conflicts of militarily strong countries with tribes that are at a primitive level of development are called appeasements, military expeditions, or the development of new territories; with small states - interventions or reprisals; with internal groups - uprisings and rebellions. Such incidents, if the resistance is strong enough or prolonged in time, may reach sufficient magnitude to be classified as a "war".
The purpose of the work: to define the term war, find out the causes of its occurrence and determine the classification; to characterize the military conflict on the example of South Ossetia.
1. Causes of wars and their classification
The main reason for the emergence of wars is the desire of political forces to use armed struggle to achieve various foreign and domestic political goals.
With the emergence of mass armies in the 19th century, xenophobia (hatred, intolerance towards someone or something alien, unfamiliar, unusual, perception of the alien as incomprehensible, incomprehensible, and therefore dangerous and hostile) became an important tool for mobilizing the population for war, elevated to the rank worldview. On its basis, national, religious or social enmity is easily fomented, and therefore, since the 2nd half of the 19th century, xenophobia has been the main tool for inciting wars, directing aggression, and certain manipulations of the masses within the state.
On the other hand, European societies that survived the devastating wars of the 20th century began to strive to live in peace. Very often, members of such societies live in fear of any shocks. An example of this is the ideologeme "If only there were no war", which prevailed in Soviet society after the end of the most destructive war of the 20th century - World War II.
For propaganda purposes, wars are traditionally divided into just and unjust.
Just wars include wars of liberation - for example, individual or collective self-defense against aggression in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter or a national liberation war against colonialists in the exercise of the right to self-determination. In the modern world, wars waged by separatist movements (Chechnya, Ulster, Kashmir) are considered formally fair, but disapproved.
To unfair - predatory or illegal (aggression, colonial wars). In international law, a war of aggression is qualified as an international crime. In the 1990s, such a concept as a humanitarian war appeared, which formally is aggression in the name of higher goals: the prevention of ethnic cleansing or humanitarian assistance to civilians.
According to their scale, wars are divided into world and local (conflicts).
According to the military doctrine of the Russian Federation of 2000, a local war is the smallest scale modern war.
A local war, as a rule, is part of a regional ethnic, political, territorial or other conflict. Within the framework of one regional conflict, a number of local wars can be concluded (in particular, several local wars have already taken place during the Arab-Israeli conflict in 2009).
The main stages or phases of the conflict can be characterized as follows:
· Initial state of affairs; the interests of the parties involved in the conflict; their degree of understanding.
· The initiating party - the reasons and nature of its actions.
· Response measures; the degree of readiness for the negotiation process; the possibility of normal development and conflict resolution - changes in the initial state of affairs.
· Lack of mutual understanding, ie. understanding the interests of the opposite side.
· Mobilization of resources in defending their interests.
Use of force or threat of force (demonstrations of force) in the course of defending one's interests.
Professor Krasnov identifies six stages of conflict. From his point of view, the first stage of a political conflict is characterized by the formed attitude of the parties regarding a specific contradiction or group of contradictions. The second phase of the conflict is the determination of the strategy by the warring parties and the forms of their struggle to resolve the existing contradictions, taking into account the potential and possibilities for using various, including violent means, internal and international situations. The third stage is connected with the involvement of other participants in the struggle through blocs, alliances, and agreements.
The fourth stage is the escalation of the struggle, up to a crisis, gradually embracing all the participants from both sides and developing into a nationwide one. The fifth stage of the conflict is the transition of one of the parties to the practical use of force, at first for demonstrative purposes or on a limited scale. The sixth stage is an armed conflict, starting with a limited conflict (limitations in objectives, territories covered, scope and level of military operations, military means used) and capable, under certain circumstances, of developing to higher levels of armed struggle (war as a continuation of politics) of all participants.
The author of this approach considers armed conflict as one of the forms of political conflict. The limitations of this approach are manifested in the abstraction from two important aspects: from the pre-conflict conditions and from the post-conflict stage in the development of political relations.
2. Military conflicts
The concept of "military conflict", the defining feature of which is only the use of military force to achieve political goals, serves as an integrator for the other two - armed conflict and war. Military conflict - any clash, confrontation, a form of resolving contradictions between states, peoples, social groups with the use of military force. Depending on the goals of the parties and scale indicators, such as the spatial scope, the forces and means involved, the intensity of the armed struggle, military conflicts can be divided into limited (armed conflicts, local and regional wars) and unlimited (world war). In relation to military conflicts, sometimes, most often in foreign literature, such terms as conflicts of small scale (low intensity), medium scale (medium intensity), large scale (high intensity) are used.
According to some researchers, a military conflict is a form of interstate conflict characterized by such a clash of interests of the warring parties that use military means with varying degrees of limitation to achieve their goals. Armed conflict - a conflict between medium and large social groups, in which the parties use weapons (armed formations), excluding the armed forces. Armed conflicts are open clashes with the use of weapons between two or more centrally led parties, uninterrupted for some time in a dispute over the control of the territory and its administration.
Other authors call contradictions between the subjects of military-strategic relations a military conflict, emphasizing the degree of aggravation of these contradictions and the form of their resolution (with the use of armed forces on a limited scale). Military experts understand armed conflict as any conflict with the use of weapons. In contrast, in a military conflict, the presence of political motives in the use of weapons is mandatory. In other words, the essence of a military conflict is the continuation of politics with the use of military violence.
Among military experts, there is the concept of a limited military conflict, a conflict associated with a change in the status of a territory that affects the interests of the state and with the use of means of armed struggle. In such a conflict, the number of opposing sides ranges from 7 to 30 thousand people, up to 150 tanks, up to 300 armored vehicles, 10-15 light aircraft, up to 20 helicopters.
The most striking example of a military conflict recent years is a military confrontation in August 2008 between Georgia on the one hand and Russia along with the unrecognized republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia on the other.
Georgian and South Ossetian troops have been exchanging gunfire and fire attacks of varying degrees of intensity since late July 2008. On the evening of August 7, the parties agreed on a ceasefire, which, however, was not really done.
On the night of August 7-8, 2008 (at 0:06), Georgian troops launched a massive artillery shelling of the capital of South Ossetia, the city of Tskhinval, and adjacent areas. A few hours later, the city was stormed by the forces of Georgian armored vehicles and infantry. The official reason for the attack on Tskhinval, according to the Georgian side, was the violation of the ceasefire by South Ossetia, which, in turn, claims that Georgia was the first to open fire.
On August 8, 2008 (at 14:59), Russia officially joined the conflict on the side of South Ossetia as part of an operation to force the Georgian side to peace, on August 9, 2008 - Abkhazia as part of an agreement on military assistance between members of the Commonwealth of Unrecognized States.
The origins of the modern Georgian-Ossetian conflict lie in the events of the late 1980s, when the activation of the Georgian national movement for independence from the union center (while simultaneously denying the small peoples of Georgia the right to autonomy) and the radical actions of its leaders against the background of the weakness of the central leadership of the USSR led to a sharp aggravation of relations between Georgians and ethnic minorities (first of all, Abkhazians and Ossetians, who had their own autonomous formations).
The main causes of discontent in the conflict zone include:
1. The adoption on July 1, 2002 by Russia of a law on citizenship, according to which 80% of the inhabitants of Abkhazia had Russian citizenship, which the Georgian authorities regarded as "annexation of Georgian territories" (a violent act of unilateral annexation by a state of all or part of the territory of another state).
2. The visa regime between Russia and Georgia played its role.
3. the coming to power of Mikheil Saakashvili, and an intensified course towards the restoration of the territorial integrity of Georgia, which led to a series of armed rebuffs.
In the period from August 14 to August 16, 2008, the leaders of the states involved in hostilities signed a plan for the peaceful settlement of the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict ("Medvedev-Sarkozy Plan"), which formally fixed the end of hostilities in the conflict zone. The confrontation between the parties to the conflict has acquired a predominantly political and diplomatic character, to a large extent moving into the sphere of international politics. The clash between Russia and Georgia resulted in great casualties among the civilian population of South Ossetia, as well as huge losses of their own resources.
Specifically for Russia, this conflict has become a big minus. Shares of many companies have lost their cost. Many countries have reacted to this by asking whether Russia can enter into settlement agreements with other states if it cannot establish relations with former republics, and nearest neighbors. In the political arena, a comparison of the behavior of Russian President D. Medvedev and Prime Minister of Russia V. Putin during the conflict made Western observers ask the question “who is in charge in the Kremlin” and come to the answer: “The current conflict has confirmed what has become increasingly clear in recent weeks: Putin continues to be in charge. Financial Times commentator Philip Stevens, in an issue dated August 29, 2008, called Medvedev "the nominal president of Russia." It was also noted that another noticeable consequence of the Georgian conflict can be considered the final collapse of hopes for the liberalization of the domestic political course that a certain part of Russian society after the election of Dmitry Medvedev as president.
Political scientist L.F. Shevtsova wrote in the Vedomosti newspaper on September 17: “The war between Russia and Georgia in 2008 was the last chord in the formation of the anti-Western vector of the state and at the same time the final touch in the consolidation new system. In the 1990s, this system existed as a hybrid that combined incompatible things - democracy and autocracy, economic reforms and state expansion, partnership with the West and suspicion of it. From now on, the Russian system becomes unambiguous, and there are no more doubts about its qualities and its trajectory.<…>The August events confirmed one simple truth: foreign policy in Russia has become a tool for the implementation of the domestic political agenda.<…>So we are not dealing with a war between Russia and Georgia. We are talking about a confrontation between Russia not even with the United States, but with the West, which is caused not so much by differences in geopolitical interests (there are such differences between Western states, but they do not lead to wars), but by differences in views on the world and the construction of society itself. Georgia turned out to be a whipping boy, and its example should be a warning to others, primarily Ukraine. The inclusion of the latter in the western orbit could be a devastating blow to the system that the Kremlin is now strengthening.
The conflict caused various assessments and opinions from governments, international organizations, politicians and public figures from different countries. And despite all the comments and assessments of other prominent statesmen, the conflict was still brought to naught.
Conclusion
Military conflicts are now becoming a phenomenon that poses a very serious danger to humanity. This danger is determined by the following points. First, such conflicts bring millions of victims and undermine the very foundations of peoples' lives. Secondly, under the conditions of "densification" of international relations, the deepening of the interconnections of all members of the world community, any military conflict can, under certain conditions, turn into a kind of "detonator" of a new world war. Thirdly, military conflicts today exacerbate environmental problems. Fourth, they provide Negative influence on the moral and psychological climate in the regions, on the continents, all over the world. This list of properties and consequences of modern military conflicts is far from complete.
Already today there are reasons to believe that the likelihood of the emergence of "raw material" and "environmental" conflicts in the future may be very high.
And yet, the ideologeme “If only there was no war”, in my opinion, is still relevant at the present time, because war, no matter how large it is, is the most terrible thing. War is the senseless destruction of the population of our Earth, because if you go through the course of history, any military action ends in most cases with the signing of peace treaties, so why are these huge sacrifices needed? Isn't it possible to solve everything peacefully?!
And in conclusion, I would like to add, may there be PEACE throughout the WORLD, and not we, not our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will ever know what WAR is.
Bibliography
1. Antsiulov A.Ya., Shipilov A.I. Conflictology: Textbook for Universities.- M.: UNITI. 1999.- 534p.
2. Artsibasov I.N., Egorov S.A. Armed conflict: law, politics, diplomacy. - M.: Knowledge. 1985. - 231p.
3. Zhukov V.I., Krasnov B.I. General and applied political science.- M.: Politizdat. 1997. - 426p.
4. Manokhin A.V., Tkachev V.S. Military conflicts: theory, history, practice: Textbook.- St. Petersburg: Peter. 1994. - 367p.
Novosibirsk State Agrarian University
Economic Institute
Department of History, Political Science and Cultural Studies
ESSAY
MILITARY CONFLICTS IN THE MODERN WORLD
Performed:
Student 423 group
Smolkina E.I.
Checked:
Bakhmatskaya G.V.
Novosibirsk 2010
Introduction……………………………………………………………..3
1. Causes of wars and their classification…………...4
2. Military conflicts……………………………………………...7
Conclusion………………………………………………………….12
List of used literature………………………………...13
Introduction
War - a conflict between political entities (states, tribes, political groups), taking place in the form of hostilities between their armed forces. According to Clausewitz, "war is the continuation of politics by other means." The main means of achieving the goals of war is organized armed struggle as the main and decisive means, as well as economic, diplomatic, ideological, informational and other means of struggle. In this sense, war is organized armed violence, the purpose of which is to achieve political goals. Total war is armed violence carried to its extreme limits. The main tool in the war is the army.
Military writers usually define war as an armed conflict in which the rival factions are sufficiently evenly matched to make the outcome of the battle uncertain. Armed conflicts of militarily strong countries with tribes that are at a primitive level of development are called appeasements, military expeditions, or the development of new territories; with small states - interventions or reprisals; with internal groups - uprisings and rebellions. Such incidents, if the resistance is strong enough or prolonged in time, may reach sufficient magnitude to be classified as a "war".
The purpose of the work: to define the term war, find out the causes of its occurrence and determine the classification; to characterize the military conflict on the example of South Ossetia.
1. Causes of wars and their classification
The main reason for the emergence of wars is the desire of political forces to use armed struggle to achieve various foreign and domestic political goals.
With the emergence of mass armies in the 19th century, xenophobia (hatred, intolerance towards someone or something alien, unfamiliar, unusual, perception of the alien as incomprehensible, incomprehensible, and therefore dangerous and hostile) became an important tool for mobilizing the population for war, elevated to the rank worldview. On its basis, national, religious or social enmity is easily fomented, and therefore, since the 2nd half of the 19th century, xenophobia has been the main tool for inciting wars, directing aggression, and certain manipulations of the masses within the state.
On the other hand, European societies that survived the devastating wars of the 20th century began to strive to live in peace. Very often, members of such societies live in fear of any shocks. An example of this is the ideologeme "If only there were no war", which prevailed in Soviet society after the end of the most destructive war of the 20th century - World War II.
For propaganda purposes, wars are traditionally divided into just and unjust.
Just wars include wars of liberation - for example, individual or collective self-defense against aggression in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter or a national liberation war against colonialists in the exercise of the right to self-determination. In the modern world, wars waged by separatist movements (Chechnya, Ulster, Kashmir) are considered formally fair, but disapproved.
To unfair - predatory or illegal (aggression, colonial wars). In international law, a war of aggression is qualified as an international crime. In the 1990s, such a concept as a humanitarian war appeared, which formally is aggression in the name of higher goals: the prevention of ethnic cleansing or humanitarian assistance to civilians.
According to their scale, wars are divided into world and local (conflicts).
According to the military doctrine of the Russian Federation of 2000, a local war is the smallest scale modern war.
A local war, as a rule, is part of a regional ethnic, political, territorial or other conflict. Within the framework of one regional conflict, a number of local wars can be concluded (in particular, several local wars have already taken place during the Arab-Israeli conflict in 2009).
The main stages or phases of the conflict can be characterized as follows:
· Initial state of affairs; the interests of the parties involved in the conflict; their degree of understanding.
· The initiating party - the reasons and nature of its actions.
· Response measures; the degree of readiness for the negotiation process; the possibility of normal development and conflict resolution - changes in the initial state of affairs.
· Lack of mutual understanding, ie. understanding the interests of the opposite side.
· Mobilization of resources in defending their interests.
Use of force or threat of force (demonstrations of force) in the course of defending one's interests.
Professor Krasnov identifies six stages of conflict. From his point of view, the first stage of a political conflict is characterized by the formed attitude of the parties regarding a specific contradiction or group of contradictions. The second phase of the conflict is the determination of the strategy by the warring parties and the forms of their struggle to resolve the existing contradictions, taking into account the potential and possibilities for using various, including violent means, internal and international situations. The third stage is connected with the involvement of other participants in the struggle through blocs, alliances, and agreements.
The fourth stage is the escalation of the struggle, up to a crisis, gradually embracing all the participants from both sides and developing into a nationwide one. The fifth stage of the conflict is the transition of one of the parties to the practical use of force, at first for demonstrative purposes or on a limited scale. The sixth stage is an armed conflict, starting with a limited conflict (limitations in objectives, territories covered, scope and level of military operations, military means used) and capable, under certain circumstances, of developing to higher levels of armed struggle (war as a continuation of politics) of all participants.
The author of this approach considers armed conflict as one of the forms of political conflict. The limitations of this approach are manifested in the abstraction from two important aspects: from the pre-conflict conditions and from the post-conflict stage in the development of political relations.
2. Military conflicts
The concept of "military conflict", the defining feature of which is only the use of military force to achieve political goals, serves as an integrator for the other two - armed conflict and war. Military conflict - any clash, confrontation, a form of resolving contradictions between states, peoples, social groups with the use of military force. Depending on the goals of the parties and scale indicators, such as the spatial scope, the forces and means involved, the intensity of the armed struggle, military conflicts can be divided into limited (armed conflicts, local and regional wars) and unlimited (world war). In relation to military conflicts, sometimes, most often in foreign literature, such terms as conflicts of small scale (low intensity), medium scale (medium intensity), large scale (high intensity) are used.
According to some researchers, a military conflict is a form of interstate conflict characterized by such a clash of interests of the warring parties that use military means with varying degrees of limitation to achieve their goals. Armed conflict - a conflict between medium and large social groups, in which the parties use weapons (armed formations), excluding the armed forces. Armed conflicts are open clashes with the use of weapons between two or more centrally led parties, uninterrupted for some time in a dispute over the control of the territory and its administration.
Other authors call contradictions between the subjects of military-strategic relations a military conflict, emphasizing the degree of aggravation of these contradictions and the form of their resolution (with the use of armed forces on a limited scale). Military experts understand armed conflict as any conflict with the use of weapons. In contrast, in a military conflict, the presence of political motives in the use of weapons is mandatory. In other words, the essence of a military conflict is the continuation of politics with the use of military violence.
Among military experts, there is the concept of a limited military conflict, a conflict associated with a change in the status of a territory that affects the interests of the state and with the use of means of armed struggle. In such a conflict, the number of opposing sides ranges from 7 to 30 thousand people, up to 150 tanks, up to 300 armored vehicles, 10-15 light aircraft, up to 20 helicopters.
The most striking example of a military conflict in recent years is the military confrontation in August 2008 between Georgia, on the one hand, and Russia, along with the unrecognized republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, on the other.
Georgian and South Ossetian troops have been exchanging gunfire and fire attacks of varying degrees of intensity since late July 2008. On the evening of August 7, the parties agreed on a ceasefire, which, however, was not really done.
On the night of August 7-8, 2008 (at 0:06), Georgian troops launched a massive artillery shelling of the capital of South Ossetia, the city of Tskhinval, and adjacent areas. A few hours later, the city was stormed by the forces of Georgian armored vehicles and infantry. The official reason for the attack on Tskhinval, according to the Georgian side, was the violation of the ceasefire by South Ossetia, which, in turn, claims that Georgia was the first to open fire.
On August 8, 2008 (at 14:59), Russia officially joined the conflict on the side of South Ossetia as part of an operation to force the Georgian side to peace, on August 9, 2008 - Abkhazia as part of an agreement on military assistance between members of the Commonwealth of Unrecognized States.
The origins of the modern Georgian-Ossetian conflict lie in the events of the late 1980s, when the activation of the Georgian national movement for independence from the union center (while simultaneously denying the small peoples of Georgia the right to autonomy) and the radical actions of its leaders against the background of the weakness of the central leadership of the USSR led to a sharp aggravation of relations between Georgians and ethnic minorities (first of all, Abkhazians and Ossetians, who had their own autonomous formations).
The main causes of discontent in the conflict zone include:
1. The adoption on July 1, 2002 by Russia of a law on citizenship, according to which 80% of the inhabitants of Abkhazia had Russian citizenship, which the Georgian authorities regarded as “annexation of Georgian territories” (a violent act of annexation by the state of all or part of the territory of another state unilaterally).
2. The visa regime between Russia and Georgia played its role.
3. the coming to power of Mikheil Saakashvili, and an intensified course towards the restoration of the territorial integrity of Georgia, which led to a series of armed rebuffs.
In the period from August 14 to August 16, 2008, the leaders of the states involved in hostilities signed a plan for the peaceful settlement of the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict ("Medvedev-Sarkozy Plan"), which formally fixed the end of hostilities in the conflict zone. The confrontation between the parties to the conflict has acquired a predominantly political and diplomatic character, to a large extent moving into the sphere of international politics. The clash between Russia and Georgia resulted in great casualties among the civilian population of South Ossetia, as well as huge losses of their own resources.
Specifically for Russia, this conflict has become a big minus. Shares of many companies have lost their cost. Many countries have reacted to this by saying that Russia can enter into amicable agreements with other states if it cannot improve relations with the former republics and its closest neighbors. In the political arena, a comparison of the behavior of Russian President D. Medvedev and Prime Minister of Russia V. Putin during the conflict made Western observers ask the question “who is in charge in the Kremlin” and come to the answer: “The current conflict has confirmed what has become increasingly clear in recent weeks: Putin continues to be in charge. Financial Times commentator Philip Stevens, in an issue dated August 29, 2008, called Medvedev "the nominal president of Russia." It was also noted that another notable consequence of the Georgian conflict can be considered the final collapse of hopes for the liberalization of the domestic political course that appeared in a certain part of Russian society after the election of Dmitry Medvedev as president.
Political scientist L.F. Shevtsova wrote in the Vedomosti newspaper on September 17: “The war between Russia and Georgia in 2008 was the final chord in the formation of the anti-Western vector of the state and at the same time the final touch in the consolidation of the new system. In the 1990s, this system existed as a hybrid that combined incompatible things - democracy and autocracy, economic reforms and state expansion, partnership with the West and suspicion of it. From now on, the Russian system becomes unambiguous, and there are no more doubts about its qualities and its trajectory.<…>The August events confirmed one simple truth: foreign policy in Russia has become a tool for implementing the domestic political agenda.<…>So we are not dealing with a war between Russia and Georgia. We are talking about a confrontation between Russia not even with the United States, but with the West, which is caused not so much by differences in geopolitical interests (there are such differences between Western states, but they do not lead to wars), but by differences in views on the world and the construction of society itself. Georgia turned out to be a whipping boy, and its example should be a warning to others, primarily Ukraine. The inclusion of the latter in the western orbit could be a devastating blow to the system that the Kremlin is now strengthening.
The conflict caused various assessments and opinions from governments, international organizations, politicians and public figures from different countries. And despite all the comments and assessments of other prominent statesmen, the conflict was still brought to naught.
Conclusion
Military conflicts are now becoming a phenomenon that poses a very serious danger to humanity. This danger is determined by the following points. First, such conflicts bring millions of victims and undermine the very foundations of peoples' lives. Secondly, under the conditions of "densification" of international relations, the deepening of the interconnections of all members of the world community, any military conflict can, under certain conditions, turn into a kind of "detonator" of a new world war. Thirdly, military conflicts today exacerbate environmental problems. Fourthly, they have a negative impact on the moral and psychological climate in the regions, on the continents, all over the world. This list of properties and consequences of modern military conflicts is far from complete.
Already today there are reasons to believe that the likelihood of "resource" and "environmental" conflicts in the future may turn out to be very high.
And yet, the ideologeme “If only there was no war”, in my opinion, is still relevant at the present time, because war, no matter how large it is, is the most terrible thing. War is the senseless destruction of the population of our Earth, because if you go through the course of history, any military action ends in most cases with the signing of peace treaties, so why are these huge sacrifices needed? Isn't it possible to solve everything peacefully?!
And in conclusion, I would like to add, may there be PEACE throughout the WORLD, and not we, not our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will ever know what WAR is.
Bibliography
1. Antsiulov A.Ya., Shipilov A.I. Conflictology: Textbook for Universities.- M.: UNITI. 1999.- 534p.
2. Artsibasov I.N., Egorov S.A. Armed conflict: law, politics, diplomacy. - M.: Knowledge. 1985. - 231p.
3. Zhukov V.I., Krasnov B.I. General and applied political science.- M.: Politizdat. 1997. - 426p.
4. Manokhin A.V., Tkachev V.S. Military conflicts: theory, history, practice: Textbook.- St. Petersburg: Peter. 1994. - 367p.
5. http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Ossetia_(2008)