Alek grapes fundamentals of the theory of wars. A new look at national military strategy

LECTURE

(abstract)

FOUNDATIONS OF THE GENERAL THEORY OF WAR

Moscow - 2010

INTRODUCTION

WAR AND ITS NATURE
In the new theory of war, however, as in any scientific theory, the most important thing is complete certainty in understanding what is the subject of research and what is the main essence of the subject under study.

It seems to us that in the theory of war the main subject of study is war itself, its essence and nature, and all the rest of the development of the theory should follow precisely from precise definitions in the understanding of these basic things.

In order to be able to give a new or different point of view on the war, we considered it necessary, in the thesis form, to consider "war" as a phenomenon and phenomenon of the existence of society and bring our views on one of the main issues of theory - on the essence of war as its nature.
^ War as a phenomenon and phenomenon

The Big Encyclopedic Dictionary gives us the following definitions of these concepts:

« Phenomenon:(from the Greek phainomenon - being), 1) an unusual phenomenon, a rare fact. 2) A philosophical concept, meaning a phenomenon comprehended in sensory experience.

With regard to the topic of the work, we can safely say:

• 
  species struggle as a way of survival and development is inherent in all living things;
• 
  war as a phenomenon of the existence of human society is an exclusive specificity of the life of its subjects.

1. Historically, various parts of society specially organized war and introduced it into the practice of all national cultures and states of all times and peoples, while each part of society solves its own tasks by war.

2. The totality of wars and their results really and objectively determine a series of valuable choices of subjects of society, which in turn determine their further historical fate.

3. The totality of valuable choices of nations and other subjects of society, historically form the face of humanity, and determines the foundations of its existence as a whole.

^ 4. So war has become an integral part of the existence of humanity and its specific feature, which it will be as long as humanity exists.

5. War is a factor that determines the future of mankind, and in this regard it plays an important role in the life of Mankind.

6. The war has firmly become part of the worldview of all levels and parts of human society, including as a way (means) to overcome or maintain inequality between them.

These conclusions are not new.

Nevertheless, we are supporters of that idea and are inclined to believe that war is a form of being immanent in human society, which manifests itself more fully and on a larger scale, the larger the development of the human society itself or its part.

The great Russian philosopher Lev Aleksandrovich Tikhomirov wrote:

“... in nothing that affects the very idea of ​​their existence, great nations cannot be reconciled.

If a clash occurs at a point that affects the world role of a great nation, it will yield only to force, and even then it is obvious, proven, convinced of the impossibility of a struggle at the moment and with hidden determination to take its revenge without fail.

And that is why war is inevitable until one of the great nations turns out to be the greatest in this historical competition, so strong as to subjugate the entire globe to its hegemony, creating some (fair, of course, and to a certain extent federal) state , but, in any case, one in which there will be some master, who, with the height and strength of his idea, maintains universal peace.

^ War leads most of all to such a future world, and agreements least of all. .

Such is the law of human and social nature, which has always acted in history and will forever remain in it.

War thus has a very profound meaning, which makes obligatory respect not for murder, but for the historical role of force.

This historical role of power should not be forgotten by any nation that has a historical role, a mission, as they say. Small, non-historical peoples can live forgetting the significance of war: all the same, it will not be they who will suit humanity, but someone else will arrange them.

But every nation, which is given a world content, must be strong, strong and must not forget for a moment that the idea of ​​truth contained in it constantly requires the existence of a force that protects it.

War as an armed defense of this national idea, as a tool for its dissemination and assertion, is and will be a necessary phenomenon, a phenomenon without which, under certain conditions, neither the life of a nation nor the final triumph of that universal idea, which as a result will turn out to be the greatest, most unifying, most capable give peace to the nations » 2 .

An outstanding military theorist and Russian military philosopher (combat general of the Russian Army and the first head of the Academy of the General Staff of the Red Army) Andrey Snesarev, in his lecture course "Philosophy of War" notes: "... war is a complex phenomenon, difficult to figure out, not easily amenable to both moral and scientific criteria ... "" If you turn from the state of continuous war that we have experienced and are still experiencing to the past, you will see that war is a constant and unchanging companion of mankind, and not only from that distant moment when it remembers itself, but endlessly before the beginning of the universal cultural life". “... judging by the traces that humanity left behind each of these periods, it always fought, fought relentlessly and stubbornly; fought according to the same laws of necessity, according to which it fed, multiplied, climbed up the heavy steps of progress ... "...

“Indeed, history will answer you some of the questions connected with the war, somehow: it will confirm its constancy, indicate the nature of its evolution, connect the war with other factors of history, perhaps hint at its inevitability, but far from exhausting it in a difficult way. th content.

But if people constantly fought, if they are fighting to this day, then states should include this formidable phenomenon in their circle of understanding and vision, should take into account - already for reasons of vital caution - its inevitability, and from here - create a number of political, financial measures , administrative, etc., arising from the mighty oppression that the war imposes on modern states. From the past to the present, you will see that the war dominates the life of the people and the way of the state, owns the church and the school, absorbs a huge share of the people's labor, in a word, leads the state in a certain way. Before you is a picture of a new understanding of war, understanding from a state angle. The explanation of the war would be one-sided if its state interpretation and meaning were omitted” 3 .

There are many formulations and interpretations of the concept of "war", moreover, each of them has its share of truth.

Let's start illustrating this thesis with encyclopedic interpretations of "war".

It seems to us important to cite the interpretation of the concepts of "war" data in the best encyclopedia of Russia by Brockhaus and Efron of 1907.

« War- armed struggle between states, peoples or hostile parties in the same state, taking place in the form of restoring, maintaining or acquiring disputed rights and interests, in a word - to force one side to submit to the will of the other.

The entire history of peoples is presented as a continuous wave; the latter is, as it were, their normal state, and the short intervals of peace between the long periods of V. are, as it were, truce which would be more correct to consider the same V., because even then international relations lies not brotherly love and mutual trust, but fear and distrust.

So, eternal War is what the history of mankind still gives in return eternal peace, about which philosophers and moralists dream.

^ In the vanquished it generates a vindictive feeling, sometimes growing to ferocity.

Winners breaking away from the correct, gradual course of people's work, they begin to exaggerate the significance of their power and their national wealth multiplied by military acquisitions - they incline to reckless enterprises and squander their strength until, by a general crisis in business, they are returned to the path of peaceful labor and reasonable thrift.

^ War Apologists indicate that struggle underlies all living things; all the forces of nature are in constant struggle with each other, striving to create a new and more perfect by destroying the old and obsolete. This seems to be the basic law of nature. Mankind, being a part of it, is subject to the same law in its activity.

^ There are wars folk or government, depending on whether war is conducted for the sake of the interests of the whole people or because of the personal views and claims of the ruler of the state.

^ According to the reasons that caused V., it is called conquering, religious, commercial, for independence, for succession to the throne, internecine and so on .» 4

In the Great Encyclopedia of Cyril and Methodius, "War" has the following interpretation:

"War, organized armed struggle between states, nations (peoples), social groups. In war, the armed forces are used as the main and decisive means, as well as economic, political, ideological and other means of struggle.

A war between social groups within a country for state power is called a civil war.

Over the past 5.5 thousand years, there have been about 14.5 thousand large and small wars (including two world wars), during which St. 3.6 billion people. AT modern conditions With the end of the Cold War, the danger of a world nuclear war has decreased. However, the so-called. local wars - military conflicts associated with religious, territorial and national disputes, tribal strife, etc. The international community, the UN are striving to create a system of relations between states that excludes the threat of force and its use” 5 .

An examination of the subject brought to light the fact that practically every author who has ever studied and written about war has given "war". as a phenomenon, its own assessment and interpretation, and that at present there is no unambiguous definition of the category “war”.

^ Some existing definitions of the category "war" 6

An outstanding military theorist and Russian military philosopher (combat general of the Russian Army and the first head of the Academy of the General Staff of the Red Army) Andrey Snesarev, in his lecture course "Philosophy of War" notes: "... war is a complex phenomenon, difficult to figure out, not easily amenable to both moral and scientific criteria ... "" If you turn from the state of continuous war that we have experienced and are still experiencing to the past, you will see that war is a constant and unchanging companion of mankind, and not only from that distant moment when it remembers itself, but endlessly before the beginning of universal cultural life. “... judging by the traces that humanity left behind each of these periods, it always fought, fought relentlessly and stubbornly; fought according to the same laws of necessity, according to which it fed, bred, climbed up the heavy steps of progress ... "... "Indeed, history will answer you some questions related to the war, somehow: it will confirm its constancy, will indicate the nature of its evolution, link the war with other factors of history, perhaps hint at its inevitability, but by no means exhaust its complex content.

But if people constantly fought, if they are fighting to this day, then states should include this formidable phenomenon in their circle of understanding and vision, should take into account - already for reasons of vital caution - its inevitability, and from here - create a number of political, financial measures , administrative, etc., arising from the mighty oppression that war imposes on modern states. From the past to the present, you will see that the war dominates the life of the people and the way of the state, owns the church and the school, absorbs a huge share of the people's labor, in a word, leads the state in a certain way. Before you is a picture of a new understanding of war, understanding from a state angle. The explanation of the war would be one-sided if its state interpretation and meaning were omitted” 21 .

It should be noted that an exhaustive definition of "war" is today an independent and complex scientific task. For example, even in the report of the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation "Actual Tasks in the Development of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation" 22 , when formulating the essence of military conflicts and wars, the general definition of war was omitted.

Currently, The concept of "war" is used to denote confrontation in many areas of human existence. We constantly hear about “trade wars”, “economic wars”, or “information wars”.

We believe that this trend is not accidental, since only the term “war” can be used to define the extreme degree of bitterness in relations between different subjects of geopolitical interactions operating in the same area, but with diametrically different goals. It is this bitterness that dictates to them a certain categorical military imperative of action to overcome the resistance of the enemy and achieve their goals in this confrontation.

In the fundamental work of the Department of Military History and Law of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences "Military History of Russia", the scientific task of defining "war" has the following content:

firstly, war is recognized as a historical phenomenon;

Secondly, socio-political phenomenon;

third, the form of functioning and development of society.

It directly states the following “... war is an integral part of the history of mankind, because it (war) as a socio-political phenomenon has several hypostases. It is both armed confrontation, and the state of society, and a way to regulate relations between the state and social forces, and a way to resolve disputes, contradictions between them. This means that wars perform certain functions in the history of mankind, for which it pays a very high price. 23

As you know, since the time of K. Clausewitz 24 (and in Russia, at the suggestion of V. Lenin), the war has always been interpreted only as “... continuation public policy by other means”, and was meant only as an actual armed struggle. The axiomatic nature of this thesis (despite the fact that this formula rather fixes the relationship between politics and war than gives a formulation of the war itself) has never been disputed by military and political theory, although a deeper dive into its semantic semantics shows that this “axiom” itself has a reducing (simplifying) meaning, both for the concept of "politics" and for the concept of "war", as it impoverishes both concepts and both spheres of social life.

It should be noted that this collision was understood by our researchers. Thus, the modern military scientist V. Barynkin considers this collision in his works, 25 but he, in the final analysis, considers war to be a proper armed form of politics, and A. Kokoshin 26 adheres to the same position.

A. Svechin believed that politics in war (which he understood as a special social phenomenon) became an independent front of the war itself, and its role was not limited to target designations for strategy, since strategy had already outgrown the theory of "leading troops in the theater of war" 27 .

V. Tsymbursky notes the evolution of the generals' views on the war as follows: “The views of military leaders on the relationship between strategy and politics, characteristic of this cycle, can be represented by the following scale. Clausewitz extols a "grand and powerful" policy that would give rise to the same kind of war. For Moltke Sr., politics most often binds and constrains strategy - however, strategy "works best in the hand of politics, for the purposes of the latter" in that it "directs its aspirations only to the highest goal that can generally be achieved with the available means. ". Therefore, strategy in some circumstances senses its true interests better than politics. And, finally, as if at the opposite end of the scale from Clausewitz, E. Ludendorff appears with an opinion about politics as a continuation of total war, its instrument. 28

Thus, if K. Clausewitz war is an instrument (means) of politics, then we(following Ludendorff) We believe that politics is an instrument of war, just as its main means is armed struggle.

The Russian military philosopher A. Snesarev, who is still the most subtle and profound researcher of the essence of war, as a result of his research, made three important conclusions about war as a reality of human history, which remain undeniable today:

1. According to its content, the war has become an all-encompassing, all-penetrating and deeply dramatic phenomenon in the life of peoples and remains inevitable for the foreseeable future;

2. Wars testify to great and dangerous shortcomings in the organization of human societies and the impotence of the human mind;

3. The solution to the question of the future ("coming") of the war - positive or negative - remains for the time being a matter of faith, and not a scientifically proven fact. 29

In the era “after Clausewitz”, that is, today, modern and accessible sources contain many pictures and models of future wars, each of which is interesting in its own way.

But of all of them, the most significant and absolutely strategic are the works of S. Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations and the Reorganization of the World Order" 30 , which is a brilliant example of deep strategic foresight, as well as the work of the Russian military emigration, which is practically completely unknown to us. .

In particular, we consider it necessary to highlight the unique work of the Russian Imperial Army of the General Staff, Colonel Evgeny Eduardovich Messner (1891-1974), in our deep conviction, a visionary and an absolute classic of strategic military thought, who determined most of the modern categories of the philosophy of war and the theory of wars.

E. Messner was the first to define terror as a form of war and brilliantly predicted: “We must stop thinking that war is when people are at war, and peace is when they are not at war. It is possible to be at war without openly fighting... The modern form of war is rebellion. This is a deviation from the dogmas of classical military art. This is heresy.

But the rebellion is a heretical war ... Violence (intimidation and terror) and partisanship are the main "weapons" in this war ... Now the regular army has lost its military monopoly; along with it (or maybe more than it) an irregular army is fighting, and underground organizations are second to it... War by partisans, saboteurs, terrorists, wreckers, saboteurs, propagandists will take on enormous proportions in the future” 31 .

I believe that what has been said is exhaustive and we can only admire the depth of analysis, the brilliance of thought and the talent of our compatriot.

We have to state with regret that these brilliant insights of the Russian military classic are not known to both the Western and our domestic political and military leadership, and therefore are not appreciated, and therefore still have no practical refraction in our military and political theory, and therefore more in practice.

All this suggests that the understanding of the phenomenon of war by scientific thought and society is ongoing, and we can only contribute to this work.

Thus, it can be stated that wars have largely shaped history, culture, and the modern existence of mankind, which means that they are part of it (being).

Nonetheless, there is still no established understanding of war as a phenomenon of being.

Despite the fact that the various definitions of this category are due to the complexity of this phenomenon and the difficulty of covering all its content with one definition, the available definitions of "war" can be summarized in several groups:

• 
  The natural and eternal state of states and peoples.
• 
  The continuation of politics by other, violent means.
• 
  Armed struggle between states, peoples, classes and hostile parties.
• 
  A form of resolving contradictions between states, peoples and social groups by means of violence.

We know that war, as a means or even a form of politics, really has as its main sphere armed struggle proper (military operations proper), which, in turn, has a system of its own laws, its own philosophy, its own military art, its own strategy and hierarchy of its own higher certainties.

War, understood as an armed struggle, has its own deep (ancient) history and a fairly complete set of attributes of the scientific apparatus.

At the same time, to date, the laws of such warfare, as an independent part of military science, seem to us not fully developed, as, for example, the works of the Russian military scientist S. Tyushkevich 32 testify.

In general, it seems obvious to us that war, understood as part of the existence of mankind, must have its own scale, its own philosophy, its own laws, its own military art and its own strategy, which we have defined as the theory, practice and art of government, and its own hierarchy of higher definitions.

It is this understanding of war, its philosophy and its strategy that we consider in this study, without touching on its military-armed form proper.

Thus, we do not cancel or revise Clausewitz, we transfer the very subject of war to a higher level of generalization.

We believe that the most important and fundamentally new aspect of the study is the departure from traditional interpretations of the concepts of "war", "peace", "strategy" and other basic concepts of the theory of war and the transfer of these concepts from the level of actual armed struggle to a higher level of generalization, with the formation relevant theoretical foundations which is the main idea of ​​our work.

***
^ PART ONE
The main content and nature of war
1. On the essence of war
“Essence - represents the internal deep connections and relations of a class of phenomena; appearance is the expression of essence.

^ Essence is objective, appearance is subjective…” 33

It seems to us that war as a phenomenon and part of the existence of society is phenomenal precisely in its essence, that is, in its nature and internal content.

^ The problem of the essence of war has always agitated scientific thought, which, as the means and methods of war improved, looked for any changes in it.

The great Karl von Clausewitz is the first military scientist who brought military science to the level of an independent military theory and the only one who began his classic work On War with a chapter on its nature.

In order to be able to give a new or different point of view on the war, we considered it necessary, in the thesis form, to bring it views on one of the main issues of theory - the nature of war as its essence.
Since in this work it is not possible to annotate this chapter even in the theses, we will allow ourselves to present here only a list of the headings of the sections of the chapter “The Nature of War”, and fully set out the 2nd section - “Definition”, the 3rd section “The extreme degree of use of violence ”, Section 24 “War is the continuation of politics only by other means”, and Section 28 - “Conclusion for the theory” 34 .

^ So, Carl von Clausewitz "On War", Part One - The Nature of War, Chapter One - What is War?

« 2. Definition

If we want to embrace in thought as a whole the whole countless number of individual combats that make up the war, then it is best to imagine a fight between 2 wrestlers. Each of them seeks, by means of physical violence, to force the other to do his will; its immediate aim is to crush the enemy and thereby render him incapable of any further resistance.

So the war - it is an act of violence intended to force the adversary to do our will

Violence uses the inventions of the arts and the discoveries of the sciences to counter violence itself. The imperceptible, barely worth mentioning, restrictions that it imposes on itself in the form of the customs of international law accompany violence without actually diminishing its effect.

Thus, physical violence (because moral violence does not exist for you concepts of the state and the law) is a means but an end .

The concept of the purpose of actual military operations is reduced to the latter. It obscures the purpose for which the war is waged and to a certain extent displaces it as something not directly related to the war itself.

^ 2. Extreme use of violence

Some philanthropists may perhaps imagine that it is possible to artificially disarm and crush without much bloodshed, and that it is precisely to this that the art of war should gravitate. Seductive as this thought may be, it is nonetheless misleading and should be dispelled.

^ War is a dangerous business, and errors that have good nature as their source are the most pernicious for it. .

The use of physical violence in its entirety by no means precludes the assistance of the mind; therefore, the one who uses this violence, without embarrassment and without sparing blood, acquires a huge advantage over the enemy who does not do this.

Thus one prescribes a law to another; both opponents strain their efforts to the last extreme; there are no other limits to this tension than those set by internal opposing forces.

^ War proceeds from this social state of states and their interrelationships, it is determined by them, it is limited and moderated by them. .

But all this does not relate to the true essence of the war and flows into the war from outside.

^ The introduction of the principle of limitation and moderation into the philosophy of war itself is sheer absurdity. .

The struggle between people results in a common account from 2 completely different elements: from a hostile feeling and from a hostile intentions. As an essential feature of our definition, we have chosen the second of these elements as more general. It is impossible to imagine even the most primitive, close to instinct, feelings of hatred without any hostile intention; meanwhile, hostile intentions often take place, not accompanied by absolutely any, or, in any case, not associated with a particularly prominent feeling of hostility.

Among savage peoples, intentions arising from emotion dominate, and among civilized peoples, intentions conditioned by reason.

Since war is an act of violence, it inevitably invades the realm of feeling.

If the latter is not always its source, then war still tends to it more or less, and this "more or less" depends not on the degree of civilization of the people, but on the importance and stability of the conflicting interests.
The goal is to deprive the enemy of the opportunity to resist.

Extreme stress.

measure of reality.

War is never an isolated act.

War does not consist of a single blow that has no extension in time.

The outcome of the war is not something absolute.

Real life pushes out extremes and abstract concepts.

The political goal is once again brought to the fore.

This does not yet explain the pauses in the development of the war.

There can be only one reason for delaying action, and it would seem that only one side can always have it.

Then there would be a continuity of military operations that would push again to extreme efforts.

Here, therefore, the principle of polarity (diametrical opposition) is put forward.

Attack and defense are phenomena of a different kind and unequal strength, so polarity does not apply to them.

Actions of polarity are destroyed by the superiority of defense over offense, and this explains the pauses in the development of the war.

The second reason is the lack of penetration into the environment.

Frequent pauses in the development of hostilities further remove the war from the absolute, make it even more dependent on the situation.

Thus, to turn war into a game, only an element of chance is needed, but there is never a lack of it.

War turns into a game not only in its objective, but also in its subjective nature.

In general, this often resonates with the spiritual nature of man.

War, however, always remains a serious means to achieve a serious goal. Its closest definition.
^ War is the continuation of politics only by other means.

War is not only a political act, but also a genuine instrument of politics, the continuation of political relations, their conduct by other means.

^ What is specific to war refers only to the nature of the means employed by it. . The art of war in general, and the general in each individual case, has the right to demand that the direction and intentions of politics do not conflict with these means. Such a claim is, of course, not unimportant, but no matter how strongly it influences political tasks in individual cases, this influence must still be thought of only as modifying them, for the political task is the goal. Types of wars.

All kinds of war can be considered as political actions.

Consequences of such a view for the understanding of military history and for the foundations of theory.
^ Conclusions for the theory.

So, war is not only a true chameleon, in each specific case somewhat changing its nature; in its general appearance (in relation to the tendencies prevailing in it), war is an amazing trinity, composed of violence, as its initial element, hatred and enmity, which should be considered as blind natural instinct;

from the game of probabilities and chance, turning it into an arena free spiritual activity;

from its subordination as an instrument of politics, thanks to which it obeys pure reason .

The first of these 3 sides refers mainly to the people, the second more to the general and his army, and the third to the government (16). The passions that flare up during a war must exist in the peoples even before it begins; the scope that the game of courage and talent acquires in the realm of probabilities and chances depends on the individual properties of the commander and the characteristics of the army; political goals belong exclusively to the government.

These 3 tendencies, representing, as it were, 3 different series of laws, are deeply rooted in the nature of the object itself and at the same time are variable in their magnitude. A theory that would want to neglect one of them, or would attempt to establish an arbitrary relationship between them, would immediately fall into sharp contradiction with reality and put an end to itself. Thus, the task of theory is to maintain a balance between these three tendencies, as between three points of attraction.

The search for ways to solve this difficult problem is the subject of our study in the part of this essay called "On the Theory of War". In any case, the newly established concept of war will be the first ray of light that will illuminate the construction of the theory and enable us to understand its enormous content.
***

In our time, when wars are so outwardly different from each other in scale, in the use of technology, forces and means, in theaters and times of conduct, in forms and methods of conducting military operations, the problem of the essence of war is still relevant.

In 2002, commander of the 25th infantry division US Army James Dubic wrote an article “Has the essence of war changed? Sorting apples from oranges” 36, in which he argued that despite any development in the military sphere, only the forms and methods of war change, while its essence remains the same.

He writes that "the chameleon of war is at the same time a two-faced Janus" - one face of war determines variability and the ability to adapt, the other - constancy, which together constitutes the nature of war.

^ In this article, he formulated ten theses, which, in his opinion, is the constancy of the essence of war.

As an example of military thought and approaches to the topic, we present them in thesis form. .

First. The causes of wars lie in human hearts.

Second. War is the realm of reason and knowledge.

^ Third. War is a clash of wills.

Fourth. War by its very nature is uncertain.

Fifth. War involves the use of force or the threat of force.

Sixth. The war is developing, it is not repeated.

^ Seventh. War is a continuation of politics.

Eighth. War has its own logic.

Ninth. The war "hidden in the corners of the collective memory."

Tenth. War has two main forms - war of attrition and decisive war.

^ At the same time, no matter how “clean” or bloodless the war may be in its form, the true nature, the essence of war, ultimately makes itself felt. 37 .

It seems to us that in this work of an American military professional, we definitely see the continuation of the teachings of Karl Clausewitz, albeit in a more modern and concise form, which in itself is not bad if only because it is written by an army general commander of an infantry division, which I personally have deep respect for .

Of course, the above approaches to the theme of the nature of war and its definitions are almost entirely related to war, understood as an armed struggle, but this point does not reduce the value of the ideas themselves.

Of course, Karl Clausez is a great military classic, but even he could not fully and accurately formulate his ideas about the essence of the subject, but he left us his brilliant insights about the war.

We believe that, considering the problem of the essence of war in the direction of its interpretation by K. Clausewitz and the followers of his school, war is a means and form of politics for achieving the goals of a national strategy by any means.
^ 2. The main content of the war, its essence and nature, is - "violence"

Let us recall how Lev Tikhomirov wrote about the war: “Meanwhile, the whole life of a person is a struggle. The ability to it is the most necessary condition life. Of course, strength and activity can be directed not only to good, but also to evil. But if some creature does not have the very ability to fight, there is no strength, then this creature is absolutely no good, neither for good nor for evil. It's something dead. And for a person there is nothing more disgusting than death, the absence of life. Evil is immoral; but as long as a person has power, life, no matter how harmful it may be directed, there is still the possibility and hope of recreating an evil direction and directing this force to good. If a person does not have the very life force, then this is already an almost inhuman being. You can't put any hope in him."

“... in war, the laws of life are always expressed, which in a “bad world” can be buried in mud and scum to such an extent that it becomes difficult to even notice them.

^ War explains the meaning of life, just as it is understandable only to those who, by reason or instinct, understand the meaning of life.

Life - ideally - is peace, but life in fact is struggle. 38

The Explanatory Dictionary of Vladimir Dal says that there is a struggle, which deduces its basis from the word “fight”, therefore: “FIGHT, barge someone, master in the fight overcome fight; play, break, throw to the ground, torturing strength and dexterity, or in a fight, to fight with someone, grappling with the enemy, jokingly or in battle, in a fight, one on one, try knock him down, knock him down. fightonly can struggling" 39 .

In the Modern Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language, “struggle” is interpreted as:

" one. Melee a fight between two, in which each tries to overpower the other, knocking him down. Military action, battle.

2. View sport, which consists in single combat between two athletes according to certain rules.

3. Physical resistance to someone, something. Efforts, activities aimed at overcoming, eradicating something

4. Interaction opposite sides, traits, tendencies inherent in all phenomena and processes of nature, society and thinking, which is the source of their development (in philosophy).

5. clash opposing social groups, directions, currents, in which each side is trying to win.

6. Collision» 40 .

Thus, we see that " struggle is violence” and this is an axiom.

“In the laws of our organic nature, the state of peace can be achieved only by constant struggle, so that the goal of life is peace, and the means for this is struggle” 41 - wrote Lev Tikhomirov.

Now it seems important to us to connect all this with a single logic.

We believe that a set of concepts that defines a certain list of terms and states of being of the society "violence-power-war", listed in any sequence and at any level of generalization, is the main paradigm, that is, the basic conceptual scheme of the existence of mankind.

In other words, "violence-power-war" is natural state peoples, nations and states.

^ An analysis of human history convincingly proves the following series of axioms:

The successful implementation of this basic scheme by a nation (political party, people, state, civilization) gives it (them) victory, which means (almost always guaranteed) survival and development, a successful national history and a worthy place in the history of mankind.

Any nation, people, party and state that does not know how to organize and maintain this state of national mobilization, intelligently manage it (its nuances) and realize its benefits is doomed to historical non-survival. Moreover, as long as a nation is capable of such an effort, it exists, that is, it is alive and successful, and if it is already incapable, then its end is inevitable and soon.

We are confident that the ability to recognize this necessity as a law of being, and to be able to organize the existence of a nation for these purposes in an appropriate way - is the measure of the quality of power and the nation itself.

The well-known Austrian philosopher Elias Canetti, in his work “Mass and Power”, substantiates the law of being discovered by him in this way - "power is violence":

“Violence is associated with the idea of ​​what is close and right now. It is more direct and immediate than power. Emphasizing this aspect, they talk about physical violence. Power at a deeper level, the animal level, is better called violence. By violence, the prey is seized and transferred to the mouth. Violence, if it allows itself to delay, becomes power. However, in the moment that nevertheless occurs - at the moment of decision, at the moment of irreversibility - it is again pure violence.

Power is much more general and spacious, it includes much more and it is no longer as dynamic as violence. She takes into account the circumstances and even has a certain amount of patience. AT German the word "Mach" (power) comes from the ancient Gothic root "magan", meaning "koennen, vermoegen" (to be able, to possess), and is not at all connected with the word "machen" (to do). The difference between violence and power can be illustrated very simply, namely, by the relationship between a cat and a mouse” 42 (all emphasis is mine, A.V.).

We cannot fail to note the deep penetration of E. Conetti into the depths of the problem and the accuracy of his theses.

Now let's try to move from the general philosophical statements "power - violence" to the thesis "war - violence".

The first military scientist who brought military science to the level of an independent military theory is the outstanding military philosopher and classic of military thought Carl von Clausewitz.

We will cite the statements of Karl von Clausewitz about violence as the nature of war, since he was the first to draw such a conclusion and did it with talent, so let us repeat the above texts.

« ^ War is nothing but an extended martial art . If we want to embrace in thought as a whole the whole countless number of individual combats that make up the war, then it is best to imagine a fight between 2 wrestlers. Each of them seeks, by means of physical violence, to force the other to do his will; his immediate aim is to crush the enemy and thereby render him incapable of further resistance."

"So, war is an act of violence aimed at compelling the enemy to do our will.”

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

« ^ Violence uses the inventions of the arts and the discoveries of the sciences to counter violence. . The imperceptible, hardly worth mentioning, restrictions that it imposes on itself in the form of the customs of international law accompany the violence without actually diminishing its effect.

"In this way, physical violence (for there is no moral violence in the concepts of the state and the law) is means,but the goal will be - to impose our will on the enemy. To achieve this goal in the surest way, we must disarm the enemy, deprive him of the opportunity to resist».

“War is a dangerous business, and delusions that have good nature as their source are the most pernicious for it. The use of physical violence in its entirety by no means precludes the assistance of the mind; therefore, the one who uses this violence, without embarrassment and without sparing blood, acquires a huge advantage over the enemy who does not do this.

« ^ War is the extreme use of violence. One (opponent) prescribes the law to another; both opponents strain their efforts to the last extreme; there are no other limits to this tension, except for those that become internal opposing forces. . This is how one should look at war; it would be useless, even unreasonable, out of disgust for the severity of her element, to lose sight of her natural properties. If the wars of civilized peoples are much less cruel and destructive than the wars of savage peoples, then this is due both to the level of social condition on which the belligerent states are located, and their mutual relations.

“War comes from this social state of states and their relationships, it is determined by them, it is limited and moderated by them. But all this does not relate to the true essence of the war and flows into the war from outside.

^ The introduction of the principle of limitation and moderation into the philosophy of war itself is sheer absurdity. 43 .

Note that in these formulations and in general, the “theory of violence” presented by Karl von Clausewitz is nothing “armed”, which means that it already contains the grain of a general philosophical, and not actually military understanding of war, but its essence is precisely revealed.

^ According to the modern wording of the Encyclopedia of Cyril and Methodius:

"Violence, is the use by a certain social group of various forms of coercion against other groups with the aim of acquiring or maintaining economic and political dominance, winning certain privileges” 44 .

Thus, and generally.

It seems to us that war can be defined not just as an act of violence, but as a process of purposeful organized violence carried out by some subjects of society against other subjects of society, in order to change in their favor the foundations of their own existence at the expense of the resources and capabilities of the opposite side.

In the war, all (any) and extreme measures of violence (coercion) are used, from changing the national psychology, up to the threat of destroying the enemy and his physical elimination.

We are convinced that the historical correctness of all that has been said above is so obvious that additional argumentation is not required.

In this way, the essence and content of war throughout the history of mankind have not changed.

The essence and content of war is still violence (coercion).

In this respect, it seems important to us to present as far as axiomatic statements.

^ Violence is always social and political in nature.

Any purposeful violent (forced) change in the state of society, with the aim of using these changes to the detriment of itself and in the interests of the organizer and initiator of violence, is military action.

An organized, purposeful, direct or indirect implementation of measures of violence (coercion) into practice and into life by one subject of society against another subject, carried out on an initiative and unannounced basis, is aggression.

Determining the criteria and indicators of aggression in various spheres of the existence of society is an urgent task of the state, military and other types of political sciences.

Since these statements are of a fundamental nature, they will be presented in the relevant section of the work as an independent postulate.

In his work "Philosophy of War" A. Snesarev cites Lassalle's profound statement: “reason is the content of history, but violence always remains its form.”

Following the logic of our study and the logic of Lassalle himself, we can argue that, in our opinion, the main content of history is war, and, referring to the theses of E. Conetti, add - “history is written by power, which is realized by violence, that is, it is realized by war” .

***
^

PART TWO

Basic postulates of the theory of war

“The main task of any theory is the clarification of confusing terms and concepts…”

“Once agreement has been reached on terms and concepts, one can hope for a simple and clear treatment of issues and expect that we will find a common point of view ...” 45

Carl von Clausewitz
^

Definitions of Theory of War and Military Science in Encyclopedic Interpretations

The Great Soviet Encyclopedia defines the very understanding of "science" as follows:

“SCIENCE is one of the forms of social consciousness.

Between science and other forms of social consciousness, such as art, morality, etc., there are common features, which lie in the fact that they are all different forms of reflection of reality.

The objective world is the only subject of knowledge, the source from which it can draw its content. … 46 ».

In developing this definition, we say that it is precisely the objective modern world that gives us reason to draw new content for formulating a modern theory of war.

Later in the course of this work, increasingly convincing evidence will be presented as to the need for a modern theory of 47 war, as well as completely new approaches to its formation.

The use of the term is very diverse, however, the area where it is legitimate in its direct and precise sense is only science.

The theory is a new, deeper generalized knowledge that expresses the results of a person's active penetration into objective reality with the help of abstract thinking...

Theory can and does point the way to practice by virtue of the fact that it reveals objective truth to some extent, more or less accurately and fully reflects the laws that take place in life, in objective reality, and equips people with knowledge of these laws.

^ The theory has as its object developing phenomena of nature and social life and is a form of expression of progressive human knowledge.

^ Theory develops by summarizing new facts, new experience, new practice and creative processing of existing theoretical knowledge; The study of the history of science is of great importance for the emergence of new theories and the development of theoretical thinking” 48 .

It is important to note that in the field of modern big science there are several approaches to this term, since since the first time in the history of wars, Karl Clausewitz named one of the chapters of his classic work "On War" - "The Theory of War", the world has understood that war must have its own theory, which can describe such an important social phenomenon as war, have its own conceptual apparatus and develop according to its own laws.

Our basic and considered classic Military Encyclopedic Dictionary, without citing or considering the concept of "theory of war", at the same time gives an interpretation of the concept of "military theory".

We will cite it in full, since it is precisely this, with the exception of its "Soviet part", that today is the basis of all the theoretical constructions of national military science.

^ "THORY MILITARY- systematized and generalized knowledge about the phenomena of war and military affairs, patterns and features of their development. It is formed on the basis of military practice and serves its purposes. Military theory is constantly being improved on the basis of summarizing the experience of all types of military activity - wars, military exercises, other types of military practice, taking into account the development organizational structure Armed Forces, weapons and military equipment. In peacetime, methods of military experiment and modeling of the processes of a possible war are widely used. The criterion of the truth of the Military Theory is the practice of waging that war, in anticipation of which it was developed. 49 .

The edition "War and Peace in Terms and Definitions" gives the following interpretation: « ^ WAR THEORY- a set of generalized ideas, ideas and interpretations of the origins of war, explanations of the causal nature of their occurrence, giving a holistic view of the patterns and essential connections in the development of processes that give rise to wars, determine their course and completion (outcome).

There are various theories of war:

• 
  classical theory of war;
• 
  class theory of war;
• 
  pluralistic theory of war;
• 
  positivist (pragmatic) theory of war;
• 
  biological theory of war;
• 
  religious theory of war;
• 
  techno-industrial theory of war.

Despite the inconsistency, and often the falsity of one or another setting of these theories, each of them contains elements of truth that reveal certain aspects of wars, their causes and consequences” 50 .

Let us give just one formulation of the theory of war as an example.

^ "WAR THEORY CLASSICAL - a set of the most important general theoretical, philosophical, military-political, economic, military-strategic and military-technical principles abstracted from ideological attitudes about the essence, origin and content of war as the main component of armed struggle, other forms of struggle, means, forms and methods of their conduct. Includes rational provisions from various theories of war, which allows you to reveal and justify its various aspects and elements.

AT classical theory wars, it is recognized that the main sources of modern wars are antagonistic contradictions between states and peoples, resolved by forceful (violent) measures, means and methods.

This theory proceeds from the fact that war is a complex social phenomenon, a continuation of politics by violent means, an open, most acute armed clash between states and socio-social forces. Its roots lie at the basis of other objective elements in the development of social relations, at the basis of generalized historical experience.

In a concentrated form, the essence of war as a philosophical category was defined by the famous military theorist and historian Carl von Clausewitz: war is nothing more than a continuation of state policy by other means. However, neither Clausewitz nor his followers gave a clear philosophical assessment of the primordial essence of wars, reducing their analysis mainly to describing war as a socio-political phenomenon. 51 .

It should be noted here that, in our opinion, it was Karl von Clausevinz who defined the essence of war, considering it not as a socio-political phenomenon, but as an independent phenomenon and the main part of the usual and accepted for centuries military armed political practice of any state of that time.

No one except and after him, so scrupulously and accurately, did not consider the war, in this regard, and simply did not give its assessment as a socio-political phenomenon.

^ To complete the picture, we present several encyclopedic interpretations of the concept of "military science".

In the interpretation encyclopedic dictionary Brockhaus and Efron 1907 we read: Military Science- the theory of war, the doctrine of war, the systematic development of the laws of military art.

Military science embraces the doctrine of military purposes(military policy), oh military means(organization, management, armament and equipment of troops, fortresses, naval forces etc.) and, finally, on the basis of both, the doctrine of use of military means to achieve the goal, i.e. about the waging war.

It breaks down into a manual for military operations on a vast scale. (strategy) and the study of individual orders regarding the concentration, movement and combat operations of troops (tactics).

Next to this in the broadest sense of military science, private ones, such as fortification, artillery, are only auxiliary sciences; just as important are those branches of other sciences that the military needs, for example, military geography, military chemistry, military topography, etc.

There are numerous textbooks, collections, manuals, military encyclopedias, etc., for individual or all branches of military science in general.

He is followed by Jomini (see this name), of whose many works Précis de l "art de la guerre" deserves special attention; then Clausewitz, whose work ("Vom Krieg") appeared only after his death (1831); finally - Willisen with his "Theorie des grossen Krieges", 1840).

Rustov presents the history of the development of military science in his work "Feldherrnkunst des 19 Jahrhunderts" (Zurich, 1857 52).
^ Military Encyclopedic Dictionary, gives the following definition of military science: “Military science, a system of knowledge about the laws and the military-strategic nature of war, the construction and preparation of the Armed Forces and the country for war, and methods of conducting armed struggle.

The main subject of military science is armed struggle in war.

Military science, which primarily studies problems of a social nature, is a social science; at the same time, it is closely connected with the natural and technical sciences.

With subject classification, carried out in accordance with cognizable laws, it includes: general fundamentals(general theory) of military science; theory of military art; the theory of building the armed forces; theory of military training and education; theory of the military economy and the rear of the armed forces.

Military science also includes the problems of military history covered by its subject matter.

In the subject-problem classification, military science includes the theory of command and control of the armed forces and the theory of armaments. theory of types of armed forces" 53 .

^ In addition to the above list of various theories of wars, there are concepts of types of wars: geo-economic war; information war; network-centric warfare; economic war and so on, since almost any sphere of human activity can be declared “military” and even be an integral part of military operations, despite the fact that each of these wars has its own theory and is formed based on the corresponding worldview views, the dominant military ideology, military policy of various states and social groups and serves their purposes.

As we can see, interpretations of the theory of war and military science by various sources and authors consider them only as corresponding theories of actual armed struggle, which, in our opinion, sharply impoverishes the very phenomenon of war and limits the horizons of military science and its theory.

Now , remembering thatTheory is a system of basic ideas in a particular branch of knowledge and a form of scientific knowledge that gives a holistic view of the patterns and essential connections of reality, we give definitions Theories of war and military science in the author's own interpretation.

Definitions of the theory of war and military science in the author's own interpretation

One of the main objectives of this work is an attempt to give harmony and scientific solidity to the outstanding achievements of military thought, scattered today over the centuries and the works of great generals, strategists, politicians and scientists, and to create on this basis a relatively complete, but not complete, modern theory of wars.
^ The need to create a modern theory of wars is caused by:

• 
  the absence of a developed, coherent, relatively complete and complete theory of war (the theory of war is not included in the list of military theories as such and is not taught as a subject of study even in the system of professional military education) and the need to create its new universal conceptual apparatus;
• 
  new trends in the development of mankind and significant new factors of its modern existence;
• 
  current military events of our time, requiring a new understanding;
• 
  the need to introduce a new scientific apparatus of the theory of wars into the political and military practice states;
• 
  the need to create on the basis of the theory of war an independent theory of national strategy and the theory of state administration;
• 
  the need to identify new trends in political life and the development of military affairs, and their clarification in the interpretation of the concepts of the new theory of war;
• 
  the need to develop a theory of war that could be effectively used not only by nations disposed to expand their interests, influence and values, but also by peoples who are satisfied with their state borders and are concerned primarily with safety and the preservation of their way of life;
• 
  the need to create an integral theory of wars, which would be built not on the absolutization of any opportunistic postulates of a nation that is considered “strong” today, but on a non-opportunistic theory built on a new common sense, and in this respect interesting and useful to all objects of society, as well as the theory, which would be a good basis further development military affairs within the framework of the positive development of mankind;
• 
  the need to sum up the practical and scientific experience of mankind in the field of wars, as well as the extreme need to formulate and introduce into its modern scientific life;
• 
  a certain impasse of military thought, associated with the insufficiency of the existing scientific apparatus of this most important sphere of human activity, as well as with the obsolescence or revealed inaccuracy of its important postulates and parts;
• 
  the extremely high activity of a large mass of modern military experts and writers, arbitrarily interpreting the military sphere of human activity that they poorly understand, whose work introduces additional disorganization (vulgarization and simplification) into the understanding (rethinking) of military affairs as a whole;
• 
  the need to introduce a new theory of war into scientific circulation, the educational process of institutions of higher education, as well as into the political and military practice of modern Russia.

It is for these purposes that we will try to formulate our own interpretations of the very concepts of "theory of war" and "military science".
^ WAR THEORY- a system of basic ideas in the field of the struggle of subjects of human society of any form of organization for survival and better conditions for existence, summarizing experience, practice and reflecting the objective patterns of development, society and human thinking, form scientific knowledge, which gives a holistic view of the patterns and essential connections and interaction of parts of human society in this area.

^ The theory of war has as its object the phenomena of interaction of the main parts of society - ethnic groups, nations, states and civilizations developing in time in the process of their existence and struggle for the realization of the goals of their strategies.

^ The theory of war studies and formulates a set of generalized ideas, ideas and interpretations of the origins of war, explains the causal nature of their occurrence, giving a holistic view of the patterns and essential connections in the development of processes that give rise to wars and determine the course and completion (outcome) of the war.

^ The theory of wars is the basis of military science, has its own scientific apparatus, its own logic and philosophy of consideration social problems of the existence of mankind and its differently organized parts, it also includes special theories of various types of wars.

^ MILITARY SCIENCE- as an integral part of science in general and an independent political science, it is one form of social consciousness, a system of knowledge about war as a social phenomenon, patterns, methods and features of its preparation and conduct in a specific historical situation.

^ Military science is based on the theory of war and covers the main issues of organizing national life, which play an important role in shaping the successful present and future of the nation as an independent and independent subject of human society.

It also covers the doctrine of strategy, military art, the theory of its branch and specific parts, issues of organization and training of states, their armed forces, questions of the economic and moral capabilities of the nation (country) and states (countries) of opponents for waging war.

^ In order to ensure the relatively safe and efficient development of the nation, Military Science:

• 
  reveals the main and new trends in the development of mankind and the country, as well as their content and degree of influence on the development of the nation;
• 
  develops recommendations for the top political leadership of the country on the issues of the life of the country as a subject of planetary interactions;
• 
  identifies the need to make the necessary adjustments to the current policy and state practice;
• 
  offers the political (and military) leadership of the country options for a national strategy, plans for war, and options for the necessary structural changes in the main areas of the functioning of the state, and so on;
• 
  determines the direction of development of the structures of all spheres of national defense;
• 
  takes part in the formation of the national strategy, the development of all the most important national documents of the doctrinal level and the agenda for the development of the state;
• 
  determines the required level and quality of military education for the political leadership and senior command staff of the state, its officer corps and professional military education;
• 
  directs the development of its branch and specific parts;
• 
  informs the state and the public about the main scientific results achieved in its field.

With regard to our interpretation of military science and the theory of war, we can affirmatively say that our time daily, if not hourly, confirms that war is not “when guns fire”, but when entire nations disappear from history before our eyes, states arise and disappear .

Probably, today, when new “types of wars” constantly appear and the world community speaks passionately and openly about this phenomenon, to continue to consider it an axiom that “war is armed violence” is at least short-sighted, since the world is already really fighting, fighting brutally , on a large scale and by no means only "tanks".
^ Basic postulates of the theory of war

The author proceeds from the assumption that the theory of war is based on the essence of several basic postulates, which in turn are based on the basic laws of human existence and its own logic of axiomatic statements 54 .

Even a cursory glance at the history of mankind reveals the main and indisputable pattern of its development, traceable through all the millennia of the existence of man as a biological species.

This main and indisputable pattern of human development is that humanity has always developed from the simple to the complex, both at the level of the human organism and at the level of human society.

It seems to us that for the first time and on a full scale, this regularity was singled out and applied as the law of the development of the existence of mankind by the Russian writer and philosopher Mikhail Veller, who formulated -Law of global structuring.

According to Michael Weller The law of universal structuring is expressed in the following: “Any changes in any material structures ultimately lead to the complication of these structures or their involvement in more general and more complex structures” 55 .

^ The essence of the existence of the Universe is energy evolution, carried out by changing its structure.

The essence of man in the Universe is to be a structurizer. ordering beginning and organizer of both his own existence and his Planet and the Universe, if, of course, he is capable of it.

^ The basis of the mechanism of structuring one's own being, the Planet and the Universe, is the "mechanism of human desire".

The remaking of the Universe, the Planet and one's own existence is for a person a consequence of his desire to achieve fame for himself or to realize his other personal or group preferences, which are their goals” 56 .

^ We believe that in relation to the human society, this law has the form of the Law of the complication of organization human being.

The validity of these statements is obvious, since even a school history course is built as a process of studying the development of human society from its primitive state towards modern civilization.

We can observe the direct manifestation of this law in the process of changing and expanding the base of a person's self-identification.

The process of human self-identification has historically gone and continues to go, from a very specific awareness of oneself as: one's own personality, a member of one's family, clan, ethnic group and nation (state); before a person realizes himself as a representative of ever wider levels of social communities.

Such broad social communities in terms of a person's self-identification are, for example, awareness of oneself as part of the society of one's continent - for example, a European or an African; at the level of all mankind - race (white man and so on); correlating oneself with the level of a separate civilization, that is, defining oneself by belonging to world religions and cultures (for example, to Orthodoxy, to the West, and so on); and even communities on a planetary cosmic scale, such as a representative of Humanity and the planet Earth.

In addition, there is always a place to be of any kind and level of local, temporary corporate and other kinds of social entities that can be an independent area of ​​people's self-identification.

These conclusions and generalizations are not a discovery, many prominent philosophers and historians spoke about them in one form or another, let's name only A. Toynbee 57 and S. Huntington 58 .

The only new thing here isthis evidence is used to illustrate the Law of the complication of the organization of the existence of mankind.
Probably, our life, determined by the Creator, is arranged in such a way that everything social structures historically change in the direction of a positive complication of the world.

This means that the structures that are formed in the course of the development and complication of society, which objectively lead the world to stability and create the prerequisites for its development (for example, multipolarity, sovereignization, nation-state formations, and so on, and enabling the positive development of mankind) - are fixed in its existence, historical practice and in the history of mankind.

At the same time, those social entities that periodically appear and perform functions in humanity for the sake of their “spontaneous temporal relevance”, but lead to the “simplification” of social life, historically “extinguish”, despite all their undoubted and contemporary significance.

This is how, in our opinion, the memory and “worldly glory” of ancient cultures, mighty empires, great conquerors and alliances, which themselves “complicated the world” and left their indelible positive mark in history, passed and remained in the history of mankind.

Probably, “simplifying”, that is, practically leading to a historical dead end, modern social entities, sculpting today a “unipolar world”, “hegemony of the USA, NATO”, and so on, are also waiting for their line in the history of mankind.

This means that the factors of "complication" and the factors of "simplification" of the social existence of mankind periodically manifest themselves in their entirety and oppose and fight with each other with different strengths, moreover, the trend of "complication" in the end always wins, which is what we see. manifestation of the Law.

An analysis of the development of the latest trends in the development of mankind, such as "diffusion of ethnic groups and races", reveals that quite soon we are waiting for even more significant changes in the state of human society, and the next "epoch of change", which our civilization is obviously entering, will be by no means less complex and difficult than everything that humanity has already experienced in its history.
^ Important line

It is important for us to give an example of an interesting thought and approaches to designing the future of our compatriots Sergei Pereslegin and Nikolai Yutanov 59 . .

“The future is a set of projects, and design here is understood as building conditions in the country for the implementation of those future options that are considered successful from the point of view of at least one of the citizens of the country.

The purpose of such construction is not to create another “program to get out of the crisis”, not to search for a saving political and / or economic combination, not to choose the lesser of two or more evils, but to build a springboard, a Cosmodrome for those dream ships that are still in our looking back at America reality has nowhere to land.

The rejection of the principle of "fragility of the world" does not relieve a person of responsibility for his actions, but allows him to move on to the actual management of the Current Reality.

The principle of "peace stability" can be formulated in a rather practical and positive form: the Universe is friendly to any person on Earth.

Such a form-slogan allows contradictory interpretations and interpretations, but allows you to realize that a person himself is the master of his universe. Any event that has happened, regardless of whether it is subjectively assessed as “good” or “bad”, is an incentive for development, for realizing one’s essence, for fulfilling one’s own creative tasks in this Universe.

Note that this belief is the cornerstone of any religion, including the Christian one. Let us also note that, at the same time, it does not contradict positivist philosophy, not excluding its extreme forms.

In other words, we believe that each person himself, completely freely and absolutely independently, chooses whether he will be rich and healthy, or poor and sick, and this inner choice has no roots in the Reality surrounding a person.

In the same way, everyone is able to consciously create history, creating new entities and thus transforming the world from the Present to the Future, "from the existing to the emerging." In this regard, we can offer a slogan:

From each according to the Wonder of the World, each according to individual responsibility for what he has done.

“At present, developed countries, whose population is satisfied with themselves and content with their lives, gravitate towards the concept of a “dead future”, towards stopping the real historical process.

Imagine for a moment that some discoveries of the future have already been made, but out of noble concern for the tranquility of the citizens of the nth country are prohibited. There are people capable of working for the future in the nth country, but due to a misunderstanding, everyone is imprisoned. And, finally, where to move is already clear, but the general course has not yet been approved by the President of Ensk.

Well, how to stop it? With the information connectivity of countries! Not in the West, but in Russia, in Africa or in Indonesia, all these answers to the questions: “where to develop?”, “How to act?” and "who will start it?" find their home, and a living future will be built there. In the old metaphor of grass breaking through asphalt, the asphalt sometimes breaks down, but no one dies.

So, I would like to use potential energy of the future(accumulated primarily in the “stopped” “developed” countries), transform it from an informational form into financial flows and production activities and thereby create a springboard through which the Future will penetrate into the Present.

We consider "designing the Future" as a consistent implementation of a number of projects - from regional to national and international, each of which introduces this or that innovation, but in no case crosses out anything in the "existing world".

At present, developed countries, whose population is satisfied with themselves and content with their lives, gravitate towards the concept of a "dead future", towards stopping the real historical process.

We are talking about very simple things here. The present, as a system, seeks to prolong itself "from eternity to eternity" and generously pays for this by providing its adherents with the necessary financial, informational, and spiritual resources. The Future aspires to the status of the Current Reality and is also ready to pay for it. In an attempt to stop development, the United States and Western European countries are accumulating a huge potential energy of "delayed change." This energy can be used for their own purposes by other countries and, above all, China and Russia. Once upon a time, it was in this way that the third-rate North American United States became a world power. Russia has a real chance to use resources in the interests of a "living future" developed countries » 60 .
^ Thus

If the whole history of the development of mankind is a way of complicating its existence, then it seems obvious to us that the main mechanism of this offensive, fixing and consolidating this complication are wars, which are part of the existence of mankind, the main milestones and events of its history, determining the state and fate of mankind as a whole and individual subjects of his society.

We are convinced that it is precisely this circumstance that determines both the highest, if not decisive, role of wars in the history of mankind, as well as their practical permanence.

In our world, there are many different laws of the development of society, including those that we have designated as the basic laws of "competition" and "cooperation", the actions and interactions of which lead to the complication of the organization of human existence..
About the law of "competition"

It seems to us that the law of "competition" is the law of "immediate success at any cost."

^ Of course, competition is necessary for development.

But this competition should take the form of rivalry, which, in turn, should be competitive, that is, carried out as a competition (thirst for superiority), which encourages rivals to make additional efforts in order to become the best and in the name of achieving superiority or victory in a particular race, project or area.

The main condition for the positivity of this process is the holding of a "fair duel conducted according to fair rules."

But if the main objective of competition is "immediate success at any cost",it inevitably leads to destruction.

It so happened that the “commercial world of the West and the Sea” develops by “competition” and obeys its requirements, discarding everything “not the latest and not the most effective”, meaning everything that cannot be “profitably sold here and now”.

At the same time, the natural and intellectual resources of the planet are ruthlessly and predatorily exploited, not only completely effective and viable projects, technologies and even moral values ​​are automatically discarded, but also entire worlds. This means that if the world continues to be guided by the law of "competition", then all the "other or third" worlds (and this is the bulk of humanity) will only be a field of Western expansion and exploitation, they will not have a chance for their own development and will doomed to "civilizational vegetation" and "civilizational antagonism". Will they reconcile themselves to such a fate prepared for them (?), probably not, and this does not bode well for all of us, it means that "there will be no peace on Earth."

Following the law of "competition", as a basic state value and paradigm of state policy, inevitably forms it as a policy of state egoism, a policy of "national interests at any cost", which ultimately will inevitably lead civilization to universal antagonism and collapse, and the permanent war of "all against all" will become human everyday life.

annotation

The monograph by General Alexander Vladimirov is the only work of its kind that directly announces that it was not written "about war" or "the art of war", but represents precisely the "theory of war", which is a unique example in the history of military thought.

The work gives a fairly complete and systematic idea of ​​war as a social phenomenon, as an important part of national life and state practice.

In the scale of "theories of wars", the works of Alexander Vladimirov can be compared with " unified theory fields" in physics, since war and actual armed struggle are not only part of the existence of mankind, which has its own philosophy, but also an obligatory part of the national strategy of the state, understood by the author as the theory, practice and art of government.

The understanding of war as interpreted by Sun Tzu, the theory of war according to Carl von Clausewitz, Liddell B. Hart and the modern conclusions of military science fit into his theory of war and do not contradict each other. The author describes the war as, perhaps, the main social phenomenon of human existence, which has its own general civil (social) and actually military (armed) parts, which, in turn, also have their own philosophy, dialectics, laws, principles and methods of preparation and conduct, and which do not contradict each other, but explain the phenomenon of war and reveal its tools.

For the first time in the history of military thought, the author managed to introduce a relative order into the sum of the ideas accumulated by her and give the theory of war scientific harmony and solidity, moreover, General Alexander Vladimirov’s own ideas are his independent contribution to the treasury of world military thought, and an impulse capable of bringing it to a new level.

Of particular importance are the new basic foundations of national military thought developed by the author, which create the prerequisites for a creative breakthrough in military science and the emergence of new effective state practices in the military development of Russia, in government and the army.

The monograph is not only an unparalleled textbook on the theory of war, but also a textbook on national strategy and the philosophy of Russian politics, and even an "instruction" on the practical application of strategic axioms and methods of governing the country. Practically, the modern theory of war by Alexander Vladimirov is a modern theory of state administration.

Thus, a new direction of scientific thought appeared in the field of political sciences, the foundations of a new scientific school, which has the most important practical value, and Russia can be proud to be its motherland.

It seems that the study of the course of the theory of war and the foundations of national strategy should become an obligatory component of professional training in the civil service system of Russia and in the system of professional military education.

The monograph is recommended for study: as a mandatory course for the training of leaders of the highest state authorities; as an independent course of study in educational institutions high school; in magistracy (postgraduate) political (political science) and higher management specialties; in the preparation of a political asset in party building.

Vladimirov Alexander Ivanovich

Major General of the Reserve, President of the Collegium of Military Experts of Russia, Honorary Chairman of the All-Russian Union of Cadet Associations "Open Commonwealth of Suvorovites, Nakhimovites and Cadets of Russia", Member of the National Strategy Council, Senior Researcher of the IE RAS.

Born April 17, 1945 in the family of a military man, graduated from the Moscow Suvorov Military School, the Moscow Higher Combined Arms Command School (diploma with honors and a gold medal), the Military Academy. M.V. Frunze (diploma with honors), Military Academy of the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces (diploma with honors).

Served in the USSR Armed Forces in command and staff positions Far East, in the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany, in Belarus, in Vietnam. Awarded with 30 state, departmental and foreign awards.

Participated in the development of the "Basics military doctrine of the Russian Federation”, Laws of the Russian Federation “On Defense”, “On Security”, “On the Status of Servicemen”, “On Conversion”, “On Veterans”, Messages of the President of the Russian Federation to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on National Security, the Concept of National Security of the Russian Federation, “Fundamentals of the National Strategy security and development of Russia 2050”. Author of more than 150 works and publications on the problems of the national state idea, military reform, civilian control over the power structures of the state, international and national security, and national strategy. Author of six monographs: “On the National State Idea of ​​Russia”, “Military Reform in Russia”, “Strategic Studies”, “Abstracts for the Strategy of Russia”, “Conceptual Foundations of the National Strategy of Russia. Political aspect”, “Fundamentals of the general theory of war”.

Summary of the monograph "FOUNDATIONS of the General Theory of War"

Preamble. Civilization factor

1. The World Today: A General Assessment of the Strategic Environment

1.2 The main civilizational factors of the modern existence of mankind

1.3 Geostrategic background for the development of Russia and the world in the near foreseeable future up to 2050 and the main trends in its development

2. Background and a brief outline of the status of the problem

2.1 Periodization and general outline of the historical development of military affairs and the theory of war

2.2 The main schools in the field of the theory of war, their authors and main works

Chapter Conclusions

Preamble. On General Approaches to the Development of the Theory of War

1. The essential foundations of the theory of war

1.1 War and its nature

1.2 General concepts theories of war and military science

1.3 Basic postulates of the theory of war

2.2 Economics of war

3. Typology of wars

3.1 Types of wars

3.2 Value typology of wars (wars "fair", "unfair")

3.3 Geopolitical technologies as new operational means of war

4. Principles, laws, law and psychology of war

4.1 On the principles of war

4.2 On the laws of war

4.3 On the law of war

4.4 On the psychology of war

Chapter Conclusions

Preamble. War, strategy and politics: a new hierarchy

1. Fundamentals of the general theory of national strategy

1.2 General provisions and main categories of the theory of national strategy

2. Kinds, types and "plans" of strategy

2.1 Types of strategies

2.2 Types of strategies

2.3 Positive and negative plans of the national strategy. The dialectic of "contrition" and "starvation"

3. Management of the war

3.1 Theory of the question and basic approaches

3.2 Strategic direction and strategic management

3.3 Supreme Commander

3.4 Making strategic decisions

3.5 Strategic planning

Chapter Conclusions

Preamble. The theory of war as a philosophical, theoretical and methodological basis and the basis of the national strategy, as the basis of the life order of the state.

1. On the national strategy of Russia

1.1 About the national strategic culture and national strategy of Russia

1.2 The national strategy of Russia in the logic of ethnogenesis

2. Fundamentals of Russia's national strategy

2.1 Strategic matrix of the nation

2.2 The people as a position

2.3 The ideal, as the image of the future of Russia desired by the nation, as the goal of the national strategy and the basis of the position of the people

2.4 A nation's own higher internal and external determinations as the basis of its strategic position

2.5 Strategic line of conduct of the nation

2.6 Maximum expansion line

2.7 "Peace" and "war" time

2.8 The information sphere of the nation and its security

2.9 About national space

2.10 The factor of connectivity as the basis of the strategy for the formation of the national space of Russia

2.11 "National Interest" and "National Security"

2.12 Russia as a new empire: the ABC of imperial principles

2.13 The Eurasian Union (EURAS), as a project and as the basic geostrategy of Russia

2.14 Some questions of the nation's survival in global catastrophes: the Adam's Ark project

3. Personnel decide everything

3.1 Fundamentals of the state personnel policy

3.2 On the formation of national elites: cadet education as the basis of the system of education of national elites

4. State, war and armed forces: main trends

4.1 State and war

4.2 State and military

5. State and army: main approaches, aspects and theses

5.1 Army: encyclopedic interpretations and doctrinal provisions

5.2 Russia's national strategy in the military-political sphere: some doctrinal guidelines in the author's interpretation

5.3 Some issues of the foundations of national military construction

6. Army: the genetics of the army, as its basic and professional (corporate) foundations

6.1 The concept of "genetics" of the army and the priorities of its formation

6.2 Army as a system

6.3 The mission philosophy of the army

6.4 The basic archetype of the Russian warrior

6.5 About the state ideology of military service

6.6 On military professionalism

6.7 About the corporate professional ethics of the Army

7. Armies and Society

7.1 Army and politics

7.2 Place and role of the army in society

7.3 Civil-military relations

7.4 Control over the power sphere of the state

8. On the new geopolitical ethics

8.1 About world order

8.2 On the systems of international and regional security, their development and Russia's participation in them

8.3 From human rights to human duties and human rights

8.4 Transition to a new geopolitical ethics in relations between powers and nations

Chapter Conclusions

Conclusion

Strategic axiom

At the request of the editors, AI Vladimirov's monograph "Fundamentals of the General Theory of War" was read by specialists in the field of geopolitics and military affairs. Next, we present the opinion of the candidate of military sciences, professor P. N. Kryazhev.

The structure proposed by the author and the content of his work, which he classifies as a monograph, is based on the results of his many years of creative research on many relevant and interrelated areas, sections and problems.

Even a simple acquaintance with the proposed structure of the monograph speaks volumes. Thus, we can conclude that the author approaches the development of his work not from a highly specialized, departmental focus, but on the basis of a deep and comprehensive analysis of many related and mutually influencing areas and areas of activity and society as a whole and its individual groups, constituent components.

The author has great amount analytical developments, generalizations on various problems of the widest range of problems from ensuring the life of an individual, to issues covering many areas of society, geopolitical issues, an analytical assessment of the place and role of the state in the world community, the place, role and significance of the consequences of the activities of the ruling elite of the state and many, many more. A simple enumeration of just a few of them: “On the National State Idea of ​​Russia”, “Military Reform in Russia”, “Strategic Studies”, “Theses for the Strategy of Russia”, “Conceptual Foundations of the National Strategy of Russia. The political aspect" - speaks of the importance of these works in planning, organizing and implementing state building, ensuring Russia's national security in modern conditions, about the versatility of the author's interests and his civic position.

And the collection of these developments in the form of a single purposeful work seems to be very significant and timely.

Probably, many will agree with me that the lack of a modern theory of war hinders the development of Russia and makes its foreign and domestic policy insufficiently flexible, and state activity inefficient and uncompetitive.

One of the main objectives of this work is an attempt to give harmony and scientific validity to the outstanding achievements of military thought, scattered today over the centuries and the works of great commanders, strategists, politicians and scientists, and the creation on this basis of a relatively complete, modern theory of war.

Urgent Relevance research work This trend is driven by the following factors:

• the absence in the state as a whole and in its military department of a coherent theory of war (the theory of war is not included in the list of military theories as such and is not taught as a subject of instruction even in the system of professional military education);
• the manifestation of new trends in the development of mankind and significant new factors of its modern existence;
• current military events of our time, requiring a new understanding;
• the need to create on the basis of the theory of war an independent theory of national strategy and the theory of state administration;
• the need to generalize the practical and scientific experience of mankind in the field of preparing and waging wars, identifying new trends in political life and the development of military affairs, and their presentation in the interpretation of the concepts of the new theory of war;
• a certain stagnation of domestic military thought in recent decades.

This means that there is an objective law of development - ignorance of both the laws of evolution of nature, society, and the laws of war and strategy, as well as their arbitrary interpretation and application, always leads the nation to collapse and does not relieve national elites, governments and societies from their responsibility for the historical fate of their own nations and peoples.

Unfortunately, in modern history, the national strategy, as a rule, is formed not by those representatives of national elites who “rose to the heights of knowledge, understanding and responsibility”, but by those who, guided by the “instinct of power”, rely on the fact that in “their time "they are not in danger of collapse and they will be able to survive in it, which is just another example of another delusion that only exacerbates strategic mistakes and worsens the chances of their nations for survival and a worthy history. This provision directly applies to the state of affairs in modern Russia.

At the same time, even a superficial analysis of the existence of mankind in relation to the main issues of the survival of our earthly civilization, namely the issues of war and peace, confuses modern political science and military thought, since these problems do not find their systemic explanation today, and, moreover, do not have a visible intelligible solution.

These problems are increasingly blurred by the manifestation of new trends in the development of mankind, despite the fact that there are practically no positive and clear development trends, or they have not been identified as such.

Today, political science and military thought is actively and anxiously rushing about in search of explainable (or at least acceptable) forecasts and pictures of the future and is trying to see the fabric of times, but all these searches are still unsystematic and cannot be reduced to at least somehow understandable model.

The author explains this fact not so much by the complexity of the problem raised, but by the lack of a systematic basis for searches. And as an alternative, he offers the results of his many years of research, combined in such a work as a monograph dedicated to the creation of the foundations of a general theory of war.

Modern researchers today are vigorously discussing the works of military historians and theorists, including the creative heritage of Karl von Clausewitz, either agreeing with his interpretations of the war, or actively and reasonably protesting against them (Israeli historian Martin van Creveld), but the strangest thing in this process it is that none of them offer anything fundamentally new.

At the same time, all modern experts agree that the wars of the XX-XXI centuries are of a different nature than the war in the time of Clausewitz.

Analyzing the military-theoretical works of Clausewitz and the works of his modern opponents, the author brings us to the conclusion that the nature of war is violence, and this is its absolute constant, which always remains unchanged, but at the same time, the very content of war, its goals, criteria, management technologies and operational means.

In our opinion, the research carried out by the author of such areas and sections of the theory of war as the content of war as a whole and in relation to the modern era, its goals, criteria, technologies of warfare and operational means deserve attention.

The undoubted merit of the author is that, on the basis of the research carried out, they are offered a new interpretation of a number of categories related to the issues under consideration. We consider the most significant of them to be research in such areas as:

• categories related to the assessment of the state of national existence - "challenges", "risks", "dangers", "threats", "crisis", "catastrophe", "collapse";
• defining the main categories of war as social phenomenon and parts of the existence of society, such as - "theory of war", "war", "peace", "victory in war"; "niches of war";
• concepts that determine the nature and specifics of the phenomenon of war as a process of organized violence - "aggression", "theaters of war", "position", "connectivity", "maneuver", "tempo of action" and others.

Very interesting and relevant is the typology of wars carried out by the author with a detailed analysis of the types of wars, where the main attention is paid to the analysis of wars of the 21st century, including such as asymmetric wars, information and network-centric wars, swarm (network) warfare.

A significant contribution to science is the results of the research conducted by the author of new technologies of warfare conducted in peacetime (information technologies) applied to Russia by the main geopolitical players of the 21st century, its civilizational opponents-enemies. Alexander Ivanovich is one of the first researchers who saw the close relationship between modern geopolitical technologies and military affairs.

New information technologies are, according to the author, new operational means of war, which provide new opportunities for managing the world. The war is waged by new operational means that look like modern geopolitical technologies that are informational in nature.

The main of these peacetime warfare technologies are: the strategy of "organized chaos"; technology of "terror"; technology of "freedom of human rights"; technology of "permanent reforms"; technology of "formation of national consciousness" and technology of "competition". The author paid considerable attention to the study of these technologies and methods of their application to Russia.

Obviously, under the influence of new technologies, the world will change irresistibly and rapidly in all forms of social life. And at the same time, today, perhaps, few people know what, in the name of what, in exchange for what, and at what cost will change.

One should agree with the author that the panacea for the harmful effects of geopolitical technologies as new operational means of war is one's own the immune system nation-states and civilizations, the basis of which has always been, is and will be their own system of shrines, ideals and values, the originality of their culture and way of life.

It seems important to understand the fact that the state power of our geopolitical rival and his national interests always stand and act behind democratic demagogy.

Interesting and original is the author's approach to the analysis of the principles, laws, law and psychology of war. Unlike previous studies of domestic military theorists, Vladimirov A.I. chose the path not narrowly specific, party-dogmatic, but the path of generalization and analysis of the world military heritage and the work of modern military researchers (Suvorova A.V., Klado N.L., Sergei Pereslegin, Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, E.J. Kingston-McClory, Liddell Garth, Martin van Creveld and others).

This allowed the author, on the basis of a deep and comprehensive analysis and generalization of the world military heritage, to express several original and at the same time relevant and fully implemented laws and principles of war in military affairs. I will give just a few of them:

• a nation can win only when it knows and skillfully uses the laws of war, and prepares itself in advance for it;
• a nation can only win when it has the will to win;
• today Russia is in a position in which: when there is a chance to win, we must fight; if there is no chance, we must win!

Very significant in this vein is the author's conclusion that the theory of war can take place and become a recognized science only if it has its own set of basic features of science, which necessarily includes such scientific attributes as its own principles and principles. laws, and when the theory of war can be confirmed by already historically existing military law proper.

The research conducted by the author in such an area of ​​state activity as ensuring national security has a certain scientific and practical significance. The national security of Russia, according to the author's definition, is a system of internal and external conditions for the existence of its society (peoples) formed by the state as a state of existence of the nation, guaranteed to ensure the implementation of its basic strategic goals, that is, its self-preservation, positive development and historical eternity, despite all objectively existing and possible threats to the existence of Russia as a state, a superethnos and a special civilization.

The main object and subject of Russia's national security is itself, as a state (with its system of constitutional institutions), itself Russian society(superethnos and a special civilization), as well as the personality of each of its citizens with their own way of life and territory.

The reconstruction of the national military power of Russia, adequate to the future challenges of its existence, is possible, as the author argues, only when military construction is carried out in accordance with the new philosophy of military and state building and taking into account a deep knowledge of trends, the latest technologies and war strategy. Russia's national security can only be ensured if its national interests are determined and harmonized with the interests of other powers and, above all, with the interests of the regional leaders.

In our opinion, these conclusions and proposals of the author are very relevant in connection with the processes of transformation of our Armed Forces, understanding their role, forms and methods of action in wars of the 21st century.

Not all conclusions and proposals of the author are axiomatic and indisputable, many are at this stage only the author's ideas, subject to further deep and comprehensive research, starting positions for the development of scientific discussions on the pages of periodicals, special editions, collections, at seminars, conferences, etc. d.

Behind Alexander Vladimirov more than 30 years of practical military service in command and staff positions, he rose to the rank of major general and the post of chief of staff of the combined arms army.

The foundation of his military career was the deep military knowledge obtained in universities, including the Academy of the General Staff. General Vladimirov was richly endowed with fate from a young age, starting from the Suvorov Military School, where for seven years they brought up a convinced patriot, and successful practical service in deployed units and a versatile education received in three higher military institutions made him an outstanding personality - an outstanding professional, prominent scientist and strategist.

General Staff in the singular

In confirmation, the statement of the President of the AVN, General of the Army Makhmut Gareev: “I suggest that our authorities carefully listen to what he says and writes, because General Vladimirov, having a unique gift for insight into the essence of things, systemic thinking and strategic foresight, his ideas and works significantly ahead of our current foreign and domestic policy, and the “reaction time” of the authorities, that is, the time when his ideas begin to be in demand by the official state power, is calculated in many years ... ”This opinion is all the more valuable because it was expressed by a participant in the Great Patriotic War, a scientist , known for his integrity and objectivity, a military leader and an outstanding organizer of domestic military science, for many years the former deputy chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces.

“I was at his exercises and saw the general in action, he is the General Staff in itself” ”

The well-known Soviet military intelligence officer and Russian political scientist, economist and expert in the field of defense and security, Vitaly Shlykov, wrote in the preface to the first edition of the monograph on his acquaintance with Alexander Vladimirov: “We met like this. In 1988, the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev, expressed a desire to create a governing body similar to the US National Security Council, and various government departments received appropriate orders to work out this idea of ​​his ( strange that Gorbachev could even have a theoretical idea of ​​strengthening the country's security at a time when practical actions led to the destruction of the state. – L. Sh.).

The work did not go on for a long time, and in the end this case was entrusted to us, that is, to me, an intelligence agent who knew the subject itself, the language and the country, and the head of the Analytical Department of the KGB of the USSR, Vladimir Arsentievich Rubanov. When we started work, we both had the idea to include in our group someone who understands the issues of the Armed Forces. Since, due to the specifics of our service, both of us did not have serious personal acquaintances in the army, I turned with a request to the Chief of the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces, later Advisor to the President of the USSR Marshal of the Soviet Union Sergei Fedorovich Akhromeev. To my question and request to find an intelligent officer to participate in the working group on the USSR Security Council, Marshal Akhromeev answered immediately: “I know such an intelligent officer. This is the chief of staff of the 28th Combined Arms Army of the Grodno Belarusian Military District, Major General Alexander Vladimirov.” When I expressed the opinion that, perhaps, we could take someone not from the troops, but directly from the General Staff, the marshal said that we didn’t need anything better, because: “I was at his exercises and saw the general in In fact, he is the General Staff in itself.

Continuing the conversation about the fundamental work of Vladimirov, I emphasize: this is primarily the result of many years of titanic work of his mind, soul and enormous physical exertion, since the amount of material studied, processed and meaningful is colossal. Vladimirov did what, it seems, only large scientific teams can do, and Marshal Akhromeev turned out to be right - he is the General Staff in itself.

I refer to the statements of major military leaders and military experts not in order to raise the bar for the significance of the three volumes, but because the range of topics is so wide and multifaceted, the volume of material is so huge that it cannot be assessed by one person. The author has taken significant steps in generalizing the centuries-old experience of the best representatives of military thought, studying and analyzing their works in order to understand and reveal the essence of the modern theory of war. He has more than 700 references and footnotes alone. Vladimirov speaks quite reasonably and objectively about the modern world order and a possible war.

Even a review that has been worked out in full can qualify for a significant abstract or something more if a team of professionals gets down to business. My goal is much more modest - to attract the attention of the Supreme Command, specialists up to and including the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, its academy, the Security Council of the Russian Federation and structures responsible for developing strategic approaches, patriotic education. It is appropriate to emphasize that the monograph places special emphasis on the training of personnel, both military and civilian, who occupy high positions and influence the defense capability and defense of the state.

We can agree that not all conclusions and recommendations are indisputable. But this solid work, of course, is subject to careful study, research, reflection and should serve as a subject of discussion at various conferences, round tables and seminars.

With appropriate preparation on the part of the author, the monograph can be revised and used as a textbook for various specialists. Of course, they do not have to study the entire 3000-page work, but I am sure that for responsible, sovereign leaders there are many useful information for reflection and work, for the results of which they are responsible.

With a deep revision of the first edition of the monograph and the clarifications made, the General Theory of War acquired a stable three-part form. The first part is "Fundamentals of the Theory of War". The second is “The Theory of National Strategy. Fundamentals of the theory, practice and art of state administration. The third one is “State, War and Army: Some Questions of General Theory”. All thematically defined parts of the monograph have gained conceptual completeness, their own set of applications, and in this form can be widely used in educational practice as separate volumes.

All parts contain interesting, often exclusive and voluminous additional reference data in the materials of important remarks and applications, which can be used by students and teachers as unified encyclopedic sources on the proposed topic. Thus, the second edition of "Fundamentals of the General Theory of War" can become basic and subject to study in the system of higher military and civilian education and public service in the Russian Federation.

The monograph considers war as the main problem of mankind, as a phenomenon of our being, accompanying us throughout the history of civilization.

Reading the great

General Vladimirov relies on the works of many foreign military philosophers and scientists and pays due attention to Russian professionals, which is completely uncharacteristic of modern scientific thought. What is especially important, it is our military celebrities who are building the modern theory of war and its features in the period of globalization.

This is the great merit of the author, who, using their potential, reasonably and convincingly predicts the nature and conditions for the outbreak of a future war. He pays special attention to the works of the outstanding Russian military theorist Alexander Svechin and, above all, to the famous work "Strategy".

Vladimirov focuses on the works of the Russian military philosopher Andrei Snesarev, whom he considers the most subtle and profound researcher of the essence of war, and cites his three important conclusions. They are undeniable to this day:

1. In its content, the war has become an all-encompassing, all-penetrating and deeply dramatic phenomenon in the life of peoples and remains inevitable for the foreseeable future.

2. Wars testify to great and dangerous shortcomings in the organization of human society and the impotence of the human mind.

3. The solution to the question of the future (coming) of the war - positive or negative - remains for the time being a matter of faith, and not a scientifically proven fact. (A. E. Snesarev "Philosophy of War").

The author considers it necessary to highlight the unique work of the Colonel of the General Staff of the Russian Imperial Army Yevgeny Messner, a visionary and classic of strategic military thought, who determined most of the modern categories of philosophy and theory of wars.

Messner was the first to define terror as a form of war and brilliantly predicted: “We must stop thinking that war is when people are at war, and peace is when they are not at war. You can be in a war without fighting."

But of all the legacy cited by the author, the most significant and absolutely strategic, according to Vladimirov's definition, is Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations and the Reorganization of the World Order, which is a brilliant example of deep strategic foresight. Of considerable scientific interest is also an excursion into the work of representatives of the Russian military emigration, which was almost unknown to us before the publication of the monograph.

The value of the work of General Vladimirov is in its deep scientific nature, which is confirmed by the logic of reasoning, evidence, persuasiveness and clarity, since the work is written in good Russian.

Eternal Clausewitz

Lenin, being in exile in Switzerland in 1916-1917, read the main book of Karl von Clausewitz "On War" in the Zurich cantonal library. In its margins and in the working papers of Vladimir Ilyich, numerous extracts and remarks made by him in the course of reading have been preserved. Later, Lenin often quoted Clausewitz, calling him one of the great and profound writers on military questions, whose main ideas have now become the unconditional acquisition of every thinking person. These remarks on the work of Clausewitz and other authors on military issues were included in the 12th "Lenin Collection", published in 1933 and 1939 as a pamphlet, and subsequently included in the complete works of the leader of the revolution.

It is not surprising that after such Leninist "PR", a respectful attitude towards Clausewitz was characteristic of all works on the history and theory of military art in the Soviet Union, starting from the 20s.

In 1934, Clausewitz’s three-volume book “On War” was published in Moscow, and this work took a prominent place in all the military academies of the Soviet Union, and, together with the personal notes of Lenin and Stalin, eventually formed the basis of the “Marxist-Leninist doctrine of war” - a compulsory subject in all military schools. And today this book is in all libraries of all institutions of military vocational training in the Fatherland, starting with the Suvorov military schools.

Unfortunately, many top leaders settled on understanding war based only on the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of war. And from the works of military classics, at best, they are familiar with the work of Clausewitz “On War”. Extracting from it, as a rule, only one thought: "War is the continuation of politics by other means", implying only armed struggle.

I really want them not only to pick up the monograph of General Vladimirov, but also to go through its pages at least diagonally and set the task of comprehending all the material, developing a report for leaders and preparing textbooks and methodological manuals on aspects of the general theory war, which was formed, developed and talentedly written by our compatriot.

No doubt, this will help them in understanding the main idea and three axioms: "The state is at war, the army is fighting in the war, and the population is at war" and each component must be able to do this, otherwise there will be no victory. In modern conditions, the goal of victory is defined much more strictly - to be a country or not. And not otherwise.

And it is not necessary to go to Switzerland in order to understand the meaning and purpose of modern warfare, it is enough to delve into and read the monograph of General Vladimirov and organize its study and practical actions at all levels.

The monograph is worth it.

P. S. Major General Vladimirov lives with his wife, daughter and son in a small apartment inherited from his mother with a total area of ​​36.7, and residential - 21.8 square meters, that is, a little more than five square meters per person, with a sanitary standard of eight square meters. He was dismissed for health reasons in 1992 at the age of 47, at a difficult time for the country and the army. No one then was particularly interested in his living conditions. Has every reason to improve living conditions. Standing in line in the prefecture of the Southern District of Moscow for 22 years. The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation does not appear on the housing register.

There was no response to a letter from former Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov to Vladimir Putin asking for a solution to the housing problem of Alexander Vladimirov and a resolution from the president to Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov “Report proposals”.

Major General Vladimirov, who has been wearing epaulets since the age of 11 and has served impeccably for 30 years in the Armed Forces of the country, is used to everything. But he is very ashamed in front of his wife and two adult children, who have long passed the age when they sleep "jack" or, as in the barracks, on a bunk bed. He deserved, I emphasize, deserved (he was wounded in Vietnam) more civilized living conditions for himself and his family.

I appeal through the respected newspaper "Military Industrial Courier" to the leadership of the capital (Alexander Ivanovich Vladimirov - a native Muscovite) and the current Minister of Defense with a request to resolve the housing issue. Shame on the State!

Size: px

Start impression from page:

transcript

1 candidate of political sciences, author of the fundamental work "Fundamentals of the General Theory of War" 1, retired major general Fundamentals of the general theory of war and the foundations of a new geopolitical ethics I. A few axioms from the general theory of war that everyone should know Modern warfare is not when tanks fire and artillery, strikes are carried out by aviation and missile troops, and the soldiers of the parties to the war move the front line with them to victory. War is modern, it's like radiation, you don't feel it, but you're gone. Thus, peoples and states quietly disappear from the history of mankind. An example of this - the USSR, a huge empire with a powerful army and nuclear weapons, disappeared, and no one fired. 1. The existence of Mankind proceeds in the paradigm (basic scheme) of two main (basic) natural states: WAR and PEACE, and there is no third one. "WAR" and "PEACE" are only the stages (cycles and rhythms) of the existence of mankind and society at any level. "Peace" is a way of fulfilling the roles of the subjects of society, formed by the last war, it forms the potential for change. War realizes the potential for change, creates and redistributes new roles and statuses of its participants. 2. There is a war going on in the world, it is permanent (continuous) and universal. Armed struggle is only one of the forms (phases) of war. This means that during the war it is too late to prepare for war, you have to fight. Therefore, the main motive, principle and law of modern life is “If you want peace, fight!”. 3. The goal of the war is not the destruction of the enemy, but the forceful redistribution of the role functions of the subjects of society (for example, states) in favor of a strong one capable of forming their own model of post-war management of society, as well as fully enjoying the strategic effects of their victory 4. The main prize of war is not resources, not territory and not power on it, but a new changed national mentality of the defeated nation, always complementary to the winner, which ensures him the victory of his Meaning, and hence the victory of his future. 5. The war is waged by the parties to the war, each of which pursues its own goals. In a war, there can only be a victory of one of the parties and there are no compromises that are possible only in conflicts. 6. Wars always end not in peace, but in the victory of one of the parties and the conclusion of peace on the terms of the victorious side. Winner: forms the post-war picture of the world; 1 Vladimirov A.I. Fundamentals of the general theory of war: monograph: in 2 hours Part I: Fundamentals of the theory of war. 967 p. / A.I. Vladimirov. - M.: Moscow Financial and Industrial University "Synergy",

2 draws up the results of his victory in international and national law, according to the Law of the Law of Victory; dictates to the vanquished its conditions for the organization of the post-war world; enjoys the strategic effects of his victory in the war, that is, uncontrollably uses all the resources of the vanquished. 7. Who is our enemy? It seems to us that the main enemy of Russia, even its enemy, is radical liberalism and the states that embody it and the military-political structure of NATO, including political chimeras such as Ukraine, as well as the forces of the internal fifth column; radical political Islam and the states that personify it, non-state formations and chimera states (ISIS), as well as the internal forces of its support. II. General outline of the modern strategic landscape The current moment in the history of mankind is the process of formation of a new architecture of the world that has already begun. The new architecture of the world is formed and acquires its new fundamental forms and outlines only by violence, that is, only by war (remember Talleyrand: "Violence is the midwife of history"). In this regard, it is necessary to state a modern objective reality: war is inevitable; it is impossible to avoid war; the war is already on; a war can only end in the victory of one of the parties to the war; the war will end with the conclusion of peace on the terms of the winner, who will build a new architecture of the world and, exclusively in his own interests, a system for managing it; Russia is a party to the war; Russia cannot rely on the mind and conscience of its geopolitical rivals (opponents and enemies); in this war, Russia has no allies, but only, as always, its Army and Navy. Moreover, the main theater of war is our own consciousness, and the most advanced weapons of war are not nuclear weapons or computer viruses, but human consciousness and psychology, and anthropological flows. The validity of what has been said can be observed daily on the example of the flows of refugees from Syria and Africa to Europe and their behavior, as well as on the quality of its national elites, on the "freaks" in power in Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic states, etc. The general strategic situation is deteriorating every day, there are no chances and options for a peaceful outcome or a peaceful course of the process of this new “world breakdown”. III. War as a War of Meanings We are convinced that a future war, regardless of its physical scale and even theaters of war, will have a civilizational character, which will inevitably give it the level of a war of meanings. It seems to us that the war of meanings is a war for the victory of one or another system of meanings of the civilizational level, which is waged by states, nations and other parts of the human society, identifying themselves with one or another sum of their basic moral values ​​and, on this basis, classifying themselves as one or another another civilization. An important factor in this situation is the obvious mutual noncompliance of these civilizations, which determines a new level of conflict basis for future wars. 2

3 In the context of the “theory of war”, the meaning of national existence acts as a resource for which there is a struggle, which must be protected and protected, because meanings are what forms the national mentality and makes the nation what it is in the history of mankind. Meanings are the cores of national culture, which are not always clear and not always verbalized, but which are manifested in the process of communication styles and forms of interaction familiar to a given culture. When the styles of interaction traditional for a given culture are destroyed, their ability to understand the meanings of their culture is lost, and when the very meanings and interactions of people are destroyed, their life turns into nonsense. The concept of "meaning" shows yet another meaning when considered in the context of the theory of war. In this case, we are talking about the "war of meanings" as a confrontation of meanings, in our plan - the meanings of national existence. The war of meanings is the process of erasing and removing historical authentic national values ​​and meanings from the way of life of the nation, from the bosom of its national culture and replacing them with other alien values ​​and meanings, which leads to a change in the way of existence of the nation and a change in its historical genetic code. If such an operation ends in success, then meanings, national culture, and, in the future, the nation itself perish. We are convinced that, according to the General Theory of War, the meaning of the national existence of Russia is determined by its national genetics, i.e., its historical Mission in the world, a set of its historical national values ​​shaped by the valuable choices of the nation throughout the history of its existence. *** In terms of the Fundamentals of the General Theory of War, the Ninth Postulate defines war in its highest form as a war of meanings, and its Main Goal as the capture (conquest) of the future. The highest form of war is the war of civilizations, it is the war of the Meanings of their existence. In the war of meanings, it is not the side that wins space, resources or even comes to control that wins, but the one that captures the future. IV. The foundations of a new geopolitical ethics In the most general and thesis form, this new geopolitical ethics, understood by us as a kind of synthesis of the rules of being, as a code of mutual behavior and relations between powers and nations, based on a new moral universal message and as an agenda for the 21st century, can be set out in a few principles of peaceful and constructive coexistence. Foundations of the New Geopolitical Ethics Blessed Augustine in the 4th c. AD formulated, as it seems to us, the basic and absolute principles of the ethics of the coexistence of peoples and in general the existence of all members of human society: "In the main unity, in secondary diversity, in all love." In addition to these axioms and in relation to modernity, the basic methodological thesis of geoethics can sound like this: the world is one for all, therefore the geopolitical confrontation between the Powers, "centers of power", Land and Sea, West and East, North and South should be removed by the concept of "Humanity", its purpose, the general goal of survival and development as a biological species, the general objectives of its well-being, successful history and eternity. The aim of the new geoethics is: 3

4 transformation of the geopolitics of the struggle for dominance and domination into the geopolitics of cooperation, joint survival and development, as a joint civilizational effort of great and small, maritime and continental powers, different civilizations. The basis of the new geopolitical ethics of nations should be the fundamental foundations of human existence, which have proven their truth in human history, based on: Respect for Life as such, as the basis of humanism; The moral consensus of all civilizations and great religions of mankind; The main principle of medical ethics (Hippocratic oath): "Do no harm!"; Russian idea of ​​"Justice"; Chinese philosophy "Harmony"; German idea of ​​"Order and legality"; On the principle of respect for other life and foreign sovereignty: "Live and let live!". On the law of "cooperation and mutual co-action"; On the priorities of the duties of people and their societies (families, peoples, states and societies); On the new international law, written on the basis of the new geopolitical ethics (since all modern international law is written only and exclusively in the interests of the US Federal Reserve System); On the voluntary rejection of the "Strategy of domination and domination" ("A power that pursues a policy of domination inevitably suffers defeat and a national catastrophe") 2. These foundations determine the new rules for the life of states and nations. 1. When there is strength, one must be wise so that, even when helping, one does not accidentally harm others and does not “overstrain” oneself; when there is no strength, one must be especially patient and persistent. 2. You cannot impose your values, ideology and way of life on others by force. 3. You need to know, respect each other and be able to negotiate. 4. Try to avoid conflicts of interest, and when this is not possible, then negotiate again, try to harmonize them as much as possible and resolve conflicts on the basis of mutually acceptable compromises. 5. Do not be guided by double standards. 6. Do not dramatize disagreements, but explain and translate them into a field of understanding. 7. Do not oppose oneself to partners, even when there are real opportunities and conditions for imposing one's will. 8. Do not look for one-sided benefits in relationships. 9. Do not form or support mutual antipathies. 10. Do not produce conflicts. 11. Treat issues that affect the historical specifics of the internal sovereignty of partners with particular caution. 12. Limit your own "hawks", the thirst for profit and the greed of your own corporations. 13. Share your abilities to solve common problems. This list goes on and on. The main thing depends only on the mutual good political will, patience and determination of nations that have realized the historical necessity of a new geopolitical existence, to which, in our opinion, there is no reasonable alternative. 2 Dashichev V. I. from Stalin to Putin. Memories and reflections on the past, present and future. / Dashichev V.I.M.: NewChronograph, P.90 4

5 It seems to us that in the world of people, not so much laws, including “international law”, but these ethical principles of existence should become determining in their relations. If we do not follow these rules, then the "struggle for peace" can destroy us all. This means that we must take concrete steps to counteract the fatal consequences of unlimited superpower rivalry, and build our actions in such a way as to try to coexist without prejudice to our own interests and authority, as well as the interests and authority of a partner. The most important statements of the strategic plan 1. It is impossible to win a war by war. 2. Only ethics can win a war. 3. Russia cannot defeat its opponents, that is, the combined West (USA), China and radical Islam, with its military force. 4. In the ongoing war of the Meanings, one can only win with one's own Meaning, that is (including) the new geopolitical ethics that Russia is obliged to formulate and offer to the world. 5. New geoethics should be proposed by Russia as the basis for the formation of a new picture and architecture of the world - the world as a set of equally respected worlds, and not centers of power. 6. The construction of a new world must be accompanied and preceded by new principles of its existence, that is, a new geopolitical ethics. 7. The Russian Orthodox Church must formulate a new geopolitical ethics. 8. Representatives of civil society in Russia and Germany can offer a new geopolitical ethics to the world. Together we must: develop a new ethic, discuss and convince the rest of the world to accept it; hold the necessary conferences in Berlin and Moscow; convene the Parliamentary Conference of the States that signed the Charter of Paris in 1990 (21 states signed the Charter) as the best document adopted in the history of mankind; adopt an Appeal to the peoples of the world and the UN; to make the new ethics the basis for the peaceful coexistence of powers and peoples; it is necessary to make any attempts of forceful domination and interference in the life of other peoples ethically unacceptable and morally impossible, and their initiators unshakeable outcasts of humanity. The new paradigm of the existence of mankind depends only on the mutual good political will of nations that have realized the historical necessity of a new geopolitical existence, to which, in our opinion, there is no reasonable alternative. Without this, Russia and humanity will not have a successful or even simply historical future. The apocalypse of mankind will be generated by the mutual enmity of peoples. The non-occurrence of the Apocalypse is possible only in a new moral atmosphere of human existence, which will give him his new ethics. *** In the ongoing war, Russia can win: By a feat of spirit and an example of the feat of its own internal improvement; Truth of Meanings, thoughts and actions; A series of obvious, visible and convincing successes in the development of one's own being; Being driven by the national strategy of spirit and morality; 5

6 Being led by national leaders and service people, prepared to serve the Fatherland from childhood, in the system of cadet education in Russia. 6

Alexander Vladimirov President of the Collegium of Military Experts of Russia, member of the Council for National Strategy, senior researcher at the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, candidate of political sciences, graduate of the Moscow SVU, author of the fundamental

Alexander Vladimirov President of the Collegium of Military Experts of Russia, Member of the National Strategy Council, Honorary Chairman of the All-Russian and Moscow Commonwealths of Suvorov, Nakhimov and Russian Cadets,

A book for those who do not want to get stuck in "foreign geopolitics" (Foreword by Mikhail Leontiev)... 8 Russia in War (Foreword by Alexander Prokhanov)... 9 Introduction. Attack on America...12 Part I. World

(Kyrgyz National A. Kh. Bugazov University) EDUCATION AS A MEANS OF FORMING VALUES IN STUDENTS' MIND

Born April 17, 1945 in the family of a military man. Hereditary, in many generations, an officer. Russian. Education: Moscow Suvorov Military School (1963); Moscow Higher Combined Arms

Lecture 14. Global problems and prospects of modern civilization. The main idea of ​​the theme: A.Blok: In the 20th century, mankind faced a choice: to disappear as a genus or to survive by changing its qualities.

24. Geopolitical image of the world At all times of the existence of mankind, people had to decide which of the neighbors around them was friend and who was enemy; with whom of them it is worth building good relations, and with whom

Conflict management Modern theories and practices of conflicts Conflict analysis Conflict management technologies Conflict is Nothing good Conflict is Necessary! Conflict DANGER OPPORTUNITY Conflict management

Draft structure and table of contents of the Concept as of April 30, 2016

Alexander Vladimirov President of the Collegium of Military Experts of Russia, Member of the National Strategy Council, Honorary Chairman of the All-Russian and Moscow Commonwealths of Suvorov, Nakhimov and Russian Cadets,

Alexander Vladimirov Advisor to the Chairman of the DOSAAF of Russia Member of the Public Chamber of the Union State of Russia Belarus, President of the College of Military Experts of Russia, Honorary Chairman of the All-Russian

G). The inevitable choice in favor of Russia's ideological leadership in Eurasia China is a world power based on human capital The collapse of the Russian Empire created a power vacuum in the very center of Eurasia2

Conflict - a collision of oppositely directed, incompatible with each other tendencies (views, interests, motives, etc.) in interpersonal interactions or interpersonal relationships of individuals or

WHAT IS CONFLICT? This word refers to a serious quarrel between friends, and a random squabble between strangers in a crowded bus, and a scandal with parents because of another deuce, and confrontation

Industrial Society and Political Development at the Beginning of the 20th Century What ideology proclaimed traditionalism, order and stability as its core values? 1) liberalism 2) conservatism 3) nationalism

UDC 174.4 LBC 87.7 Babaeva A.V., Doctor of Philological Sciences, Professor, Branch of the GRSU, Voronezh, Russia THE ROLE OF CORPORATE CULTURE IN MODERN SOCIETY A modern organization is turning into a community with its own values,

UNITED NATIONS Distr. GENERAL COUNCIL "/"/" SECURITY ASSEMBLY * 1 9 to 6 ORIGINAL: CHINESE/ ENGLISH GENERAL ASSEMBLY Forty-first session

GEKKON_Report 1 Name of the team Young historians Title of the report “The fate of mankind in one click”. And how many times have they told the world that wars are evil, devastation, death, but the threat to life still hangs from

MOSCOW STATE COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY, ECONOMICS AND LAW IM. L.B. KRASINA The history of the Defender of the Fatherland Day The history of the Defender of the Fatherland Day It was generally believed that

I. The modern world has entered a period of instability, global geopolitical and historical changes. There is a redistribution of markets, the key parameters of international relations are being revised, the general

1 COLLISION OF THE HUNTINGTON CIVILIZATIONS AND THE FUTURE OF WORLD CIVILIZATIONS. Omarov R.U. Dagestan State University, Makhachkala

Lukanin M., Nikitonov D., GBOU secondary school 887, Moscow CHINA THE SUPERPOWER OF MODERNITY China today occupies more and more place in our lives. Only 15-20 years ago in the USSR it was difficult to find Chinese

Andrey ILLARIONOV, Senior Research Fellow, Center for Global Freedom and Development, Cato Institute (Washington, USA) Offering the Crimean test Tell me whose Crimea is, and I'll tell you who you are, Aider Muzhdabaev 1 minted

The Great Patriotic War, the falsification of its history and our Future. Sergei Solodovnik, political scientist, journalist, candidate of historical sciences, deputy chairman of the Historical Club, member of the Union of Journalists

CODE OF ETHICS AND OFFICIAL CONDUCT OF PEDAGOGICAL WORKERS I. General Provisions

Rakhmanin Igor Sergeevich ABSTRACT of Bachelor's thesis SETTLEMENT OF MODERN INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS IN THE EXAMPLE OF AFGHANISTAN). Relevance of the research topic. The history of mankind is history

November 3, 2017 241 The 21st World Russian People’s Council was held in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior Photo: Alexander Yegortsev

UDC code: 355/359 2016 Kachalkov A.D., master student Ural Institute of Management - branch of the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation, RANEPA, Yekaterinburg

Engineers of Change and Nonviolent Struggle Hardy Merriman, 2008 Nonviolent action empowers ordinary people to fight for their rights, freedom and justice. Nonviolent struggle often

Historical memory is an invaluable legacy of Russian civilization Opening the ninth session on the topic "Historical memory, what should it be?"

Pedagogical ethics Ethics is the science of morality Duty Responsibility Happiness Freedom Meaning of life Conscience Beauty Justice Truth Good Moral categories Friendship Love Ethics studies morality

258 VI Mozgovoy (Donetsk) SUBJECT AND LIMITS OF MODERN RUSSIAN STUDIES IN THE CONDITIONS OF GLOBALIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS Statement of the problem. The current state of Russian linguistics with different

Municipal budgetary preschool educational institution "Kindergarten of a general developmental type" Scarlet Flower "" We cultivate tolerance in ourselves and in children" Consultation for parents Prepared by:

Section 13. THE SECOND WORLD WAR. THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR Topic 13.1. prewar diplomacy. Before the World War. Plan: 1. Aggravation of conflicts in Asia 2. Problems of collective security in Europe

TOPIC 6. SOCIOLOGY OF CONFLICT AND DEVIANT BEHAVIOR Social conflict is a clash of opposing interests, goals and views of the subjects of social interaction (individuals, social groups,

NATIONAL SECURITY AND NATIONAL INTERESTS OF RUSSIA Russia is one of the largest countries in the world with rich historical and cultural traditions. Its economic, scientific, technical and military potential,

UDC 316.334.5 (470.6) A.Yu. Shadzhe State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education “Adyghe State University”, Maikop, Russia INTERACTION OF NATURE AND MAN IN THE CAUCASUS REGION

Municipal budgetary preschool educational institution "Kindergarten 8", Nakhodka Report for the presentation Topic: "Creating a system of work to protect the rights and dignity of the child" Performed by the educator:

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS OF A MEDICAL WORKER IN THE REPUBLIC OF KARELIA

Adopted by the Council of the Belgorod Regional Association of Trade Union Organizations on 01.03. 2016 resolution 13 - Code of professional ethics of trade union workers (activists) of the Belgorod regional association

Last week, the entire parliamentary delegation of Russia refused to go to the capital of Finland. Because the head of the State Duma of Russia, Sergei Naryshkin, along with six other parliamentarians, was included in the sanctions

Conflict in the professional sphere Psychologist of GAU SO MO "Dmitrovsky KTSSON" M. Yu. Piskareva Conflict is a stage of a conflict situation, characterized by a clash of subjects on the basis of opposing interests,

When developing the lesson, the following were used: video materials, documents, material for students' messages based on a presentation by A.I. Chernova T.V. Koval World War I World War I, not the last World War I

HISTORY AND SOCIAL STUDIES Avtotr: Baykuatov Salamat Ongarbaevich, student of class 3 "B" Head: Mikhailovskaya Olga Anatolyevna, primary school teacher, SBEI "Secondary School 294", St. Petersburg CAUSES OF FAIL

Man in the global world Grade 0 Explanatory note The work program was developed on the basis of: - the program “Social Science. Man in the global world. Global world in the XXI century. 0-grades" for general education

Shagov Andrei Evgenievich - Head of the Department (Foreign Military History) of the Research Institute (Military History) of the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Colonel, Candidate of Historical

I approve.r MBUK "TKO".A. Petrushenko CODE OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS OF EMPLOYEES OF THE TULA CONCERT ASSOCIATION INTRODUCTION Professional ethics exist

End of World War II. Defeat of Japan E.E. Vyazemsky, Doctor of Pediatrics, Professor Plan 1 The Defeat of Japan... 3 2 The Historical Significance of the Victory of the Soviet People... 6 2 1 THE DESTRUCTION OF JAPAN After May 9, 1945

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "UFA STATE AVIATION TECHNICAL

UDC 371 STRATEGIES OF BEHAVIOR OF ADOLESCENTS IN A SITUATION OF CONFLICT Evdokimova Elena Leontievna Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences, Associate Professor Belarusian State Pedagogical University. M. Tanka Republic

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND PUBLIC SECURITY OF PETROV ACADEMY OF SCIENCES AND ARTS (OSB PANI) P.I. YUNATSKEVYCH LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR PUBLIC CONTROL OF SERVICE BEHAVIOR

Section 1. POST-WAR STRUCTURE OF THE WORLD Topic 1.1. International position. International Organizations Topic: The formation of the UN and the formation of bipolar coexistence. Plan: 1. Formation of the UN. Role

(VISION PROJECT) 3rd WORLD TURKIC FORUM (May 28-30, 2014, Edirne) Main topic - 1 Turkic Republics; Cultural diplomacy and tourism Considering the geographical distribution of the Turkic republics,

Content Lecture Notes on "Philosophy" As you know, the very word "philosophy" arose on the basis of two ancient Greek words: "love" and "wisdom". Literally translated, "philosophy" means "love of wisdom."

Speech by the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan N.A. Nazarbayev at the plenary session of the Nuclear Security Summit The Netherlands, The Hague, March 24, 2014 Your Excellencies! Dear participants of the Summit!

FEDERAL STATE BUDGETARY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION "ORENBURG STATE AGRARIAN UNIVERSITY" Faculty of secondary vocational education APPROVED Chairman

1. Planned results of mastering the subject Personal results Formation of the foundations of Russian civic identity, a sense of pride in their homeland, the Russian people and the history of Russia; formation

APPROVED by the Minutes of the Board of OPEN JOINT-STOCK COMPANY "INTERNATIONAL BANK OF FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS" dated November 10, 2008 12 Chairman of the Board of OPEN JOINT-STOCK COMPANY "INTERNATIONAL

Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation Olympiad for schoolchildren

SPEECH by the Deputy Chairman of the Cabinet of Ministers of Turkmenistan, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkmenistan R. Meredov at the 63rd session of the UN General Assembly (September 29, 2008, New York) Dear

1.8. This Code defines the main norms of professional ethics, which: - regulate relations between employees, pupils and their parents (legal representatives); - protect their human

Alexander Vladimirov President of the Collegium of Military Experts of Russia Member of the National Strategy Council Candidate of Political Sciences Author of the fundamental work "Fundamentals of the General Theory of War" Major General

MILITARY ACADEMY OF THE GENERAL STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Implementation of the state policy in ensuring the national security of the Russian Federation Deputy Head of the Military

MINISTRY OF DEFENSE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION CONCEPTUAL VIEWS ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION IN THE INFORMATION SPACE 2011 CONTENTS Introduction 3 1 Basic terms and definitions.

S.V. Utkin. Over time, the understanding will prevail in Russia that the post-Soviet world, in which we found ourselves after the collapse of the USSR, is not a deviation from the norm, but a completely stable environment in which one can live and achieve

THE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION CONFLICTS It is not the people themselves that are in conflict, but their motives, goals, and views. Conflict (from Latin - collision) is a collision of oppositely directed goals, interests, positions,

Conflicts and ways to resolve them. Not a single conflict was resolved by violence. You can win or lose, but sooner or later, you still have to negotiate. Roman Zlotnikov. Conflict is inevitable