He defined war as a continuation of politics by other means. Clausewitz and modern warfare

Clausewitz was repeatedly approached by the best Russian thinkers. It cannot be a mere coincidence that both Andrei Evgenievich Snesarev and Alexander Andreevich Svechin dedicated special works to the German philosopher. There is reason to believe that it was Snesarev and Svechin who managed to see in Clausewitz what others could not see.

Apparently, a modern researcher from Germany, Olaf Rose, is right when he claims that in Russia the perception of Clausewitz's views took place "significantly earlier than in others". European states", and the comprehension of his theory "has always been at the epicenter ... of changing directions of research and theoretical paradigms." In turn, one cannot fail to note the enormous influence of Russia on the formation of the views of the German thinker.

WAR - ONLY THE CONTINUATION OF POLICY?

The main idea of ​​Clausewitz, which is most often singled out and regularly quoted, is that "war is only the continuation of politics by other means." The validity of this postulate is beyond doubt, it has stood the test of time.

As A. Svechin noted, "Clausewitz ... comes to the conclusion that the only possible solution is to subordinate military considerations to political requirements, since only in this case the leadership of the war will have the character of a monolith, without any cracks." From the conclusion that war is a continuation of politics, a number of conclusions should be drawn.

First of all, war is a political phenomenon, and because of this subordinate position, it objectively evolves along with politics. Clausewitz's most important merit lies in substantiating the conclusion that war is subject to change, and they occur in accordance with changes in policy. This conclusion, due to the continuity of the development process and the variability of policy, is relevant to this day.

A. Svechin noted: "Before Clausewitz, no one took this point of view in order to reconsider the nature of wars, changes in the way war was waged in history and the relationship between the size of the political goal of war and its tension." Each epoch has its own wars, reflecting specific concrete historical socio-political conditions. And if in modern politics one can sometimes observe to a lesser extent manifestations of absolute, armed violence, which, according to Clausewitz, is an ideal war accompanied by bloodshed, then is the conclusion that war is disappearing from the life of society justified?

Clausewitz outlines the war in the widest range, allows its manifestation in a very specific form, when there is no "open use of force." He admits that "war, without violating its nature, can be embodied in forms that are very diverse in meaning and intensity, ranging from a war of extermination to the deployment of simple armed surveillance." In the work "On War" the author poses and solves the question, "can the development of the war freeze at least for one moment." Today, the appeal of the German philosopher to carefully study real, not ideal wars, is relevant. Clausewitz very figuratively calls war "a chameleon, since in each specific case it somewhat changes its nature."

In this regard, it is important to understand the changing nature of war, the methods of its conduct, to be able to discern and regard as military actions and a number of facts that go beyond the standard notions, when only armed violence is identified with war. Then such phenomena, which are far from war, as it seems to the uninitiated and superficial look, but more and more exciting to mankind, such as terrorism, cold war, information, etc. All these actions are aimed at achieving very specific goals and represent a continuation of the policy of certain groups, even if they are not state actors, using new, original means.

Finally, it is impossible to have an eternal and unchanging theory of war that once and for all establishes the inviolability of the methods of warfare. This is an important testament of Clausewitz. "Each age has had its own wars, its own limiting conditions and its own prejudices. Therefore, each age retains the right to special theory war" (A. Svechin).

It must be admitted that the approach that denies war the right to development has exhausted itself. On the contrary, only recognition of the constant variability of the forms of war, their mobility, taking into account the absence of universal recipes for waging war is a condition for readiness for future wars.

There are many ways to respond to the growing variety of conflicts and wars and to transform the military organization of a state. An analysis of the practice of military organizational development shows that two paths are possible here.

The first is characterized by the constant formation of independent military structures created to solve specific tasks, the number of which is constantly increasing due to the growing diversity of conflicts. Adherents of a multi-element and complex structure military organization states justify their position by many circumstances (for example, the difficulty of exercising civilian control over a military department that has assumed too much authority). As an argument, the thesis is also used that the army should be freed from unusual tasks. Following this logic, more and more highly specialized law enforcement agencies will have to be created, which, along with other consequences, is unlikely to contribute to the rational use of the state's limited resources. The viciousness of such a position is also obvious because it is impossible to predict exactly what kind of chameleon the war will turn into again.

To all appearances, another variant of actions is more promising and adequate to the challenges of our time, when preference is given to the choice in favor of the multifunctionality and diversification of the armed forces. It is noteworthy that this is already being done abroad. In Germany, the possibility of incorporating the border police into the Bundeswehr as an army corps was seriously discussed. Proponents of this position are right when they argue that border police formations are better suited to modern military operations. In this regard, the conclusion of the American political scientist C. Moskos is noteworthy that in the era of globalization, a soldier as a specialist in the use of violence, along with the traditional functions of a fighter, often has to combine in one person the qualities of a policeman, diplomat and social worker. Today it is quite difficult to predict with absolute accuracy what other tasks the personnel of the armed forces will have to solve in the very near future. Therefore, it should be recognized as a triumph common sense steps aimed at concentrating and concentrating the military organization of the Russian state.

Nevertheless, a certain limitation should be noted and even regarded as an obstacle to the analysis of war, the interpretation by Clausewitz's followers of war only as a continuation of politics.

Here it must be taken into account that Soviet period Clausewitz's doctrine was developed in our country largely due to the attention of V.I. Lenin to the German military philosopher. This thought was especially noted by him, and everything said by Vladimir Ilyich was not subject to doubt, criticism and discussion, deviations from the official interpretation were not allowed. Lenin's infallibility played a cruel joke in this case. For the sake of justice, it should be said: upon careful reading of Lenin's remarks on Clausewitz's book, one can clearly assimilate that everything essential was not hidden from him. Consequently, the protrusion of certain thoughts of Clausewitz, noted by Lenin, occurred (and still continues to occur) for some opportunistic reasons.

Let me express a "blasphemous" thought: the quotation given out as a definition of war does not fully contain the essential features of this phenomenon. The purpose of the war is not indicated, and the lack of goal-setting in the preparation and conduct of war entails negative consequences that will not be slow to affect practice.

PURPOSE AND MEANS OF WAR

"So, war is an act of violence designed to force the enemy to do our will." This definition, although it is not, according to Clausewitz himself, a state-legal definition of war, however, allows us to understand what place the philosopher gives to the goals and means of war, their correlation.

The goal of war lies in the spiritual, volitional sphere, among moral values, and sounds unambiguous: to suppress, break the will of the enemy, imposing his will on him, while violence acts only as a means. And this is the essence of confrontation in war. In Clausewitz this idea is repeatedly repeated and explained.

Snesarev characterizes those chapters of the work "On War" as the most brilliant and vivid, in which "with a special enthusiasm, Clausewitz's main idea of ​​\u200b\u200b" bloody energy "in war, about tension with might and main, about patience to the end, which allocates him to a special place among all theoreticians, which is the main teaching in his work and what makes him truly great ... ".

According to Clausewitz, in order to achieve the goal of war, one should: "a) defeat and destroy the armed forces of the enemy; b) seize material resources struggle and other sources of existence of the enemy army; c) turn to one's side public opinion". At the same time, "everything should always ... come down to crushing the enemy, that is, depriving him of the ability to continue resistance." Bringing the armed forces "into a state in which they can no longer continue the fight" (as Clausewitz understood their destruction ), and the occupation of territory are ways to suppress the enemy's will to resist.

In the physical extermination of the enemy army, the capture of the territory of the enemy, many still see the meaning and purpose of military confrontation. And in this approach, we observe echoes of the primitive, barbarian era. At least, Snesarev accurately noted that "the nature of primitive wars differs significantly from modern ones, the first sought to overcome and then destroy the enemy, and the latter only to overcome his will to achieve the tasks set by politics."

The illegitimacy and inadequacy of concentrating efforts in war on material values ​​and on the physical destruction of the enemy has become especially apparent in our day. In modern conflicts, the tasks of taking possession of the territory and defeating armed groups can be solved in a relatively short time. However, the defeat of gangs federal troops and the establishment of control over the entire territory of Chechnya did not yet mean the normalization of the situation and the breakdown of resistance. Soon after the defeat of the Iraqi army and the occupation of the entire territory of the country, the United States actually signed for its impotence in the fight against the growing resistance of the population.

Due to the special sound of the Clausewitzian position on the purpose of war today, when information and psychological operations are intensively carried out to directly influence the will and spirit of the enemy, when manipulations with public opinion are actually carried out continuously, it is important to dwell on the ways to achieve the goal of war in more detail.

To accurately clarify the position of Clausewitz himself, let's try to turn to his reasoning regarding the relationship between the goals and means of war.

"We are running into yet another peculiar means: influencing the probability of success without crushing the armed forces of the enemy. These are enterprises directly designed to put pressure on political relations. ... This path to our goal, in comparison with the crushing of the armed forces, may turn out to be much shorter. ... Under certain conditions, in addition to the destruction of the enemy's forces, there are other ways to achieve the goal, and ... these ways do not contain internal contradictions, are not absurd, and do not even constitute a mistake.

In the words of Clausewitz, in war "there is only one means - combat." The translators noted that in the original Kampf is written in this place and that Clausewitz sometimes puts into this word an idea not of one battle, but of a whole combat activity. Kampf is translated as "fight" and means a broader confrontation than just a fight. Baron N. Medem also noted: “After the death of General Clausewitz, a handwritten note was found in his papers, which explains that the word “battle” meant not only the direct action of a weapon, but also those cases where the battle, although it did not take place in reality, but was possible, or even those where one of the opponents, weakened by any means, seeing the impossibility of success, avoids the battle. the following, without any definitive instruction, which does not conclude the axiom: "All considerations should be aimed at weakening or destroying, by whatever means, the enemy's forces and depriving him of the means of protection."

Snesarev’s position is also indicative: “The goal of the war is to kill the spirit of an individual soldier first, then their masses, and then the entire nation; and for this sole and overwhelming goal, nothing should be forgotten, no breaks or concessions should be given; you need to reap continuously and everywhere. ..In everything there is one idea: to oppress the spirit, and if this is achieved, then the war is being waged, and not only planned: We keep our troops in every possible way: we feed, drink, beat cowardly gossip, let us sleep: we press the enemy all the time: with rumors, with fire , reconnaissance, poisonous gases, etc." Andrei Evgenievich emphasized that already at the beginning of the twentieth century. "the war has gone deep" and more and more is being waged "not only with the sword."

For a long time, armed violence was practically the only means of warfare. However, history shows that new means and methods of warfare are constantly emerging. Once Napoleon reproached Kutuzov that the Russians were not fighting according to the rules, unacceptable (asymmetric - they would say today) means for the French. The first use of chemical warfare agents seemed wild and inhuman. The attitude towards nuclear weapons was the same at first. Today, however, weapons of mass destruction are no longer resented. New types of weapons are also appearing now (psychotronic and psychotropic, tectonic, informational, etc.). During the military operation against Iraq, the Americans seriously feared Saddam Hussein's use of "water weapons" (draining water from reservoirs). One of the representatives of the Chechen fighters very originally called "the main weapon of Islam": a pregnant woman.

In October 2003, the German government approved a bill that makes it legal to shoot down civilian aircraft hijacked by terrorists if there is no other way to eliminate the threat. Essentially this official recognition that a civilian aircraft can actually become a means of warfare. In Russia, this issue is also on the agenda.

The United States, realizing the potential of information technologies (and its leadership in this area), in every way impedes the attempts of other countries to classify them as weapons in accordance with international law.

Apparently, attempts to ensure the safety of society only by simply declaring certain means as inhuman or inhumane are unproductive in view of the constant emergence of new means. On the other hand, it is also impossible to ignore their appearance. It is worth thinking about the position of the German experts, who propose to consider "measures that threaten the health and life of the population" as military actions.

For decades, the absolutization of the armed means of warfare took place in our country, its purpose was relegated to the background. As a result, leadership Soviet Union allowed itself to be drawn into an arms race that was detrimental to the country, one of the consequences of which was the collapse of a single powerful state, which, in turn, led to a change in the military-political and geopolitical picture of the world as a whole. Unfortunately, recurrences of a misunderstanding of the purpose and means of war still take place.

It will not be a mistake to conclude that the main requirement for the means used is the ability to achieve the goal of war in a “shorter” way, i.e., to effectively influence the spirit and will of the enemy, suppress them or purposefully form them in accordance with given guidelines. The means of warfare cannot and should not be identified only with armed violence. The establishment of a strict and unchanging list of means to be used contradicts the changeable nature of war and only leads to the dogmatization of the thinking of military and political cadres. When classifying something as a means of war, weapons must be approached primarily from an assessment of the possibility of causing damage to the life and health of the population with its help.

How right Clausewitz is when he writes that "critical consideration consists in evaluating not only the means used, but all possible ones."

MOVEMENT TO ABSOLUTE WAR

The true innovation of Clausewitz lies in the establishment of the social nature of war: "War is the activity of the will against a spiritualized reacting object. ... War comes from: the social state of states and their relationships, it is determined by them, it is limited and moderated by them." The position of the German military philosopher is due to the fact that "war is never an isolated act." Thanks to this approach, Clausewitz stood out sharply among other researchers and for almost two centuries has consistently found himself at the center of discussions about the war.

Both Svechin and Snesarev consistently defended the concept of Clausewitz and developed it, which allowed them to look into the future quite deeply.

Emphasizing the potential of applying the views of the German theorist, Snesarev notes that Clausewitz's main work "establishes the nature of war not only as a" purely military "phenomenon, but as a general social, lying in the nature of human relations and, in particular, the nature of man himself. This broad basis gives him the opportunity to bring war with other phenomena and invest it in common system human deeds, sufferings and joys.

If war is a social phenomenon, then the issues of its preparation and conduct apply to the whole society. When analyzing a war, one should proceed from the fact that for several centuries entire peoples have been involved in wars, and not just their armies and governments. The era of "cabinet wars" has passed irrevocably. According to Svechin, before the Seven Years' War, "essentially, two military departments fought among themselves; the people did not take part in this struggle, and the duel of the two armies could be regulated exclusively by combat, that is, tactical considerations. The entire course of the development of military art in modern times turned out to be aimed at the destruction of such military separatism. " As Svechin writes in "Strategy", "to assume that the war is a free competition between two armies, this means not understanding anything in the nature of war. : This is the main point of the teachings of Clausewitz, the leitmotif of all his works.

Modern wars have become even more "social", today they really "encompass the entire existence of peoples" (Clausewitz), in one form or another penetrating into all spheres public life, becoming an integral attribute of everyday life and taking on its absolute appearance.

Nowadays, armies are increasingly involved in solving the widest range of tasks related to ensuring the security of society and the state. According to the "Defense Policy Directive" of the FRG, "the Bundeswehr, being the guarantor of national security, protects and defends Germany from any threat to its population and territory." This approach makes it possible to remove a number of contradictions regarding the legitimacy of any use of the Bundeswehr. However, Snesarev rightly asserted several decades ago that "the army's duty is to face every danger threatening the state with its breasts."

In the name of ensuring their security, a number of countries, and Russia is no exception, are asserting their right to launch preventive strikes on the territory of other states, which does not require a declaration of war. Prevention is becoming one of the leading principles of security and defense policy and involves proactive intervention in conflicts anywhere.

The situation when the state was the only political actor with the exclusive right to the legitimate use of force is becoming a thing of the past. And here you can see a certain return to the Middle Ages, in the era of which this monopoly of the state was formed.

Expanding participation in contemporary conflicts of the elements civil society, non-governmental organizations. To be accepted political decisions the use of military force involves not only state bodies, but also public opinion and the media.

Increasing terrorist attacks seek to achieve maximum public outcry in order to create a feeling of insecurity among people and show the impotence of the authorities. In this regard, many Western researchers consider the existence of a "communication strategy" to be the essential feature of terrorism, which distinguishes this phenomenon from any insurrectionary or partisan actions.

Military affairs cease to be the lot of the stronger sex, the number of women in the armies of many countries is constantly increasing. Cases of their appointment to the highest military posts became frequent. The distinction between participants in hostilities is erased age sign, and children often fight.

In modern conflicts, there has long been no front and rear in their classical sense. Geographical remoteness and borders have ceased to be impenetrable barriers that ensure the security of society. Internal conflicts extremely easy to become international, and the line between combat, peacekeeping, humanitarian, counter-terrorism and other military operations is very shaky.

Today, not only the great powers, members of the "nuclear club", but also other countries that do not even consider it necessary to hide the fact that they have them, actually possess atomic weapons, moreover, they demonstrate their determination to use them.

Information means of military confrontation are being used more and more actively. The operation against Yugoslavia in 1999 was described by experts as "the first coalition war in Europe in the information age." Special information activities are becoming increasingly important for the armies, and special military units. It becomes possible to avoid or end hostilities, to form a given algorithm of behavior for objects of information influence. NATO representatives do not hide the fact that the West is conducting information operations in peacetime and point to the existence of a real opportunity to "fulfill Sun Tzu's dream" and paralyze this or that country "without firing a shot." Information operations can also be carried out against allies (as the United States used the Echelon system to collect information about NATO partners).

The representative of the Russian military emigration E.E. Messner, analyzing the "mutinous war", believed that her main task is "psychological warfare", the struggle for the soul of the warring people. "A rebellion, according to Messner, is a war of all against all, and a tribesman can be an enemy, and a foreigner can be an ally."

Apparently, there is reason to talk about the growth of the process of latent, covert globalization of war, which is asserting itself in all spheres of public life. A number of countries, reacting to what is happening, have officially adopted and are implementing the concepts of "total", "social", "spiritual" defense. By the way, Clausewitz, who served in the Russian army during the Patriotic War of 1812, believed that one of the sources of Russia's victory was the "people's war".

In modern conflicts, we see the blurring of the line between military and non-military means of struggle, the state of peace and the state of war. Modern information and communication technologies, despite the absence of visible destruction, affect the will of a person in a more "short way". A person is not able to respond to an invisible influence. Modern society has come close to a dangerous line, beyond which the differences in the system of concepts "friend or foe" disappear, on which the defense of the Fatherland was based for centuries and without which the defense of the Fatherland is unthinkable.

Unfortunately, humanity is getting used to war, which is becoming an integral part of everyday life and receiving new faces. In all likelihood, the era of universal peace is still an unrealizable dream. Moreover, according to SIPRI, in 2004 the total military spending in the world exceeded 1 trillion. dollars and came close to the absolute record set during the period of acute confrontation between world systems.

ON ATTITUDE TO MILITARY CLASSICS

From the nineteenth century the approach of the German philosopher to understanding the nature of war is by no means outdated, the methodological and heuristic potential of his teaching has not been exhausted. And in this case, the thought of Clausewitz himself about the purpose of the theory is confirmed: “What the mind breathes into itself during this wandering among the fundamental concepts of the subject, those rays that shine in itself, this is the benefit that theory can give. "She cannot provide him with ready-made formulas for solving practical problems, she cannot indicate the path that is obligatory for him, fenced on both sides by principles. Theory is only capable of directing an inquisitive look at the totality of phenomena and relationships and then releases a person into a higher field of action." It is important not to stick to the once and for all established rules "like a blind wall" (Peter I), but to form, on the basis of the classics, a creative and capable of self-development military outlook, which alone can ensure reliable defense and security of the country.

For the Germans, Clausewitz really turned out to be an "immortal teacher." In a good way, one should envy that they did not have to, at the cost of titanic efforts, return the works and views of Clausewitz from oblivion, as we have to do with respect to the achievements of Russian military classics.

It should be noted a certain similarity in the fates of Clausewitz, Snesarev, and Svechin. Clausewitz, having returned to his homeland after serving in the Russian army, was never accepted by the society around him and until the end of his days faced alienation and misunderstanding. In Russia, Snesarev and Svechin not only turned out to be rejected by many contemporaries, but were almost constantly persecuted for their views, at times outright persecuted, and ultimately were repressed. Many of their works long years were in the Soviet Union not only banned, but also deliberately destroyed. It is probably almost impossible to estimate the damage from such an attitude for Russia. Some of the works of Andrei Evgenievich Snesarev began to appear only thanks to the dedication of his family, who preserved his manuscripts (including the work on Clausewitz).

In Germany, the Clausewitz Society, which includes many authoritative scientists, politicians and the military, has existed for more than a dozen years and has been fruitfully working. The Society promotes the views of Clausewitz, regularly holds scientific conferences on topical issues security and defense policy. The Society annually rewards graduates of the Academy of Management of the Bundeswehr for the best scientific work. By the way, in 1997, with the support of the society, Svechin's book "Clausewitz" translated into German was published with a very characteristic subtitle: "A classic biography - from Russia." And this seems to be a real reproach to all of us, since in Russia Svechin's work, unfortunately, has not been reprinted since the mid-1930s. of the last century and has long become a bibliographic rarity.

In conclusion. Shortly before the execution, Alexander Andreevich Svechin, apparently without illusions about his fate, forced, as a result of the repressions and arrest experienced, to express himself in Aesopian language, with hidden bitterness and edification for posterity, wrote in his work on Clausewitz: "Good and reliable can only be the army in which military-scientific literature flourishes. The testament of the Russian officer must be heard. Today, when the interests of ensuring the country's security require completely extraordinary steps, scientific infantilism, indifference and lack of interest in domestic and foreign military-theoretical heritage, misunderstanding, and even outright ignorance of the real changes taking place in war and politics, must unconditionally give way to persistent, a sober and scrupulous analysis of military-political realities, synthetic thinking, a daring and bold impulse of Russian military thought.

Broad propaganda and popularization of the views and achievements of Russian thinkers are required. Otherwise, we will be left without the necessary spiritual nourishment and continue to bashfully call, so that it is clear to the public, Snesarev - "Russian Sun Tzu", Svechin - "Russian Clausewitz", Obruchev - "Russian Moltke", etc., demonstrating the lack of originality of the domestic military thought. Such a situation is completely unacceptable for our country, which deserves a completely different lot and for this it has in its arsenal such a solid theoretical toolkit for understanding the nature of wars. This potential must be fully exploited.

The underlying causes of wars are rooted in objective conditions and do not depend on the will of a person, but they do not work on their own, but through the activity of the latter. People prepare, unleash and wage wars. The choice “to fight or not to fight” is made by the subjects in power. Decisions on this matter reflect both objective circumstances and the mood of the subjects.

Many wars, armed conflicts and other bloody deeds of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries are directly the result of inadequate, often completely irrational and even criminal decisions of the highest power circles of states, ambitious and aggressive politicians. Including the First and Second World Wars, Korean (1950-1953), Vietnamese (1964-1974), Soviet-Afghan (1979-1989), US and NATO wars against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq (1999-2003).

Despite the enormous social significance of military-political decisions, which often turn into monstrous misfortunes and suffering for tens and hundreds of millions of people, societies have not been able to take control of the mechanism for their development and adoption, which has a high degree autonomy, room for arbitrariness.

The relevance of this topic is due to several circumstances, firstly, any war is a military-political conflict, which most fully and vividly reflects the social contradictions in society at the political level and managerial problems. Secondly, we live in a turbulent time - at any moment there may be a threat of an armed conflict, so we must be able to analyze past conflicts and prevent future ones. Thirdly, the problem of violence is of particular relevance for political life Russia, where it has always played an important role: both at the stage of autocratic absolutism, and during the period of totalitarianism, and in the conditions of building a democratic state. In addition, due to the emergence of weapons of mass destruction, the problem of violence has acquired special significance in our time, since in the external and in domestic politics threatens a global catastrophe.

Degree of study: the problem we are considering has been studied fragmentarily, that is, attention was paid separately to war, separately to politics and separately to violence. And in a certain dynamic development, as we studied this problem, no one considered it.

There are many approaches to defining wars, but we will look at just a few, such as:

1. The psychological approach, represented by Z. Freud, L. Bernard, and K. Lorenz, considered war as a manifestation of mass psychosis.

2. The anthropological approach, represented by E. Montagu, believed that aggression is formed in the process of education.

3. Political approach, its adherents are Carl von Clausewitz and L. Lanke, they believe that wars come from international disputes.

4. The demographic approach, represented by T. Malthus and U. Vogt, define war as the result of an imbalance between the population and the amount of means of subsistence.

5. Cosmopolitan approach, its representatives are N. Angel and S. Strechi, they connect the origin of the war with the antagonism of national and supranational, universal interests.

6. The economic approach, represented by K. Marx and F. Engels, interprets war as a derivative of the class war.

There are also many classifications of wars according to different grounds and theories of the emergence of wars.

The purpose of the study: to study war as a continuation of politics by other means. In accordance with the goal, we will solve the following tasks:

1. define war, consider the main views on the essence of wars;

2. consider the classifications and theories of the emergence of wars:

3. to define violence - as a way to resolve the conflict;

4. consider the Chechen war as a continuation of politics in a violent way.

object This study is the war as a special interaction of political subjects. Subject armed violence appears as a continuation of politics.

In the first chapter, we will try to define war, consider the main approaches to its essence, consider the classifications and theories of the origin of wars. War and armed violence have always been the main means of resolving interstate disputes, elementary forms of coercion. Politicians have always resorted to them, very often without using non-military, peaceful ways to resolve the conflict.

In the second chapter, we will consider the theoretical and practical justification for violence. Let's try on specific example to analyze the mistakes of conducting violent politics.

Violence can be defined as a social relationship in which some individuals and groups of people, with the help of physical coercion, subjugate other people, their abilities, productive forces, property.

All this requires restraint, restraint, readiness to compromise from the current political leaders of all countries. Therefore, it is necessary to study, analyze and not make mistakes of the past.

Course work consists of two chapters and four paragraphs.

War is the continuation of politics by other means.
Carl von Clausewitz
War is a continuation of politics, business -
continuation of the war.
Japanese proverb.

War is the continuation of politics, business is the continuation of war,
information wars are a continuation of business.

_______________________________________________
I was surprised to find, when searching for sources, a reference to myself, only earlier, about 7 years old, the year of publication.

"I now have a book" History of the 19th century ", the French wrote, Lavisse / Rambeau. So, there are mostly wars ... Division and redivision of the world.
I don't remember who said it: "War is a continuation of politics, business is a continuation of war." And in general, the movie "Alien" is an illustration human psychology and not an alien.
Expansion is driven into a person at the level of a meta-task, the deepest program.
And how it is implemented is the second question.
Some poems are written in the hope of robbing a host of admirers, some old women snap with axes, some trade and fight for raw materials and sales markets, while others huddle in flocks and try to seize by force what did not belong to them.
And the thirst for life dies last, when the superstructure of consciousness has long been turned off. The organism is as fiercely resisting death as it is fiercely trying to take control of all aspects of life into its own hands.
Here, by the way (in this desire for expansion, expansion and capture), lies one of the deepest reasons for the spontaneous emergence of the pyramid of the hierarchy of power both in herd animals and in people who, although they have acquired reasonable skills, have not ceased to be herd.
Over time, this struggle moves to higher and higher levels, sometimes acquiring an almost intangible character - for example, information wars.
And the goals are the same as they were thousands of years ago - the struggle for survival and providing their offspring, their "herd" with the best pastures, products, resources and position in a larger hierarchy - nations and nationalities.

http://nowa.cc/showpost.php?p=693527&postcount=33

I am also not a supporter of tough measures and not a bit of a xenophobe.
The only trouble is that they have already spoiled everything, both inside and out. They turned it around, and they present the correct, natural things as extremism, labeling, persecuting, propagandizing such crap ...
There was a lot of bad things in the Council of Deputies - and so, now there are much more. Because what was good is gone.
And a good new one ... I won’t even say. Freedom of speech? So she is not. Prosperity, prospects? Yes, if he managed to enrich himself at the moment of "cutting" - well, "the cat knows whose meat it ate." And there are only a few of them, and they, having enriched themselves on the collapse, having seized upon the helm, continue their work. They have no experience of creation, and why.
A classic example - people bought a sugar factory at a bargain price (say, 5 million), previously ruined due to the "wise" export-import policy of the management, calculated that they would cut the dough in a couple of months - and sold it for metal for 10. And the cost of the plant was 50 times more, but who cares?
And then we buy sugar over the hill, again - he speculates, fucking metrosexual.

"War is the continuation of politics, business is the continuation of war" - and so, we are losing this war. Virtually no fight.
This is not the "Iron Curtain" raised, this is the Kingstons opened. And most importantly, transnational capital, gradually taking over the country, turns it into a raw materials appendage, a sump - and a market for goods for cattle, a consumer hole. Unpromising, in a word.

And all this against the backdrop of brainwashing in terms of consumer psychology, sexual freedoms and moral degradation.

And they don't allow that. For the fact that we are being chased by the box, in some US states they are imprisoned, and for a long time.
Although, of course, there are general trends that cannot be classified as healthy.
22.06.2011.

Reviews

There are no free beds in Europe,
there is a calculation for each bed.
And do not put extra ones nearby,
you can’t sell, which is superfluous, here!

Controversy, however, my dear sir!
And who teaches whom, no way to understand! :)

Wise Thoughts

(July 1, 1780, the town of Burg near Magdeburg, Electorate of Saxony, Holy Roman Empire - November 16, 1831, Breslau, Kingdom of Prussia)

A Prussian officer and military writer who, with his work On the War (published in 1832), revolutionized the theory and foundations of military science.

Quote: 18 - 34 of 77

War there is a continuation of politics by other, violent means.
("About war")

War is therefore an act of violence, to force our adversary to do our will.

Second salient feature leader- the simplicity and clarity of those plans, combinations and solutions to which he came. The simpler and more specific the operation plan, the better it is.
("About war")

The statesman who sees that war is inevitable, and cannot decide to strike first, is guilty of a crime against his country.
("About war")

Even the most talented commander it is extremely difficult to defeat twice the strongest opponent.
("About war")

kind people may, of course, believe that there is some original way to disarm and defeat the enemy without spilling a large number blood, they are also free to think that this is precisely the true achievement of the art of war. It sounds attractive, but in fact it is a hoax that needs to be discovered. War is an extremely dangerous business in which the worst mistakes come from kindness.
("About war")

If absolute superiority cannot be achieved, you skillfully using the available resources should achieve a relative advantage at the most important point.

If from each of the fighters we demanded that he be more or less a military genius, our armies would be very small.
("About war")

If the military profession means anything at all, it must be based on an unshakable code of honor. Otherwise, those who follow the sheep will be just a bunch of hired killers.

If you want to win strike at the heart of the enemy.

Tomorrow lies in today, the future is created in the present; while you hope madly for the future, it is already coming out mutilated from your lazy hands. Time is yours, what it becomes depends on you.
("About war")

From the nature of the position of the enemy we can infer his intentions and therefore act accordingly.

From time immemorial, only great victories led to great results.
("About war")

Story never takes a final step back.
("About war")

Outcome of the battle as a whole consists of the sum of the results of all private fights.
("About war")

Surrender is no shame. A good general will not lure the last surviving soldier with the idea of ​​a fight, just as a good chess player will not continue a losing game.
("About war")

Until recently, it was believed that the main and only sign of war is the conduct of hostilities by the armed forces. opposing sides. However, at present, the scale and capabilities of non-military means of confrontation have significantly increased. The effect of such means and methods of influence as ideological, economic, informational and others, in some cases, can be comparable to the consequences of traditional military operations, and sometimes even exceed them. This was clearly demonstrated by the cold war of Western countries against the USSR, when the personnel and military equipment of the Soviet Armed Forces remained intact, but the country was gone.

In this regard, it became necessary to clarify the concepts of "war" and "state of war" and to analyze the essence and content of modern wars.

THE MODERN CONCEPT OF THE TERM "WAR"

It should be noted that at present there are many scientific and pseudo-scientific definitions of war, but there is no unambiguous definition of this term.

Various definitions of the term "war" are due to the complexity of this phenomenon and the difficulty of covering all its content with one definition. The existing definitions given at one time by such thinkers and military theorists as Sun-Zi, Heraclitus of Ephesus, Plato, Montecuccoli, Clausewitz, Archduke Karl, Delbrück, Svechin, Montgomery, Samsonov, and others, can be reduced to several groups:

- the natural and eternal state of states and peoples;

- 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 will not give all the existing definitions of the term "war", but will focus only on some of the definitions that are used in modern times.

In the fundamental work of the Department of Military and Law of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences " military history Russia” the scientific task of defining “war” has the following content: “... it (war) 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.”

The military-encyclopedic dictionary gives the following definition of war: "A socio-political phenomenon, a special state of society associated with a sharp change in relations between states, peoples, social groups and with the transition to the organized use of armed violence to achieve political goals."

According to the President of the Academy of Military Sciences, General of the Army Gareev, "the main specifics of the war are the use of armed force, violent actions." “Without the use of military force, there have never been and cannot be wars,” Makhmut Akhmetovich believes, otherwise it turns out that “we are always at war and to single out a 30-year-old or Second world war no longer possible,” he says.

However, if we agree with the statement that war is only the use of military force, then the period when the "strange war" of Great Britain and France was waged against Germany should be excluded from the Second World War, only a few years will remain from the 100-year war, and from a 30-year-old - a few months.

Therefore, in our understanding, war is an antagonistic confrontation between civilizations, states, peoples, social groups, which can be waged in various forms (combinations of forms) - ideological, economic, psychological, diplomatic, informational, armed, etc.

A NEW CONCEPT OF THE TERM "STATE OF WAR"

Legally, the state of war in most countries is currently determined and ratified by the highest state authority.

Thus, for example, in Russia a state of war is legally declared on the basis of federal law“On Defense” (Article 18) in the event of an armed attack on the Russian Federation by another state or group of states, as well as in case of the need to comply with international treaties Russian Federation.

In the United States, after the September 11, 2001 attacks, President George W. Bush officially announced that the country was in a "state of war." The US military conducted two strategic operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, culminating in their military victory and the change of ruling regimes.

According to the NATO Strategic Concept (Article 10), the main pretexts for the use of NATO armed forces (in the Strategic Concept they are called "threats to NATO security") can be:

– uncertainty and instability in Europe;

- the possibility of regional crises on the periphery of NATO;

– inadequate or failed reform attempts;

- disintegration of states;

- violation of an individual's rights;

– economic, social and political problems in some countries;

- the existence of nuclear forces outside NATO;

– acts of terrorism, sabotage and organized crime;

– uncontrolled movement of large masses of people;

- the possibility of attempts by other countries to influence the information networks of the alliance in order to counter NATO's superiority in conventional weapons;

– disruption of the flow of vital resources.

In other words, any country in the world can be brought under these definitions of NATO threats.

The reaction of the Russian Ministry of Defense to this document noted: “The right to conduct military operations in any area of ​​the globe at its own discretion without UN sanctions, regardless of the sovereignty and inviolability of borders, and the national interests of other states, has been proclaimed.”

The United States and NATO, no longer embarrassed, on behalf of the mythical "world democracy" declare themselves the right to assign other countries the criteria for "correct" behavior, to check how they are implemented, and to punish themselves.

International law has been replaced by the law of the strong, which, under the demagogic flag of concern for human rights, invades sovereign countries, interferes in internal processes, and overthrows objectionable regimes. Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria are a clear confirmation of this.

Thus, the term “state of war” can now be defined as the imposition of one or more countries by means of violence of their will on other countries, as a result of which there is a threat of losing the sovereignty of these countries.

Relationship between war and politics

Speaking of the war, it is necessary to note the fact that the relationship between war and politics has now changed. “As you know, since the time of K. Clausewitz (and in Russia at the suggestion of V. Lenin), war has always been interpreted as a “continuation public policy by other means."

However, already in the 30s of the last century, the Soviet military theorist, Major General Alexander Svechin, believed that "policy in the war has become an independent front of the war itself."

This collision is also understood by modern domestic researchers. Thus, Vadim Tsymbursky believes that "politics is an instrument of war, as well as its main means - armed struggle."

“War is not only a continuation of politics, war itself is politics, but it is waged by force ...” - says military historian Anatoly Kamenev.

It should be recalled that the United States has earned and is earning a lot from wars. During the First World War, the US imperialists turned from a debtor of Europe into its creditor and made $35 billion from the blood of the peoples. During the six years of the Second World War, the profits of American corporations reached $116.8 billion. profitable thing" and now. In fact, the United States is a marauder enriching itself on someone else's grief.

You can talk for a long time about foreign policy USA. But can the US survive without plundering other countries? Not! Their share in world production is about 20%, and consumption - about 40%, that is, for every dollar earned by Americans, there is one embezzled. Therefore, the US will always be at war.

The military policy of the United States and NATO is based not on assessments of specific threats, but on the need to possess such military power, which allows military intervention in any area of ​​the world under the pretext of ensuring the "national security interests" of the United States on a global scale.

“Politics is the concentrated expression of economics. And the US economy is in the hands of monopoly capital, points out General of the Army M.A. Gareev. - Monopolies constantly need energy resources, oil, coal, uranium, non-ferrous metals and many other types of raw materials to make a profit. For this reason, the areas of their extraction and the markets for the sale of manufactured goods are shamelessly declared areas of "vital interests" of the leading capitalist states, and their military forces are sent there. For new and new acts of robbery, plunder and suppression of liberation movements, the imperialist aggressors are creating military bases everywhere, landing marines, paratroopers and units of other branches of the armed forces there. And by no means to protect freedom and democracy.”

PEACE IS CONTINUED WAR BY OTHER MEANS

Speaking about the state of war, it should also be noted that, according to some military experts, peace is nothing more than the continuation of war by other means and preparation for new military clashes.

The Russian political scientist and public figure Alexander Dugin in his work “Geopolitics of War” described the current state of the world as follows: “What now? Are the wars over? Well, yes ... One must not know humanity at all in order to allow such absurd hypotheses. Humanity and war are synonyms. People fought and will always fight. Some are voluntary, because they love this business, others are forced, since there is nothing else left. Admit it - realism. Trying to avoid it is a stupid fear.”

It should be noted that modern war is not officially declared. The enemy is crushed from within by influencing his national consciousness. For this, support is provided to the political opposition, dissident, marginal structures, carriers of ethnic, religious and other contradictions; undermined confidence in the leadership of the country and the armed forces; the spiritual and moral foundations of society are destroyed, a split is introduced into the friendship of peoples, interethnic and interreligious hatred is incited, terrorists and separatists are encouraged; faith in the economic and political stability of the state is undermined, apathy and despondency, unbelief and hopelessness are being introduced into the consciousness of the population; the population is corrupted and corrupted, drunkenness and drug addiction, sexual perversions and licentiousness, cynicism and nihilism are cultivated; the moral and psychological stability of young people is being destroyed, evasion from military service, desertion, high treason are being stimulated; False information, panicky, psychotraumatic rumors are “thrown up”.

All these actions lead to the nation losing its national identity, which turns into a state collapse.

This technology was the basis of all color revolutions, the result of which was the change of political regimes and the coming to power of politicians loyal to the aggressor.

Conducted by the President of the College of Military Experts of Russia, Major General Alexander Vladimirov, an analysis of the features of the war in modern conditions, allowed him to draw the following conclusions: “The state of modern warfare is a state of permanent, incessant, controlled “distemper” imposed by the strongest on the rest of the world and on the opposite side.

Signs of war are constant and permanent changes in the state of the sovereignties and potentials of the parties, during which it is found that one of them is clearly losing national (state) sovereignty and losing its (cumulative) potential (giving up its positions), while the other is clearly increasing its own " .

MAIN WEAPON IN MODERN WAR

To win in a modern war, it is no longer necessary to destroy the enemy army, destroy weapons and military equipment, destroy industrial facilities, and conquer territory.

In the armed struggle of the future, victory can be achieved through an information operation, as a result of which the economic potential of the enemy will be destroyed. In the conditions of a ruined economy, the armed forces are doomed first to a loss of combat effectiveness, and then to complete collapse. Under such conditions, the political system will inevitably collapse.

This was the case during the armed conflict in Libya in 2011, when NATO coalition forces blocked network informational resources government of Muammar Gaddafi and exercised control over the country's Internet-operated life support infrastructure and banking system.

Information weapons are especially dangerous for computer systems of state authorities, command and control of troops and weapons, finances and banks, the country's economy, as well as for people with information-psychological (psychophysical) impact on them in order to change and control their individual and collective behavior.

Efficiency hacker attacks showed a case that occurred in the United States in 1988. Then an American student R. Morris "launched" a virus via the Internet, which for three days - from November 2 to November 4, 1988 - disabled virtually the entire US computer network. The computers of the National Security Agency, the US Air Force Strategic Command, the local networks of all major universities and research centers were paralyzed.

In 2008, the Pentagon's information system was hacked through the Internet and about 1,500 computers were disabled. US officials have claimed that this virus attack, called "Titanium Rain", was carried out under the auspices of the Chinese authorities.

In January 2009, French Navy air defense fighters could not take off for several days due to the Downadup virus infection on the plane's computers. The virus exploited a vulnerability in the Windows operating system, making it impossible to download flight plans.

Already today, according to some foreign experts, the shutdown of computer systems will lead to the ruin of 20% of medium-sized companies and about 33% of banks within a few hours, 48% of companies and 50% of banks will fail within a few days. As a result, the economy of the state will collapse.

According to one American cybersecurity analyst, it would take two years and less than 600 people to prepare a cyberattack that would disable computers and paralyze the United States, and cost less than $50 million a year.

THE MAIN DAMAGE FACTOR IN MODERN WAR

An analysis of the features of war in modern conditions allows us to conclude that modern wars are waged at the level of consciousness and ideas, and only there and in this way are victories achieved.

“We are approaching a stage of development where no one is a soldier anymore, but everyone is a participant in the hostilities,” said one of the leaders of the Pentagon. “The task now is not to destroy manpower, but to undermine the goals, views and worldview of the population, to destroy society.”

The purpose of ideological influence is to weaken and undermine the morale of the population of the enemy country, to bring confusion into their worldview, to sow doubt about the correctness of their ideological attitudes.

The object of ideological influence are all social groups, ethnic groups, confessions. However, such an impact on the leadership of the state is especially important.

Their rebirth is carried out with official honors and international recognition; entry into the super-elite "clubs of the elite"; a constant reminder of "the imperishability of their personal contribution to history"; the conviction that at the level of their position the national interests of the state are not the main thing, since their purpose is to “participate in the management of the world”, etc.

In relation to the political and military leadership, in addition to the above methods of influence, compromising evidence is also used; guarantees of personal (and family) safety and security of deposits and property abroad; praise for non-existent virtues, etc.

An important role is also assigned to the ideological influence on the population of the enemy country. At one time, the first Chancellor of the German Empire, Field Marshal Otto von Bismarck, said: “The Russians cannot be defeated, we have seen this for hundreds of years. But Russians can be instilled with false values, and then they will defeat themselves!”

The truth of these words of the German Chancellor was confirmed by the tragic events in the USSR in 1991. Analyzing the causes of the catastrophe of the Soviet Union, we can talk about the intrigues of Western partners, about deceit Saudi Arabia, about the arms race, etc., but main reason was inside the country - in its incompetent leaders and among the people who believed in fairy tales about the sweet life.

And at present, the ideological influence on the national consciousness of Russians in order to change it in the degree and direction necessary for the aggressor is one of the most important directions of the war. In this regard, such purposeful actions are being taken to change the national consciousness, such as depriving the nation of the meanings and values ​​of its historical existence and being; replacement (change) of the system of historical values ​​of the nation and the introduction of new images and standards of national life.

As a result of a constant and massive impact on the consciousness of a nation, its mentality and its values ​​are qualitatively changing. This leads to the fact that the monolith of the nation is destroyed, its identity is lost, which leads to the loss of the nation's national identity, and consequently, to a social catastrophe, as a result of which the nation, disappointed in itself and in its history, self-destructs, giving its enemies all its national wealth, culture and resources.

Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a warning to Russians in which he called on all patriots to unite in strengthening Russia and creating its new ideology. In his speech, he openly said that a war of foreign states is being waged for the minds and souls of Russians, comparable in importance to global struggle for mineral resources. And that this war on the territory of Russia can be effectively countered only Russian ideology. The withering of ideology in the USSR and the Russian Empire, Putin called the reasons for their destruction and urged to prevent this from happening in Russia.

Vasily Yurievich Mikryukov – Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Candidate technical sciences, full member of the Academy of Military Sciences of the Russian Federation, SNS, specialty " operational art in general and by types of armed forces, types of troops and special troops”, Honored Worker of Science and Education.